"That eagle, Cyrus" refers to Cyrus the Persian. The "prophet" here is referring to the fact that the Persians would liberate the Israelites from Babylonian captivity. The biblical writers had their own contexts, and thus, their own agendas. And those contexts and those agendas are not those of later [or earlier] peoples. The prophets were speaking only to their contemporaries. They were not crystal-ball gazers looking into the distant past or future.
Rapunzel
JoinedPosts by Rapunzel
-
8
Lies, Myths and fairy Tales....
by nomoreguilt inin order to avoid doctrine, dogma and interpretation i am going to quote this one scripture.
i will leave it to the rest of my esteemed colleagues here to apply it to the appropriate tale in the bible.
i will start with adam and eve and the garden.. isaiah 46: 9-10.
-
-
-
8
Lies, Myths and fairy Tales....
by nomoreguilt inin order to avoid doctrine, dogma and interpretation i am going to quote this one scripture.
i will leave it to the rest of my esteemed colleagues here to apply it to the appropriate tale in the bible.
i will start with adam and eve and the garden.. isaiah 46: 9-10.
-
-
Rapunzel
It should also be noted that for well over the past one hundred years, scholars have realized that the book of Isaiah has at least three different authors. Chapters 1 through 39 were written before Assyria was poised to attack the northern kingdom of Israel in the eighth century B.C.E. Chapters 40 through 55 presuppose a situation in which the southern kingdom of Judah has been destroyed, and its people taken into exile in Babylon in the mid-sixth century B.C.E. Chapters 56 through 66 were written by yet a third, later prophet.
-
27
J.W's Forbidden To Use The Word "Lucky"
by Rapunzel inon another thread, a poster alluded to the witness prohibition on uttering the word "lucky," as the word "lucky" is associated with dreaded paganism.
as i recall, instead of saying "lucky", witnesses are "counseled" to employ the term forunate.
the problem is this - the roman goddess of good luck was named fortuna; her greek equivalent was named tyche.
-
-
Rapunzel
On another thread, a poster alluded to the Witness prohibition on uttering the word "lucky," as the word "lucky" is associated with dreaded paganism. As I recall, instead of saying "lucky", Witnesses are "counseled" to employ the term forunate. The problem is this - The Roman goddess of good luck was named Fortuna; her Greek equivalent was named Tyche. Thus, it seems that the word "fortunate" is as closely - or even more closely - asociated with paganism as the word "luck" or "lucky." On what basis do the Witnesses forbid use of the word "lucky," while suggesting use of the word "fortunate." Is this yet another example of their picking and choosing among supposed "pagan" customs. After all, don't they wear wedding rings? Don't they throw rice? In English, French, and Spanish, the days of the week and names of months are all derived from "pagan" [either Roman or Germanic] sources. For example, Wednesday is none other than "Wotan's day." And Thursday is "Thor's day."
-
36
Supernaturalism and reason.
by Narkissos inreading one more time (on the umpteenth thread about the 70 weeks of daniel, into which i'm not going again) the idea that "anti-supercalifragilnaturalistic bias" ruin the unbelievers' (or misbelievers') exegesis of bible texts, and readily admitting to such... bias, i have one very general and simple question which might be worth its own thread.. here it is:.
once you admit such thing as the "supernatural", .
on what grounds can you assess anything.
-
-
Rapunzel
Reafton Jack: I have no wish whatsoever to "hijack" this thread, but I am curious regarding the events that you witnessed in P.N.G. that cannot be explained by science. I was wondering if you could briefly list them and describe them. Just a brief account, please.
-
36
Supernaturalism and reason.
by Narkissos inreading one more time (on the umpteenth thread about the 70 weeks of daniel, into which i'm not going again) the idea that "anti-supercalifragilnaturalistic bias" ruin the unbelievers' (or misbelievers') exegesis of bible texts, and readily admitting to such... bias, i have one very general and simple question which might be worth its own thread.. here it is:.
once you admit such thing as the "supernatural", .
on what grounds can you assess anything.
-
-
Rapunzel
I think that the poster "quietly leaving" makes a good point. In the same vein, there were once scientists who assuredly proclaimed that an atomc bomb could never be made, as it violated all the laws of physics. Unfortunately, they were wrong.
I also think that that the word supernatural does not denote something which is fixed or static; the boundary between the "supernatural," and the "natural" is in constant flux. What was once viewed as "supernatural" could possibly come to be considered later on as "natural." Conversely, the natural realm can "expand" so as to include what was previously considered as "supernatural."
I am thinking specifically of the constant advances made by scientists, especially physicists. If I am not mistaken, our words "physics" is directly derived from the Greek physis, which basically means nature [natura in Latin]. Moreover, if I am not mistaken again, what we presently call "physics" was once called the "natural sciences," understood in its etymological sense, as the "knowledge of nature." As I understand it, the term supernatural denotes what is above [or beyond] nature - nature as we presently can conceive it.
Just consider the concept of how many dimensions there are. Classically, there were three. And then Einstein proposed a fourth - Time. Now, I read that physicists are now conjecturing as many as ten dimensions. I understand the point that Narkissos is trying to make; and to a large extent, I agree with it. But I also wish to say that during my long life, there have been instances in which I saw things that I cannot easily explain. To paraphrase I verse from Shakespeare, there are more things in heaven and earth than I have dreamed of in my philosophy. Speaking personally, the things that I have seen distress me somewhat precisely because I cannot fit them into my rationalist world view. I wish that I had not seen them, or at least, I wish that I had a rational, logical explanation for them. Perhaps later advances in physics will provide an answer.
