uw chap.
15 p. 121 par.
9 how does jehovah direct his organization?.
At the moment they’ve got an Australian, a Canadian, and an Austrian member, and in the past they’ve had members from Greece, Germany, and the UK. I don’t know any other “lands” represented. They’ve not exactly gone out of their way to try to be representative in terms of nationalities.
They probably do genuinely think they are not conducting themselves as “masters over your faith”. Whether that’s a reasonable perception many others would dispute.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ouye3e0fypc&t=183s&pp=yguzd2h5igkgzglzbglrzsblc2noyxrvbg9neq%3d%3d.
please take the time to watch.
i am not good with words but i have heard someone so eloquently explain how i feel about something.
Did Jesus dislike eschatology? Or people that couldn’t define academic terms, for that matter?
a black mass is a ceremony celebrated by various satanic groups.
it ... is intentionally a sacrilegious and blasphemous parody of a catholic mass.
- wikipedia.
You said a black mass is “intentionally sacrilegious” and then posed the question “Do JW's perform a similar Parody”. If you didn’t mean to malign the intentions of ordinary JWs then you could have at least expressed this differently.
Your sympathies for the Watchtower are duly noted.
Noted where and for what purpose? I agree with JWs on some things and disagree on others, could you write that down too, wherever this record is being kept.
Over 20 million attend the memorial, not 10.
a black mass is a ceremony celebrated by various satanic groups.
it ... is intentionally a sacrilegious and blasphemous parody of a catholic mass.
- wikipedia.
I think that ordinary JWs overwhelmingly practice their religion sincerely and attempts to portray them otherwise are inaccurate and prejudicial. If you think they are not correct in how they conduct their memorial service then argue the point, don’t portray them as secretly worshipping Satan or other nonsense.
i just made a video every jw should see.
the aim of this video is to help jehovah's witnesses be more open to constructive critisism, especially from their own members, that are swiftly excommunicated /disfellowshipped/ removed from the congregation if they dare to point out their religion's flaws concerning doctrine and practises, even when there is scriptural evidence.
i have first hand experience of that.. https://youtu.be/71zcv7lux3g.
No, that’s totally off putting. There is no way your real presentation wouldn’t have been better than that.
philip goff, professor of philosophy at durham university, in the past few weeks has said that he has become a christian of a fairly liberal and perhaps somewhat heretical variety.
it’s been a long journey from staunch atheism in his teens, to questioning the basis of his atheism and a purely materialist conception of reality as a professor of philosophy specialising in consciousness, to now considering himself a christian.
he says it’s the result of coming to terms with the fact that atheists and theists both have good arguments and looking for a middle ground that accommodates the best arguments of both.
Yes, on the one hand the history of life is a sequence of extinctions and nature is against survival. But on another deeper level, why does reality exist in such a way that life and consciousness are even possible at all. Why should it? It’s bit like pointing out bad weather makes survival more difficult but ignoring the question why there’s a planet on which weather is even possible in the first place. It seems to me that the existence of reality does reasonably call for an explanation, and invoking a being that is outside of existence as we understand it approximates what might look like some explanation. This is why I think God is likely but I don’t know for sure.
I’m more sure about other mundane things that others have different opinions on. For example I’m 90% sure the covid virus came from a lab in Wuhan and I have been sure of that from the start. I’m 90% sure Russia didn’t blow up its own gas pipeline but it was probably the US with or without help from others. I’m 90% sure that senior officials have been knowingly covering for Biden’s dementia for years. These things seem obvious to me to the point that many people have failed a basic kind of societal level intelligence test in not seeing the obvious.
philip goff, professor of philosophy at durham university, in the past few weeks has said that he has become a christian of a fairly liberal and perhaps somewhat heretical variety.
it’s been a long journey from staunch atheism in his teens, to questioning the basis of his atheism and a purely materialist conception of reality as a professor of philosophy specialising in consciousness, to now considering himself a christian.
he says it’s the result of coming to terms with the fact that atheists and theists both have good arguments and looking for a middle ground that accommodates the best arguments of both.
