i have an interest in psi phenomena ever since reading 'the conscious universe'.
here is a 2 part serries on 'project alpha':.
background article: .
Thanks for your response bohm. Very honest if I may say so :)
I think it is much better to put the questions in a narrower way, as you have done, if you want to pin down metatron's view on a specific question. I won't comment further myself as you both appear to know more about it than I. :)
i have an interest in psi phenomena ever since reading 'the conscious universe'.
here is a 2 part serries on 'project alpha':.
background article: .
Bohm : this was interesting until you accused Metatron of being 'scared'. Why make ad hominem remarks?
i'm a big fan of mr. raymond franz and read both of his books a number of times.
does anyone here think maybe he didn't tell everything he knew.
for legal reasons and will expose more than he has told before , since the wts can't touch him after he dies.
I think this is a bit premature to be honest under the circumstances.
just setting the record straight.
there is another thread that notes a claim on wiki that said that ray has died.. he had a stroke yesterday, and is in the hospital.
he is still alive.
Although Ray spent many years at the heart of the Borg, I doubt there were any better placed to write Crisis of Conscience. He has opened up the WTS to scrutiny in a way that no other could. I can think of no single thing that would expose the WTS for what they are than a massive distribution of this book.
i was just thinking about a co's closing remarks one sunday after the watchtower study.
he stated that he had heard that ray franz was dead.
he didn't call him by name, of course.
I wonder how many witnesses actually know who Ray is given the apparent turnover rate? I do think Crisis of Conscience is a very important book.
the answer to the above question hinges on when the gospel was actually written.
many scholars feel it was written some time after the destruction of the temple in 70 c.e.
if this is so, it is a clever fake, pretending to have been written earlier by an eye-witness to the events, or someone close to an eye-witness.
We shall see if what we write today will be as relevant in 3010
I fully expect what is written today on religious matters to be equally worthless :)
Enjoy your meal :)
the answer to the above question hinges on when the gospel was actually written.
many scholars feel it was written some time after the destruction of the temple in 70 c.e.
if this is so, it is a clever fake, pretending to have been written earlier by an eye-witness to the events, or someone close to an eye-witness.
To say a thing has no authority unless we give it is true to an extent, but the Bible claims authority and to be inspired by God. It doesn't say 'take it or leave it' or 'make your own mind up' as far as I know. It is reasonable to ask why one should accept this. I would say given the information above, I do not see how any rational person would accept it is an authoritative presentation of the will of God.
If one decides one is satisfied that the Bible is authoritative that is a personal decision and that's fine. If one tries to convince someone else it is authoritative then one is obliged to explain one's rational and expose it to analysis.
I disagree that I have made the process of study more complex than necessary. If you start with an English translation of the Bible you are starting with a number of assumptions that may or may not be true. You are trusting the foundation of your study is correct without knowing for sure. I do not think the Bible is easy for the ordinary person to research yet the consequences for accepting it as an authority may be vastly more important than if we form an opinion about purely historical writings.
This is not about God taking control of our lives. This is about God (if there is one) making his laws and advice (if he has any) known clearly. He has apparently not baulked at interfering directly in the past if the Bible is to be believed. The choice is then whether folks decide to accept it or not. In the past apparently direct intervention (eg Egypt) didn't make people mindlessly comply did it? Why would it now?
Anyway I think we are straying from the point rather. In a nutshell I think Matthew is a politico/religious document like the rest of the book and we would be no worse of it it didn't exist at all.
the answer to the above question hinges on when the gospel was actually written.
many scholars feel it was written some time after the destruction of the temple in 70 c.e.
if this is so, it is a clever fake, pretending to have been written earlier by an eye-witness to the events, or someone close to an eye-witness.
If it is as you say, and I don't disagree, that the Bible is the thoughts of men (whether inspired or not), then I cannot see how it is any kind of authority. Since the majority of people are unlikely to have the time, commitment and wherewithal to do the type of research that you say would be necessary to reach a definite conclusion, it occurs to me that such folks will naturally rely on the opinions of others who have, or claim to have, done the research already. This is clearly what happens in practice in religions all round the world with obvious results. This seems compounded by the apparent fact that none of the original writings exist and the process of assembling the NT was directed by Constantine and his cronies in the Church.
We are still left with the imprecision I originally referred to: there is no way to be sure that 'God' has played any part in the construction of this collection of documents. Worse than that, if He did, His influence was so weak as to be indistinguishable from human thought. Any appeal to divine authority is thus weakened or, some might say, rendered valueless.
I agree the 'words of Jesus' you refer to were themselves written by men. If the other writings in the books are subject to doubt then so too must it be so with these words. It seems to me there is some doubt that those who committed the words to paper ever heard 'Jesus' speak - if in fact the 'Jesus' as mentioned in the writings existed at all in the form described in the Gospels.
The term 'divine inspiration' is an interesting one. It appears to me to be vague enough to mean almost anything and easy to introduce to make a saying authoritative for the believer without being susceptible to proper analysis. Referring to sayings as 'inspired' without any frame of reference for the degree to which this is true renders them of no more value than anyone else's 'wise sayings' and equally prone to error.
Your final remark is I think quite correct. If a person wants to place "much stock" in the Bible they should research it. Unfortunately as far as I can see, years of study by those with the time and intellect so to do have not resulted in much more than widespread disagreement about the meaning of it. The Church itself has spent centuries in research. I wonder exactly how much more research can be done? if such intense research is required to understand it or determine its validity one wonders why God bothered in the first place as it does not seem a very efficient or accurate way to get His thoughts across. He would appear to have used far more explicit methods in the past: angels, burning bushes, tablets from mountains etc etc.
As a final thought, the original documents (even if they exist any more) were not written in English. I presume that to be sure of what one is researching, one ought to learn Aramaic, Greek and Hebrew too. After all, studying the Bible in English is studying the meaning as ascribed by those who translated it into English, most, if not all of whom would have their own agenda.
the answer to the above question hinges on when the gospel was actually written.
many scholars feel it was written some time after the destruction of the temple in 70 c.e.
if this is so, it is a clever fake, pretending to have been written earlier by an eye-witness to the events, or someone close to an eye-witness.
Hi PS
I don't think we are far apart in our view on this matter. I would however respectfully point out that your answer seems to sidestep the point I made about the divine-inspiration claimed for the Bible and the apparent ease with which it can be twisted to support the aims of others. Why wouldn't God make his wishes known less ambiguously if the Bible really was meant to be a guide to life? The answer I would say is because the Bible isn't from God (and neither is any other religious document that I know of, at least not in any sense that is of practical value). I would be interested to hear your own view.
I don't think this is discussion anything to do with God intervening or not in individual acts of atrocity (and I agree many such acts have been committed with no religious basis - tribe/nation/politics often feature, though politics and religious belief often go hand in hand it seems to me).
Paul
most of the emails that i receive from jws are short and to the point - i am wrong and jehovah will soon exact vengeance on me.
they never identify where i am wrong.
here is a typical one.
only wish the internet had been available back in 1984 when I got involved.
I couldn't agree more with this statement. I got caught back in 1982 as a rather naiive and inexperienced 18 year old. I wish I'd had access to someone who knew all this stuff or to some other source instead of trashing 5 years of my life, relationships and career. <bangs head on wall>
I think it is a very good thing indeed that access to information about many aspects of life, including religious organisations, is now so freely available. Although it is sometimes difficult to determine the actual truth about any particular matter, it is very easy to garner a range of opinions and a great deal of fact before making life-changing decisions.
I am grateful too that so many are prepared to commit their time and effort to organising and publishing what they have discovered.
