Posts by CalebInFloroda

35

DOES BELIEF IN THE BIBLE DESTROY ONE'S INTELLECTUAL CAPACITY?

by TerryWalstrom in

based on information to be found at: http://www.csicop.org/si/show/when_dont_the_highly_educated_believe_in_evolution_the_bible_believers_effe/.

the bible-believers effect.

those who believe the bible is the word of god (bible believers) and those who dont believe the bible is the word of god (bible nonbelievers) differ in their beliefs that humans evolved from earlier species of animals.

CalebInFloroda

In support of what DJS is stating...

The study above and others like it show a correlation between Christian Fundamentalism and a lower intellectual quotient as demonstrated in rejection of accepted scientific paradigms.

A "Bible-believer" is generally limited to this type of Christian because their doctrine is limited to a literal reading of Scripture to the exclusion of outside sources. This expression sometimes gets confused with others who read or also use Scripture, but it is limited to these others.

The priest who first proposed the Big Bang comes from a religious tradition that not only discovered the expansion theory but accepts evolution and critical Biblical analysis. Catholics not only believe in Scripture but also a rich Tradition that actually shaped the New Testament while it was being composed and canonized.

Judaism is similar. The religion of my people also came first before the Scriptures were composed and set as we now have them. This means they do not get read at face value as they also do not do in Catholicism. The Scriptures were never intended to be used outside of the liturgical and cultural world in which they were composed.

"Bible-believing" Christians refer to members of Christianity that reject Apostolic Tradition and Jewish theology in exchange for a face-value reading and literal interpretation of Scripture. This formula requires an individual to ignore the historical development of Scripture and the intentions with which these texts came with. A life of confirmation bias is all you can entertain to do this successfully.

Both the question raised by the OP and the comments made by DJS cannot be confused with a declaration that use of Scripture in itself limits the use of intellect. What is being said is that there exist religious approaches, Bible-only groups, which fit a pattern of denial that seems necessary in order to hold on to a theology that itself is far from being intellectually honest or satisfying.

35

Where did Jesus get the Idea of an After-life in Heaven?

by John Aquila in

the ancient jews did not believe in an after-life as far as i can tell, correct me if i'm wrong.

the watchtower says yes.

they say all the prophets believed in a paradise earth..

CalebInFloroda

@John Aquila

Check the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) sections 1042-1050 entitled "The Hope of the New Heavens and a New Earth." Some of the more interesting parts of this text reads:

"Revelation affirms the profound common destiny of the material world and man...

The visible universe, then, is itself destined to be transformed, "so that the world itself, restored to its original state, facing no further obstacles, should be at the service of the just," sharing their glorification in the risen Jesus Christ.

We know neither the moment of the consummation of the earth and of man, nor the way in which the universe will be transformed. The form of this world, distorted by sin, is passing away, and we are taught that God is preparing a new dwelling and a new earth in which righteousness dwells, in which happiness will fill and surpass all the desires of peace arising in the hearts of men.

Far from diminishing our concern to develop this earth, the expectancy of a new earth should spur us on, for it is here that the body of a new human family grows, foreshadowing in some way the age which is to come."

Likely you might recall that the Apostles Creed ends with the words: "I believe...in the resurrection of the body and life everlasting." And the Nicene Creed makes a literal mention of Olam Ha Ba at the end stating belief in "life of the world to come." Catholics believe that at the end of time the resurrection will occur of both the righteous and the unrighteousness. Since the Greek term for resurrection means to "physically" stand, the Catholic teaching is that the bodies of all will be raised to join with their souls whether these were in Heaven or Hell (Purgatory is emptied at this time). The bodies become supernatural as was Christ's who was able to ascend to heaven with his, and the resurrected unrighteousness will return to Hell to suffer in body and soul, but the righteous will enter into the re-creation. (Hell in Catholicism is not a burning pit of fire, but eternal separation from G-d and anything that reflects G-d's qualities.)

I have always found it striking how many Catholics are unaware of what the Catechism teaches or that the blessings of Heaven and taught to be brought to earth after the re-creation. It should also be noted that this belief in a restored paradise earth home for humankind is about 2000 years older than that of the JWs who often believe that this teaching is unique to them.

35

Where did Jesus get the Idea of an After-life in Heaven?

by John Aquila in

the ancient jews did not believe in an after-life as far as i can tell, correct me if i'm wrong.

the watchtower says yes.

they say all the prophets believed in a paradise earth..

CalebInFloroda

@Crazyguy

Not a problem. I can see how it can read that way.

The OP asked where Jesus got his teachings, and I was merely stating that all the concepts were already fully developed part of the Jewish eschatology that Jesus was exposed to from childhood onward during the Second Temple era.

