Posts by Narkissos

101

Other Sheep will start taking the emblems.

by hamsterbait in

was at the kingdumb hell yesterday after a gap.. paragraph 11 planted the seed in the sheeples' heads for this.. remember last weeks study, where martha was quoted as saying: "i know he will rise in the resurrection on the last day.

" (jo 11: 24) the term "last day" was explained as applying to the millennium, in the same way as "judgment day" for those receiving an earthly resurrection.. now for paragraph 11 - i noticed some bemused faces, as usually john 6 is avoided in articles discussing earthly resurrection:.

" "the bread that i shall give is my flesh," he said.

Narkissos

Compare the issue I was referencing above (2/15/1986), 23 years ago:

Consequently, it was for "the life of the world"—the entire world of redeemable mankind—that Jesus gave his flesh. And "anyone" of the world of mankind who eats symbolically of that "bread," by showing faith in the redeeming power of Jesus’ sacrifice, may enter onto the way to everlasting life. Here, the "vast mixed company" that shared with the Israelites in eating the manna in the wilderness foreshadow the great crowd of Jesus’ "other sheep" who, along with the anointed remnant of "the Israel of God," are now eating Jesus’ flesh in a figurative sense. This they do by exercising faith in his sacrifice.—Galatians 6:16; Romans 10:9, 10.

Back in Galilee, many of Jesus’ listeners are shocked by his talk. So while still on the topic of his flesh, he even goes a step further, telling them: "Most truly I say to you, Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man anddrinkhisblood, you have no life in yourselves. He that feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has everlasting life, and I shall resurrect him at the last day; for my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink." (John 6:53-55) Shocking indeed! Not only is the idea of cannibalism repulsive to those Jews but the Law at Leviticus 17:14 positively forbade eating "the blood of any sort of flesh."

Of course, Jesus is here emphasizing that anyone who is to attain to everlasting life must do so on the basis of exercising faith in the sacrifice that Jesus later made in offering up his perfect human body and pouring out his lifeblood. (Hebrews 10:5, 10; 1 Peter 1:18, 19; 2:24) This provision is not restricted to Jesus’ joint heirs. It must also include the "great crowd," who survive "the great tribulation," for these "have washed their robes and made them white in theblood of the Lamb." Their having faith in Jesus’ sacrifice, as demonstrated also by their rendering God "sacred service," results in their preservation through earth’s greatest time of distress. Similarly, Rahab was declared righteous and survived when Joshua devoted Jericho to destruction.—Revelation 7:9, 10, 14, 15; Joshua 6:16, 17; James 2:25.

21

Morality Predates Religion

by hamilcarr in

jw
friends

is the often heard statement 'no religion no morality' in harmony with scientific evidence .... or not?.

if it could be proven that morality exists outside the human species, the conclusion would be that religion doesn't cause morality but only regulate it.. .

without god, we will live like animals!.

Narkissos

hamilcarr,

Nietzsche of course was not a democrat (the whole context of the GM quotation is about the "free-thinking," liberal, anticlerical movement working toward democratic reforms in late 19th-century Europe). His illustration is that of a hierarchised order -- "nothing is true, everything is permitted" being the truth motto for the "chosen few" -- who, in Nietzschean fashion, would rather be the choosing few, those who dare to create their own values. To him the masses would still need being fed moral "truths" -- that is, lies. Whether the old religious ones or the new secular ones (e.g. "social contract).

A more democratic approach would probably stress education as the way to grow from received values to creating values.

But looking back, Paul's approach is very interesting. Only it is religious, although not legalist. It is functional because it is not self-centered; other-centered, if you allow me this oxymoron. From this perspective, the question might not be whether morality will survive religion, but just the opposite: can a religious education to overcoming self-centeredness survive morality as a sum of shoulds and shouldn'ts?

21

Morality Predates Religion

by hamilcarr in

jw
friends

is the often heard statement 'no religion no morality' in harmony with scientific evidence .... or not?.

if it could be proven that morality exists outside the human species, the conclusion would be that religion doesn't cause morality but only regulate it.. .

without god, we will live like animals!.

Narkissos

They are rid of the Christian God and now believe all the more firmly that they must cling to Christian morality. That is an English consistency; we do not wish to hold it against little moralistic females à la Eliot. In England one must rehabilitate oneself after every little emancipation from theology by showing in a veritably awe-inspiring manner what a moral fanatic one is. That is the penance they pay there.
We others hold otherwise. When one gives up the Christian faith, one pulls the right to Christian morality out from under one's feet. This morality is by no means self-evident: this point has to be exhibited again and again, despite the English flatheads. Christianity is a system, a whole view of things thought out together. By breaking one main concept out of it, the faith in God, one breaks the whole: nothing necessary remains in one's hands. Christianity presupposes that man does not know, cannot know, what is good for him, what evil: he believes in God, who alone knows it. Christian morality is a command; its origin is transcendent; it is beyond all criticism, all right to criticism; it has truth only if God is the truth — it stands and falls with faith in God.
When the English actually believe that they know "intuitively" what is good and evil, when they therefore suppose that they no longer require Christianity as the guarantee of morality, we merely witness the effects of the dominion of the Christian value judgment and an expression of the strength and depth of this dominion: such that the origin of English morality has been forgotten, such that the very conditional character of its right to existence is no longer felt. For the English, morality is not yet a problem.

