Sorry for the stinky format of my previous post! I was trying to copy my post from MS Word, but I keep getting an error and losing my post. Any help with this would be much appreciated!
theistichedonist
JoinedPosts by theistichedonist
-
34
Where is God when it hurts?
by theistichedonist ini recently read a riveting, but heartrending story in this forum by "tj".
although the story at many points tears at your heart, tj's post is an exceptionally well-written story of his life growing up as a witness.
if you have not read it yet, i would encourage you to do so.
-
-
-
34
Where is God when it hurts?
by theistichedonist ini recently read a riveting, but heartrending story in this forum by "tj".
although the story at many points tears at your heart, tj's post is an exceptionally well-written story of his life growing up as a witness.
if you have not read it yet, i would encourage you to do so.
-
-
theistichedonist
serotonin_wreath: Here is an article on morality / natural selection by Greg Koukl. A link to the article can be found at the very bottom of the article: (P.S. I had to post the article this way, because I can't figure out how to post certain things without getting an error that toasts all my writing. (P.S.S. I answer your question as to whether or not I get my morals from the Bible - at the bottom.) Recent studies suggest that animals are capable of rudimentary forms of moral behavior. God isn’t the source of morality, evolutionists say; Mother Nature is. The evolutionary answer, though, does not explain morality; it denies it. Monkey Morality: Can Evolution Explain Ethics? Greg Koukl Bongo is a chimp. He’s being punished by other members of the chimpanzee band for not sharing his bananas. Bongo is selfish. Bad Bongo. Moral rule: Chimps shouldn’t be selfish. One of the strongest evidences for the existence of God is man’s unique moral nature. C.S. Lewis argues in Mere Christianity that there is a persistent moral law that represents the ethical foundation of all human cultures. This, he says, is evidence for the God who is the author of the moral law. Not everyone agrees. Scenarios like the one above have been offered as evidence for rudimentary forms of morality among animals, especially the “higher” primates like chimpanzees. This suggests that morality in humans is not unique and can be explained by the natural process of evolution without appeal to a divine Lawgiver. This view of morality is one of the conclusions of the new science of evolutionary psychology. Its adherents advance a simple premise: The mind, just like every part of the physical body, is a product of evolution. Everything about human personality—marital relationships, parental love, friendships, dynamics among siblings, social climbing, even office politics—can be explained by the forces of neo-Darwinian evolution. Even the moral threads that make up the fabric of society are the product of natural selection. Morality can be reduced to chemical relationships in the genes chosen by different evolutionary needs in the physical environment. Love and hate; feelings of guilt and remorse; gratitude and envy; even the virtues of kindness, faithfulness, or self-control can all be explained mechanistically through the cause and effect of chance genetic mutations and natural selection. One notable example of this challenge to the transcendent nature of morality comes from the book The Moral Animal—Why We Are the Way We Are: The New Science of Evolutionary Psychology, by Robert Wright. How Morals Evolve The Blind Moral-Maker In his popular defense of evolution, The Blind Watchmaker, Richard Dawkins acknowledges that the biological world looks designed, but that this appearance is deceiving. The appearance of intelligent order is really the result of the workings of natural selection. Robert Wright holds the same view regarding man’s psychological features, including morality. The strongest evidence for this analysis seems to be the explanatory power of the evolutionary paradigm when dealing with moral conduct. The argument rests on the nature of natural selection itself: If within a species there is variation among individuals in their hereditary traits, and some traits are more conducive to survival and reproduction than others, then those traits will (obviously) become more widespread within the population. The result (obviously) is that the species’ aggregate pool of hereditary traits changes.