Posts by OldSoul

16

Im going coo coo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

by ButtLight in

jw
friends

man, for those of you with kids, do they ever drive you to the point of insanity?

i'm going to complain, so just deal with me.

it started out this morning with my bf's son complain how hungry he is, but didnt want to get off his lazy but to make himself something to eat.

Scholar: Zechariah 12:10

by OldSoul in

scholar,.

please explain the meaning of the original hebrew in this text:(zechariah 12:10).

and i will pour upon the house of david, and upon the inhabitants of jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.

OldSoul

Leolaia,

I understand. Since I am unable to read Hebrew, bringing up those other texts as proof texts was a bad idea since doing so relied on the scholarship of celebrated WT scholars. Thank you for the correction.

I am trying to argue the point from the perspective of Scholar, taking into full consideration the august wisdom of the celebrated WT scholars. I am asking him for the rationale behind eliminating from the translation of Zechariah any indication of YHWH being looked to, whether distinguished from the one pierced or not. Is there any reason for eliminating looking to YHWH in the verse?

Respectfully,
OldSoul

23

Scholar: Zechariah 12:10

by OldSoul in

scholar,.

please explain the meaning of the original hebrew in this text:(zechariah 12:10).

and i will pour upon the house of david, and upon the inhabitants of jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.

OldSoul

Leolaia,

Thank you for the clarification and for your research skills. So, as I understand what you wrote (and I do not claim to be a scholar by any stretch, so I may not have understood at all), there is no method under which "ayth" could be translated to exclude looking to the one speaking, contextually YHWH. It could only be translated to qualify the cause of the looking to YHWH. Did I understand that correctly?

If so, then the celebrated WT scholars used their understanding of John to validate mistranslating Zechariah, instead of allowing the proper translation of Zechariah inform their understanding of John. Which was to be the eventual point of this discussion and, it seems, your research has supported that view. Although I freely admit I may be incorrectly understanding your post.

A short "upshot," practical effect, synopsis would help.

Respectfully,
OldSoul

369

Why naturalism is irrational

by Shining One in

irrational naturalism (#201) .

by henry morris, ph.d. .

abstract .

OldSoul

Terry,

1) Poor reading comprehension skills: This is not my topic, it was started by Shining One.

2) I stated specifically that within the confines of the Scientific Method, naturalism is rational and honest. Your arguments, if founded on thinking the topic was my topic, seem less irrational and more honestly mistaken.

3) You want to see my credentials? I don't have any. Unlike the Governing Body, I never claimed to. I don't see any irony in this, there is no comparison really. My assertions are personal assertions, I do not claim to be a means by which anyone can attain an understanding of the Spiritual, I merely claim that I have subjectively experienced it. You have no means to falsify my claim, but you are welcome to disbelieve.

4) Since I am not encumbered by a need to prove what I have experienced unless I claim authority for my viewpoint on that basis, you are not welcome to infer dishonesty on my part unless you can prove it.

5) You cannot prove dishonesty on my part, because I admit that I cannot prove my experiences to anyone, I admit that my experiences do not confer authority on me, and I admit that these are subjective experiences -- which automatically eliminates the possibility of appeal to objective proof.

I understand your tone, if you misundertood my thinking based on an incorrect assumption that I started this thread. I can easily forgive that without a request. However, I do not believe there is ever reason for resorting the same sophistic tactics used by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, especially not in the same breath as decrying them and their "mentality." I didn't think you really hate me, I was only have a bit of fun at your metaphorical expense. I apologize for any discomfort arising from not making that clear enough. I thought the "Nana-nana-boo-boo" was a dead giveaway . I am really enjoying the discussion, it just seemed like you weren't responding to my posts. It seemed like your were responding to a whole host of preconceptions and prejudices you have acquired over the years and unloading them on a convenient target that crossed your path. I don't mind being your punching bag, I can't be offended.

Respectfully,
OldSoul

369

Why naturalism is irrational

by Shining One in

irrational naturalism (#201) .

by henry morris, ph.d. .

abstract .

OldSoul

Hm. Terry insists that anything that does not exist as a physical entity is metaphorical. He doesn't deny the reality of respect, he only denies that it is a physical entity; once again unknowingly invoking rules of the Scientific Method to limit "existence" to that which is physical.

