Posts by Hellrider

184

Celebrated WT scholars? :)

by Augustin in

prof lester l. grabbe on rolf furuli's "oslo chronology":.

"once again we have an amateur who wants to rewrite scholarship" (jsot 28:5 [2004], p. 42).. ...celebrated wt scholars?

--augustin --

Hellrider

Narkissos:

Hellrider,
For all I know scholar is Australian. You are the closest to Furuli (in geographical terms) I guess.

Lol, I know. And it makes me a bit ashamed that a fellow countryman could use his academic position to spew out his religious Watchtower-nonsense. His name, title and position and what really is a very good university (I was there for a year myself), used to back up the intelectual dishonesty of the Watchtower...I really don`t like that.

had to come to this board to learn about Furuli, but frankly this guy amazes me. A full-fledged JW (an elder, from what I read online) as University professor in the field of religious studies is quite unique I guess.

Professor in religious studies? I thought he was a linguist, and that his field was middle-eastern languages (hebrew, aramaic etc). But "religious studies", does that mean that he works with ancient religious texts from that area?

184

Celebrated WT scholars? :)

by Augustin in

prof lester l. grabbe on rolf furuli's "oslo chronology":.

"once again we have an amateur who wants to rewrite scholarship" (jsot 28:5 [2004], p. 42).. ...celebrated wt scholars?

--augustin --

Hellrider

Hm, no Scholar jw yet? He must be out in field service.

By the way...That very unprofessional, childish and intelectually dishonest behaviour Rolf Furuli is described as having (in under_believers post), doesn`t that remind you of someone?...not to mention the extreme emphasis on the few biblical passages that talks about "70 years of desolation"...

Could Scholar jw be mister...?? (and it even rhymes too)

65

Why God refuses to interfere

by greendawn in

jw
friends

many people ask why doesn't god interefere to help suffering mankind?

biblically the answer is very simple: mankind exercise their freedom of choice and in so doing chose to be slaves to sin or the demons if you like.

god respects that choice however foolish it may be.

Hellrider

Apostate Kate: Yes, I know that it was Satan doing the actual killing. But God allowed it, even though he didn`t have to (supposedly, He knows the future), so he`s the one I really hold responsible. If God was good, he would have destroyed Satan long ago, but instead He allows Satan do it, just to win an argument. How childish is that. There was no need for Him to allow Satan to kill Jobs children. Mankind are able to mess it up for themselves allready, we don`t need a prince of Darkness to torment us even more.

But hey, the christian answer that does away with all this discussion, is of course "God has a plan" or "God moves in mysterious ways", "His ways are higher than us" or something like that. It`s ok, I respect that. But I don`t agree when people try to portray the Bible as a continuing, logical story. But I do enjoy the stories in themselves. All the stories in the Bible has some kind of "moral" in them, from the creation to the flood to the tower of Babel. I may not agree with the moral in all of them, but there is a moral (like in all fairytales, usually it is "it pays to be kind and obedient", at least in my countrys folklore ), and it is intended by the author(s). And that`s cool. It`s when people live their lives as if these stories were actually true (and often even without understanding the moral in them) that they mess up.

65

Why God refuses to interfere

by greendawn in

jw
friends

many people ask why doesn't god interefere to help suffering mankind?

biblically the answer is very simple: mankind exercise their freedom of choice and in so doing chose to be slaves to sin or the demons if you like.

god respects that choice however foolish it may be.

Hellrider

2. As with Job, God did step back to see if Job still loved him and his ways..

The problem is, of course, that God didn`t have to test Job to see if he "still loved him". Most christians believe that God knows the future (as he is "outside time", and "the beginning and the end"), and he knows what`s inside a persons heart. So God, when testing Job, allready knew the outcome. The test was therefore unnecessary, and so, killing all of Jobs children was pure sadism, wasn`t it? And by the way, why would an almighty being need to "test" someone to see if they loved him? What, does God have some selfesteem-issues, or something? Not even I am that insecure about myself, and I`m not even allmighty. Also, I would never demand that, for example, my child loves me, and definitely not that he would worship me. And I`m not even allmighty and perfect. Doing something like what God did to Job reminds me of something a frustrated, messed-up child would do. Wreck the livingroom and throw the cat in the dishwasher to see if the parents would still love him, or something like that.