[1] Wright argues from effect back to cause, asking what is the simplest, most elegant solution adequate to explain the effects we see. To Wright, the evolutionary explanation is “obvious.” In order to survive, animals must adapt to changing conditions. Through the process of natural selection, naturalistic forces “choose” certain behavior patterns that allow the species to continue to exist. We call those patterns “morality.” Wired for Morality The thesis that evolution explains all moral conduct requires that such conduct be genetically determined. Morality rides on the genes, as it were, and one generation passes on favorable morality to the next. Wright sees a genetic connection with a whole range of emotional capabilities. He talks about “genes inclining a male to love his offspring,”[2] and romantic love that was not only invented by evolution, but corrupted by it.[3] Consider these comments: If a woman’s “fidelity gene” (or her “infidelity gene”) shapes her behavior in a way that helps get copies of itself, into future generations in large numbers, then that gene will by definition flourish.[4] [emphasis in the original] Beneath all the thoughts and feelings and temperamental differences that marriage counselors spend their time sensitively assessing are the stratagems of the genes—cold, hard equations composed of simple variables.[5] Some mothers have a genetic predisposition to love their children, so the story goes, and this genetic predisposition to be loving is favored by natural selection. Consequently, there are more women who are “good” mothers. What is the evidence, though, that moral virtues are genetic, a random combination of molecules? Is the fundamental difference between a Mother Teresa and a Hitler their chromosomal makeup? If so, then how could we ever praise Mother Teresa? How could a man like Adolph Hitler be truly guilty? Wright offers no such empirical evidence. He seems to assume that moral qualities are in the genes because he must; his paradigm will not work otherwise. Wright’s Double-Standard Morality Above Morality In a public relations piece promoting his book, Robert Wright says, “My hope is that people will use the knowledge [in this book] not only to improve their lives—as a source of ‘self-help’—but as cause to treat other people more decently.” [emphasis mine] This statement captures a major flaw in Wright’s analysis. His entire thesis is that chance evolution exhausts what it means to be moral. Morality is descriptive, a mere function of the environment selecting patterns of behavior that assist and benefit the growth and survival of the species. Yet he frequently lapses, unconsciously making reference to a morality that seems to transcend nature. Take this comment as an example: “Human beings are a species splendid in their array of moral equipment, tragic in their propensity to misuse it, and pathetic in their constitutional ignorance of the misuse.”[6] [emphasis mine] Wright reflects on the moral equipment randomly given to us by nature, and then bemoans our immoral use of it with words like “tragic,” “pathetic,” and “misuse.” He writes, “Go above and beyond the call of a smoothly functioning conscience; help those who aren’t likely to help you in return, and do so when nobody’s watching. This is one way to be a truly moral animal.”[7] It’s almost as if there are two categories of morality, nature’s morality and a transcendent standard used to judge nature’s morality. But where did this transcendent standard come from? It’s precisely this higher moral law that needs explaining. If transcendent morality judges the “morality” that evolution is responsible for, then it can’t itself be accounted for by evolution. Social Darwinism Like many evolutionists, Wright recoils from social Darwinism. “To say that something is ‘natural’ is not to say that it is good. There is no reason to adopt natural selection’s ‘values’ as our own.”[8] Just because nature exploits the weak, he argues, doesn’t mean we are morally obliged to do so. Natural selection’s indifference to the suffering of the weak is not something we need to emulate. Nor should we care whether murder, robbery, and rape are in some sense “natural.” It is for us to decide how abhorrent we find such things and how hard we want to fight them.[9] Wright argues that the reductio ad absurdum argument from social Darwinism is flawed. Though life is an unregulated state of nature is, as 17th century English philosophy Thomas Hobbes described it, “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short,”[10] we’re not required to take the “survival of the fittest” as a moral guideline. Evolutionists may be right when they argue that we’re not compelled to adopt the morality of evolution. The danger of social Darwinism, though, is not that society is required to adopt the law of the jungle, but that it is allowed to. The exploitation of the weak by the strong is morally benign according to this view. What Darwinists cannot do is give us a reason why we ought not simply copy nature and destroy those who are weak, unpleasant, costly, or just plain boring. If all moral options are legitimate, then it’s legitimate for the strong to rule the weak. No moral