http://www.karaite-korner.org/yhwh_2.pdf.
a very interesting paper.
i've only begun to read it.. i just finished watching this lecture.. http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/52_gordon.html.
Thanks. I'm going to spend more time on this.
There's an old saying which I agree with : "You can be rich with another's wealth, but you cannot be wise with another's wisdom".
I've never thought of authority or consensus as proof. I'll have to take time to see for myself.
did wt really believe that everyone prior to jesus death is resting and awaiting only a earthly hope?
and then when jesus died, everyone following him only had a heavenly hope until 1934-35....and then nearly all only had an earthly hope again?
of course recently they did open up heaven again, so now there are both "callings" taking place, both heaven and earth on sale at the same time......sooooo.
Or it could simply have meant that the only ones that were of his fold at that time were his apostles and the small group with him and others would come join them. It didn't even have to mean samaritans or gentiles. It could have just been "Others will join" and nothing more.
I came close. I told this other elder to zip it. If he had said just one more syllable.
I suppose that's one more reason I stopped going. What's the point of letting someone rob you of your peace?
http://www.karaite-korner.org/yhwh_2.pdf.
a very interesting paper.
i've only begun to read it.. i just finished watching this lecture.. http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/52_gordon.html.
http://www.karaite-korner.org/yhwh_2.pdf
A very interesting paper. I've only begun to read it.
I just finished watching this lecture.
http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/52_gordon.html
I just thought that someone might be interested.
before people imagine that "foreign"="more correct" and launch themselves off into eastern religious thought, i think one might consider the book "truth in religion", and "how to think about god - a guide for the 20th century pagan", by mortimer j. adler.
in the former he examines various religions for the claims each make with regard to "truth" and makes, a good case in my view for a rational analysis of religion as opposed to making affirmations based on emotion.
in the latter, he makes an analysis of various ways to examine what is meant when people talk about god.. .
I've got ADD, so I read while on a stationary bike, or an elliptical or I'll convert text to speech and listen to it while I run. In any case, I haven't read Derrida, however there are a lot of things I'll be reading (once I finish writing a few books I'm working on). Until then, all the reading I'm doing has to do with those things. I'm planning on reading through the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds as well as that terrible writer Maimonides. (I've tried reading his Guide to the Perplexed, but it rambles worse than anything written by Freddy Franz).
before people imagine that "foreign"="more correct" and launch themselves off into eastern religious thought, i think one might consider the book "truth in religion", and "how to think about god - a guide for the 20th century pagan", by mortimer j. adler.
in the former he examines various religions for the claims each make with regard to "truth" and makes, a good case in my view for a rational analysis of religion as opposed to making affirmations based on emotion.
in the latter, he makes an analysis of various ways to examine what is meant when people talk about god.. .
Narkissos, I believe that Socrates would have approved of the discovery in this manner because he never wanted anything to be written down. The truth was known by each individual but he or she had to decide to continue to believe that the shadows on the cave wall were really truth or he/she could turn around and leave the cave (and this process repeated from inner cave to inner cave adinfinitum). When we merely read what others have written without having "made the truth our own" we stay in the cave. We're like travelers who never travel, but only surf the net and read travel guides imagining that we know what it's really like to "being there".
I think that's why I've never liked "armchair philosophizing". I'd rather not bask in the "twilight of the idols", instead, I'd rather "philosophize with a hammer".
:)
before people imagine that "foreign"="more correct" and launch themselves off into eastern religious thought, i think one might consider the book "truth in religion", and "how to think about god - a guide for the 20th century pagan", by mortimer j. adler.
in the former he examines various religions for the claims each make with regard to "truth" and makes, a good case in my view for a rational analysis of religion as opposed to making affirmations based on emotion.
in the latter, he makes an analysis of various ways to examine what is meant when people talk about god.. .
I thought I'd better think out loud here than elsewhere where I could be identified. Try some ginger instead. It'll take the edge off the nausea as well as ameliorate the pounding.
:)
before people imagine that "foreign"="more correct" and launch themselves off into eastern religious thought, i think one might consider the book "truth in religion", and "how to think about god - a guide for the 20th century pagan", by mortimer j. adler.
in the former he examines various religions for the claims each make with regard to "truth" and makes, a good case in my view for a rational analysis of religion as opposed to making affirmations based on emotion.
in the latter, he makes an analysis of various ways to examine what is meant when people talk about god.. .
Before people imagine that "foreign"="more correct" and launch themselves off into Eastern religious thought, I think one might consider the book "Truth in Religion", and "How to Think About God - A Guide For The 20th Century Pagan", by Mortimer J. Adler. In the former he examines various religions for the claims each make with regard to "Truth" and makes, a good case in my view for a rational analysis of religion as opposed to making affirmations based on emotion. In the latter, he makes an analysis of various ways to examine what is meant when people talk about God.