I have a solution! Let us call it "metaphorical reality" or "metaphysical reality" instead of "spiritual reality."

NOW I get it, Terry! You don't like the name LittleToe and I use for it. Makes sense now. Okay, how's this? "Blessed are the poor in [metaphor], for theirs is the kingdom of the [metaphorical] heavens." Can you peacefully cohabit a planet with people who believe thusly?

OldSoul

369

Why naturalism is irrational

by Shining One in

irrational naturalism (#201) .

by henry morris, ph.d. .

abstract .

OldSoul

Why do you use the word "know"? You don't.

Is it possible for me to know something that you do not know?

Obviously.

All I need is an experience you have not had to know something you do not know.

Does that make me better than you?

No. Only different.

You would rather I be like you?

No thanks. If this discussion is representative of the world you live in, I much prefer mine.

Your assertion as to my lack of knowledge is not falsifiable, your statement is only your belief and cannot be substantiated without you sharing my knowledge (an impossibility). By your own tests, your logic and assertion fall flat. But it is encouraging that you have expressions of unfounded faith, even if they do relate only to my purposeful ignorance and ... what was it ... unenlightened thinking. Oddly, Shining One says similar things about those who disagree with him. As does Scholar. And Schizm, as I recall. Oh, yes, and the Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses. Bad form, Terry. Very bad form.

OldSoul

369

Why naturalism is irrational

by Shining One in

irrational naturalism (#201) .

by henry morris, ph.d. .

abstract .

OldSoul

But, metaphorically they "exist" as manifestations of human emotions which can be observed under certain conditions of attitude.

"manifestations" of x which can be observed under certain conditions of "attitude"? You can objectively observe respect? You can objectively observe attitude? If so, then you can observe reality that is not an "entity." I would be surprised if you attempt to support this assertion further.

You can experience respect subjectively, as either a receiver of respect or an emoter of respect. We refer to experiencing both at the same time as "mutual respect." But you cannot objectively detect respect, you cannot quantify it, you cannot test it, or falsify it, or physically observe it.

So, according to the rules of the Scientific Method is respect real?

No.

But, is it real?

Yes. You acknowledge that it is real, along with every other emotion, hundreds if not thousands of times a day. You hate me right now, and I can fully understand your frothing at the mouth. You can't reason away reality, though. Fortunately for me, by the rules of the Scientific Method hate isn't real, and that is the method you subscribe to.

Respectfully,
OldSoul

P.S. My walls are white. You can't see them. Nana-nana-boo-boo.

23

Scholar: Zechariah 12:10

by OldSoul in

scholar,.

please explain the meaning of the original hebrew in this text:(zechariah 12:10).

and i will pour upon the house of david, and upon the inhabitants of jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.

OldSoul

If you read the context of Zechariah 12:10, it is clearly YHWH speaking. When he says "self," i.e. "ayth," he is referring to himself. Scholar knows this is a theological problem for the CCoJW, because Jesus is NEVER the "One" with a capital "O" anywhere else in the OT.

The same translation of the same word occurs at:

Leviticus 22:31-33"And YOU must keep my commandments and do them. I am Jehovah. And YOU must not profane my holy name, and I must be sanctified in the midst of the sons of Israel. I am Jehovah who is sanctifying YOU, the One bringing YOU out of the land of Egypt to prove myself God to YOU. I am Jehovah."

Deuteronomy 10:20-22"Jehovah your God you should fear. Him you should serve, and to him you should cling, and by his name you should make sworn statements. He is the One for you to praise, and he is your God, who has done with you these great and fear-inspiring things that your eyes have seen. With seventy souls your forefathers went down into Egypt, and now Jehovah your God has constituted you like the stars of the heavens for multitude."

2 Kings 17:36"But Jehovah, who brought YOU up out of the land of Egypt with great power and a stretched-out arm, is the One whom YOU should fear, and to him YOU should bow down, and to him YOU should sacrifice."

There are many others, when translated with a capital "O" the word unfailingly and without exception is contextually in reference to YHWH. But, for some reason (we all know why), the celebrated WT scholars chose to ignore their constant application of their translation of this word with the capital "O" as referring to Jehovah and instead, in this singular case, applied it to Jesus.