restraints protect the weak, because moral restraints simply wouldn’t exist. Monkey Morality Recent studies have attempted to show that animals exhibit rudimentary moral behavior. In one case, a group of chimpanzees “punished” one “selfish” member of their band by withholding food from it. Apparently, the moral rule was this: Chimps shouldn’t be selfish. Conduct, Motive, and Intent There are some problems with this assessment. First of all, drawing conclusions about animal morality simply from external behavior reduces morality to conduct. Why should we accept that morality is exhaustively described by behavior? True morality entails non-behavioral elements, too, like intent and motive. One can’t infer actual moral obligations from the mere fact of a chimp’s conduct. One might talk descriptively about a chimp’s behavior, but no conclusion about morality follows from this. One can observe that chimps in community share food, and when they do they survive better. But you can’t conclude from this that Bongo, the chimp, ought to share his bananas, and if he doesn’t, then he’s immoral because he hasn’t contributed to the survival of his community. Further, in fixing blame, we distinguish between an act done by accident and the very same act done on purpose. The behavior is the same, but the intent is different. We don’t usually blame people for accidents: The boy didn’t intend to trip the old lady. We also give attention to the issue of motive. We withhold blame even if the youngster tripped the old lady on purpose if the motive is acceptable: He tripped her to keep her from running in front of a train. Motive and intent cannot be determined simply by looking at behavior. In fact, some “good” behavior—giving to the poor, for example—might turn out to be tainted if the motive and intent are wrong: being thought well of with no concern for the recipient. Indeed, it seems one can be immoral without any behavior at all, e.g. plotting an evil deed that one never has the opportunity to carry out. Morality informs behavior, judging it either good or bad, but it’s not identical to behavior. Morality is something deeper than habitual patterns of physical interaction. Therefore, one can’t draw conclusions about animal morality simply based on what he observes in their conduct. Morality: Explained or Denied? This leads us to the second problem, which runs much deeper. When morality is reduced to patterns of behavior chosen by natural selection for its survival value, then morality is not explained; it’s denied. Wright admits as much. Regarding the conscience he says: The conscience doesn’t make us feel bad the way hunger feels bad, or good the way sex feels good. It makes us feel as if we have done something that’s wrong or something that’s right. Guilty or not guilty. It is amazing that a process as amoral and crassly pragmatic as natural selection could design a mental organ that makes us feel as if we’re in touch with higher truth. Truly a shameless ploy.[11] [emphasis mine] Evolutionists like Wright are ultimately forced to admit that what we think is a “higher truth” of morality turns out to be a “shameless ploy” of nature, a description of animal behavior conditioned by the environment for survival. We’ve given that conduct a label, they argue. We call it morality. But there is no real right and wrong. Does Bongo, the chimp, actually exhibit genuine moral behavior? Does he understand the difference between right and wrong? Does he make principled choices to do what’s right? Is he worthy of blame and punishment for doing wrong? Of course not, Wright says. Bongo merely does in a primitive way what humans do in a more sophisticated way. We respond according to our genetic conditioning, a program “designed” by millions of years of evolution. The evolutionary approach is not an explanation of morality; it’s a denial of morality. It explains why we think moral truths exist when, in fact, they don’t. Why Be a Good Boy Tomorrow? This observation uncovers the most serious objection to the idea that evolution is adequate to explain morality. There is one question that can never be answered by any evolutionary assessment of ethics. The question is this: Why ought I be moral tomorrow? One of the distinctives of morality is its “oughtness,” its moral incumbency. Assessments of mere behavior, however, are descriptive only. Since morality is essentially prescriptive—telling what should be the case, as opposed to what is the case—and since all evolutionary assessments of moral behavior are descriptive, then evolution cannot account for the most important thing that needs to be explained: morality’s “oughtness.” The question that really needs to be answered is: “Why shouldn’t the chimp (or a human, for that matter) be selfish?” The evolutionary answer might be that when we’re