Interestingly, I find that most people theist, and non-theist alike really don't know what they are talking about when they imagine that they are talking about God. What most do is imagine a demiurge and call that "God" and affirm or deny the existence of this demiurge.
I used to talk to atheists at the door who would ask questions like "Why did God create the universe?", and though this seems at the outset to be a rather simple question, it really isn't.
Though JW's would say because of Love, which is really begging the question because with no external objects or entities of the non-Jehovah class in existence (we're all of the non-Jehovah class, despite the number of times we've been referred to as Jehovah's at the door) there could be no Love as love is contingent on at least one external object. (Perhaps Jesus being referred to as being 'the son of his love' makes a bit more sense in that context.
If it was self-love, then of couse we have Jehovah loving himself and this so much so, he decided to do something for himself which heretofore he had not done, which raises more questions still because if that were the case one would find Jehovah in an eternal love-loop driving the whole show and of course of a class of love which we would be unfamiliar with because it would be the sort of love that failed to have an object which could benefit from the ministrations of this love.
I'm sure you see the difficulty.
The difficulty, is that the fallacy of the complex question is committed by the questioner asking "Why did God create the universe?" because it assumes first of all that a transcendent being must have motive inspired by need because that mirrors the reasons why we do what we do.
Since God is NOT a contingent being, he necessarily does NOT require anything including actions of any sort. No needs to fill. Complete all of a piece and in peace. There could be nothing to perturb self except self, and that with no reason at all.
What's interesting is that the Bible itself gives a circular non-answer of the sort a transcendent being might give in Genesis 2:3 - "And God proceeded to bless the seventh day and make it sacred, because on it he has been restiong from all his work that GOD HAS CREATED FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING. God created the earth to make it. That's it. Because he decided to. No rational or causal chain to be explored. Jehovah may as well have said "I AM" (whoops! HE DID), or "I will prove to be, what I will prove to be" (OOPS! he did, didn't he), or even "What I do is a function of who and what I am. I can no more escape being the me that is perpetually coming to be than you as the creation can stop being contingent."
Moreover, what I find attractive about the God identified by the tetragrammaton is that the name means "he that causes to become", is in fact the perfect name for a transcendent creator, one who both is and is not because to exist is to be finite, and obviously to fail to exist is equally nothing, however a God who is COMING INTO EXISTENCE as a perpetual and self-sustaining actor fully qualifies as God with a capital 'G' because this god meets with all the requirements that the transcendent, noncontingent Creator of the universe would require.
The problem of all religions is the problem of the human need for closure. God is a wild thing which must be tamed and he must conform to our expectations or we're simply not comfortable with this being. Some on the other hand reject all closure and instead embrace wholly unverifiable ideas about possible creators, imagining that they are embracing freedom when they do so, and yet if they were to carefully examine their own existence, isn't their existence contingent on following the rules for an existing creature? Do they really wish to be "free", "free" from their own individuation? That's nonexistence, joining the Godhead, returning to the dust, ceasing to be as the one whom they happen to be.Seaching for religious freedom in that latter realm is truly a striving after the wind and a vanity. (which by the way means simply 'a lie')
No, I don't think either group realizes that Jesus was right when he spoke of his coming death and resurrection that he was describing a path of "coming to be", a path of finite, yet unbounded transcendence wherein we might grow within the realm of contingency without feeling contingent.
Note John 12:23-25 -
The hour has come for the Son of man to be glorified. 24 Most truly I say to YOU, Unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains just one [grain]; but if it dies, it then bears much fruit. 25 He that is fond of his soul destroys it, but he that hates his soul in this world will safeguard it for everlasting life.
In the end I find most don't realize that a few atheists have at the very least identified God through their determined faith in denying the existence of God. How so? They know what God isn't and in knowing this, the mirror image of what they deny becomes clearer for them to grasp so that these rare atheists actually are rejecting not God, but all the idolatrous conceptions of God.
reading lady lee's post about collecting public talk outlines made me recall the following:.
when i was the public talk coordinator and cong.
secretary, i kept the public talk file.
I think giving talks is probably one of the things I might miss. I gave talks fairly regularly. I think I'll rejoin Toastmasters.
The largest audience I had was in the late 80's in the Houston Astrodome. 35,000+ that day.
do you have experience as an elder and the contribution arrangement for assemblies or conventions?
an upcoming watchtower comments video will be exposing the resolution arrangement that makes this a cash-cow for the society.. i am particularly interested in recent experience, including countries other than the us.. let's get our facts straight and explain the ever-present "deficit" once and for all.. v. [email protected] .
All I know is that we had a blackboard, with some figures on it w/current donations, the amount due for the co's apartment and a figure that indicated expenses for the assembly (which I never knew how that worked), then there'd be some amount which was decided to go to the WWW and we'd raise our hands indicating we'd agree and then we'd eat lunch.
I never knew any more than that in the 15 years I served (they still haven't announced my resignation 2 months ago)
