I'm a Jew, not a member of Judaism (and Jews don't refer to it as a "faith" like Christians refer to their religion). There are atheist Jews, secular Jews, Jews who are Buddhist, etc. I'm Sephardic, Mizrahi, Hebrew, Judean, whatever helps explain it, and I have even been formally invited to take advantage of the Law of Return so I am considered Jewish by the world community at large...but not all of us are religious.
CalebInFloroda
JoinedPosts by CalebInFloroda
-
94
Disowning the God of the OT is not an Option
by cofty init's to their credit that many modern christians prefer the jesus of the gospels to the god of the old testament.. ot god is an embarrassment.
i am not going to list his multitude of moral crimes here but my personal favourite is his brilliant idea that a girl who is raped must marry her rapist.
it's not his biggest crime but it demonstrates a disregard for human feelings that is beyond the comprehension of every moral person.
-
-
-
94
Disowning the God of the OT is not an Option
by cofty init's to their credit that many modern christians prefer the jesus of the gospels to the god of the old testament.. ot god is an embarrassment.
i am not going to list his multitude of moral crimes here but my personal favourite is his brilliant idea that a girl who is raped must marry her rapist.
it's not his biggest crime but it demonstrates a disregard for human feelings that is beyond the comprehension of every moral person.
-
-
CalebInFloroda
While I understand and even look forward to comments all make on threads, I understand that what most people do (and rightly so) is add and expect a comment from others that reflects their personal opinions and convictions. Mine are no different, but my conviction is that of the science of philology.
My personal convictions regarding the God-or-no-God issue doesn't "play well with others" since I'm Jewish (read my thread about the gay Jewish JW I wrote about and you will see what I mean). Thus I have little to offer to support most atheists and theists on this board. I'm in nobody's corner on that issue, but I will fight for your rights to believe whatever you wish--as long as it's not JW doctrine.
Thus what I wrote is philology data, not theology, not an opinion, and I offered no formula regarding what to make of what I wrote. As a philologist this was all I could add to what I viewed were very honest views written by Cofty. As a scientist I can only work with empirical data, and in Scriptural discussions I can only speak about the text at its most basic etymological level. That all the empirical data a linguist has to,work with in this situation.
So Obliette, it's up to the reader to decide what the data means. I just mentioned that the narrative details in this ancient text belie many of the claims made by many theists, and that if the text were allowed to speak more for itself instead of through a pre-focused lens, the the theological results would be different and we might even be having a totally different subject to debate.
Sorry if people were hoping to find support for their particular point of view, whether you are atheist or theist. I might play devil's advocate once in a while when I am here, but it's always to promote discussion of the arguments at play. In the end I don't give a poop what you believe or don't or what conclusions you come to with any data I present. That's a job for a Jehovah's Witness to tell you what to believe and judge you if you don't agree with them, and I am no longer one.
-
94
Disowning the God of the OT is not an Option
by cofty init's to their credit that many modern christians prefer the jesus of the gospels to the god of the old testament.. ot god is an embarrassment.
i am not going to list his multitude of moral crimes here but my personal favourite is his brilliant idea that a girl who is raped must marry her rapist.
it's not his biggest crime but it demonstrates a disregard for human feelings that is beyond the comprehension of every moral person.
-
-
CalebInFloroda
Actually it may be worse than what any of you are thinking.
Critical research suggests that the Jews attributed their own savage warfare and acts to their gods which, under the Davidic dynasty, were condensed into the state religion of the cult of YHWH. When they were victorious, whatever the means, the Jews attributed this to God. When they lost, similar horrific acts performed by their enemies but now upon them were also attributed to YHWH but as punishment. Whatever the violence, who ever performed it, the Jews attributed it to God.
Theology changed after the Babylonian exile, recognizing human independence and responsibility for their own actions, but the traditions were hard to change (and most weren't). The result is that the construction of the Tanakh would see a mixed theology as redactors attempted to balance past tradition of attributing all things, good and evil, to a God who controls all and reconciling it with a more ambiguous theology of the all-controlling God who permits things such as the evils of war.
The unfortunate invention of literal interpretation or fundamentalism in both Christian and Jewish movements has led some modern theists to a form of Marcionism in which all events in Scripture must be explained as something far different from the patchwork of generations of writers and editors or rejected.
The fundamentalist Christian movements in particular have even colored descriptions of Jesus as if he did not possess qualities which do not reconcile with their simplistic theology. Jesus on more than one occasion forbids and forgoes serving Gentiles, once referring to a Gentile woman and her people as "dogs" in order to see if she will accept her "place" in society in exchange for Jesus saving her daughter. At other times Jesus acts as if he does not know what his actions may be implying, such as when he asks his disciples where the crowd will get its food (though he knows well he is going to feed them miraculously) or when he walks on water and pretends as if he plans to walk past the apostles who in a nearby boat are screaming in terror because they believe they are witnessing an apparition. And he constantly berates the Pharisees even though, because of his belief in the resurrection and the written works rejected by the Sadducees, is likely one of their number.