selfish, we hurt the group. That answer, though, presumes another moral value: We ought to be concerned about the welfare of the group. Why should that concern us? Answer: If the group doesn’t survive, then the species doesn’t survive. But why should I care about the survival of the species? Here’s the problem. All of these responses meant to explain morality ultimately depend on some prior moral notion to hold them together. It’s going to be hard to explain, on an evolutionary view of things why I should not be selfish, or steal, or rape, or even kill tomorrow without smuggling morality into the answer. The evolutionary explanation disembowels morality, reducing it to mere descriptions of conduct. The best the Darwinist explanation can do—if it succeeds at all—is explain past behavior. It cannot inform future behavior. The essence of morality, though, is not description, but prescription. Evolution may be an explanation for the existence of conduct we choose to call moral, but it gives no explanation why I should obey any moral rules in the future. If one countered that we have a moral obligation to evolve, then the game would be up, because if we have moral obligations prior to evolution, then evolution itself can’t be their source. Evolutionists Are Wrong about Ethics Darwinists opt for an evolutionary explanation for morality without sufficient justification. In order to make their naturalistic explanation work, “morality” must reside in the genes. “Good,” beneficial tendencies can then be chosen by natural selection. Nature, through the mechanics of genetic chemistry, cultivates behaviors we call morality. This creates two problems. First, evolution doesn’t explain what it’s meant to explain. It can only account for preprogrammed behavior, which doesn’t qualify as morality. Moral choices, by their nature, are made by free agents, not dictated by internal mechanics. Secondly, the Darwinist explanation reduces morality to mere descriptions of behavior. The morality that evolution needs to account for, however, entails much more than conduct. Minimally, it involves motive and intent as well. Both are non-physical elements which can’t, even in principle, evolve in a Darwinian sense. Further, this assessment of morality, being descriptive only, ignores the most fundamental moral question of all: Why should I be moral tomorrow? Evolution cannot answer that question. It can only attempt to describe why humans acted in a certain way in the past. Morality dictates what future behavior ought to be. Evolution does not explain morality. Bongo is not a bad chimp, he’s just a chimp. No moral rules apply to him. Eat the banana, Bongo. [1]Robert Wright, The Moral Animal—Why We Are the Way We Are: The New Science of Evolutionary Psychology (New York: Pantheon Books, 1994), p. 23. [2]Ibid., p. 58 [3]Ibid., p. 59. [4]Ibid., p. 56. [5]Ibid., p. 88. [6]Ibid., p. 13. [7]Ibid., p. 377. [8]Ibid., p. 31. [9]Ibid., p. 102. [10]Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, 1651. [11]Wright, p. 212. © 2005 Stand to Reason ARR | 1438 East 33rd Street, Signal Hill, CA 90755 Voicemail (800) 2-REASON TM | Local phone (562) 595-7333 | Fax (562) 595-7332 | [email protected] http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6221 So here goes the trick: You: "Do you get your morals from the Bible." Me: (Which is not precisely the answer that I would give if I decide to respond.) "Yep." You: "There are certain things that the Bible affirms that I find morally repulsive: number one, number two, number three, ad infinitum...Can you explain to me [theistichedonist] why you view the Bible as a source of morality when there are so many obviously immoral things that the God of the Bible does?" Me: "Duh..." You: "That's why I don't believe that the Bible is a source of moral authority - case closed." I am aiming at a far more modest goal: I want to know how - given an atheistic / agnostic / evolutionary view of reality - you ground any moral claim. Such as: The God of the Bible is immoral, etc... Evolution, atheism and agnosticism don't cut the mustard, because in each belief system, the telos (purpose) of humans is necessarily unknown. How can you know that people shouldn't be opressed, killed, etc.. if humanity's purpose itself is unknown? Atheistic / agnostic arguments about what is immoral are much like a person telling me that I have driven my car to the wrong destination while simultaneously insisting insisting that the destination is unknown. To say that a person shouldn't be treated in such X poor way only works if the purpose of a person is known. Neither atheism, nor agnosticism can furnish this knowledge. It is quite easy to scold others for their religious beliefs while conveniently neglecting to sufficiently ground morality yourself. (BTW - naturalistic evolution