Narkissos

Joined

• started 89 topics
• posted 9,516 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Narkissos

• 
  232

  Is Atheism a Form of Blind Faith?

  by passwordprotected in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  if god is outside of nature and therefore cannot be proved or disproved by science, is atheism a form of blind faith?

  after all, it cannot be defended on the basis of pure reason.. steven jay gould said;.

  "science simply cannot by its legitimate methods adjudicate the issue of god's possible superintendence of nature.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Narkissos

  The flip side of my previous comment is the question: do theists really believe in the kind of "God" atheists cannot disprove? "Outside of nature, etc."?

  Some certainly do; but I would submit that many (including the most vocal apologists for theism) don't. The God a lot of Bible fundamentalists believe in has not the subtle discretion of, say, Aristotle's First cause. He is supposed to have interacted directly with nature and history big time. He should have left huge and deep footprints which simply are not there. This God imo can be disproved pretty easily, even though other versions of God cannot. And to me shifting Gods along the argument is a bit disingenuous.
• 
  232

  Is Atheism a Form of Blind Faith?

  by passwordprotected in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  if god is outside of nature and therefore cannot be proved or disproved by science, is atheism a form of blind faith?

  after all, it cannot be defended on the basis of pure reason.. steven jay gould said;.

  "science simply cannot by its legitimate methods adjudicate the issue of god's possible superintendence of nature.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Narkissos

  The God atheists cannot disprove theists cannot prove.

  Once you get to this line, what's the point of keeping on arguing for the existence of God?
• 
  6

  Who REALLY is the Faithful and Discreet Slave?

  by AGuest in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  to the household of god, israel, and those who go with... may you all have peace (and may you forgive my formatting "errors")!.

  last night i had the privilege of posting about a scripture that corroborated a vision i was given by our lord.

  during that post, i was also directed to reiterate the identity of the true faithful and discreet slave, our lord, jaheshua mischajah:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Narkissos

  On the Joseph / "faithful and discreet slave" parallel, cf. this old thread by Leolaia: http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/67457/1/Who-is-the-Faithful-and-Wise-Servant-Its-JOSEPH-of-course

  (For the rest I stick to my comments on the other thread... :))
• 
  34

  Do You Need to Learn Hebrew and Greek? (WT 11/01/09)

  by Midget-Sasquatch in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  i'm sure quite a few of you on the board remember the km that discouraged learning the biblical languages.

  well, here are scans of this newer article from the nov public wt.

  very boring read with little direct prohibitions (understandable since its for outsiders), but still a bit of an eye roller with their reasons for not bothering to learn them.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Narkissos

  They even had a "scholarly" quote for that one (Awake! 7/22, 1980):

  When reviewing "The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures" for "The Classical Journal," Thomas N. Winter of the University of Nebraska observed:

  "An original Greek text for two dollars is something of a miracle, and it should not surprise us that it took a world-wide group of Bible students to pull it off. This is no ordinary interlinear: the integrity of the text is preserved, and the English which appears below it is simply the basic meaning of the Greek word. . . . A translation in smooth English appears in a slim column at the right-hand margin of the pages. . . . I think it is a legitimate and highly useful aid toward the mastery of koine (and classical) Greek. After examining a copy, I equipped several interested second-year Greek students with it as an auxiliary text. . . . After learning the proper pronunciations, a motivated student could probably learn koine Greek from this source alone.

  "The text is based on that of Brooke F. Westcott and Fenton J. A. Hort (1881, repr.), but the translation by the anonymous committee is thoroughly up-to-date and consistently accurate. Where both the KingJames and the RevisedStandard, for instance, have ‘wise men’ for the Greek magoi (e.g., Matt. 2:1, 2:7, 2:16), the KingdomInterlinear has ‘astrologers,’ a more correct and informative rendition. The book has been very carefully compiled and printed.