Judaism, unlike Christianity, believes that truth can sometimes be found among the Gentiles. So it is not odd to find adaptations of foreign concepts in its theology. Where these reflected an accepted truth they have been used from the time of Abraham up till today.

35

Where did Jesus get the Idea of an After-life in Heaven?

by John Aquila in

the ancient jews did not believe in an after-life as far as i can tell, correct me if i'm wrong.

the watchtower says yes.

they say all the prophets believed in a paradise earth..

CalebInFloroda

Ding,

Jews don't read those Scriptures in Job that way.

The NJPS version of the Tanakh renders these verses as:

But I know that my Vindicator lives;
In the end He will testify on earth—

This, after my skin will have been peeled off.
But I would behold God while still in my flesh,

I myself, not another, would behold Him;
Would see with my own eyes:
My heart pines within me.

This Hebrew text is ambiguous (at least the way we read it) and any reference to a resurrection just as much so from this.

35

DOES BELIEF IN THE BIBLE DESTROY ONE'S INTELLECTUAL CAPACITY?

by TerryWalstrom in

based on information to be found at: http://www.csicop.org/si/show/when_dont_the_highly_educated_believe_in_evolution_the_bible_believers_effe/.

the bible-believers effect.

those who believe the bible is the word of god (bible believers) and those who dont believe the bible is the word of god (bible nonbelievers) differ in their beliefs that humans evolved from earlier species of animals.

CalebInFloroda

I don't believe such studies are without merit, but they are not universally applicable.

The Big Bang theory was developed by a Catholic priest, Msgr. Georges Lemaitre. I have an IQ that allows me to carry a Mensa card, and I'm a religious Jew and a scientist. Belief in Scripture has not altered our minds for the worse.

What the problem is has little to do with Scripture. It has to do with religious ideologies that promote ambiguity intolerance and the compartmentalization of life into polarized opposing issues. This type of simplification logic is not unique to theists or Bible readers either. It also occurs in Eastern thought like the religion of Imperial Japanese during WWII, and currently ISIL. Bible use and belief in Scripture has not been inarguably shown to lower or suppress intelligence, nor is its use necessary for people to act stupid.

35

Where did Jesus get the Idea of an After-life in Heaven?

by John Aquila in

the ancient jews did not believe in an after-life as far as i can tell, correct me if i'm wrong.

the watchtower says yes.

they say all the prophets believed in a paradise earth..

CalebInFloroda

Crazyguy,

Can you point out where I said that the Jews invented their beliefs? I don't remember saying that the eschatological concepts of my people were unique or exclusive to the Jews.

35

Where did Jesus get the Idea of an After-life in Heaven?

by John Aquila in

the ancient jews did not believe in an after-life as far as i can tell, correct me if i'm wrong.

the watchtower says yes.

they say all the prophets believed in a paradise earth..

CalebInFloroda

Jesus' teaching on "heaven" is merely an interpretation of Judaism's belief in what we call "the world to come" or Olam HaBa.

Since Judaism is not concerned with or even has a doctrine of personal salvation, the details of Olam Ha Ba have never been entirely definite or fully formed. There is some question as to how developed it was in earliest Judaism, but as pointed out on this thread (and as rabbis agree) the Hebrew Scriptures show some indication of shades of belief in an afterlife from early on. The simple Bible phraseology that upon dying individuals are "gathered to their people" is interpreted by some Jews to mean that they went to live on another plain with the ancestors who passed before them.

Through the centuries Jews have discussed whether Olam Ha Ba has any connection to or is some description of heaven as the afterlife. Again there is no definitive theology on this, but it has been viewed as a possibility, definitely by the Second Temple era.

Jesus took all of his eschatology from Judaism. Gehenna, heaven and even purgatory are Jewish concepts, and Jesus just built upon these which in turn got built upon by the apostles and later the Church Fathers. Since Christianity is based upon personal salvation, heaven as a reward became central to its creed.

However it should be added that Catholicism does not see heavenly life as permanent. Their official eschatology is that the physical universe will be renewed at the end of history, introducing the "new heavens and new earth" in which the righteous will dwell. In this the Catholic concept is almost identical with Olam Ha Ba, including even life upon a restored paradise earth.

63

How dishonest was the Apostle Paul?

by opusdei1972 in

may be some of you will be shocked by this question.

however, when i was studying the bible with critical eyes i detected that paul ( or saul of tarsus) misquoted the hebrew bible in order to get false support for his arguments.

of course, this tricky kind of use of the "scriptures" was not only used by him, but others, like the author of the gospel of matthew got unsupported doctrines misquoting verses.

