Posts by CalebInFloroda

33

Why isn't demon possession a DF offense?

by rebel8 in

jw
friends

let's review: it's a cult!.

allrighty--got thinking about it in this thread.

isn't it odd that, of all things, that isn't on the list of df offenses?

CalebInFloroda

John,

My studies did include a brief visit to two separate homes undergoing the research stage for "strange" phenomena, one a family home with a so-called poltergeist and another with a so-called ghost.

I use the expression "so-called" because most people automatically think of spirits of the dead or a belief in the occult or demons, and I am only speaking of witnessing phenomenon under investigation.

I can say from experience that whatever such phenomenon consists of, it is unsettling to say the least. The home of the poltergeist involved having heavy billiard balls from a pool table tossed at us, a collection of records from a hall closet tossed out of a,closed closet and smashed against the wall, hanging light fixtures sent in a swinging frenzy, and window blinds slowly open and shut. The events took place over a period of two hours.

The other home consisted of landline phones being removed from their hook (for those who remember those old phones) and televisions being constantly switched when you left the room to a channel with nothing but static (again before digital TV). That was a four-week visit that also consisted of an apparition sighting that, I swear, looked like a flesh and blood teenage male, around 14, who wore a white button-down shirt, dark slacks, tennis shoes, and walked across a dining room entering from one wall and walking out through another at around 10:15 am one Sunday morning. The sun from the windows even shone on the figure like it did on any other person.

I don't think I was scared as much as amazed and very curious. I remember doing the oddest thing afterwards, touching the wall he walked out of the room through to just make sure it was solid.

I was creeped out at the first house but more disturbed by the home owners of the second home who viewed their "ghost" as nothing but mere fun. An exorcism was suggested by myself and a Catholic priest after the investigation, but the family decided it was unnecessary. I am not sure why they reported it to Catholic channels in the first place as that was their attitude.

But neither experience led to me believing in ghosts or spirits of the dead. So just because you experience "things that go bump in the night" doesn't mean that you have to accept fairy tales. Ghosts have been reported since the dawn of recorded history by all cultures. Just because something startles you or looks amazing doesn't mean that the world will end by being trampled by the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.

Some scientists theorize that there are various dimensions to each reality. Maybe they cross. Since we can record audio and video by merely reorganizing iron oxide, perhaps something like this happens in nature that record scenes from the past that just play back as "ghosts."

But if our convictions are such that they could change like the swinging of a door with every unexpected breeze, then maybe our convictions are not as firm or solid as we believe. Seeing an apparition doesn't mean you've seen the ghost of a dead person or that Catholic exorcism is real. It just means you've seen an apparition.

33

Why isn't demon possession a DF offense?

by rebel8 in

jw
friends

let's review: it's a cult!.

allrighty--got thinking about it in this thread.

isn't it odd that, of all things, that isn't on the list of df offenses?

CalebInFloroda

Before someone asks, my reply was mainly tongue-in-cheek as I think the whole concept and hypothetical situation a bit silly.

Many Jews don't believe in devils and possession, and I don't think that disfellowshipping would be the first course for JWs to pursue should one of their members suddenly levitate in the middle of the weekly Watchtower study.

But on the slim chance that such things could present a clear danger, why people are interested in it is a bit illogical to me. I find radiation interesting but I am not exposing myself to it. Seeing adults parade around in black clothing using Em meters and filming things with special cameras in dark rooms is idiotic.

And if there is such a thing as demon possession, why the hell would anyone want to take chances? Totally silly either way,

33

Why isn't demon possession a DF offense?

by rebel8 in

jw
friends

let's review: it's a cult!.

allrighty--got thinking about it in this thread.

isn't it odd that, of all things, that isn't on the list of df offenses?

CalebInFloroda

Demon-possession is in the realm of Catholic practice. Despite the media's obsession with it, so-called "genuine" events are extremely rare in Church history. The most famous modern case (which inspired the book and film "The Exorcist") occurred more than half a century ago, in the 1940s in the United States. In my formal religious studies, it is the last major case with any recognition by the Church.

If such a thing were truly possible and such a demon-possession occurred among the Witnesses, it would cause the end of the JW religion. The reason? It would take a miracle to stop the event, and the miracle would be performed at the hands of Catholics.

Theologians are divided as to exactly why, but so-called genuine cases of demon interference seem to only get solved by Catholic exorcism. Yes, I know what you are thinking...here's a Jewish philologist stating that demons are real and only Catholics can control them, but that is not what I mean.

Reporting on what is known is that the very few supposedly genuine cases have only been successfully handled by the Catholic rite administered by proper ecclesial authority. You can believe it as a ruse invented by the Catholic Church or a lie or foolishness, but it is how things seem to work. I had to study such things in my academic studies, even investigate a haunted house as part of Demonology 101. I have no explanation for some things.