  "In sum, when a Witness comes to the door, the classicist, Greek student, or Bible student alike would do well to bring him in and place an order."—April-May, 1974, pp. 375-376.
• 
  34

  Do You Need to Learn Hebrew and Greek? (WT 11/01/09)

  by Midget-Sasquatch in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  i'm sure quite a few of you on the board remember the km that discouraged learning the biblical languages.

  well, here are scans of this newer article from the nov public wt.

  very boring read with little direct prohibitions (understandable since its for outsiders), but still a bit of an eye roller with their reasons for not bothering to learn them.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Narkissos

  In a broadly "Protestant" culture (to which JWs belong historically) most people don't learn Hebrew and "Biblical" Greek like they learn Chinese or Latin. With the background of sola fide / sola scriptura the stakes are unusually high, and the motivations all the more complex. Inasmuch as "faith" is more or less equated with "doctrine" (fides quae creditur), "correct" belief is all-important, and theoretically it is everyone's responsibility to make sure s/he believes "right" -- since nobody, in principle, can rely either on outward authority such as church tradition or magisterium. From this perspective the language barrier stands between you and "God" or "the Truth" so to say. Or, more prosaically, between you and "power" (even of the most mediocre kind). The obsessional-type believer anxious to check he's "right," the ambitious wannabe teacher, the "rebel" questioning his established pastor/church/confession/translation, even the sceptic trying to get rid of belief or confirm his doubts, all need an immediate access to the "original" texts. Intellectual interest is rarely "pure" and "disinterested" (what a contradiction in terms) at the start, but often it outgrows and outlives the initial motivations (even what is perhaps the most common of all: the vanity of posing as an "intellectual").

  One remarkable difference between English/American (mostly Protestant) and French (mostly Catholic) cultures in this field is that the former is, logically, much less "elitist" than the latter. Since the late 19th century there are a number of tools in English to "play Bible scholar" without really learning and practicing the languages (e.g. Strong's numerical concordance and its many applications, transliterated lexica like Vine's) which had no equivalent in French until very recently. In the French-speaking sphere you were not expected to discuss Bible exegesis unless in academic circles, which implied adequate formal training. (Actually Protestant Germany was closer to French standards in this respect, which makes me think that it may have more to do with church-state separation and democracy than Protestantism per se.).

  From that perspective I think the WT article raises good questions in a highly ironical way. About motivations -- but what were the motivations of people like Russell, Rutherford or F.W. Franz playing "Bible scholars" with "a little knowledge"? About polysemy (Hebrew and Greek words can have a number of distinct "meanings" and "translations" from an English perspective) and its pitfalls -- practically all of which can be illustrated by a NWT rendering...
• 
  34

  Do You Need to Learn Hebrew and Greek? (WT 11/01/09)

  by Midget-Sasquatch in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  i'm sure quite a few of you on the board remember the km that discouraged learning the biblical languages.

  well, here are scans of this newer article from the nov public wt.

  very boring read with little direct prohibitions (understandable since its for outsiders), but still a bit of an eye roller with their reasons for not bothering to learn them.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Narkissos

  http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/2751/hg01.jpg

  http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/6650/hg02d.jpg

  http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/8633/hg03m.jpg

  http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/1830/hg04.jpg
• 
  31

  Who really is the faithful and discreet slave? (A perspective)

  by StoneWall in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  who really is the faithful and discreet slave whom his master appointed over his domestics,.

  to give them their food at the proper time?

  happy is that slave if his master on arriving finds him doing so.. truly i say to you, he will appoint him over all his belongings" -matt.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Narkissos

  StoneWall,

  I try to explain that the who-question which is in the text does not call for an objective answer (instead it involves the target reader/hearer subjectively, to echo the question: 'am I this kind of 'slave' -- or the other?") and you ask me to answer objectively other who-questions which are not even in the text... :))

  I didn't say the parable applies to just "anybody" (read my first post again). The situation of the slave (whether he turns out to be "faithful and discreet" or "evil") is not that of anybody. He was appointed over others by his master, who is now absent but will return. He has authority, responsibility, and power -- to either "feed" or "beat" those who were entrusted to him. He can use it in either one or the other way, and is accountable to his master for his choices. The parable is directed to those who find themselves in a similar situation, i.e. Christian leaders/teachers. Any of them. The content of the parable qualifies the "anybody". It is not a parable about faithfulness "in general," but faithfulness in a particular situation.

