Posts by CalebInFloroda

21

Why the Bible is a poor moral compass

by Diogenesister in

please don't click the link if you feel details of abuse would upset you http://jwleaks.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/letter-to-the-director-of-public-prosecutions-from-steven-unthank-in-relation-to-discontinuing-the-criminal-trial-february-2012-pdf.pdf.

looking at some of the events that led up to the rc in australia i came across this letter, submitted to the d.p.p.

by steven upthank, in relation to the crown discontinuing prosecution of the governing body of jehovahs witnesses.

CalebInFloroda

Of course, if the Bible is to blame, then each and every person who uses it in their lives and every institution that employs it would be like the Roman Catholic Church and the JWs in moral failure. But that is not the case.

If a certain chemical is toxic to one, then it is toxic to all. But if it causes a toxic reaction in some but not all, then the substance isn't toxic in and of itself. The introduction of the substance to particular individuals, how they handle or respond to it, introduces a variable that changes the substance into something it was not (i.e., a peanut is harmless to many, but not to someone with a peanut allergy).

As for Scripture, its use among Orthordox Judaism has produced the same child sex abuse scandals as found in the RCC and the JWs, but the situation is unheard of among the more liberal groups such as the Conservative, the URJ, and the post-denominational Jews.

If the Bible itself was the cause, then all groups and all people who use it would engage in the same moral behavior. They do not. Therefore it is not the Bible itself, but the introduction of something else, perhaps literalism and fundamentalist theologies, that cause the problem. The interpretation of Scripture by literalist principles causes fanaticism, homophobia, and suppression of normal sexual expressions which tend to open the same to obsession with deviant behaviors instead of creating a more "holy" people.

If the Bible was the problem, the passing of laws supporting marriage equality may have not passed in the United States as quickly and easily. One of the most powerful support groups behind the movement in the USA has been the Conservative and Reform Jewish movements. Their application of Scripture has moved them to stop at nothing in making marriage equality a reality all due to the Jewish principle of Tikklun Olam which originates in and finds its foundation in the Bible.

14

Any LGBTs?

by BashfulAshG in

just curious...

CalebInFloroda

By the way, while I've known about my sexual orientation for as long as I can remember, what I did not know when I was a teenager (and young adult) JW is when other men where coming on to me and such.

Looking back (and no longer the naive Caleb I was then), I have had many the married JW men make a pass at me and even a set up situations to get me in a compromising situation. I was a bit socially-stupid (and thank goodness for that) and it actually protected me a lot.

I only learned a few years ago that one JW man had been trying to get me to sleep with him for years and was known for being somewhat of a predator himself, getting young JW males around 18 to 20 and grooming them for sex with him, leaving the guys confused and rejected as soon as "new meat" would come of age and the guys either grew out of their "experimental stage" or just got too old for him. He was around 45 at the time, handsome, well-groomed, and always had young men hanging around him at the hall and such.

I have a high IQ and that comes with a bit of a low EQ, and to this day I have some difficulty understanding how and why people respond and react.

14

Any LGBTs?

by BashfulAshG in

just curious...

CalebInFloroda

Actually, despite reports, I'm am not LGBT...At best, I'm just G.

But I got a friend with multiple personality disorder who is like LBT and their favorite sandwich is an LBT, so it's comfusing at best when they are off their medication.

(Just kidding on that last part, and yes all the rumors are true--I'm Jewish!) LOL

82

Quality Thinking - Warning: Long Post Ahead

by Viviane in

recently, several threads have had some debate about logic, evidence, critical thinking and skepticism.

i wanted to write a post discussing those things, hopefully to clarify what those things are, why they are important and how to use those tools.

first, logic, at its core, is simply a method for how to reason validly, how to draw conclusions based on a premise.

CalebInFloroda

As to finding someone who doesn't care about the outcome to act as a disinterested party, that generally doesn't happen in critical fields. It's very competitive, and more often than not you will find someone who is just dying to prove you wrong if anything, in the process providing a means to either disprove or validate your findings.

How often do people debate about something raised on this forum? It's human nature to challenge something that is "new" or contrary to what we believe. While this will mean that the independent party is interested in proving you wrong, it does at least provide somewhat of a control.

In the end validation often takes a party not just one individual.