What is certain is that scientific knowledge is advancing, and doing so at an incredible rate. To use a rather hoary cliche, science fiction often does become science fact. I am willing to suspend [or bracket] my disbelief and concede that future advances in physics may one day be able to explain what we cannot explain today. Perhaps physics will one day offer an explanation for "supernatural" phenomena such as angels, ghosts, and "spirit entities."
-
50
Notes From Hawaii-Gerrit Losch Talk
by Save My Soul ina (conditional) friend sent me some notes from the talk in hawaii.
gerrit was the keynote speaker.
this occurred 'immediately after the tribulation of those days' (matthew 24:29), referring to the destruction of babylon the great.
-
-
Rapunzel
This "talk" is nothing but the laughably inane horse manure that has always been spewed out; it's mindless garbage. Why not use an audio casette for more useful purposes, like capturing a toilet flush on tape.?
-
23
If there is such a thing as "ONE TRUE RELIGION...
by JH inif there is such a thing as "one true religion", then lots of good honest god loving people will die at armageddon.. although jw's don't gamble, chosing the correct religion, if there is one, is a gamble.. .
.
.
-
-
Rapunzel
"Man is the religious animal. He is the only Religious Animal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion, several of them." - Mark Twain
-
19
007 special Easter message= Jesus was just a man who died! No miricles!
by Witness 007 inhappy easter sunday!!
so nice to have holidays!
on cable t.v the've been having non stop jesus documentaries which are better then anything from the watchtower society!
-
-
Rapunzel
Here we go again; the seemingly endless quarrel between the believers/theists on one side and the atheists/agonostics/non-believers on the other. People on each side are attempting to prove/disprove a concept which is neither provable nor falsifiable. As such, it's all rather pointless to discuss such an issue. Simply stated, God is an opinion. For believers, it's a question of faith - the belief and assurance in things unseen. For atheists, the word "God" means nothing; or else, it means so many things that, finally, it has no meaning.
The whole debate is futile and senseless, but for me, that's not the worst aspect. For me, the worst is the tenor of the argument.By tenor, I mean the tone. The tone of the debate often veers toward the acerbic. The tone is often mean-spirited, accusatory and - frankly - childish. I don't see people on either side of the polemic ever changing the minds of those on the other side. I sincerely see each and every person's approach towards "God" [or the Deity; or the Ultimate; or the Divine; or Allah; or the Unique; or the Tao; or whatever] as an intensely personal journey; each person must follow his or her own path.
-
91
To all Bible believers... and non
by dawg inmy questions to you that believe the bible are this .
ok, so you come on this site and attack the jws, why cant you see that you are the same as the jws when you defend the bible?
after all, arent you defending the already dis proven faith that you believe?
-
-
Rapunzel
"The Bible is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upward of a thousand lies." - Mark Twain
"When one reads the Bible, one is less surprised at what the Deity knows than at what He doesn't know." - Mark Twain
-
11
Was Dostoevsky Correct?
by Rapunzel inthe russian writer, fyodor dostoevsky, once wrote: "if there is no god, everything is permitted.
" in these eight words, dostoevsky encapsulates a complex theological argument, i believe.
of course, these words of his are open to interpretation, and different people will have different opinions and come to various conclusions.
-
-
Rapunzel
The Russian writer, Fyodor Dostoevsky, once wrote: "If there is no God, everything is permitted." In these eight words, Dostoevsky encapsulates a complex theological argument, I believe. Of course, these words of his are open to interpretation, and different people will have different opinions and come to various conclusions. However, it seems to me that Dostoevsky seems to be establishing a connection between atheism - "If there is no God, [or rather, no belief in God] - and antinomianism.
The term antinomianism is derived from the Greek prefix, anti, meaning "against", and nomos, meaning "law" [or "custom"]. In its general sense, it denotes lawlessness.
As I interpret his words, Dostoevsky seems to being saying that atheism leads to lawlessness. Dostoevsky seems to view religion as functioning as a sort of damper, or check, or brake upon human conduct. His claim seems to be that religion is needed in order to impede and hold back lawlessness; without the idea of God [or the fear of God], people's conduct and behavior would enter into a downward cycle of ethical nihilism, depravity and debauchery. Basically, people would think to themselves - "Well, since there's no chance of my being punished after I die, and no prospect for eternal reward, then I may as well do as I damn well please."
However, throughout history, the converse has also been true; that's to say that there have been people who claim that they do anything they please precisely because they enjoy the benefits of God's "undeserved kindness" [i.e. "grace"]. They feel that their sins do not "accumulate" like those of other people in that all the sins of believers are forgiven. So, could it be that both atheism and intense religious belief can each lead to antinomianism?
Antinomianism is a more specific, theological sense. In theology, the term designates the idea that members of a particular religious group are under no obligation to obey the laws of ethics or morality as presented by religious authorities. In its theological sense, antinomianism is diametrically opposed to legalism - the idea that obedience to a code of law is necessary for salvation.
Religious groups and sects very rarely claim that they themselves are antinomian. However, various religious groups often claim that other sects and groups are antinomian. The term, antinomian, becomes an epithet that one religious groups hurls at a competing religious group.
Above, I mentioned the terms "ethics" and "morality." It should be noted that both terms are derived from Greek words meaning "customs" or "norms" [ethos and mores, respectively]. What is "moral" or "ethical" is often simply what is the accepted norm or custom.
So, Some questions that I would like to ask are:
1.) Do you agree with Dostoevsky?
2) Is there a connection between either theism (or atheism) and ethcis/morality? If so, what is the connection?
3.) Do ethics and morality issue from religion? Or rather, is it the other way around: is relgion in general based upon a pre-existing moral or ethical sense that is innate among humans?