whitman

Joined

• started 13 topics
• posted 189 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by whitman

• 
  18

  Subjective "truths"?

  by Narkissos in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  this is somehow related to my previous topic on "truth and freedom" (http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/159428/1.ashx) and to an even more recent exchange with hamilcarr on the issue of "authority" of scripture/writing, on the fringe of another thread (http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/159703/2.ashx).. truth in the "objective" sense implies a strict and exclusive correspondence of language and fact (or, more modestly, perceived "phenomenon").

  the kind of correspondence (whether provable or not, that is still another issue) which is sought in both "scientific" and "fundamentalistic" speech.

  once the signifiants (words) and the signifies (phenomena) are accurately defined, an assertion can be qualified as either "true" or "false" (tertium non datur: there is no "third" option, according to the famous aristotelic principle).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  whitman

  The Socratic method remains highly influential; it is certainly evident in Wittgenstein. Of course, before Socrates and the Sophists there was Parmenides; and I would suggest it is with him that the encounter with metaphysical 'truths' were first fully articulated in the western world. I suspect Parmenides would have been most interested in post-modern discussions of the simulacrum, semiology, post-structuralism and deconstruction. However, the deconstructionist's approach to language can be fraught with danger. I know of more than one historian who has followed Derrida's arguments about language to their natural conclusion and found themselves in the middle of a post-modern crisis.

  Let's face it, sometimes language must be abandoned in favour of the interpretative dance.
• 
  18

  Subjective "truths"?

  by Narkissos in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  this is somehow related to my previous topic on "truth and freedom" (http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/159428/1.ashx) and to an even more recent exchange with hamilcarr on the issue of "authority" of scripture/writing, on the fringe of another thread (http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/159703/2.ashx).. truth in the "objective" sense implies a strict and exclusive correspondence of language and fact (or, more modestly, perceived "phenomenon").

  the kind of correspondence (whether provable or not, that is still another issue) which is sought in both "scientific" and "fundamentalistic" speech.

  once the signifiants (words) and the signifies (phenomena) are accurately defined, an assertion can be qualified as either "true" or "false" (tertium non datur: there is no "third" option, according to the famous aristotelic principle).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  whitman

  I started a university course years ago on Formal Logic. I thought it sounded like fun, like a flounce through Lewis Carroll's 'Symbolic Game of Logic'. Alas. In the first lecture we were advised as to how to form propositions and arguments. I was called upon to answer the question at hand but stated that I was more concerned by what was meant by 'truth' in any given statement. After some backward and forward debate between myself and the lecturer I was politely asked not to return. Apparently truth has nothing to do with logic. Who knew?

  While Thomas Hobbes would not normally be the source of my citations, I find this one of interest: 'Truth and False are attributes of speech, not things. And where speech is not, there is neither Truth nor Falsehood.'
• 
  12

  John 1:1 and Watchtower Society

  by UnDisfellowshipped in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  god, in his nature, is eternal, immortal, and almighty.

  how can he share in that same nature and still not be almighty, eternal, or immortal?.

  god is almighty, eternal, and immortal because of his nature, because of who and what he is, his essence.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  whitman

  I would agree that here the Logos is equated with Theos. Translation is a difficult issue, and I would suggest each book needs to be considered singly for context rather than examining the entire N.T for possible context. I would also agree with Hamilcarr that one method of translating is by being aware of the hermeneutical circle, however this raises it's own problems. One aspect of the hermeneutical approach I do support is that the translator/s must disclose their biases at the outset of any translation. Somehow I don't see that the borg will disclose their biases, and certainly won't be alerting anyone to the biases of William Barclay, whose 'scholarship' on John 1:1 is used in 'Reasoning from the Scriptures' page 416.

  I think perhaps the really interesting questions concerning John 1:1 would be less focused on the form of theos, and more on the question of what the Logos is here.
• 
  138

  Why I will NEVER be an elder again

  by stillajwexelder in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  so the po confirmed what many on this board already know.

  at latest round of co to elders meeting, the co quoted from the society outline.

  any elder or ms who encourages college for his kids or others or who allows his children to go to college will no longer qualify.. he then asked if i was going to take the cos encouragement and reach out again to be an elder and get my hours on the ministry up.. i replied "i will never be an elder again - i strongly approve of further education and college and have been through college myself.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  whitman

  Sacolton, my deepest apologies if I have offended you by using the term 'church', it certainly wasn't my intention to do so. Obviously you are very concerned about how genuine I am. I can assure you I was a baptised third generation witness, I went through some absolutely horrendous things that I do not discuss. This is the first time I have ever discussed witness orientated issues with people who used to be witnesses. Since I have only discussed these things with people who have no knowledge of witnesses and how they operate I have simply referred to the institution as the 'church' to make communication a little easier. Last night I saw that people here refer to it as the Borg which is much more appropriate, and slightly amusing. Again I apologise for having offended you. I am aware that these issues are sensitive and there is for each of us a lot of background context which is difficult to transfer into the world of forums easily. Perhaps I am out of my depth here if I am using the wrong language. My apologies.
• 
  6

  Faithful and Discreet Slave

  by whitman in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i am still catching up on witness related issues that have occured since i left the church.

  i am wondering if there is an available log or register that provides the details of the faithful and discreet slave.

  i am curious as to how many there are currently.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  whitman

