Posts by CalebInFloroda

24

Why I believe in God. Why I don't believe in God.

by The Rebel in

jw
friends

hi i am delighted to be apart of the community.. having left the witnesses one of my first challenges was my believe in god.

naturally.. i have concluded that i am alive and conscious.

now my intuition tells me god exists, but my analytical thinking tells me god does not exist.

CalebInFloroda

Post script: these points are not meant to be ascribed to anyone I've come in contact with on this thread or site, by the way. I have been speaking of previous encounters I've had over the years.

24

Why I believe in God. Why I don't believe in God.

by The Rebel in

jw
friends

hi i am delighted to be apart of the community.. having left the witnesses one of my first challenges was my believe in god.

naturally.. i have concluded that i am alive and conscious.

now my intuition tells me god exists, but my analytical thinking tells me god does not exist.

CalebInFloroda

But I never said that just because a theist acted rationally that everything they do, including their belief in G-d is rational.

Obviously you do not really read what I write. I don't consider Christianity as a rational conclusion. I don't even consider belief or faith in G-d as relevant!

What I was writing was the some people, theists and atheists both, are often so two-dimensional that they believe things can only be one way or another. The comment on the priest who formulated the expansion model was contrasted with the claim that atheists can't have an interest in transcendent things like meditation or yoga.

The point, which is apparently lost on some, is that being an atheist or a theist doesn't mean you are entirely rational or irrational, totally spiritual or unspiritual.

But I assume that is asking too much for some people. Some religious people still believe that if you are an atheist then you must be judged adversely and some atheists obviously believe the same about theists.

This is called "ambiguity intolerance" and it is an earmark of JW behavior. People are a combination of things, not just one thing or another. I am a scientist and definitely know that life came about through evolution, I wrote above that I don't believe I intuition, and I am a practicing Jew. I also don't see any value in "belief" in G-d but I am neither atheist or agnostic. Apparently some in the Western world either won't grasp this, cannot, and just want to hate anything connected to G-d.

26

Was this the garden of Eden/Noah's flood?

by little_Socrates in

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101208151609.htm.

jeffrey rose, an archaeologist and researcher with the university of birmingham in the u.k., says that the area in and around this "persian gulf oasis" may have been host to humans for over 100,000 years before it was swallowed up by the indian ocean around 8,000 years ago.

rose's hypothesis introduces a "new and substantial cast of characters" to the human history of the near east, and suggests that humans may have established permanent settlements in the region thousands of years before current migration models suppose.. .

CalebInFloroda

Here's an illustration to help explain what I am getting at.

Jehovah's Witnesses and people who come from this religion will tend to always see certain things based on what they have been taught from this group--unless they work to unroot them, which is possible.

But when that doesn't happen, our conclusions can sometimes (but not always) be off or incorrect (at least to a degree) because we are not always starting from an entirely objective place.

The "let-them-eat-cake" legend is a good example of what can happen. As the story goes, the poor French mothers begged Marie Antoinette: "Help us for we have no bread to feed our little ones." Marie reportedly answered: "Well then, let them eat cake." The people were insulted by Antoinette's response.

But in reality the two sides were blinded by their own limited point of view, and this caused all communication between both sides to fail. The poor didn't realize that Marie could not envision a situation where people did not have either bread or cake to eat. She was not exposed to this reality and therefore did not know it existed. So when the women told her that they had no "bread" to offer their children, thinking that it was helpful advice because both foods are similar, Marie suggested that they use "cake" as a substitute.

English is read left-to-right but Hebrew is read right-to-left.

Christian men take their hats off to pray, but Jewish men cover their heads to pray.

Christians say "amen" to their prayers, but Jews never say "amen" to their prayers.

The list can go on and on, but the main point is that people often think two-dimensionally, that for example since it would be problematic for Christians to realize that Jewish culture and religion has ties to the cultures and religions around them that such would have to be a problem for Jews.

But Jews know where their customs come from. Abraham, for example, is believed to have celebrated a "Passover-like" holiday every year that he learned from the heathen people he came from. The ancient Hebrews, it is said, kept this tradition even through their slavery years in Egypt. It just so happened that the days of their liberation came on or around the date of this tradition, so it was adapted to take on new meanings based on the Exodus itself.

Because such a view is problematic for the type of faith or theology of groups like the JWs, you never learn this and think such a point would be a "revelation" to Jewish people. But it isn't. It only supports what Jews have already known about their customs and history.

Not learning to think outside of the box you've been living in can sometimes cause you to come to wrong conclusions.