doesn't ground morals) In this arrangement (which, up to this point you have stuck to beautifully), you enable yourself to condemn any moral pronouncements you wish! Ravi Zacharias indicts secularists for doing the very same thing that scores of atheists, agnostics and evolutionist do: “…one cannot defend the particulars of a moral choice without first defending the theory in general upon which any choice is made. Secularism [as well as atheism & agnosticism], on the other hand, can defend any choice because it is never compelled to defend its first principles, which are basically reduced to an antireligious bias. But secularists do not take into account that on their own terms no position needs to be defended if a commitment to it is sufficient reason in itself. If it is believed that all moralizing is purely one’s private view then ought not that view itself be kept private? The secularist never answers how he or she determines whether anything is wrong with anything except by sheer choice. Secular belief grants itself privileges that it does not equally distribute.” Ravi Zacharias, Deliver Us From Evil: Restoring the Soul in a Disintegrating Culture (Dallas, TX: Word, 1996), 59. What is true of secularists in the above quote is true of every atheist / agnostic / evolutionist that I have ever met. Thank-you for taking the time to interact! Forgive me if my tone has offended you. I don't hold the beliefs that I do because I am some smart fella. Of my own, I am neither smart nor good. The tenor of your posts this far has been very kind. I sincerely appreciate and admire you for your restraint! theistichedonist
-
34
Where is God when it hurts?
by theistichedonist ini recently read a riveting, but heartrending story in this forum by "tj".
although the story at many points tears at your heart, tj's post is an exceptionally well-written story of his life growing up as a witness.
if you have not read it yet, i would encourage you to do so.
-
-
theistichedonist
Sorry for taking so long to respond.
Also, I am not a Witness myself, nor have I ever been one. I was attracted to this board because I share the disappointment that ex-Witnesses go through when someone says, "God said" and he didn't. Another attraction for me has been to see the helpful insights that ex-Witnesses have. (Who says that the WT has a corner on insights into the Scriptures )
A few preliminary remarks before I respond:
1. When I use the term God (in a sense that I don't qualify or elaborate on), this is what I mean: An entity who is uncreated.
2. I'll pass over some of the tart remarks. BTW, not all comments that I pass up on are tart - some are quite good! (i.e. "Where is God when it doesn't")
3. In musing about this question of justice / evil, etc.. (and where do you as an atheist stand on this), I am not so much concerned with putting forward a proof for the existence of God based on our desires for justice, I am aiming at a different kind of question - namely: Are the kinds of things that we experience as people (for example, in the first post, our notions of justice, right / wrong, etc...) explicable if we are ultimately the product of an unguided / impersonal origin? If atheism is a defensible position, is it a fair conclusion to believe that people are the product of an impersonal / unguided process?
gopher: Thank-you for your post. When you say that you are an atheist, would this mean that you believe that there is no God? Some atheists like to make a clever qualification to their claim of atheism that goes something like this: "Atheism = a lack of evidence (of God's existence) to the contrary."
It seems to me that atheism involves a denial of God's existence that is due (in the view of the atheist) to the lack of proof to the contrary. Is this second definition your view? It seem that this view differentiates between agnosticism and atheism.
Another question: Does your atheism entail the belief that what has ultimately produced us is time + (impersonal matter) + chance? Forgive me for the crude formula - I simply want to know if what we see today in people is the result of the interaction of impersonal matter and chance forces.
Also, thank-you for the quote from Epicurus! I am still mulling it over!
funkeyderek: "...the purpose of punishment is deterrence and prevention. Our lust for revenge is an instinct we should strive to overcome."
Deterrence and prevention - definately two of the main reasons for punishment. If the primary reason for punishment is to pay back for a wrong, there are a number of cases where seeking pure punishment doesn't seem to "pay back" anything. On the lust for revenge - I definately agree that we should strive to overcome this lust. I find that one who lusts for revenge is usually unable to keep from dishing out more pain than the offense calls for.