Like the case in the 1940s which began in a Lutheran household, when a case gets too hard to handle, regardless of the convictions of the "victim," in the end you call Rome. It happens among Protestants, the Orthodox, Jews, and even agnostics and a few cases I know that have involved non-religious folks: got bad juju, don't mess with it. Call a priest.

Again, in case I get misunderstood, I am not saying that such things as demons are real. I am reporting what happens in the real world with hauntings, reports of spirits, etc. that defy solution and seem to endanger people. The Catholic Church has psychologists, researchers, and of course trained priests to investigate things such as this, and frankly they are the only ones who seem at ready to deal with the unknown cases which don't fit common explanation.

If ever someone among the JWs got possessed, and I mean in ways that defied enough doctors and scientists that people started calling the local Catholic bishop, that would change a lot of minds really quick. The Church will not lightly accept any case either. If they get involved it is because explanations have failed and real physical danger exists.

If the exorcism is successful, then what? Disfellowship the person for being miraculously saved by events that disprove JW theology? Deny that something happened through the hands of a Catholic priest? Continue as a JW despite everything you saw with your own eyes?

For Catholics to determine actual possession that requires the rite of exorcism is more vigorous than a two witness rule, however. They employ scientific and medical methods to ensure that no other explanation exists before the rite is performed. Psychologists and other medical professionals weigh heavily in the investigation process.

As for myself, despite my personal convictions as a Jew, if ever these became defied by phenomenon of a nature that could not be explained and seemed like I was being attacked by devils, I wouldn't bother calling my neighborhood JW, the Pentecostals that live next door, or even my rabbi. If I started cursing G-d in Latin and spinning my head around, call a Catholic priest. Damn whatever I believe.

13

Does Jehovah control the weather? (Pharaoh's dream - 7 years of famine)

by truthseeker in

jw
friends

according to the scriptures, jehovah makes his sun rise upon wicked people and good and makes it rain upon righteous people and unrighteous.

- matthew 5:45. in that case, if we look at the account in genesis, god is shown to give pharaoh a dream that he will cause seven years of famine.. genesis 41: pharaohs dreams.

25 then joseph said to pharaoh, the dreams of pharaoh are one and the same.

CalebInFloroda

Actually, it is according to Jewish custom not that G-d gives birth to every drop of rain of the weather, but that only G-d can control it (i.e., stop a rain storm, direct wind, etc.).

The JWs work from the odd premise that Jewish views come from written Scriptures, but in reality it is the opposite: Hebrew custom came to be reflected in Scripture, influencing what was written.

Thus G-d is not responsible for the famine of Genesis lore, but does bring in a "control" of sorts via Joseph. This is what is known in Biblical academia as a "narrative device," the introduction of a character or situation or even reconstruction of something historical to fit a preconceived idea which in this case is that the G-d of Abraham controls all.

But the statement of Jesus at Matthew 5.45 doesn't mean that G-d was believed to control the literal diffusion of sunlight by the Hebrews, deciding to transfer it to people based on moral quality or to forgo such a judgment in mercy. Instead Jesus was employing a clever form of Jewish rhetoric that the apostle Paul also used in Romans 1& 2: a setup based on a preconceived idea that judges a person by means of their convictions. In other words Jesus was saying: "God doesn't withhold life-sustaining sunlight, rain, etc. from anyone regardless if they are so-called righteous or unrighteous. My followers must reflect this quality in their dealings with others." It was not a discussion on weather.

Footnote: it is due to this Jewish belief that only G-d can control weather that the early Christians came to believe that Jesus had to be an incarnation of YHWH. The events of Matthew 8:23-27 are considered one of the various Epiphanies in Trinitarian theology.

75

Lurker trying to gain clarity

by questioningmyfaith in

jw
friends

hello all, i would like to first say that i am basically questioning my faith in god.

i am not negative towards the wt at all.

so honestly i am to concerned with more ad hominem attacks towards the wt because i still love the organization and the people in it.

CalebInFloroda

While I can only speak for myself, I must begin by saying that I was exactly where you were some 20 or so years ago when I left.

But the choices we make after we leave the Watchtower won't be intellectually honest if we don't realize the one thing you mentioned, namely getting over the indoctrination process of the JW religion.

A few, you might notice from lurking, never do that once they leave. They might leave the religion and the doctrines behind, but not the process of reasoning like a JW. But most of us realize that just as important as leaving the doctrines behind is leaving the way we learned, thought, reasoned, and made conclusions while in the Organization. You will never learn to cook well if you merely switch your ingredients. You need to learn the proper way of cooking as well, abandoning any bad habits you picked up until now.