26

Was this the garden of Eden/Noah's flood?

by little_Socrates in

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101208151609.htm.

jeffrey rose, an archaeologist and researcher with the university of birmingham in the u.k., says that the area in and around this "persian gulf oasis" may have been host to humans for over 100,000 years before it was swallowed up by the indian ocean around 8,000 years ago.

rose's hypothesis introduces a "new and substantial cast of characters" to the human history of the near east, and suggests that humans may have established permanent settlements in the region thousands of years before current migration models suppose.. .

CalebInFloroda

@Crazyguy

But I never said that the Jews were not a product of the cultures around them. On the contrary, I repeatedly stated that they borrowed from cultures around them (such as the cosmic models for the creation stories). The fact that the Jews borrowed a lot if not all they did from cultures around them doesn't change anything.

You might think this is important due to claims made by Christians or JWs that these things all have to come directly from G-d. That is not a Jewish thought. Christians make the Hebrew Bible look bad by making you think that such a point as you brought up is important, but it isn't...at least not for Jews.

24

Why I believe in God. Why I don't believe in God.

by The Rebel in

jw
friends

hi i am delighted to be apart of the community.. having left the witnesses one of my first challenges was my believe in god.

naturally.. i have concluded that i am alive and conscious.

now my intuition tells me god exists, but my analytical thinking tells me god does not exist.

CalebInFloroda

@StrongHaiku

You actually just reiterated the points I was making.

As you note the entire comment ends in saying that I personally don't take an "either/or" view on the issue. It is a combination of various factors that has to be considered. Things aren't as "black and white" as some would like them to be. I was neither saying that a theist could be correct in everything because they developed a scientific theory or that an atheist was totally void of spirituality because they rejected belief in a deity.

My comments were not meant to suggest that theism was an intellectual choice that can be proven either. On the contrary, as a Jew I don't hold to a "belief"-in-G-d dynamic in my life and I recognize atheism and agnosticism as intellectual choices.

What I was saying is that the entire "belief/disbelief" paradigm regarding the G-d concept is of little to no importance to Judaism. It is a Christian/Western development. Arguments from this culture between theists and atheists often have nothing to do with "G-d" as understood by Jews.

26

Was this the garden of Eden/Noah's flood?

by little_Socrates in

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101208151609.htm.

jeffrey rose, an archaeologist and researcher with the university of birmingham in the u.k., says that the area in and around this "persian gulf oasis" may have been host to humans for over 100,000 years before it was swallowed up by the indian ocean around 8,000 years ago.

rose's hypothesis introduces a "new and substantial cast of characters" to the human history of the near east, and suggests that humans may have established permanent settlements in the region thousands of years before current migration models suppose.. .

CalebInFloroda

@ StrongHaiku

We are not talking stumbling across an ancient document that was hidden in the earth for thousands of years. The Hebrew Bible was not suddenly discovered by the Jews, nor did they come across this text and say: “Hey, let’s build a religion based on what is written here.” This is very different. The Hebrew Bible was composed by a living and functioning religion and its adherents by a culture that is very much still alive.

The problem lies in that some believe what they were taught either by their exposure to the Watchtower or Christianity in general and then judging the text and the Jews by the incorrect information they were taught.

For Jehovah’s Witnesses and many fundamentalist Christians, the Hebrew Scriptures are something to base a religion and doctrines upon. But the Hebrew Bible was written by a culture that already had a religion and doctrines. The Hebrew Scriptures are a reflection of already developed doctrines and religious beliefs. Christians and JWs use the Scriptures to base their religion on, claiming that it is to be used as the basis for religion. But the text was used by people who claimed their religion was revealed prior to their composition of the Scriptures. For the Jews the Scriptures are not supposed to be used to base a religion or doctrines upon. For the Jews the Hebrew Scriptures are based upon their already existing religion.

Jehovah’s Witnesses judge doctrines based on what Scripture says.
Jews interpret Scripture by what their religion says.
Jehovah’s Witnesses have a religion that claims to be based on a book.
Jews wrote a book based on their religion.

If you reject Scripture on the basis that its stories can’t be used to base a religion on, then you are rejecting Scripture based on a misuse. It was never designed to act as the foundation for a religion. It was designed to explain how Jews saw themselves in relation to the world.

Some of the stories, from the Jewish point of view, were intentionally meant to have fictional characteristics. Others are understood only in the light of the living tradition from which the stories flowed. Other parts of the text were taken from the liturgy of the Temple.

The Hebrew Scriptures are not intended to function independent of the culture or the religion that developed them any more than the religious texts of Buddhism, Hinduism or the Book of Mormon are meant to be used independently of the religions that fostered them. Would it be logical to judge a book designed to be used by and understood by Buddhist monks negatively because it wasn’t good for creating a religion that was different from and contrary to Buddhism? Of course not! Then why are we judging the Hebrew Scriptures by standards set by Gentile Christians?