Because of suffering and because it might, I suppose, be possible that everything we know exists just exists all by itself, although that seems unlikely to me. There’s always the simulation hypothesis too, although I think it doesn’t really help with the question of God either way because there still needs to be an explanation for base reality. Maybe there is a third option outside of “God” and “no-God” that is even stranger than we can imagine?
For the Bible, I’m not even sure what I mean by “inspired”. I think it’s a unique book and history points toward it being prompted or instigated by God. But there’s a chance that’s wrong too. I think 70% and 40% are relatively high confidence levels to have in such widely disputed concepts. What do you believe and how confident are you?
for jws who believe that jehovah had a hand in reviving the truth in the nineteenth century this is enough explanation for how jws managed to achieve a closer approximation to early christian beliefs and practices than other groups.
but is there an explanation for this phenomenon that doesn’t rely on supernatural intervention?
new testament scholar james dunn explains the difficulty of interpreting the biblical texts in this way:.
I think the canon was probably settled in the second century. The idea that it took until the 4th century doesn’t seem credible to me. See David Trobisch’s book The First Edition of the New Testament.
The first record of something (canon list by Athanasius in the 4th century) doesn’t mean that’s the first time it existed. There’s plausible evidence that Origen listed the canon already in the 3rd century, and good internal evidence that the New Testament was a discrete collection by the mid second century.
philip goff, professor of philosophy at durham university, in the past few weeks has said that he has become a christian of a fairly liberal and perhaps somewhat heretical variety.
it’s been a long journey from staunch atheism in his teens, to questioning the basis of his atheism and a purely materialist conception of reality as a professor of philosophy specialising in consciousness, to now considering himself a christian.
he says it’s the result of coming to terms with the fact that atheists and theists both have good arguments and looking for a middle ground that accommodates the best arguments of both.
I think saying he’s 50% convinced doesn't make him confused, it makes him unusually honest. It’s unrealistic to have stupidly high levels of confidence in beliefs that are widely contested. I’m not 100% convinced about anything because there’s always room for being wrong. That doesn’t mean I don’t believe in things enough to act as if they are true. It’s reasonable to act as if the garden path is solid as it always has been, even though something could have hollowed it out from underneath when I wasn’t looking. 👀
I often think it’s useful to attach percentages to things to beliefs, not because it’s even possible to be exact about these things, but because it makes you reflect on the relative confidence you have in various beliefs. I would say I’m about 70% confident there is a God and 40% confident the Bible is inspired by God. For comparison I’m about 80% confident that humans are causing climate change and about 60% sure that the CIA was involved in the assassination of JFK. I’d say there is about 2% chance the moon landings were faked and less than 0.1% chance the earth is flat. I’m more than 90% sure there is a genocide going on in the Middle East right now and worried there might be a 5% chance the Ukrainian war will turn into a nuclear conflict. I think there’s maybe 30% chance Scotland will be independent by 2050 and this has gone down at least 10% in the past week. I think realistically there’s a 20% chance Sturgeon will go to jail, but wish it was higher. I think there’s a 30% chance AI will kill us all and a 20% chance there will be radical life extension in the next few decades. I think it is more than 50% likely that the original NT contained the divine name as JWs claim but less than 5% chance they are correct about 607 BC being the date of the fall of Jerusalem.
for jws who believe that jehovah had a hand in reviving the truth in the nineteenth century this is enough explanation for how jws managed to achieve a closer approximation to early christian beliefs and practices than other groups.
but is there an explanation for this phenomenon that doesn’t rely on supernatural intervention?
new testament scholar james dunn explains the difficulty of interpreting the biblical texts in this way:.
It reminds me of William Barclay, if I remember right, who argued that theos is qualitative in John 1.1c but was absolutely furious that JWs quoted him on it. He didn’t mind being a heretic himself (he was branded a heretic for believing universalism) but being quoted by heretics to support their heresy was beyond the pale. 😆