Why, Scholar?

369

Why naturalism is irrational

by Shining One in

irrational naturalism (#201) .

by henry morris, ph.d. .

abstract .

OldSoul

You start with a premise that is entirely undemonstrable

To be fair, Terry, I have stated repeatedly in many threads since starting to post here that my premise is not demonstrable and cannot possibly be proven to someone else by me. You are seeming to imply a bit of dishonesty on my part in my presentation, but none is intended and, as far as I know, none is present. Perhaps you were reading into what I wrote an expectation of my beliefs that I did not state.

I have also stated that the Scientific Method can never be used to prove the existence of God, without first being able to examine God through some sort of physical construct. I do not believe that is possible.

You proceed to use metaphorical illusions (by contorting the abstract nature of language) to ~~support the non-argument~~

To support a logical consequence of any limitation of perspective. That allegory is equally applicable to those who only want to see the mystical in the world, those who only want to read certain organization's publications, etc. It is a very utile allegory for demonstrating the effect of limited perspective.

You take the metaphorical results of the non-argument and use it to disqualify the only reality that exists

You:

1) Presuppose that the physical reality is the only reality that exists,

2) Build a framework of reference to it that only allows exploration of physical reality (Scientific Method),

3) Insist that all demonstrable reality be demonstrated by the rules of examination of the physical reality,

4) Observe that nothing beyond the physical can be demonstrated to exist by use of the Scientific Method (see #1 and #2)

5) Deny the existence of anything beyond physical reality because of the lack of demonstration

If you can't see a glaring logical flaw in that, you are less intelligent than I thought. Your denial of existence of anything beyond physical reality is not based on anything other than the limitation of the method used, it can only examine physical reality.

I agree that physical reality exists. I also know that there is reality beyond the scope of the Scientific Method. Prove the existence of respect, scientifically, if you can.

Respectfully,
OldSoul

369

Why naturalism is irrational

by Shining One in

irrational naturalism (#201) .

by henry morris, ph.d. .

abstract .

OldSoul

Terry,

You are welcome to your repugnance, but groundless disrespect of others is repugnant to me. I do not reject Science. I simply recognize the constraint it has placed on iteslf. I stated the constraint clearly, and demonstrated a possible effect allegorically.

Do you agree that the Scientific Method can ONLY explore physical reality? If so, why do you seem to take umbrage at my stating that fact? Is it because you don't like thinking of the Scientific Method in terms of its real limitations?

Only a purposely ignorant person would turn back the clock to unenlightened thinking and insist it was superior to actual factual data.

I agree. Completely. But, in my opinion, only an enlightened person would recognize the possibility that the actual factual data may not represent all of reality.

Can you demonstrate the existence of respect, in any way, except through metaphor? How about love? But these are real, whether you can prove their existence in a laboratory or not. Your aggressive assertion of your point of view is very reminiscent of the bOrg you claim to detest. Let me demonstrate:

Only a purposely ignorant person (w)ould turn back the clock to unenlightened thinking and insist it was superior to actual factual data.

Now, let's take the highlights and underlines out:

Only a _____________ (w)ould _______________________ and ______________.

Look familiar? It should:

Only a heart of stone would not be moved at the spectacle of youth [showing] complete trust and faith in their God, Jehovah.

Only a real God could inspire such prophecies and see to their fulfillment.

Only a man of [John's] integrity could be entrusted with the assignment to pen the thrilling vision of Revelation.

Only a fool [would] "disrespect the discipline of his father."

Only a living, true God could wield such influence over an international group of people.

It is called "sophistry." The objective of what you wrote is obvious. You want to emotionally repel anyone who reads what you wrote away from something that you have personally determined is criteria defining a "purposely ignorant person." No one wants to viewed as a "purposely ignorant person" so the alternative you provide is viewing things the way you view them.

That is called coersion and is the IDENTICAL tactic used by the Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses. They present a set of circumstances in an absolute construct, the stated or implied effect of rejecting their desired result is always a feeling of foolishness. The stated or implied reward is always a feeling of having chosen the correct way to view things. Their way is always the correct way.

You have learned well at their feet, Terry. I hope it was unintentional.

OldSoul