It appears as if there is a great fear on behalf of the religious to look at Scripture with open eyes and attempt to draw from it on its own merits instead of explaining away difficult to reconcile parts by the "wearing of rose-colored glasses." Scripture is not as bad as the bad interpretations which make it out to be, and these "peculiarities" of Scripture may mean something far more different than many realize.
-
69
"Your bad attitude is evident, because you don't bring a meeting bag to the meetings anymore!"
by stuckinarut2 inyes friends.....this is the comment said to me by an elder!.
"your bad attitude is evident because you don't bring your meeting bag anymore!".
i calmly replied: "but everything i need is on the tablet now......".
-
-
CalebInFloroda
No, no, no. You should say: "Bookbags belong to Group 1 of the overlapping generations. Group 2, of which I am, are their contemporaries, some of whom live to see all things transferred to digital while the previous group of old farts die off in their own bad attitudes." -
43
How a Gay Jewish Boy from New England Came to Be and Leave the JWs (and what he did next)
by CalebInFloroda inborn in cambridge, ma to a liberal couple that escaped the conservative south, my parents raised me better than to become a jehovahs witness.
funny thing was they got mixed up in it first.. while that is a story for another time, i myself had to go along as the third of five children in my family.
dads job transferred him to texas and my mom worked fulltime herself, but eventually we found ourselves drinking the kool-aid of ambiguity intolerance and full-fledge belief that the bible was literal fact and that salvation was found only by those who were smart enough to enter the confines of the watchtower.. its weird how many people claim they fear children raised by two gay parents will grow up to be gay.
-
-
CalebInFloroda
The Jews went from worshipping multiple deities to finally the one championed by the Davidic dynasty. Though the narrative in the Bible is often read as if my people were constantly faithful to the God of Abraham, this is not supported by archeology, history or even a close examination of Scripture.
The Davidic dynasty introduced and enforced a single state religion, the cult of YHWH with the construction of the Temple. Along with this redactions to Scripture ironed out the economy of this cult and the dynasty itself as part of this enforcement.
Etymologically speaking the terminology used in worship, mainly the plural word for "gods" became one of the Names for YHWH. Polytheism was thus the likely origins for the plural term, transferring the plural expression now to the Only God who they nationally believed ruled over all others.
Gentile Christians would read in this a foreshadowing of the Trinity, but the claim was not necessarily definitive at the expense of simple grammatical syntax. A similar misunderstanding has arisen due to the use of the masculine pronoun in reference to Elohim, allowing for a misogyny in Christianity that was blamed on the Jews for inventing, in essence claiming that Jews understood God to be primarily masculine. In reality the use of the masculine occurs due to the lack of neuter pronouns in ancient Hebrew as Jewish religion strictly forbids assigning gender to Elohim.
In closing, the plurality is just a holdover from the origins of the term but not representative of what later became defined in the Shema.
-
16
Did Jehovah's Witnesses dishonestly insert the word "Apostate" in their custom version of the Bible
by Watchtower-Free ininteresting article.
http://doctrinesoffaith.com/more-errors-in-jehovahs-witness-new-world-translation-bible/.
more intentional repeated errors in new world translation bible: a study on apostates.
-
-
CalebInFloroda
After being asked about this privately, I thought I should clarify that the first century use of the term "apostasy" refers to abandoning or rejecting practices, customs, and religious convictions. All these are referred to in Acts 21.21 where Paul is accused of promoting apostasy from Torah observance, the practice of circumcision (which is not technically from the Mosaic Law), and Jewish custom. Only the first, Torah observance, is connected with religion, whereas the others are cultural earmarks.
Today the word "apostasy" is limited to religion. No one is referred to as an "apostate" who abandons their custom or teaches others to abandon their cultural practices these days.
-
16
Did Jehovah's Witnesses dishonestly insert the word "Apostate" in their custom version of the Bible
by Watchtower-Free ininteresting article.
http://doctrinesoffaith.com/more-errors-in-jehovahs-witness-new-world-translation-bible/.
more intentional repeated errors in new world translation bible: a study on apostates.
-
-
CalebInFloroda
It's what scholars call a "political" rendition.
To be all honest, all Scripture translations into any language are a political act. While most modern translations no longer differ in substance by comparison, the fact that a religion might sponsor and conduct a translation, especially with a closed committee (i.e., one made up of translators from one religion only) shows that a political aim is definitely a driving force behind the rendition. In this case the political aim is to promote their ideology.
While the word from which the English term "apostasy" is derived occurs in the Greek in the two places already pointed out, the word isn't actually "apostasy" as we understand the term (those of us familiar with the Jehovah's Witnesses' definition that is). Considered the scholarly standard for English in academia, the NRSV renders the Greek word as "forsake" in Acts 21.21 and "rebellion" at 2 Thessalonians 2.3. The reason behind this is that the word was understood in its most ancient and basic terms in the first century, as the word "martyr" or "saint" had different meanings then too when compared to how the words are used today.
As they have been done before, the Witnesses get away on a technicality because the concept of "apostasy" is found throughout Scripture. Therefore even when the fundamental terms employed in the original text are not even connected to the Greek terms found in Acts and 2 Thessalonians, technically the NWT and any translator can use the term if his target audience is familiar for what it stands for, namely rebellion against or the act of forsaking religion.
