Posts by Jeffro

77

How would you define RELIGION, and why?

by Fernando in

"judge" rutherford defined or classified all religion as "a snare and a racket" in his books "religion" and "enemies".. after rutherford's death in 1942, his protege, watchtower vice president, and aclu darling, hayden c. covington, in the early 1950's, for reasons of legal expedience and supremacist aspirations, suddenly converted the watchtower into a religion.. this was done alongside one of the most audacious, spurious and longstanding swindles of the us legal system.

this involved twisting philippians 1:7 and misrepresenting the watchtower's true nature, objectives and activities.. .

this meant that it became necessary for the watchtower to suddenly reclassify and redefine religion (w51 1/15 p. 43 new legal booklet well named; w51 8/15 p. 511 questions from readers; yb75 p. 161 part 2 "for gladys bolton...").. two new watchtower classifications were suddenly created: "true religion" and "false religion".. now "true religion" meant "true beliefs" whilst "belief" in ever changing watchtower doctrine was equated with the one "faith" of scripture.. all this while the watchtower increasingly and maliciously truncated, obfuscated and hid the liberating full "good news" (or unabridged gospel) of scripture, which it lyingly claimed (in court) that it was actually "defending and legally establishing".. how would you have defined religion before learning ttatt?.

Jeffro

🤦‍♂️

The creationist either doesn’t understand that a most recent common ancestor isn’t the same thing as the first simple form of life, or is continuing to deliberately misrepresent the process.

77

How would you define RELIGION, and why?

by Fernando in

"judge" rutherford defined or classified all religion as "a snare and a racket" in his books "religion" and "enemies".. after rutherford's death in 1942, his protege, watchtower vice president, and aclu darling, hayden c. covington, in the early 1950's, for reasons of legal expedience and supremacist aspirations, suddenly converted the watchtower into a religion.. this was done alongside one of the most audacious, spurious and longstanding swindles of the us legal system.

this involved twisting philippians 1:7 and misrepresenting the watchtower's true nature, objectives and activities.. .

this meant that it became necessary for the watchtower to suddenly reclassify and redefine religion (w51 1/15 p. 43 new legal booklet well named; w51 8/15 p. 511 questions from readers; yb75 p. 161 part 2 "for gladys bolton...").. two new watchtower classifications were suddenly created: "true religion" and "false religion".. now "true religion" meant "true beliefs" whilst "belief" in ever changing watchtower doctrine was equated with the one "faith" of scripture.. all this while the watchtower increasingly and maliciously truncated, obfuscated and hid the liberating full "good news" (or unabridged gospel) of scripture, which it lyingly claimed (in court) that it was actually "defending and legally establishing".. how would you have defined religion before learning ttatt?.

Jeffro

Now you’re just attempting to shift the goal posts. If you don’t understand the difference between ‘something being descended from something else’, and ‘a microbe changing itself to become every other living thing’, there’s no hope for you. And creationists really should stop referring to ‘evolutionists’ as if that is an actual job description. Go away.

60

The Evolution of Judas Iscariot

by Leolaia in

the story of judas iscariot in the gospels provides the reader with a fascinating picture of how the plot and details of the narratives were gleaned from the ot and embellished in different ways.

the evangelists and the tradents that preceded them looked to the ot (and other affiliated literature) for information on what happened to jesus, employing a haggadaic method of biblical interpretation similar to how rabbis and authors of pseudepigraphs in the second temple era expanded the brief stories of the patriarchs in genesis with reams of new detail and legendary episodes -- through the means of exegesis aimed to penetrate beyond a plain reading of the text to "fill in the blanks" of what must have happened.

the authors of the gospels also scoured through the ot to discover what was supposed to happen to jesus and wrote their stories accordingly.

Jeffro

So I am used to being pre-judged by a mob of others who have the wrong opion of me. I am no stranger to that.

Fallacious appeal to sentiment.

The rest is basically ‘how dare you talk about something if you don’t know it as well as I do’. Supreme arrogance.

77

How would you define RELIGION, and why?

by Fernando in

"judge" rutherford defined or classified all religion as "a snare and a racket" in his books "religion" and "enemies".. after rutherford's death in 1942, his protege, watchtower vice president, and aclu darling, hayden c. covington, in the early 1950's, for reasons of legal expedience and supremacist aspirations, suddenly converted the watchtower into a religion.. this was done alongside one of the most audacious, spurious and longstanding swindles of the us legal system.

this involved twisting philippians 1:7 and misrepresenting the watchtower's true nature, objectives and activities.. .

this meant that it became necessary for the watchtower to suddenly reclassify and redefine religion (w51 1/15 p. 43 new legal booklet well named; w51 8/15 p. 511 questions from readers; yb75 p. 161 part 2 "for gladys bolton...").. two new watchtower classifications were suddenly created: "true religion" and "false religion".. now "true religion" meant "true beliefs" whilst "belief" in ever changing watchtower doctrine was equated with the one "faith" of scripture.. all this while the watchtower increasingly and maliciously truncated, obfuscated and hid the liberating full "good news" (or unabridged gospel) of scripture, which it lyingly claimed (in court) that it was actually "defending and legally establishing".. how would you have defined religion before learning ttatt?.