The illustration of finding a piece of current fiction thousands of years from now doesn’t apply here because we are not talking about a text that started a religion. We are talking about a culture that started a book based on their already living and breathing religion. That is very different.

24

Why I believe in God. Why I don't believe in God.

by The Rebel in

jw
friends

hi i am delighted to be apart of the community.. having left the witnesses one of my first challenges was my believe in god.

naturally.. i have concluded that i am alive and conscious.

now my intuition tells me god exists, but my analytical thinking tells me god does not exist.

CalebInFloroda

a) Now we have left the Witness community, and are hop[e]fully developing critical thinking skills, how has this effected your beliefs in God?

Mentally and/or emotionally acknowledging the existence of G-d is neither logical nor efficacious. If G-d exists then it stands to reason that more of a response than mere acknowledgment that there is a G-d is called for.

An orphan doesn’t benefit much from acknowledging they have parents they have never met. The orphan can “believe” in the existence of their parents and have “faith” they are out there, but this does little to change the status of an orphan. What would actually matter is if the orphan did something about the possibility of their parents still be out there and able to be contacted. An orphan who goes out and finds their parents changes their status from being an orphan. But if upon locating where their parents can be found, the orphan desires not to meeting them but merely have faith in their existence then nothing has changed.

To disbelieve in G-d is pretty much the same thing. It means nothing to disbelieve in that which doesn’t exist. I don’t believe in the boogey man, but that is easy to say and do because there is no such thing as “the boogey man.” Saying that you don’t believe in a G-d that you also believe is fiction is like saying you don’t believe that Scarlett O’Hara was ever a real person. Scarlett O’Hara was never, ever a real person, so it does little to claim a disbelief in someone that was never ever there to believe in to begin with.

What rarely if ever gets discussed is disbelieving in a G-d one knows is there. What also gets talked about rarely is how one can disbelieve in something that doesn’t exist since it has to exist on some level in order to be rejected. And there’s also the subject of why “belief” in things or the lack of “belief” has any bearing on their existence.

That being said…

b) Do you think it wrong to dismiss intuition over analytical thinking?

I cannot see the value of my intuition as it was my “gut feelings” that got my caught up with the Jehovah’s Witnesses in the first place. I was one of those who claimed to have found a “ring of truth” in their teachings—and it does seem to have that if you don’t know any better. I was just a teenager at the time, anyway.

But I also know that you can’t go through life being analytical about everything. I can attest to the truth behind the illustration of the lover who demands proof of your love for them. When they ask “do you love me?” you won’t get far in proving to them that you do if you only offer analytical evidence. A scientific report offered to your sweetheart won’t get you that romantic evening you were hoping for in such a situation.

The whole G-d concept is like that. It isn’t about being scientific. But one cannot approach it honestly without using reason and critical thinking. It’s a holistic sort of thing.

I think Christianity and the Western world and society that came from it has convinced too many people that the G-d concept is an “either/or” scenario. You “either” believe in G-d and leave behind all reason “or” you dismiss G-d because when you accept reason and likewise dismiss everything else it means to be human, like using intuition.

Sorry, but my “either/or” days of living a life of ambiguity intolerance and compartmentalization are over. That is the JW way of doing things.

Life has to be accepted and lived and embraced on its own terms. That means you can’t let preconceived ideas interfere with your “tasting things for yourself.”

Accepting G-d does not mean rejecting analytical thinking. Just ask the Roman Catholic priest that developed and introduced the big bang theory, Georges Lemaître. Do you know how many atheists I’ve spoken to who have no idea that a theist developed this now widely embraced theory?

And rejecting G-d does not mean that one rejects spirituality or the transcendent. Many non-theists employ various approaches to life which can be described as spiritual. Some religions like Buddhism and Judaism even allow for adherents to be atheist. The idea that atheists somehow stop being as human as the rest of society or give up culture or ritual is totally absurd.

It’s all about balance.

26

Was this the garden of Eden/Noah's flood?

by little_Socrates in

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101208151609.htm.

jeffrey rose, an archaeologist and researcher with the university of birmingham in the u.k., says that the area in and around this "persian gulf oasis" may have been host to humans for over 100,000 years before it was swallowed up by the indian ocean around 8,000 years ago.

rose's hypothesis introduces a "new and substantial cast of characters" to the human history of the near east, and suggests that humans may have established permanent settlements in the region thousands of years before current migration models suppose.. .

CalebInFloroda

@Vidiot

Actaully that question was rhetorical to show that there is no logic in claiming that the Noachin flood is supposed to be read as historically accurate.

