cofty, as a result (of what I stated in the 2nd paragraph of my prior post to you) people can make a legitimate case that evolution in the sense of macroevolution has not been demonstrated as proven (to 100% certainty), and a number of scientists say that science does not actually 'prove' anything, since at any moment a new scientific discovery can be made which disproves an existening theory of science or other idea or finding of science (even one considered to be a fact).
Disillusioned JW
JoinedPosts by Disillusioned JW
-
98
Better off PIMA than POMA or POMO.
by ExBethelitenowPIMA inthe situation is many of us are pima and all putting on a front, sometimes saying something we don’t fully believe.
or at least are actually agnostic about but a hope that it’s true.. but it can be useful if someone is really going through a hard time or has something they are very worried about, to say things like well let’s hope there is not much longer of this old system.. this can be useful in an awkward situation where you just don’t know what to do or say.
it’s a little bit of hope that can help when there is nothing else.. my agnosticism just means i won’t look back over decades thinking i wasted my life.
-
-
Disillusioned JW
-
98
Better off PIMA than POMA or POMO.
by ExBethelitenowPIMA inthe situation is many of us are pima and all putting on a front, sometimes saying something we don’t fully believe.
or at least are actually agnostic about but a hope that it’s true.. but it can be useful if someone is really going through a hard time or has something they are very worried about, to say things like well let’s hope there is not much longer of this old system.. this can be useful in an awkward situation where you just don’t know what to do or say.
it’s a little bit of hope that can help when there is nothing else.. my agnosticism just means i won’t look back over decades thinking i wasted my life.
-
-
Disillusioned JW
Sea Breeze I notice you said about yourself that "The 8th grade was the last grade I completed in High School." Don't you mean that the 8th grade was the last grade you completed and that thus you did not complete any grade of high school? Or do you really mean that 8th grade was really a grade in high school at that the time and place you went to 8th grade.
I have always lived in the western USA and where I went to school the 8th grade was the last grade of elementary school at the school I attended before high school. [My school was kindergarten though 8th grade, but kindergarten preceded 1st grade.] In my then city it later (starting in the year right after I graduated) became the last grade of middle school, but in both cases 8th grade was the last grade before the start of high school. 9th grade is the first grade of high school (with 12th grade being the final grade of high school.
However my maternal grandmother (who was raised in the south, in the USA) who said she while young was never permitted to attend 8th grade because she was black and that blacks were not allowed to attend high school. [Much later as an adult she obtained further education, apparently even high school education and, according to mom, took some college courses. My grandmother was a devout JW, starting from before my mom became an adult.] She thought 8th grade was part of high school, but to me that idea is wrong. A PDF of a census document posted on Ancestry.com mentioned that my maternal grandmother completed 8th grade, despite my grandmother saying she never attended 8th grade and despite her saying she was forbidden by racist laws in the southern USA of the time from attending 8th grade and high school. [My said that the census worker who filled out the census form might have falsely claimed that my grandmother attended 8th grade, in order to hide the fact the fact of grandmother being withheld from attending 8th grade. But I doubt that view is correct.]
Several months ago I checked a Wikipedia article on the topic and it confirmed that in the USA that 9th grade is the first grade of high school.
Sea Breeze, were you raised in the south (the part of the USA which commonly called 'the south", even though there are western states in the southern USA which are excluded from be called part of the south)?
-
98
Better off PIMA than POMA or POMO.
by ExBethelitenowPIMA inthe situation is many of us are pima and all putting on a front, sometimes saying something we don’t fully believe.
or at least are actually agnostic about but a hope that it’s true.. but it can be useful if someone is really going through a hard time or has something they are very worried about, to say things like well let’s hope there is not much longer of this old system.. this can be useful in an awkward situation where you just don’t know what to do or say.
it’s a little bit of hope that can help when there is nothing else.. my agnosticism just means i won’t look back over decades thinking i wasted my life.
-
-
Disillusioned JW
cofty I notice you said to me "when somebody literally won't affirm that we can know the earth isn't flat because 'epistemic humility' then philosophy has become utter bullshit." The idea expressed in that statement of your is part of your philosophy.
Though I agree with you biological evolution is true, the fact is that biological evolution has not been directly observed as that taking place at level beyond speciation. Though new species (according to some definitions of "species") have been directly observed to come into existence, evolution has not yet ever been observed as taking place above the taxonomic level of species. For example a new genera has never been directly observed as coming into existence. As result, I am not convinced that macroevolution has been directly observed as having taken place.
-
12
Another new missing part of the Bible found
by ExBethelitenowPIMA inhttps://www.thesun.co.uk/news/22011278/new-bible-chapter-hidden-verses-discovered-erased-scribe/.
i wonder what the remaining members of the gb will make of this?.
i excited to read all of this once it’s released and compare with the rest of mathew.