Phillip: "The critical thinking skills gained by and after leaving the cult, allow us to see that science is correct and fairytale stories written my men are not."
I heartily celebrate your desire to think.
Satanus: You wrote to Chalam: Chalam
Can you put that in your own words. The bible has been enterpreted ad nauseum and used for all kinds of crap. Your words, please.I share your frustration with the scads of different ways that the Bible has been interpreted. However, simply because a thing has been interpreted many ways and been used for all kinds of crap (which is true of the Bible) - it doesn;t follow that Chalam's citations should be excluded on those grounds. One of the stinky things about this world is that there are few good things that have not been interpreted or used in many ways for all kinds of crap (beer - DUI deaths / nuclear energy - Hiroshima / internet - predators / goverment and laws - politicians / computers - weapon delivery systems, etc...).
nvrgnbk: "I am a theistic hedonist"
How's that working out for you?
This is why I describe myself as a "theistic hedonist":
1. The term "religious" in the context of this forum can imply a kind of "pulling oneself up by his / her moral bootstraps" so as to become pleasing to God. I find the that quest to be good for God (so as to earn forgiveness or repay Him for my evil deeds) is a dead-end that ends up pulling those who engage in such a quest, into Pharisee-ism or despair.
2. I don't care for commands for obedience that are divorced from a clear display of God's heart.
3. I seek (not because I am a fine person, BTW) to pursue a pleasure in God.
wikipedia has a good article on Christian hedonism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Hedonism
The pursuit is awesome!
Forgive me if some of the ideas that I have expressed are unclear - I'm tired.
-
34
Where is God when it hurts?
by theistichedonist ini recently read a riveting, but heartrending story in this forum by "tj".
although the story at many points tears at your heart, tj's post is an exceptionally well-written story of his life growing up as a witness.
if you have not read it yet, i would encourage you to do so.
-
-
theistichedonist
To all who have graciously replied:
Thank-you for your comments! Another thing that I have noticed is that newbies who invite others to discuss an incredibly large topic can invite so many responses that they don't have the time to adequately respond to all the insightful posts. If, in the future my interaction is sparse, I am tring to balance my time between work, a great family, school, study and responses. Forgive me if I don't catch up as fast as I should.
One quick response to funkyderek: I like your handle! I didn't mean for mine to invoke visions of a "fish doctor"! LOL
If this better helps anyone understand me more, I am a theistic hedonist.
I'll catch up later!
-
34
Where is God when it hurts?
by theistichedonist ini recently read a riveting, but heartrending story in this forum by "tj".
although the story at many points tears at your heart, tj's post is an exceptionally well-written story of his life growing up as a witness.
if you have not read it yet, i would encourage you to do so.
-
-
theistichedonist
I recently read a riveting, but heartrending story in this forum by "TJ". Although the story at many points tears at your heart, TJ's post is an exceptionally well-written story of his life growing up as a Witness. If you have not read it yet, I would encourage you to do so. The post is titled, "Pop Goes the Circuit Breaker".
One of the things that has caught me since joining this forum is how many times religious abuse repulses people from God. It very difficult to read about people's journeys into atheism after having experience such deep perversion of religion (I am not referring here to TJ's persuasions, as I am not clear as to where he is - I am simply making a general observation about the journey from belief to atheism that often follows on the heels of religious abuse.). Reading TJ's post (and the comments that follow) has reminded me of several major themes that seem to show up as one cotemplates embracing or rejecting atheism:
1. How, in an atheistic worldview does a person who persists in abuse (particularly religious abuse), mind-control, evil, etc... get repaid for the evil that they have sown? One of the odd features of this life (if indeed our three-score-and-ten is all that there is), is that we as people have the frightening capacity to sow more evil than our physical bodies can possibly pay for. There was a man just a short distance from where I live who raped and beheaded a teenage girl . When I think of the evil that he has done to this girl, her family and his culture, my mind scrambles trying to discover a fitting physical punishment that would be appropriate to met out to this guy. Old Sparky would be far too kind. (BTW, I get tired of hearing about how these guys get 20-years)
It seems as though "tijkmo" (in an excellent comment / post on TJ's story) was wrestling with this question as well. After recalling on a difficult time in which tijkmo was seriously wronged / betrayed, tijkmo wrote, "...the damage they did turned me against not just them but god himself. i still believe in god but mainly cos someday I think he will demand an explanation from them."