102

Absolute truths have been admitted....

by Shining One in

i had to wade through a lot of muck to find anyone with any reasonable arguments in my last post.

most were just the usual personal attacks from the fringe and their flock of followers.

instead of dealing with them, i have decided to post one response to those who made some valid points.

Hellrider

Kid A:

There is nothing in your post that I directly disagree with.

Osama bin Laden has his own moral core, based on his subjective reality, and in his "mind and heart" his actions are entirely justified. Do you see the danger in taking the position of "moral absolutes"? WHen one assumes there is something "morally absolute" in the universe, this mentality may be used to justify any action. You state it "takes knowledge" to find out what is right and wrong? Whose knowledge? Who defines it? What is the context wherein such knowledge would be constructed? There are no reasonable answers to these questions because each answer would be an entirely subjective position, open to debate and censure.

Absolutely, I agree, I see the problem here. But I believe that there is a "right" course of action in every situation. Of course, what the "right course of action" might be, on this we can debate. And thru the debate, we will get closer to the right course of action. The alternative (that whatever course of action one takes will be the result of completely subjective considerations) is to say that there really IS no "right course of action". And I can`t accept that, because it makes every action morally equal (because, like you said, in his own mind, Osama bin Laden is sure he is doing the right thing). And if there is no unchangeable guiding principle (although I admit the validity of your "who defines it"-question), then we have no reason to be upset at bin Laden, Hitler, Stalin or Bush.

What is the alternative to this position? By admitting, as you do, that there are moral grey zones where debate is possible. This forces us to question our actions and our motives and provides the only real break on our behavioural patterns. It has been said that there is nothing more dangerous than a conviction. And regardless of whether we personally believe in the justification of our beliefs or actions, there are always alternative ways to interpret our subjective reality which begins with the acceptance that there are no moral absolutes that can be objectively defined outside of our own limited, ephemeral and culturally constructed moral universes.

Agreed. Communication is good . I don`t think it`s that dangerous to have a conviction, but when a person is willing to kill for his conviction, then we are talking danger.

I said something similar in my previous post:

See? There is a million questions that have to be answered. Sometimes they are very difficult to answer, and that`s why there are greyzones, in which we don`t yet know what is right and wrong. Sometimes science can help us, sometimes not. We just have to ;stumble along in the dark, and use the information that we have

But I also said:

But that doesn`t change the moral principle in itself! But new information (and situations) may change how we apply the principle.

Now, don`t worry. I know perfectly well that these unchanging, eternal moral principles can`t be proven. They are, if they exist, invisible (just like God). But what I have been trying to clearify thruout this thread, is the result, the logical conclusion of the alternative view! (The view that morals are subjective and changeable). And I don`t know if I was able to paint a clear enough picture of that, but at least I tried.

102

Absolute truths have been admitted....

by Shining One in

i had to wade through a lot of muck to find anyone with any reasonable arguments in my last post.

most were just the usual personal attacks from the fringe and their flock of followers.

instead of dealing with them, i have decided to post one response to those who made some valid points.

Hellrider

press any key:

You still seem to be saying that its either an absolute moral, or nothing, just a feeling. ;I see relative morals as stronger than that, sure they may change over time, given new information or situations, but that doesnt make them weak now, "it is reasonable to conclude" that this would make them stronger over time.

Ok, and this is where it gets confusing. "Sure they may change over time"...I assume you would see this as a change in the morality. But then I have to ask: Change to what? Change to "the better"? What is "the better"? And how do you decide whether a "new view on morals" is better, without some eternal, absolute standard? New information or situations doesn`t change the morality (which I see as an unchangeable "core") itself, it just changes how we apply morals on the new situation.

And you also keep coming back to the idea that some things are just so heinous, so beyond the pale, that they must be against some absolute moral standard. But who decides where the line is drawn (God? us? the UN?) How do you stop it being abused? Can the absolute morals change ? (if so they are not absolute, if not how do you avoid them becoming outdated and dangerous)

No, God doesn`t decide. Morality is a principle, the core of this principle doesn`t change, and finding this core is possible for every seeking person. It is "written in the heart" of every man and woman. But it takes knowledge and thought to find out what is right and wrong, especially in the "greyzones". Shining One started another thread now, about abortion, and abortion is an excellent example of a greyzone. We all agree that premeditated murder is in violation of the moral law. But what is a featus? Is it a human being? Or a lump of cells? What if it`s the latter? What then about the fact that the featus will evolve into a baby? What role does this potential play in this? What is a human being? Someone who can breathe for themselves? Ok, what about comatosed people on life support-system then? Are they not humans, then?