Friedrich Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols, "Skirmishes of an untimely man," § 5 (about G. Eliot).

When the Christian crusaders in the Orient came across that unconquered Order of Assassins, that free-spirited order par excellence, whose lowest ranks lived a life of obedience of the sort no order of monks attained, then they received by some means or other a hint about that symbol and motto, which only the highest ranks kept as their secret, "Nothing is true. Everything is permitted." . . . Well now, that was spiritual freedom. With that the very belief in truth was cancelled. . . Has a European, a Christian free spirit ever wandered by mistake into this proposition and its labyrinthine consequences? Has he come to know the Minotaur of this cavern from his own experience? . . . I doubt it. More that that: I know differently. Nothing is more immediately foreign to people set on one thing, these so-called "free spirits," than freedom and emancipation in this sense. In these matters they are more firmly bound, because they believe in the truth, as no one else does, firmly and unconditionally.

Friedrich Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morals, III, 24. (about post-Christian "free thought").

"All things are lawful," but not all things are beneficial. "All things are lawful," but not all things build up. Do not seek your own advantage, but that of the other.

Paul, 1 Corinthians 10:23f.

101

Other Sheep will start taking the emblems.

by hamsterbait in

was at the kingdumb hell yesterday after a gap.. paragraph 11 planted the seed in the sheeples' heads for this.. remember last weeks study, where martha was quoted as saying: "i know he will rise in the resurrection on the last day.

" (jo 11: 24) the term "last day" was explained as applying to the millennium, in the same way as "judgment day" for those receiving an earthly resurrection.. now for paragraph 11 - i noticed some bemused faces, as usually john 6 is avoided in articles discussing earthly resurrection:.

" "the bread that i shall give is my flesh," he said.

Narkissos

If you compare that to the 2/15, 1986 issue of The Watchtower on John 6 you'll notice there is actually nothing new: "eating Jesus' flesh and drinking his blood" was already applied equally to the (prospective) "great crowd" (can we still say that?) and to the "anointed," inasmuch as it is understood figuratively (of "exercising faith"), not ritually (partaking in the Eucharist/Memorial).

Now it may be that digging up this already established but uncomfortable idea (uncomfortable because the wording is so obviously reminiscent of the Eucharist) prepares JWs to the change you are thinking of: making all JWs Memorial partakers. This wouldn't imply giving up the "two hopes" doctrine imo; in fact, it would be more consistent with the practice of one baptism for both "classes". And, besides all the strategical benefits that have already been pointed out (especially, drowning the "new partakers" in numbers), it would be an unexpensive way of offering at least something new to the rank & file. Something of a symbolic and "religious" nature which would not jeopardise the authority structure (the GB's authority is increasingly construed after an autonomous, "neo-apostolic" pattern rather than deriving from a broader "FDS" group). If they want to look like a "mainstream" religion (at least for legal purposes) it's probably the way to go. Wait and see...

15

New twist on creation story: Academic says God not the creator

by truthseeker in

interesting viewpoint on "in the beginning, god created...".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/6274502/god-is-not-the-creator-claims-academic.html.

god is not the creator, claims academicthe notion of god as the creator is wrong, claims a top academic, who believes the bible has been wrongly translated for thousands of years.

Narkissos

There is a possible "cut" etymology to br' (cf. TDOT) but it is rather related to the notion of "carving" than "cutting asunder" (like in the Baal/Yamm or Marduk/Tiamat myths); what comes closest to the latter is the odd use in Ezekiel 23:47 (slaughtering with the sword); the idea of separation otoh is prominent in Genesis 1 but it is represented by another verb (bdl hifil, v. 3 etc.) which is a priestly technical term (as in "separating the clean from the unclean). Of course there are reminiscences of the Chaoskampf: the watery abyss or ocean, tehom (cf. Tiamat) and the darkness out of which the "sea" and "night" are "separated" remain uncreated. But they are generally toned down. At this stage of Biblical Hebrew the underlying metaphor of br' is almost dead and the verb comes close to the abstract notion of "create," although it is not yet ex nihilo. What is debated instead (cf. Orlinsky and Westermann's reply) is the syntax of Genesis 1:1f: "At the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." OR "When God began to create the heavens and the earth, the earth was..."