If you have journeyed towards atheism as a result of religious abuse, do you sense that atheism satisfies an innate cry for the satisfaction of justice in the face of the evil you or others have experienced?
I am not raising this question because I want to gaggle at someone who is hurting (like the disciples who asked, "Which one sinned, this man or his parents that he was born blind?...). I raised this question because TJ's story, tijkmo's post, and so many other conversations here have touched on this theme - a theme that is well worth exploring...
...AFTER you have read, Pop Goes the Circuit Breaker!
theistichedonist
-
115
My story: "Pop!" goes the Little Circuit Breaker
by TJ - iAmCleared2Land ini guess it's about time i write my story.
i've put this off for a long time... primarily becuase, while i thought my story was bad, i've read so many worse and heart-rending stories here.
i think, though, there is some therapeutic value in 'letting it all out' with others who know what 'it' was like.
-
-
theistichedonist
TJ:
Thank-you so much for sharing your story. I hurt with you.
theistichedonist
-
17
The difficulty of recovering from JW teachings
by DT init's difficult to free yourself from years of cult influence.
i'm concerned that i may still be suffering from hidden assumptions that i haven't considered.
i'll have to examine my thinking for the rest of my life, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.. it would be easier if we could reject everything we were taught, but that's not really possible.
-
-
theistichedonist
DT - I'm impressed with how clearly you put your finger on a problem that is sometimes so deep that it goes unspoken. I out of an abusive church situation myself in which people would say, "Thus says the LORD" and the Lord didn't say. What followed for me was a similar "epistemological avalanche" in which very few things were "certain" anymore. Thinking about the faithfulness of God in creation and redemption gave alot of rest to my heart / mind. (I am sorry that my reply is so short. I had just spent over an hour typing out a longer response. I pushed the submit button only to find that I got some stupid error - and consequently lost everything that I had written. This post is the re-write.)
However, I've got enough wind to re-write my response to OBVES
OBVES: I appreciate the fact that you are trying to rescue those you feel are "drowning" (i.e. "apostates", etc...). I also appreciate that you are willing to show up on a board like this with so many non-Witnesses. In my experience, this exposure to contrary views is a rare find among Witnesses. However, your response to DT's concerns was so callous and cruel, that I literally had to research your posting history twice to ensure that you weren't just a smart ... posting a cynical / mocking invite back to the WT. You weren't being a smart a**, you were serious! Here is what I find so callous about your posting: It fails to aknowledgeor even wrestle with this reality: Many of the people you are trying to "rescue" have been through so much horror / loss / fear / bondage from following a "Thus says Jehovah" from the WT, that they don't believe that the real Jehovah (or a real "channel of communication" could be so cruel / wrong). Instead of thoughtfully wrestling with DT's post and the legitimate disillusionment of many ex-Witnesses (Google Gary Busselman and read his story - I dare you.), you seek to heal the hurt of these people by flipping them a lecture on the "end-times". It is this blindness to the real hurt of others that makes my soul shudder when I contemplate what life as a "Witness" must be like. If you respond, please don't trott off a bunch of gobledeygook about "increasing light". I've heard this Scripture twisting before; and every time I think that the WT might be makin' some headway, I just remember that I don't know whether their current teaching on new light will be "old light" shortly. Lighten up and thoughtfully engage DT - I'll lighten up too!