See? There is a million questions that have to be answered. Sometimes they are very difficult to answer, and that`s why there are greyzones, in which we don`t yet know what is right and wrong. Sometimes science can help us, sometimes not. We just have to stumble along in the dark, and use the information that we have. But that doesn`t change the moral principle in itself! But new information (and situations) may change how we apply the principle.

What if we decide now that it is absolutely immoral to nuke Africa, and then Aids mutates as above. But we cant do anything cause that would break our moral code

We can`t see into the future. Noone can. But the question is valid. If you could step into a time machine, go back to the year 1900 and kill Hitler and Stalin while they were still little boys, would you do it? Combined, these two monsters are responsible for the death of around 80 million (!!!) people! Ok, so you just stepped out of the time machine, like one of the terminators from the Schwarzenegger-movie , and landed in Austria. You find little Adolf in a playground, and you just have to make him come with you into an alley and do it. Would you?

Difficult questions...

77

You Libs keep 'dancing around the issue'

by Shining One in

since so many of you keep avoiding the primary issue in two other threads, chew on this one!

terry said this: .

>life is at the basis of reality for humans.

Hellrider

I'm anti-abortion as well as anti-death penalty. I'm still and Atheist with absolute moral standards. Still no god needed.

That sums me up pretty well too, Jstalin.

9

EXJW REPORTER on WTS 666

by DannyHaszard in

if you think 666 is a joke, the beast has your number

sylvester brown jr.

[email protected]

Hellrider

Good article. To the point and easy to read. Bravo, mr.Brown.

102

Absolute truths have been admitted....

by Shining One in

i had to wade through a lot of muck to find anyone with any reasonable arguments in my last post.

most were just the usual personal attacks from the fringe and their flock of followers.

instead of dealing with them, i have decided to post one response to those who made some valid points.

Hellrider

Press any key:

when a pedophile kidnaps, rapes and murders a child, he just had some "different views" on what acceptable behaviour. To bad for the kids parents, but hey, that`s not his problem, as long as he doesn`t have to hear them cry. He did no wrong, because nothing is wrong
I think he did wrong. However I think this not because I compare his behaviour to some absolute moral, but I compare it to the behaviour I expect of myself and the behaviour I expect from others.
The choice with morals is not absolute or nothing. Morals exist but they are relative, relative to the way we ourselves feel.

Ok, you compare it to the behaviour you expect from yourself and others. So do I. That means that you too probably believe in Kants "golden rule", "never do something towards others that you would not want them to do to you". But you would not call this rule a moral absolute, of course (well, if you don`t consider it a moral absolute, then I can`t see how you can expect this behaviour from others as, of course, but that`s a whole diferrent story). But there are a couple of things wrong with your above statement, within the non-absolutist view on morals: - The behaviour you expect from yourself and from others, is expectations that can be changed. Let`s say that we all try to take a bit more control over our emotions (after all, within the non-absolutist view on morals, "moral outrage" is nothing more than antipathy/sympathy), and change them (which you yourself refer to in your post). Numb down the sympathy/antipathy, after all, it`s not "real morals", it`s just a feeling. Concerning pedophiles, we could then for example breed babies for them, babies just for "their purpose". That way, no parents would have to lose their children to pedos. Also, we would save a lot of money in police and court system-efforts by not criminalising them anymore. Good solution, don`t you think? And what about Africa? Every once in a while, images from hunger-disasters roll over our TV-screens. Watching starving, dying children make us feel sick and (morally?) outraged. But wait, numb down that feeling! And then realize that Africa can`t be fixed! It is is such a sick continent, sick with hunger, corruption, aids, illiteracy, de-forestation and all sorts of diseases. It can all be fixed with euthanasia, you know. Just a few nukes, or maybe a special-designed biological weapon. Wipe them out. Feeling bad? Numb down that feeling! It will go away...