82

Quality Thinking - Warning: Long Post Ahead

by Viviane in

recently, several threads have had some debate about logic, evidence, critical thinking and skepticism.

i wanted to write a post discussing those things, hopefully to clarify what those things are, why they are important and how to use those tools.

first, logic, at its core, is simply a method for how to reason validly, how to draw conclusions based on a premise.

CalebInFloroda

I have to side with Viviane in reference to avoiding confirmation bias: you need to submit your conclusion to a disinterested party (or better yet, parties) for verification, just like in the scientific method.

One cannot guarantee that they can distance themselves far enough from a subject they have some investment in. If there was such a way, the scientific method would not require independent validation.

7

Neither writers nor translators believe Scriptures are inspired of God

by iconoclastic in

in most of the scriptures, the supreme father figure is originally presented as upholder of the law that every action has equal and opposite reaction.

later writers would come presenting a son of god who would exhibit a soft approach towards consequences of action.

one of the best examples is john 7:53 to 8:11 which is now accepted as one of the most famous forgeries in the bible..

CalebInFloroda

First of all, the idea that the Scriptures are “inspired” are a post-Biblical thought (after the Hebrew Scriptures were composed) and mean different things to different groups.

First off, the Jews don’t believe in “inspiration” along the lines that Christians do. And while they currently refer to their collections of writings as “canon,” the truth is that Jews don’t have such a thing in the Christian sense of the word. For Christians, “inspiration” is a requisite to canonicity whereas among Jews it is their religion that has been inspired of G-d. As a product of inspired religion, the Scriptures have been accepted among the Jews.

“Inspiration” among groups like Jehovah’s Witnesses and Fundamentalist Christians clashes with what the word means among mainstream Christianity. For groups like Orthodox Christians, Protestants, and Roman Catholics “inspiration” refers to the entire process that went into creating the Scripture texts, including redactions and editorial changes. The “inspiration” process ended when the books were chosen for official canonization, not when they were first composed. Thus the several different endings to Mark’s gospel are considered canonical as are additions to John’s gospel such as the beginning to chapter 8.

But for Jehovah’s Witnesses and groups like them, “inspiration” is more like a dictation process usually between G-d and one writer at a time. The author of the written work is often described as little more than a conduit. “Inspiration” is also limited to the earliest or original writings only, none of which exist.

While it is true that the writers obviously didn’t see their works as “inspired” in the JW sense, this is not true about some of the Jewish texts as well as the redactors and their work that later went into the finalization of the Tanakh. The Mosaic Law was definitely considered to have divine origins by its composer(s), and the redaction/editorial process that came as late to these writings as the time of Ezra demonstrates that the redactors definitely believed they were handling a holy work from G-d. But this cannot be surmised from an immediate reading of New Testament texts.

Modern Bible translations are the result of ecumenical bodies which can include people who fully embrace one or several of the ideas of inspiration listed above and those who do not. A group of varied approaches allows for a more honest and critically produced text. The NRSV was created using a group of Protestant, Orthodox, Catholic and Jewish scholars as was the CEB. Currently the Holy See recommends that all official Catholic versions be composed by ecumenical translation committees only in order that Catholic translations can be placed at the service of all Christians. And the recent NJPS translation of the Tanakh has been embraced as the standard for rendering the Hebrew Scriptures into by practically all Christian scholars, as well as laypersons.

The reasons for the differences is due to the fact that English is a difficult target language. Unlike other languages which easily lend themselves to capturing Hebrew and Greek nuances, English makes literal demands that cannot be yielded from these tongues. Another reason for differences in renderings occurs because of attempts at creating “word-for-word” translations, a method which never exists in real language translating. But this type of formal equivalence is still considered popular in English, crippling the ability of Bible versions to accurately convey linguistic logic which defies English idiom in its most rudimentary elements. This causes stark differences in word choices, especially when made from Hebrew which due to being extremely terse has layers of meanings which are almost impossible to capture with simple English.

18

Whose God are you worshipping??

by Crazyguy in

in the early writings of the bible its mentioned that the israelites worshiped false gods, gods of the stars and other celestial bodies.

ezekiel even bloviates against this in his writings and king josiah is said to have abolish these practices.

jeremiah mentions that god would even destroy the city were sun worship was being practiced a place called bethshemesh in egypt.