  Thanks. I realise now that my question about the 144,000 is actually entirely redundant. It was brought to my attention last night that the whole 1914 thing and it's relationship to the remaining 144,000 has been discarded by the Borg (see how I know what to call them now?). I was absolutely astounded!!! I don't even know where to begin with that one! I was hoping to be able to re-calculate the approximate time of tribulation but they went and changed the rules on me. I'm still reeling - wasn't the 1914 thing and the 144,000 kind of the whole point from which most other dogma was suspended?
• 
  138

  Why I will NEVER be an elder again

  by stillajwexelder in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  so the po confirmed what many on this board already know.

  at latest round of co to elders meeting, the co quoted from the society outline.

  any elder or ms who encourages college for his kids or others or who allows his children to go to college will no longer qualify.. he then asked if i was going to take the cos encouragement and reach out again to be an elder and get my hours on the ministry up.. i replied "i will never be an elder again - i strongly approve of further education and college and have been through college myself.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  whitman

  The issue of education was one of the primary reasons I left the church. I was 17, recently baptised, and caught at a train station by witnesses from another congregation reading Sir Bertrand Russell's 'History of Western Philosophy'. The witnesses did not raise the issue with me at the time, but I received a sheparding call from three elders who brought up the type of literature I had been seen with. I had no idea that Sir Bertie was so offensive!! Needless to say, my desire for knowledge meant I was not really welcomed and so I left the church and pursued my research interests without having a proper highschool education. Eventually I was accepted into a university to study ancient history. I specialised in the classical Greek language, philosophy, religion, the development of philosophical thought, the new testament within it's cultural context and the development of abastract and theological concepts. I got my B.A along with a First Class Honours Degree in ancient history, and now I am researching for my PhD. To say that it is a shame that witnesses deny their loved ones the choice of a full education is a huge understatement. How many lives, and future generations of witnesses, will be compromised because they have been unable to pursue an education and by extension a professional career?
• 
  12

  How was marriage viewed in your congregation?

  by Alexia in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i ask because i see a lot of posts here about how the borg discourages marriage.

  my experience is quite the opposite.

  young people were pressured into getting married the minute someone from the cong.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  whitman

  I remember that the congregation I grew up in was very strict about dating and marriage. All the girls I knew were well and truly married before they were 20. No one ever dated without the intention of marrying that person. All dates were supervised so there were obviously no private moments. Most people married very quickly and I was under the impression that there were two reasons for that. Firstly, and most obviously, so that you could have sex. Secondly, and I can't find the precise scriptures used to back up this thinking, there was a teaching regarding who can have sexual relations AFTER Armageddon. The way the reasoning was structured was something like this: if you are married in this 'system' and your partner dies before or during armageddon then you are no longer married to that person in paradise and you will not have the opportunity to re-marry in paradise. In fact no one would marry in paradise. Therefore, and I know a lot of people who felt this way - if one didn't marry and have sex before armageddon there was a pretty high chance that you would never ever experience sexual intimacy. No pressure!
• 
  6

  Faithful and Discreet Slave

  by whitman in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i am still catching up on witness related issues that have occured since i left the church.

  i am wondering if there is an available log or register that provides the details of the faithful and discreet slave.

  i am curious as to how many there are currently.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  whitman

  Hello all,

  I am still catching up on witness related issues that have occured since I left the church. I am wondering if there is an available log or register that provides the details of the faithful and discreet slave. I am curious as to how many there are currently. I know that a census of sorts used to take place at the memorial, but is there a more comprehensive record? Is there a way to calculate how many of the faithful and discreet slave are still alive, how many have died and how many new ones would be required to make up the grand total of 144,000?

  Look forward to hearing from you.
• 
  49

  Do JWs really believe the end is near?

  by keyser soze in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  or do they merely pay lip service to the idea?

  i have no doubt that some of them sincerely believe.

  but when i was a kid, growing up in the '80s, i didn't know of a single witness, myself included, who didn't believe the end was close.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  whitman

  Thanks for the warm welcome Jgnat. From what my mother was saying it seems they are skipping the step of the government turning on all religion. I'm not sure if this is a change in policy or whether it is simply just a murky issue now. It's a pretty specific sign so perhaps blurring the edges of that prophecy serves there purpose.

  I am unsure whether everyone in this forum is an ex-witness, or whether there are people who are still involved with the church. For those of you who have defintely left - does anyone ever have a sudden and completely irrational fear of the possibility of armageddon? Or nightmares?
• 
  30

  After a phone call it's official...I AM AN APOSTATE!!!

  by sparrow in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  yes, apparently it's official.

  i am an apostate.

  i have been df'd for about 5 years now.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  whitman

  I am a little unclear about the current witness view on disfellowshipping and apostate-ing. I have recently been in touch with people I knew growing up in the church and it appears that things have changed a little since my day. So I have a couple of questions.

  1 - Is it true that the witnesses no longer disfellowship? If so, what is the reasoning behind this?

  2 - When one is deemed an apostate is there a public statement made in the various congregations with which the apostate may have been associated with? If not, how do they know who is officially apostate?

  3 - If a person has left the church and has had no religious connection to the church for many many years, can that person still be made an apostate if they speak openly against the church?

  4 - What are the actual rules about how an apostate person should be treated? Can family still speak to them if it is not about scriptual isses? Are witnesses in general able to speak to an apostate if it is not about scriptural issues?

  Look forward to the update.

  Cheers