And don`t worry: I`m not here defending Rex. I certainly don`t agree with everything he says, as I sometimes think he goes a bit to far. We just agree on the fact that there is such a thing as moral absolutes, that`s all.

daniel-p:

"Libs favor socialism first, then into communism and finally to the Gulag for anyone that they find dissent from the part line." You disqualify yourself from inteligent communication with this single statement. Do you realise no one takes you seriously and sees you as not much more than a pest/troll? Yet you can take pride in one thing... the fact that we post messages in your threads. Congratulations, you have escaped from obscurity into a world of delusional heroism.

Why? You are morally outraged now? Why? Because what he said was discriminating towards you and a whole group of people! So, in my view, he broke a moral absolute. But don`t worry, within your own view, he did nothing wrong! So you can cool down on the outrage.

102

Absolute truths have been admitted....

by Shining One in

i had to wade through a lot of muck to find anyone with any reasonable arguments in my last post.

most were just the usual personal attacks from the fringe and their flock of followers.

instead of dealing with them, i have decided to post one response to those who made some valid points.

Hellrider

Press any key:

that is something that you believe, I believe, 99.9 of the people reading this will believe, and yet some people do not believe as it happens every day, therefore it is not absolute you and I may believe it absolutely, with every fibre of our being, but it is not with every fibre of everyones being, so it is not absolute

Your approach here is descriptive. Mine is normative. The fact that attrocities has followed mankind since the beginning, isn`t an argument for that it should be this way. Just because I still smoke cigarettes (although I`ve cut back), and a lot of other people also do it, this doesn`t mean that it`s smart of me to do it (of course, that has nothing to do with morals, just about being smart enough to not hurt oneself). You proposed that I argued that "not to commit atrocities against helpless individuals" is what I would consider an absolute. I think it`s even simpler than that, and Immanuel Kant summed it up: "Never do something towards another individual that you would not want that individual to do to you". I would not like to be stolen from, robbed, attacked, beaten up, raped or killed. And consequently, I should not do this towards anyone else. It`s simple.

Consider the alternative, that no "moral absolutes" exist. I know that it is popular to believe that, because values is not something that can be proven, they are "invisible", and consequently, they are just ideas, like God is an idea. There is no proof that God exists, and the same can be said about values. But consider the alternative: With no "moral absolutes", no murder in the history of mankind was "morally wrong". This, because morals do not exist! I find it to be so incredibly funny when I talk with liberals/leftists (for example on this forum), and we are discussing something like, oh say, abortion! And I will voice my opinion and say that although I`m not a christian, I`m not so sure abortion is morally acceptable. I will then have tons of shit thrown right in my face from people who accuse me of being a biggot, woman-hater, sexist, male chauvinist pig, because I dare try to voice an opinion that "imprisons women". But can`t you all see?!?! When a person calls me that (I know this is a lame example, but it`s the only one I could come up with right now), they are making a moral judgement towards me! And this, from people who will claim that no "moral absolutes" even exists! The point is: If there are no "moral absolutes", then there are just differing opinions! There would be nothing wrong in outlawing abortion, chasing the women back to the kitchen, tell her to lie fucking still while you fuck her, slap the kids around when they misbehave, etc. It would be the law of the strong, and that would not be wrong (because there would be no such thing as wrong). Women (for example) would have nothing to complain about, because it was just their destiny in life to be physically weaker than men, and that means that their wishes, views, etc, will be overlooked. (Does me saying this upset you? Try to isolate that feeling, and analyse it). The same goes for everything else. When the Einsatzgruppen marched into the occupied eastern territories in 1942, rounded up all the jews, lined them up in front of the mass graves and shot them, that was perfectly ok. It was just "differing opinions" (in the sense that the unarmed civilian jews didn`t want to get shot, of course), but once the opinion of the one side was silenced with the machinegunfire, the "differing opinions" was stopped, and nothing "wrong" had been done. Because nothing is really "wrong". And when a pedophile kidnaps, rapes and murders a child, he just had some "different views" on what acceptable behaviour. To bad for the kids parents, but hey, that`s not his problem, as long as he doesn`t have to hear them cry. He did no wrong, because nothing is wrong.

This whole issue is not about what is the case at present. It is about how it should be!