Jeffro

A tiresome bait and switch. The original quote to which I replied:

How did a microbe change itself into every living thing on earth

There was no ‘one microbe’ that ‘changed itself into every living thing’, which is a very stupid misrepresentation of adaptations between many generations of organisms. This nonsense is on the same level as ‘if people come from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?’ (Or ‘if babies turn into adults, why are there still babies?’) It’s nothing but ignorance on the part of the creationist.

77

How would you define RELIGION, and why?

by Fernando in

"judge" rutherford defined or classified all religion as "a snare and a racket" in his books "religion" and "enemies".. after rutherford's death in 1942, his protege, watchtower vice president, and aclu darling, hayden c. covington, in the early 1950's, for reasons of legal expedience and supremacist aspirations, suddenly converted the watchtower into a religion.. this was done alongside one of the most audacious, spurious and longstanding swindles of the us legal system.

this involved twisting philippians 1:7 and misrepresenting the watchtower's true nature, objectives and activities.. .

this meant that it became necessary for the watchtower to suddenly reclassify and redefine religion (w51 1/15 p. 43 new legal booklet well named; w51 8/15 p. 511 questions from readers; yb75 p. 161 part 2 "for gladys bolton...").. two new watchtower classifications were suddenly created: "true religion" and "false religion".. now "true religion" meant "true beliefs" whilst "belief" in ever changing watchtower doctrine was equated with the one "faith" of scripture.. all this while the watchtower increasingly and maliciously truncated, obfuscated and hid the liberating full "good news" (or unabridged gospel) of scripture, which it lyingly claimed (in court) that it was actually "defending and legally establishing".. how would you have defined religion before learning ttatt?.

Jeffro

Good grief. Unsubstantiated stories loosely based on an itinerant rabbi are not the magical ‘evidence’ you imagine them to be.

Also, you shouldn’t try to interpret pop science as actual science. And it still doesn’t say what you said it does.

For those playing along, See Breeze is pasting drivel from Creation Ministries International, not accurate scientific positions on anything.

77

How would you define RELIGION, and why?

by Fernando in

"judge" rutherford defined or classified all religion as "a snare and a racket" in his books "religion" and "enemies".. after rutherford's death in 1942, his protege, watchtower vice president, and aclu darling, hayden c. covington, in the early 1950's, for reasons of legal expedience and supremacist aspirations, suddenly converted the watchtower into a religion.. this was done alongside one of the most audacious, spurious and longstanding swindles of the us legal system.

this involved twisting philippians 1:7 and misrepresenting the watchtower's true nature, objectives and activities.. .

this meant that it became necessary for the watchtower to suddenly reclassify and redefine religion (w51 1/15 p. 43 new legal booklet well named; w51 8/15 p. 511 questions from readers; yb75 p. 161 part 2 "for gladys bolton...").. two new watchtower classifications were suddenly created: "true religion" and "false religion".. now "true religion" meant "true beliefs" whilst "belief" in ever changing watchtower doctrine was equated with the one "faith" of scripture.. all this while the watchtower increasingly and maliciously truncated, obfuscated and hid the liberating full "good news" (or unabridged gospel) of scripture, which it lyingly claimed (in court) that it was actually "defending and legally establishing".. how would you have defined religion before learning ttatt?.

Jeffro

Sea Breeze:

I am persuaded that people really do know God, they just don't like him even though he made great effort in trying to make friends.

So? You’re welcome to believe whatever you like, but you don’t get to decide other people’s beliefs just because an old book makes an unverifiable claim. Good grief.

And it was followed by more straw manning of evolution. For example:

How did a microbe change itself into every living thing on earth

It didn’t. And no one says it did. You’re spouting embarrassingly poor creationist arguments.

77

How would you define RELIGION, and why?

by Fernando in

"judge" rutherford defined or classified all religion as "a snare and a racket" in his books "religion" and "enemies".. after rutherford's death in 1942, his protege, watchtower vice president, and aclu darling, hayden c. covington, in the early 1950's, for reasons of legal expedience and supremacist aspirations, suddenly converted the watchtower into a religion.. this was done alongside one of the most audacious, spurious and longstanding swindles of the us legal system.

this involved twisting philippians 1:7 and misrepresenting the watchtower's true nature, objectives and activities.. .

this meant that it became necessary for the watchtower to suddenly reclassify and redefine religion (w51 1/15 p. 43 new legal booklet well named; w51 8/15 p. 511 questions from readers; yb75 p. 161 part 2 "for gladys bolton...").. two new watchtower classifications were suddenly created: "true religion" and "false religion".. now "true religion" meant "true beliefs" whilst "belief" in ever changing watchtower doctrine was equated with the one "faith" of scripture.. all this while the watchtower increasingly and maliciously truncated, obfuscated and hid the liberating full "good news" (or unabridged gospel) of scripture, which it lyingly claimed (in court) that it was actually "defending and legally establishing".. how would you have defined religion before learning ttatt?.