  To your last question: the "slaves" in the next parable (25:14ff) are not an indefinite number: they are three (the virgins in the previous one are ten)! Do they "mean" three individuals, or three classes? Only if you forget it is a parable and misread it as a prophetic allegory, in WT fashion. If it is a parable, the lesson is simple: you may have received more or less responsibility, what matters is what you do with it.
• 
  31

  Who really is the faithful and discreet slave? (A perspective)

  by StoneWall in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  who really is the faithful and discreet slave whom his master appointed over his domestics,.

  to give them their food at the proper time?

  happy is that slave if his master on arriving finds him doing so.. truly i say to you, he will appoint him over all his belongings" -matt.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Narkissos

  StoneWall,

  Care to address the point I and yknot in particular have been trying to make? The problem is not whether Jesus can be called a "slave" in other contexts; rather, if the text is a parable opposing to moral types of leaders/teachers, it is utterly pointless to answer the question "who is the faithful and discreet slave" by pinning a name or a definition of "class". It is a rhetorical question, not the kind which presupposes a "yes" or "no" answer, but the kind which involves the reader/hearer and urges him to wonder "will Ibe like that slave, or like the evil slave?" "which kind of 'slave' am I?"

  Would you try to answer the following rhetorical questions with an individual name or a collective "class"?:
  "who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?" (3:7)
  "who among you will add a cubit to his life/size?" (6:27)
  "who is the man among you that will give a stone to his son if he asks for bread?" (7:9)
  "who among you will not get his sheep out of the pit?" (12:11)
  "who is my mother, who are my brothers?" (12:48f, general response in next verse)
  "who is the greatest in the kingdom of God?" (18:1).

  Why do that with "who is the faithful and discreet slave...?" (24:45)??
• 
  9

  Some thoughts on Deism.......

  by desib77 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  so i've been thinking a lot about the beliefs behind deism and a lot of it makes sense to me...... here are a few things that i still wonder about.. if god created us and then left us to our own doing i'm not sure how i feel about that.

  i'm very thankful for the chance to have life but on the other hand hate that there is so much suffering in the world.. has he abandoned us or does he just watch?.

  if i pray to him, does he listen or is it not worth anything but my own comfort?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Narkissos

  The Enlightenment Deism (God as the "Watchmaker") is but a milestone on a very long (and winding) road of increasing distantiation between "G/god(s)" and "the world". It is tributary to a number of ideas which had already developed in Jewish and Christian monotheisms, driving "God" and "the world" further and futher apart: creation as exclusively initial (rather than creatio continua), the Fall, and so on, which had long departed from the ancient view that the gods were ultimately responsible for everything. From this perspective it is less "new" than one might think. It furthers the dominant trend of metaphysical monotheism more than it breaks from it. But there is an undercurrent in religion (or, perhaps better, mysticism) which cannot accept the slightest distance. Spinoza strikes me as characteristic of both: is he a Deist or a rational (and moral) pantheist?
• 
  46

  Hostility to God's "name"

  by AwSnap in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  i was given the brochure the divine name that will endure forever, and was pointed to page 20 which is entitled "hostility to god's name?".

  it says that the word jehovah was originally in the hebrew scriptures but was taken out.

  is this true?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Narkissos

  PSac,

  I don't know if it's "correct," but that's about how I understand the passage (considering it is a relatively late development around the name of Yhwh which probably already implies a monotheistic perspective, not the "true meaning" of Yhwh in its earlier polytheistic context).