CalebInFloroda

Opusdei,

We agree on this. And yes, I have read documents where the Church considers the Holocaust and the Jews' return to Israel and recapturing Jerusalem in 1967 as reasons for changing their views.

But like you, 2000 years of atrocities can't be unwritten, and I too can't ignore this in my own response toward Christianity.

63

How dishonest was the Apostle Paul?

by opusdei1972 in

may be some of you will be shocked by this question.

however, when i was studying the bible with critical eyes i detected that paul ( or saul of tarsus) misquoted the hebrew bible in order to get false support for his arguments.

of course, this tricky kind of use of the "scriptures" was not only used by him, but others, like the author of the gospel of matthew got unsupported doctrines misquoting verses.

CalebInFloroda

Opusdei,

Yeah, I have to agree with most of what you say. And it is obvious we are speaking about many similar things but from different perspectives.

No one has to tell me how the literal interpretation of the New Testament creates less than favorable paradigms. I almost weekly hear from people who tell me how I am doomed to hell because I'm Jewish, and it's almost 2000 years since these texts have been written. I am no fan of the NT.

Still it is not a constant. Many Christians fully believe that the New Testament is the inspired word of God, and these very same people are not anti-Semitic in their application. The fact that book causes controversies does not prove the book is at fault. Tom Sawyer, Catch-22, Slaughterhouse-Five are books that cause controversies, but is it the fault of the books?

Granted, the NT contains some strong language against non-Christians, but because it has never been a constant among Christians to act a certain way despite these texts is proof that the texts are not the fault. Christians have come to the aid of Jews during pogroms, crusades, the Inquisition, and the Holocaust despite what the texts say. The NT would have to make every single Christian of every era into the same kind of animal if things were as black and white as the JWs suggest.

I still have to side with ambiguity intolerance (the inability to accept anything that cannot be definitively categorized as totally good or totally bad) as the cause of the problem. The New Jerusalem Bible and NABRE provide a context to the verses you discuss that neither ignores the texts nor accepts the JW view in their footnote apparatus. And the information is not totally new either. It doesn't excuse the ambiguity intolerance of the JWs or Catholics of the past, but it does show that people can believe a text from G-d that can be flawed and still not automatically perform in a drastic way. Many Bible- believing Christians are good people.

I have every reason to hate the New Testament text, but I don't. I don't believe it to be the inspired word of G-d, but I don't go to the other extreme to declare it is therefore evil. Like you I believe there is good and bad in it. Part of the problems created in history do come from the text, and some come from the mere interpretation, and perhaps a combination of the two are to blame. What I am saying is that we need to avoid seeing the problem in the simplistic, ambiguity intolerant eyes of the Watchtower. The problems are more complex than to simply blame written words, even if they do inspire hate in some who read them.

If the words were to blame then everyone could not help but to react the same way upon reading them, including you and me. But how we respond to them is clearly a free choice. The same is true for Christians.

63

How dishonest was the Apostle Paul?

by opusdei1972 in

may be some of you will be shocked by this question.

however, when i was studying the bible with critical eyes i detected that paul ( or saul of tarsus) misquoted the hebrew bible in order to get false support for his arguments.

of course, this tricky kind of use of the "scriptures" was not only used by him, but others, like the author of the gospel of matthew got unsupported doctrines misquoting verses.

CalebInFloroda

Yes, but that is not the current state of the world or reality. And those words of Scripture are not accepted the way you mention by the majority of Christians today. It is the Watchtower religion that tells people that ancient black and white standards still rule.

Catholicism for instance currently rejects the view that truth cannot be found outside the Church. It now officially acknowledges Judaism as the "older brethren" religion to their own faith. Several official pronouncements from Nostre Aetate from Vatican II to the very recent study issued by the Pontifical Biblical Commission, "The Jewish People and their Scriptures in the Christian Bible" are quite clear that Catholics no longer believe that the Jews are rejected by G-d due to their rejection of Christ, that the covenants are still in effect between the Jews and G-d, and their call from and relationship with G-d is irrevocable despite the Church's view of Jesus as Messiah and Judaism's rejection of this concept.

Now this is just one denomination of Christianity, I will grant you that. But they hold the same Scriptural texts the Witnesses do, the same you mention above, and they come up with a totally different conclusion. They do not see things as so black and white as the JWs despite these texts also being considered as inspired and binding by Catholics.

Therefore it cannot be the New Testament texts that cause such polarization, otherwise Catholicism and the Protestant movements that have adopted similar views would be in total agreement with the Watchtower religion.

I have to disagree and say that it is the JWs theological insistence on ambiguity intolerance that causes one to read the text as if it is applicable in only one manner.