-
78
A fair and reasonable question for Jehovah's Witnesses
by Gregor inyour organization has always been intently focused on "witnessing" and this includes going right up to strangers homes, knocking on their door attempting to engage them in a discussion of their beliefs.
you come prepared to point out the error of whatever faith they hold.
doctrines such as immortality of the soul, the trinity and eternal torment in hell you declare as false teachings and can back up your assertions with scriptures and skilled argument.
-
-
theistichedonist
Thank-you for the kind tenor of your post. I appreciate the fact the you (as a Witness) are seeking to engage other non-Witnesses in conversation. I have written a review of a portion of chapter five of What Does the Bible Really Teach. The article can be found at: http://theistichedonist.blogspot.com The article is titled: Witnessing to the Witnesses Could you read it and offer an honest critique? -Thanks!
-
12
Do Jehovah's Witnesses have to start over?
by DT in"and this good news of the kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations; and then the end will come.
" -matthew 24:14 what is the good news?
i used to think that it was that jesus became king in 1914 and that he would destroy this system before the generation that saw 1914 passed away.
-
-
theistichedonist
I recently posted a review of a portion of chapter 5 of the book What Does the Bible Really Teach. You might find it helpful. In chapter five, the WT discusses the Fall and Ransom of mankind. You can locate the posting at: http://theistichedonist.blogspot.com/ The entry is titled, "Witnessing to the Witnesses" Following is a brief outline and excerpt of the posting:
1. What – according to the Watchtower – was lost at the Fall? (Transcript of pg. 48-50)
a. Adam’s “perfect human life with all it’s blessings.”
2. What ransom can be repaid to recover what Adam lost?
a. A perfect human life – namely Jesus Christ
3. Survey of the passage and a response.
a. Who is God?
b. Why does God exist?
c. What did God lose when Adam fell?
4. Closing remarks.
5. Final questions.
Brief excerpt: "It will be the contention of my review that correctly understanding “the ransom” must be preceded by an accurate understanding of what Adam and God lost at the Fall.
One of the fascinating things that the reader will notice upon reading pages 48-50 of WDTBRT, is how consistently the WT focuses on what Adam lost when he sinned....One of the pressing questions for the WT is this: Is Adam’s perfect life the primary thing that was lost in the Fall? This question is raised because it appears that although Adam’s loss was profoundly devastating, it was peanuts compared to what God lost in the Fall." -
31
What Does the Bible Really Teach??
by insearchoftruth inmy wife's family is jw, she has never been a partipative jw, but now due to her mom, has been expressing some interest and is starting a 'bible study' using 'what does the bible really teach?
' am looking for any guidance on this book as well as any path i can take to make sure my wife stays away.
any assistance at all would be appreciated.
-
-
theistichedonist
Hi searchingfortruth,
I recently posted a review of a portion of chapter 5 of the book What Does the Bible Really Teach. In this chapter, the WT discusses the Fall and Ransom of mankind. You can locate the posting at: http://theistichedonist.blogspot.com/ The entry is titled, "Witnessing to the Witnesses" Following is a brief outline and excerpt of the posting:
1. What – according to the Watchtower – was lost at the Fall? (Transcript of pg. 48-50)
a. Adam’s “perfect human life with all it’s blessings.”
2. What ransom can be repaid to recover what Adam lost?
a. A perfect human life – namely Jesus Christ
3. Survey of the passage and a response
a. Who is God?
b. Why does God exist?
c. What did God lose when Adam fell?
4. Closing remarks.
5. Final questions.
Brief excerpt: "It will be the contention of my review that correctly understanding “the ransom” must be preceded by an accurate understanding of what Adam and God lost at the Fall.One of the fascinating things that the reader will notice upon reading pages 48-50 of WDTBRT, is how consistently the WT focuses on what Adam lost when he sinned....One of the pressing questions for the WT is this: Is Adam’s perfect life the primary thing that was lost in the Fall? This question is raised because it appears that although Adam’s loss was profoundly devastating, it was peanuts compared to what God lost in the Fall."