The point I was making is that "creation-flood" stories are one of two types of ancient cosmogony models that were considered integral to the legendary origin stories of almost all Mesopotamian societies. You couldn't tell a "history" story without setting it in at least one of these narrative backdrops.

The Jews chose both the model that states that life came directly from the cosmic ocean to form the earth as we experience it and the other that claimed that human and animal life had a pre-existence before a catastrophic flood that wiped away the previous world but planted the survivors of that flood as the foundation of this current one.

Being without a collegiate background, the Governing Body is quite ignorant of how ancient cosmogony played into Scripture and how this changes the meaning therein.

26

Was this the garden of Eden/Noah's flood?

by little_Socrates in

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101208151609.htm.

jeffrey rose, an archaeologist and researcher with the university of birmingham in the u.k., says that the area in and around this "persian gulf oasis" may have been host to humans for over 100,000 years before it was swallowed up by the indian ocean around 8,000 years ago.

rose's hypothesis introduces a "new and substantial cast of characters" to the human history of the near east, and suggests that humans may have established permanent settlements in the region thousands of years before current migration models suppose.. .

CalebInFloroda

@Half Banana

Pretty much thumbs up with much you have to say.

I do want to point out to those who read my comments that I am using a different meaning to the word "mythology" than commonly used in the vernacular. Most people use it to refer to a false story but in philology it refers to a creation-origins story.

Longfellow's famous poem, "Paul Revere's Ride" (a.k.a. The Midnight Ride of Paul Revere) is also this type of "mythology," as it tells of the origins of freedom in the American Revolution. In this sense the stories of Genesis chapter 1-11 are "mythology" in the sense that, despite the settings to most of them, they are stories with a purpose to serve as the Torah's own backdrop, preparing the reader for the stories of Abraham and those that follow. They have genuine Jewish roots that are based on traditions handed down by generations through Hebrew society despite employing techniques not original or exclusive to Semiites.

The traditions that formed the basis of these type of written accounts have some basis in either a historical reality of some sort of historical-cultural need, and theoretically they could in some instances have a basis in real occurrences like those surrounding Paul Revere. But, especially in reference to the Hebrew Bible the stories have been transformed into tales explaining the origins of life and the universe from the standpoint of Jewish religion. However well set in genuine history or not, the stories have been transformed into the present mythology genre and must be approached as such, not the stories which inspired them.

While this is not mean to counter the stand of those who believe that nothing in the Hebrew Tanakh could possibly be true, it is meant to explain that such an argument is irrelevant as the stories, false or true in origin, have been transformed into mythology for a purpose transcending the transmission of history itself. "Mythology" in this sense is a reflection on reality, explaining it in various ways such as poetry and song, in ways that only the genre itself can transmit ideals and cherished views of a culture.

33

Why did Jesus have to die?

by Crazyguy in

let's think about this for a bit.

adam was tempted and sinned by eating of the fruit.

he missed out on immortality by being denied the tree of life.

CalebInFloroda

The idea of a personal Messiah that comes to redeem humanity NEVER occurs in the Hebrew Scriptures in that you never, ever read things like "the Messiah will do such and such" or "the Messiah is expected to fulfill this or that prophecy." There IS however talk of a future age in which peace and prosperity come to all, but the words "Messianic age" or mention of people being "ruled by the Messiah" don't appear.

It was the Christians who began interpreting the Hebrew Scriptures this way as they began to claim that such and such verse applied to Jesus of Nazareth. Their claim is that Jesus was a figure foretold in the Hebrew Tanakh but in ways hidden from the Jews, ways that can only be unlocked by joining the "one true religion" governed by a body of elders who lived in Jerusalem but condemned the unbelieving Jewish world around them. When Jesus unexpectedly died the death of a criminal excommunicated from Judaism, his followers merely applied texts from the Hebrew Bible to support the events (again "hidden" in the Scriptures and requiring the special insight of those anointed ones in Jerusalem to comprehend). Jesus didn't have to die anymore than the Messiah was expected to. It just happened he was killed as a criminal, and those who believed in him wouldn't let go of their beliefs. They would next force the Hebrew Bible to serve their needs.

The term "messiah" in Hebrew means one who has been appointed to an office of oversight, like a priest or an official, employing the ritual of anointing the subject with oil before witnesses as a "swearing in" type of ceremony. It does not refer to a redeemer or someone who saves anymore than someone who is called "sworn in" means they will save others.

You will also note that Christians have to rely on their own translations of the Hebrew texts to ensure that their prophecies about Jesus fit their Messiah. A simple comparison of these "proof texts" about Jesus in something like the NJPS Tanakh will show that like the JWs, most Christians cannot make their religion work unless they rely on a translation that takes many liberties with the actual text.