-
-
Disillusioned JW
"... rub them in their hands ...", is also mentioned in Luke 6.1. It is mentioned in the English translation of the Greek text. If the Greek text in Matthew originally included the phrase "rub them in their hands" (the phrase found in the Old Syriac manuscript) then it means the wording of the parallel passage is Luke is to that extent more close to that of Matthew than previously realized, and thereby reduces the extent of the differences between Matthew and Luke. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_Gospels which says in part the following.
'The double tradition's origin, with its major and minor agreements, is a key facet of the synoptic problem. The simplest hypothesis is Luke relied on Matthew's work or vice versa. But many experts, on various grounds, maintain that neither Matthew nor Luke used the other's work. If this is the case, they must have drawn from some common source, distinct from Mark, that provided the double-tradition material and overlapped with Mark's content where major agreements occur. This hypothetical document is termed Q, for the German Quelle, meaning "source".'
-
98
Better off PIMA than POMA or POMO.
by ExBethelitenowPIMA inthe situation is many of us are pima and all putting on a front, sometimes saying something we don’t fully believe.
or at least are actually agnostic about but a hope that it’s true.. but it can be useful if someone is really going through a hard time or has something they are very worried about, to say things like well let’s hope there is not much longer of this old system.. this can be useful in an awkward situation where you just don’t know what to do or say.
it’s a little bit of hope that can help when there is nothing else.. my agnosticism just means i won’t look back over decades thinking i wasted my life.
-
-
Disillusioned JW
cofty, that which we now call science used to be called "natural philosophy"; the word "scientist" (though not the word "science") had not even been coined prior to the year 1834. Science itself has a philosophical basis (called "philosophy of science"), including when it comes to ideas of how a person is to conduct science. That, in turn, includes: making a hypothesis and testing it, determining what constitutes an accurate and good measurement, determining whether or not we can trust our physical senses (including sight) when doing an experiment, determining how to determine if our measuring equipment are reliable (and if so, to what extent it is reliable), and etc.
Likewise logic (including deductive and inductive logic) is a branch of philosophy, and it (and critical reasoning) are taught in some introductory college courses in philosophy.
But every conscious human who thinks in terms of language (such as in using words) practices philosophy. For example, the use of philosophy takes place when people attempt to determine the meaning of quantum mechanics. But yes much of philosophy is highly debatable.
slimboyfat I think it is highly questionable to use human logic to question if human logic is reliable. It is a type of 'catch-22'. I think the only way it can be is if we presume a certain axiom(s)/premise(s)/presumption(s)/assumption(s) or method(s) of logic is(are) reliable and use it (or them) as standard to question and test alleged axioms or methods of logic (in other words ones we are not yet sure are reliable), but even then we are still starting from an unproven base. It is like all of the axioms/assumptions of mathematics are an unproven starting point in doing mathematics. There isn't much (if anything) we can do about those situations. Perhaps the best we can accomplish from doing such is to determine if our ideas of logic and mathematics are good enough and reliable enough. That is the same situation which might be case if we came into existence from unguided evolution.
-
2
Did Babylon Destroy the Temple?
by peacefulpete indid the babylonians destroy the jerusalem temple?
personally, i never questioned this, of course they did, doesn't 2 kings 25 say:.
9 and he burned the house of the lord, the king’s house, and all the houses of jerusalem; even every great house he burned with fire.
-
-
Disillusioned JW
peacefulpete, in regards to 1 Esdras 4:45 an Oxford Study Bible edition of the NRSV refers to 1 Esdras 1:55 which is part of the passage about the Chaldeans (Babylonians) burning down the house of the Lord, with no mention in that verse of the Edomites being involved. However the note also refers to Psalms 137:7 which you quoted.and it refers to Obadiah 1:11-14.
Regarding Jeremiah 41:4 could that be referring to the burned down temple of YHWH (to its remains)? Note that Ezra (not Esdras) 2:68 - 3:6 (NRSV) mentions (in 2:68) those "who came to the house of the LORD" and note it uses that terminology, even though the temple was burned down and not yet rebuilt. 3:3 (NRSV) mentions some people set up an altar on the foundation (NSRV says "its foundation" but 1984 NWT says "its own site") in order to make burnt offerings on it, even though 3:6 (NRSV) says "But the foundation of the temple of the LORD was not yet laid." {184 NWThass similar wording.] I think the foundation mentioned in verse 3 is of the remains the burnt down altar site of the burnt down temple. I think that verse 6's mention of the not laid foundation is of the foundatio that would be laid in the rebuilding of the temple. This shows that according to the Bible even the ruins of the burnt down temple of YHWH was still called the house of YHWH and that some made burnt offerings there before the temple was rebuilt. What do you think about that?