However this would be considered a dynamic rendition or closer to paraphrase in most instances as it would be an anachronism to introduce the word "apostate" into Old Testament vocabulary, a Hellenistic term into a Semitic writing that did not have such a single and all encompassing term.
The word "apostasy" and "apostate" are modern, like introducing "homosexual" into Romans or the other epistles where same-sex relations are mentioned. As the latter word is possible in a paraphrase, the concept of different sexual orientations is a modern one, unknown to the ancients who wrote the Scriptures, so one cannot use the term accurately in a translation. The same goes for "apostate" and similar terms. The current expression got its meaning from the Early Church Fathers who gave the Greek word its current blanket meaning.
In its current use in American and Anglicized English, the term "apostasy" refers to turning away from the Christian faith as taught in the great creeds, a Christian term according to etymology. By this definition religious movements like the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Latter-Day Saints are apostates, but members of these religions can't be, even if they leave or teach something contrary to Watchtower or Mormon beliefs. Since they aren't rebelling against or forsaking the basic tenets of Christian faith like the Trinity, the Apostle's Creed, or Liturgical worship, elements these religious movements do not possess, those who rebel against or forsake these religions are not "apostates," if they wish to play by technical rules.
Equally Jews cannot become or produce apostates nor Muslims or Buddhists, and to some degree atheists or agnostics aren't actually "apostates." Because "apostasy" generally involves promoting a heresy, such as that Jesus is Christ and the Son of God, but not part of the Trinity, they aren't exactly apostates lest they begin to proselytize.
Only recently have sociologists began applying the term to include the renunciation of one's former religious tenants, regardless of what these might be or where they come from. If the Witnesses agree that they are employing and introducing a secular term by this type of rendition, so be it, but that would be admitting that they are still inserting a modern term that doesn't quite offer a better solution such as found in the NRSV.
-
43
How a Gay Jewish Boy from New England Came to Be and Leave the JWs (and what he did next)
by CalebInFloroda inborn in cambridge, ma to a liberal couple that escaped the conservative south, my parents raised me better than to become a jehovahs witness.
funny thing was they got mixed up in it first.. while that is a story for another time, i myself had to go along as the third of five children in my family.
dads job transferred him to texas and my mom worked fulltime herself, but eventually we found ourselves drinking the kool-aid of ambiguity intolerance and full-fledge belief that the bible was literal fact and that salvation was found only by those who were smart enough to enter the confines of the watchtower.. its weird how many people claim they fear children raised by two gay parents will grow up to be gay.
-
-
CalebInFloroda
Thanks for the welcome everyone. I appreciate it so very much! -
11
"Neither can salt water produce fresh water." - James 3:12, RNWT
by 88JM ini noticed this verse the other night and thought it looked so obviously ridiculously provably untrue that there must be something more to it.
surely even a bible writer must understand that desalination isn't witchcraft?.
new american standard bible:"nor can salt water produce fresh.".
-
-
CalebInFloroda
The Greek text reads:
Oute halikon glickie poisay hydoor.
In English that would be: "Neither does a spring of salt water manufacture sweet."
Literally the words are: NOT SALT [,] SWEET MANUFACTURE WATER.
That the text isn't speaking about whether water can be desalinated is clear from the first part which uses the same structure in stating: "a fig tree doesn't manufacture olives."
A person's mouth is compared to the fig tree and salty spring, and the question is what each produces or manufactures. The implication is that a person's heart is "salty" not "sweet" if the product is like what comes from a salty source. Besides Moses changed salt water to sweet according to the legendary narrative of the trek through the wilderness, so this is likely not a denial of what can be done with water.--Exodus 15.25.
-
43
How a Gay Jewish Boy from New England Came to Be and Leave the JWs (and what he did next)
by CalebInFloroda inborn in cambridge, ma to a liberal couple that escaped the conservative south, my parents raised me better than to become a jehovahs witness.
funny thing was they got mixed up in it first.. while that is a story for another time, i myself had to go along as the third of five children in my family.
dads job transferred him to texas and my mom worked fulltime herself, but eventually we found ourselves drinking the kool-aid of ambiguity intolerance and full-fledge belief that the bible was literal fact and that salvation was found only by those who were smart enough to enter the confines of the watchtower.. its weird how many people claim they fear children raised by two gay parents will grow up to be gay.
-
-
CalebInFloroda
Post script:
I didn't say I didn't believe in God. I was explaining that what God is to me and the Jewish culture is not something that get reduced to a mere belief.
One believes in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. One believes in a weather report. Christians believe in concepts, and that belief equals faith that leads to a reward.
The Jewish stance is more of an active response or participation in God, even if one is atheist. One cannot reject something that isn't, because even if the Jewish concept of God is rejected by an individual Jew, who and what they are is so defined by HaShem that even a rejection is a response or participation in what shapes the history and lives of Jews. You are still a Jew if there is no God, and you're a Jew because of God, whether real or imaginary. The belief or no belief thing is too naive to be applied here.