However, saying "the Earth (planet!) was there" brings us back to anachronism and concordism... :(

21

Morality Predates Religion

by hamilcarr in

jw
friends

is the often heard statement 'no religion no morality' in harmony with scientific evidence .... or not?.

if it could be proven that morality exists outside the human species, the conclusion would be that religion doesn't cause morality but only regulate it.. .

without god, we will live like animals!.

Narkissos

As often, "religion" seems to be reduced to Jewish-Christian "moral" monotheism...

What post-Christian "humanism" so often misses is this: once this particular connection of religion with morality is questioned (either by discarding religion altogether, or by disconnecting religion from morality to an extent) begins the difficult task of thinking morality for itself on non-religious grounds. Sometimes I wonder if people who scoff at the idea that "without religion there would be no moral standards" do not actually fear that this might be true, as they try to revamp "Christian moral standards" as "secular moral standards" rather than question them...

15

New twist on creation story: Academic says God not the creator

by truthseeker in

interesting viewpoint on "in the beginning, god created...".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/6274502/god-is-not-the-creator-claims-academic.html.

god is not the creator, claims academicthe notion of god as the creator is wrong, claims a top academic, who believes the bible has been wrongly translated for thousands of years.

Narkissos

Or: if you want to be credited in the media with the total sum of decades of scholarship regardless of your own input, pick an ignorant reporter... :)

59

Is it disrespectful to call GOD by his name JEHOVAH?

by foolsparadise in

jw
friends

i have been thinking about this alot recently.

calling our god the creator by his first name jehovah takes alot of nerve.

my 10 year oll son doesnt walk around calling me by my first name.

Narkissos

designs,

Imo the Christian "communities" which produced the NT writings, including the Gospels, can be traced back to a number of "roots" in and out (or on the fringe) of Judaism, both in Palestine and in the diaspora. Some of these "root" circles -- which may or may not have considered themselves "Christian" -- may have used the divine name in some form (in writing and/or orally, as a paleo-Hebrew transliteration requiring oral substitution, or in pronuncible Greek transliteration like Iaô): in our present state of knowledge we can't either prove it or rule it out. What remains is that the actual pronunciation or writing of the divine name in any form apparently played no part in the stage of "Christianity" which produced the earliest known Christian texts, although the notion of the "divine name" remained an important theological motif (cf. the Lord's Prayer which parallels the Pharisaic Qaddish in Matthew, neither of which requires pronouncing the name btw; the Christological uses of kurios in Paul, the "name" manifested by the Son and given to him in John, more loosely the absolute egô eimi... all those are the echoes of the theme of the divine name in the NT, but do not imply actual use of the divine name in any form at that stage).

Now when you ask, "When Jesus quotes the Torah in Matthew 4 did he speak in Aramaic, Greek, did he quote the Torah in comptemporary Hebrew of the day or in the dialect of say King David's day?" -- you forget to ask: did he? I mean, you seem to simply take for granted that a late 1st-century Greek narrative (in that case, a rabbinic-like exchange of prooftexts with the devil, with no witnesses!) actually reflects something that happened to a Palestinian character in the first century: this assumption I find very questionable.

24

Creation - struggling

by wantstoleave in

i am in the process of leaving, and those of you who have followed me will know i spoke to my family briefly the other day about my doubts, but not since.

my dad has offered the occasional prayer for various things in the past week, as well as say he wants to study with my preschoolers.

he has also added in the extra tidbits to do with jehovah being the only true god etc.

Narkissos

ql,

I couldn't agree more: an unknown god (or even God: theos agnôstos) means an open world.

The main difference here is not between theism and atheism, but between embracing or denying the mystery as such -- both attitudes being possible whether you use the word "God" or not.

59

Is it disrespectful to call GOD by his name JEHOVAH?

by foolsparadise in

jw
friends

i have been thinking about this alot recently.

calling our god the creator by his first name jehovah takes alot of nerve.

my 10 year oll son doesnt walk around calling me by my first name.

Narkissos

designs,

"Jesus, the good Jew" (more or less in line with later Rabbinical Judaism => Pharisaic-style rabbi) is just as likely and conjectural a reconstruction as another (Jesus the Essene, the Zealot, the Cynic, etc.)... The only facts we have are the texts -- where "Jesus" speaks Greek and quotes from the Septuagint, and inserts a few approximate Aramaic formulae, especially in miracle working (like magical formulae). The original meaning of Hebrew expressions like Hosannah is completely lost to the Gospel writers, and it is highly debatable whether Allèlouia (which is left untranslated in Revelation 19) was still evocative of the divine name to the final Christian author of Revelation, let alone to his readers / hearers...