CalebInFloroda

The editors of "The Jewish Annotated New Testament" and the translation committee of the New American Bible New Testament (CBA/USCCB) suggest that John 8 as it reads today includes anti-Jewish rhetoric that was interpolated by the author, transforming the words of Jesus to fit the goals of a Christianity that was in competition with the Sadducees for legal recognition by Rome.

As such these words are not viewed by critical scholarship as directly coming from Jesus of Nazareth. They are more likely the reinterpretation of a similar confrontation in the light of the polemic of the day.

The 2001 in-depth study by the Pontifical Biblical Commission, "The Jewish People and their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible," while offering exegesis not so concurrent with critical philology, nevertheless concludes the speech to be rhetoric of a highly polemic nature arising from this same first-century competition.

Attempting to connect these words with a different deity would require countering the Johannine language with a historical paradigm that would play out as an anachronism at best, belaying your hypothesis as less than efficacious.

82

Quality Thinking - Warning: Long Post Ahead

by Viviane in

recently, several threads have had some debate about logic, evidence, critical thinking and skepticism.

i wanted to write a post discussing those things, hopefully to clarify what those things are, why they are important and how to use those tools.

first, logic, at its core, is simply a method for how to reason validly, how to draw conclusions based on a premise.

CalebInFloroda

Wonderful and very informative/helpful post.

If I may add: conclusions made by critical methods require validation by disinterested parties.

This means while we can and should employ critical methods, we cannot come to final conclusions alone. Critical thinking needs confirmation, controls, and checks. Without these our views are little more than opinion.

Confirmation by more than one disinterested party also prevents confirmation bias and promotes the inclusion of others and their unique gifts in producing valuable data.

579

Won't get fooled again ...Moon Landing.

by The Rebel in

jw
friends

so i was fooled by the witnesses.

what can i learn from that?

not to accept things at face value but to seek out opinion and different view points.. hence my question " do you believe man landed on the moon?.

CalebInFloroda

@adjustedknowledge

Hi there, fellow Floridian! Hope you have survived the rains.

Just a note: we Floridians know a lot about witnessing space events, how costly they are, how often things launch that explode that the rest of the world never really knows about or ignores, and we are in a position that things like the ISS are a common sight to the naked eye. We see launches all the time, and my family and friends saw as many of the space launches in the 1960s and 70s too. It's easy to claim things are a fraud if you've never FELT what a launch feels like as you watch a rocket shoot up into the sky.

579

Won't get fooled again ...Moon Landing.

by The Rebel in

jw
friends

so i was fooled by the witnesses.

what can i learn from that?

not to accept things at face value but to seek out opinion and different view points.. hence my question " do you believe man landed on the moon?.

CalebInFloroda

There is a significant difference between critical thinking and the psychological factors involved in those who embrace conspiracy theories.

When we embrace theories like the moon landing being false or that 9/11 was an inside job, we are displaying high levels of distrust and low agreeableness of and for authority.

This can be a temporary response to leaving a religion or cult behind, especially when the subject does so due to suffering abuse. It is generally part of the healing process, often typically normal, and will likely diffuse itself with time. Rarely do people get stuck in these periods of distrust, and if they do it is usually a sign of a more significant problem, such as mental illness. Until this the subject will not reconcile certain facts of reality until they can feel safe, remaining antagonistic up to the time healing occurs.

It is best not to argue with someone in this stage of transition because part of what is happening is important to their emotional growth. They are learning that they can reject significant things in life without the punishment promised by religious authority.

The conspiracy also helps them deal with displaced projected anger that has nowhere else to go. And the reason such people cannot be reasoned with is usually that they cannot process further in-depth information at the time. A healthy form of compartmentalization sometimes shuts off our higher reasoning functions in order to place us in "survival mode." Until we can can learn to be safe without repercussions for our convictions (something cults and certain religions tell us we cannot be), we have to take tiny mental steps, confirming for ourselves that we won't be punished for independent thinking.

But it can be scientifically demonstrated that the landing was real, and nations still send probes there and take pictures regularly sending them back to earth up to this day. And as mentioned before, you can do things like bounce light off reflectors placed there during the landings and even see the actual landing sites with proper instruments.