This may including looking at your questions and asking if they are even relevant. Instead of asking, "If there is no God, how does one find hope?" you might ask, "Does the existence of God guarantee or always come with hope?" Instead of asking the question regarding why mankind cannot seem to rule themselves, ask if the presence of war and problems is truly a sign that human rule is unsuccessful.

You see those questions are Watchtower-brand questions, designed to take advantage of someone who is uncomfortable with ambiguity and is seeking definitive answers. In all truth, life is about embracing ambiguity and not always having all the answers.

So you may want to start and see if you are asking the right questions to begin with. While some do end up being agnostic or atheist once they leave the Watchtower, coming to a religious conclusion doesn't come by asking for proof in the existence of God. That type of approach is also a Watchtower type of demand.

One thing science and the mainstream religions have in common is that they embrace mystery, the unknown, ambiguity. They do it in entirely different ways, but both come to the same conclusions: the more we learn, the more we learn we do not know.

But religion that offers answers to everything, that claims to wipe away mystery and ambiguity, that claims science is wrong and critical thinking is dangerous is poison. Like science, religion is a tool that should help you understand your place in the universe, to use honesty in doing so, and be a means to embrace your smallness in the face of a reality that has more questions than answers.

And becoming atheist doesn't mean you live a life without hope. Some have great hopes for the future. It may not include an afterlife for many, but that doesn't exclude similar views either. Atheism doesn't mean you aren't spiritual or don't embrace the possibility of the transcendent or reject views on eternity. It doesn't even mean you are necessarily lacking a religion. It generally means you don't believe in deities or in the existence of the Judeo-Christian concept of God. They are forms of Judaism and other Eastern religions and philosophies that are quite spiritual but are purely atheistic. And even among those who have no room for such things doesn't mean these people are hopeless or even feel incomplete without such.

If there is one rule of thumb to apply after leaving the JWs behind, it is this one: take nothing with you.

That means take nothing religious or otherwise with you from the Watchtower. Do you want to come to any opinion about the existence of God? Well, don't use or accept anything you ever learned from the JWs as a "given" or a starting point. Start from scratch.

And don't let anger, despair, disappointment, or any other emotion color your reasoning either. Let things speak for themselves. Learn from the source, try things out for a bit before accepting or rejecting them, and have a means to test your conclusions to make sure they are right.

74

That's it! The Jesus stories are most reasonably explained as myth. History makes this obvious.

by Island Man in

a careful examination of the historical pagan religious context existing at the time of the genesis of christianity leads any reasonable person to conclude that jesus is just another one of several similar myths.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kn7teoa9ark.

CalebInFloroda

I too believe in Bender and am praying for his second coming...

...or is it the third or fourth? Dang, how many times has Futurama been canceled and revived?

Whatever, I just hope Bender's return does not turn out to be invisible and remain sadly so for over 100 years.

74

That's it! The Jesus stories are most reasonably explained as myth. History makes this obvious.

by Island Man in

a careful examination of the historical pagan religious context existing at the time of the genesis of christianity leads any reasonable person to conclude that jesus is just another one of several similar myths.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kn7teoa9ark.

CalebInFloroda

As a Jew I would have to say that such claims are often problematic.

While Jews don't embrace Jesus as the Messiah, the reality is that a large amount of Jewish Responsa due to Jesus of Nazareth existence suggests that it is not likely that the Gospels are completely mythical.

Responsa of such intricacy does not come of itself, nor was it composed by Christians. Jews have no such Responsa toward any mythology or person(s) who never existed. While not stating that the miracles were genuine, Judaism (both religious and secular Jewry) does not deny the historical reality of Jesus of Nazareth or the college of Apostles.

If Jesus and the Gospels are purely mythical, how and why did the Responsa develop? Why would the Jews as a national group reject a mythical person as the Messiah (what other mythical figure has ever been presented as Messiah and created such a reaction from Jews)? Why would many Jewish writings make mention of a mythical figure and his supposedly mythical history?

While highly intellectual, Carrier's argument comes from an atheism that knows little about Jewish culture and history. This happens sometimes with Western atheists. Not that their arguments aren't good and that many Jews would agree with many of the points (and some might embrace all that Carrier states), it is just that they tend to forget about other facets.

The effect that Jesus of Nazareth had even affected Islam, and their equivalent to the Jewish Responsa is also not easily explained by Carrier's theories (valuable though they might be). It is too simple to dismiss something that never existed, and apparently because the way other cultures and religious paradigms were affected we obviously are not dealing with a simple myth.