Jeffro

See Breeze:

Belief in unsubstantiated miracles.
Unlike Christianity where there is ample evidence for the death burial and self resurrection of Jesus

🤦‍♂️ No. And what followed was even worse.

Each step straw manned, indicating you either don’t understand, or deliberately misrepresent expert views. Add to that the theistic need for made up ‘answers’ in favour of admitting they just don’t know something. 🙄

60

The Evolution of Judas Iscariot

by Leolaia in

the story of judas iscariot in the gospels provides the reader with a fascinating picture of how the plot and details of the narratives were gleaned from the ot and embellished in different ways.

the evangelists and the tradents that preceded them looked to the ot (and other affiliated literature) for information on what happened to jesus, employing a haggadaic method of biblical interpretation similar to how rabbis and authors of pseudepigraphs in the second temple era expanded the brief stories of the patriarchs in genesis with reams of new detail and legendary episodes -- through the means of exegesis aimed to penetrate beyond a plain reading of the text to "fill in the blanks" of what must have happened.

the authors of the gospels also scoured through the ot to discover what was supposed to happen to jesus and wrote their stories accordingly.

Jeffro

I don’t think PS was referring to the esteemed Leolaia, who last commented on this thread 15 years ago (and whose absence is a significant loss to this forum). If he was referring to Leolaia’s posts, it certainly isn’t rational, due to Leolaia’s consistently excellent work, and absence. If PS is ‘tired of dealing with armchair exJW scholars’ (and wants to make up things about their motivations or subject knowledge) he’s entirely welcome to leave the forum.

PS has in different threads claimed to be Catholic, Jewish, and non-religious depending on how his views are expected to be received. But his recent remarks included a snide and unwarranted assertion that others supposedly ‘just want the Bible to be wrong’. Therefore whilst he obviously has a high degree of subject knowledge, his recent comments also betray significant personal bias.

60

The Evolution of Judas Iscariot

by Leolaia in

the story of judas iscariot in the gospels provides the reader with a fascinating picture of how the plot and details of the narratives were gleaned from the ot and embellished in different ways.

the evangelists and the tradents that preceded them looked to the ot (and other affiliated literature) for information on what happened to jesus, employing a haggadaic method of biblical interpretation similar to how rabbis and authors of pseudepigraphs in the second temple era expanded the brief stories of the patriarchs in genesis with reams of new detail and legendary episodes -- through the means of exegesis aimed to penetrate beyond a plain reading of the text to "fill in the blanks" of what must have happened.

the authors of the gospels also scoured through the ot to discover what was supposed to happen to jesus and wrote their stories accordingly.

Jeffro

PioneerSchmioneer:

Why hide a "made up fact" you worked so hard to make up? You would want people to see what you worked so hard to make up, wouldn't you?

One possible reason is well illustrated by the question itself… to make it seem more credible. It’s similar to the tedious ‘criterion of embarrassment’… as a separate example, despite the fact that Genesis was compiled in the neo-Babylonian period based on earlier Israelite and Babylonian folklore, there is the argument that ‘Moses must have been real because he included his own shortcomings’ (and also his own death in Deuteronomy but that can be glossed over easily enough). 🙄 It is essentially a parlour trick. Similarly, whilst it is possible that Judas Iscariot existed, the character seems more like a trope (the relevant events at the ‘last supper’ being particularly contrived), and apologists have to do backflips to reconcile the contradictory death stories.

60

The Evolution of Judas Iscariot

by Leolaia in

the story of judas iscariot in the gospels provides the reader with a fascinating picture of how the plot and details of the narratives were gleaned from the ot and embellished in different ways.

the evangelists and the tradents that preceded them looked to the ot (and other affiliated literature) for information on what happened to jesus, employing a haggadaic method of biblical interpretation similar to how rabbis and authors of pseudepigraphs in the second temple era expanded the brief stories of the patriarchs in genesis with reams of new detail and legendary episodes -- through the means of exegesis aimed to penetrate beyond a plain reading of the text to "fill in the blanks" of what must have happened.

the authors of the gospels also scoured through the ot to discover what was supposed to happen to jesus and wrote their stories accordingly.

Jeffro

To paraphrase PioneerSchmioneer in a previous thread, ‘you are wrong because you broke the rules’. Appeal to authority, especially one’s own authority, with no direct bearing on the content discussed is fallacious and particularly arrogant, and common among particular styles of academia where such people lose sight of a legitimate interest in truth in favour of self-importance and tradition. And he threw in some ad hominem on top for ‘good measure’, including straw manning motivations and poisoning the well. Pathetic.

It is entirely unimpressive to say a particular interpretation is wrong (or likely wrong) because it isn’t consistent with some other self-important (and often biased) interpretation. It is much more helpful to assess interpretations based on content, historical context, comparison with other sources to which the authors had access, and the probable motivations of the authors.