As to who burned down the temple perhaps the Edomites did not themselves burn it down (despite what 1 Esdras says), but rather that the Edomites' demands caused the Babylonians to burn (and/or tear) it down. Thus, maybe the Edomites could be said of burning it down in the sense that was because of their urging that it be burnt down that the Babylonians decided to burn it down, but with the Babylonians being the ones who did the actual burning.
Similarly, according to the gospels the Jewish people and Jewish religious leaders urged the Romans to execute Jesus on a state/cross (and as a result many people throughout nearly 2000 years have said say the Jews killed Jesus), but those same accounts says the Romans did the actual execution of Jesus on the stake/cross. But the accounts also say the Pilate only gave the execution order because of the urging of the Jewish crowds.
-
13
Shunning Jesus
by AEnEm inmy first post will be hidden in the far more important news about am3.
incredible!
who knows what the ramifications will be.. as a pimo who still believes in the bible and christ, i wanted to share the following fun fact about the latest study publications.
-
-
Disillusioned JW
Well about 78% of the pages of the protestant Holy Bible is the OT and thus it isn't until after the first three quarters of that Bible that Jesus Christ is mentioned by name. [Prior to the NT (from a believing Christian perspective, not a non-Christian Jewish perspective) he is only referred to by prophecies of the Messiah.] Catholic Bibles and Orthodox Bibles have even more books in the OT thus making the NT an even smaller percentage of their Holy Bible.
If a person were to start reading the entire Bible (especially one which includes the books considered Apocrypha by Protestants) from the very beginning of the Bible, it would be a very long time before the person reads about Jesus Christ in the Bible. It would be a long time before the person reads accounts of a human Jesus on Earth and a long time before one reads theological doctrines about a crucified (or nailed to the stake) Jesus Christ who died as a sacrifice and for the forgiveness of sins, and who became resurrected and went into heaven and of who will later come in judgement.
It is true that in the JW religion it is primarily about Jehovah (though also largely about the WT and the governing body). The religion even says that Jesus Christ is one of the witnesses of Jehovah and thus one of Jehovah's Witnesses, and thus in that way the WT's JW religion subordinates Jesus to Jehovah.
-
98
Better off PIMA than POMA or POMO.
by ExBethelitenowPIMA inthe situation is many of us are pima and all putting on a front, sometimes saying something we don’t fully believe.
or at least are actually agnostic about but a hope that it’s true.. but it can be useful if someone is really going through a hard time or has something they are very worried about, to say things like well let’s hope there is not much longer of this old system.. this can be useful in an awkward situation where you just don’t know what to do or say.
it’s a little bit of hope that can help when there is nothing else.. my agnosticism just means i won’t look back over decades thinking i wasted my life.
-
-
Disillusioned JW
ExBethelitenowPIMA I don't recall you ever mentioning on this site if you have JW (such as PIMI) relatives. Would you mind telling us if you do?
-
34
Betty Georges - The Female Helper to the Governing Body
by MillennialDawn inbetty georges is listed as a helper to the governing body service committee, according to this page on the website: https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/governing-body-jw-helpers/.
anybody know anything about her?.
-
-
Disillusioned JW
That is a good point about the scrotum.
-
41
Why are JW's THIS blind?
by BoogerMan ini had a conversation about this 22 carat gold contradiction with a couple of zealous jw's a couple of days ago.. even their personal "explanations" contradicted each other as they tried justify their cognitive dissonance!.
an absolute delight to witness such absurdity.. "after all, no one will be allowed to practice vile things in the new world.
the unrighteous must have practiced these vile things [john 5:29] before their death.
-
-
Disillusioned JW
James Tabor (at the web page I mentioned in my prior post) says the following regarding his reconstruction and the Revelation's use of the name John. "Some scholars have associated such a version of this text with a figure like John the Baptizer (Yochanan haMatvil). Accordingly, the name of the Seer as John/Yochanan has been left intact."
I probably should stop trying to make sense of the book of Revelation and to completely stop reading it, but it is very hard for me to do such. Except when composing atheistic criticisms of the rest of the Bible I probably should also stop reading the rest of the Bible, but that is also very hard for me to do. I wish that my upbringing hadn't instilled such a degree of interest in the Bible. If I wasn't so desirous in discovering problems with the Bible (in order to write criticisms of the Bible and to promote atheism) I might would have stopped reading the Bible years ago. But maybe even then I would still be reading the Bible, since parts of it are an interesting puzzle to attempt to solve and since parts of the Bible have accurate historical content, and even some interesting stories.