9

Knowing good and bad and being judged for it...

by purrpurr in

the belief is that god created the tree of the knowledge of good and bad right?

but then forbid adam and eve to eat from it because if they did they would understand good and bad.... the belief also is that either at death or armageddon we will be judged as to whether we have been good or bad.... so it seems that god did not want humans to have the knowledge of how to be good or bad in the first place but still wants to judge them on it?!?.

i always thought when reading that part of the bible " what would have been so wrong for humans to have that knowledge in the beginning?

CalebInFloroda

According to both ancient and current theology and religious history, the "tree of knowledge" was not considered literal until American Fundamentalism was born during the era of the great revivals in New England that gave birth to religious groups like the Pentecostals, the SDA, the LDS, and of course the JWs.

The narrative of the "forbidden fruit" comes from the second of three creations narratives. The first in Genesis 1, states that all fruit from all trees and plants are given for food to humanity. But in the second, more ancient, the story of the tree of knowledge is introduced as an alternative or further explanation of the first mythology. (The third creation narrative is the Noachian flood, based on the more universal belief that the physical universe is built up of elements of a previous universe and that water is the basis for all material life.)

In Judaism the account is generally viewed as a primitive explanation that describes how humans get along with the Creator, a give-and-take that results in the creation of the nation of "Israel" (which literally means "nation of contenders with G-d"), named after the patriarch Jacob who, legend has it, continued the "wrestling" match with YHWH begun by Adam and Eve.

In early Christianity and current Catholicism/Orthodoxy, the narrative of Genesis 2 is the basis for the doctrine of "Original Sin." Interestingly it is not viewed as historical but written employing narrative devices that tell not so much the origin of sin as it does the fact that humanity has been marked by the nature of concupiscence since its very beginning.

The eras of American history known as the First and Second "Great Awakenings" gave birth to a form of Sola Scriptura that denied thousands of years of Biblical scholarship, both Christian and Jewish. Developing in what would be termed the "Burned-over district," these groups would invent a form of literalism never seen before on the world religious schema.

The idea that the "tree of knowledge" was somehow real lead to the belief that the taking of the "forbidden fruit" was a historical explanation for Original Sin. This idea is shared by religions from the Burned-over district, including the Millerites, the LDS, SDA, and JWs.

Due to having practically no exposure to the original theology of the traditions that developed the narratives, many who have left these groups still consider the American-invented religious views as representative of the actual genre employed in Genesis 2. This has led to many criticizing the original text when in reality it was never accepted as historical in the first place. Any "errors" found in the text are compounded by the fact that some, after leaving these groups, have never considered that the narratives never attempted to be historically or scientifically accurate in the first place. The blame for this comes, of course, not upon any ex-members but upon the systems which abused the narratives in the first place.

6

Mandrakes, what are they?

by purrpurr in

i decided to do about of research about mandrakes.

remember the ones found by dan and purchased from leah by rachel?.

now i don't remember seeing any indepth explanation of what mandrakes are in the wt.

CalebInFloroda

While heathen cultures may have used the root in magic, the Hebrews had a more erotic purpose in mind.

Mandrake was an aphrodisiac in ancient Jewish culture. The Hebrew word used here in the account at Genesis 30 is, etymologically speaking, a perfect example of onomatopoeia, very erotically so.

The word is DUDA’IM, a word play on the word for “breasts” (DADDAYIM) and “sexual pleasure” (DODIM).

It should be noted that the heathens generally did not use words that suggested an immediate connection with the erotic. The etymology of the current word “mandrake” comes from words in other languages that suggest magical properties due to the shape of the root (often resembling a human being) and its narcotic properties (in Latin, dragora from which also comes the word “dragon”).

While the Hebrews connected the plant to sex, heathens connected it with the type of lore that has associated it with other herbs of what has been termed the “Nightshade” family, potent Solanaceae of which many are toxic. The family of Solanaceae are frequently referenced in entertainment that deals with monsters, witches, magic, werewolves, and vampires.

Apparently the DUDA’IM was prepared as a love-making tonic in ancient times suggested by Genesis, but it is also likely that the reference to DUDA’IM is merely a narrative device not based upon historical truth but merely used as a means of moving the drama of the legend of the competition between Rachel and Leah along.

22

Inspiration, inscripturation

by Doug Mason in

the apostle paul stated at 2 timothy 3:16: all scripture is inspired of god.

the phrase inspired of god translates the compound greek word theopneustos, meaning, literally, god-breathed or breathed by god.

this is the only occurrence of this greek term in the scriptures.

CalebInFloroda

Doug,

My introduction of information regarding the history of canonization was merely to supplement what you had written. I hope you did not surmise any inference that you held deep convictions one way or the other regarding Scripture from my comments because nothing of the sort was intended.

The idea of canonization is so closely tied to the text of 2 Timothy and its use by the Gnostics, that I added the information. As a professional philologist I thought it would be complementary to your already fine research that you had done.