Posts by rawe

544

FINALLY! Can you prove God exists? If you can I won't ask again!

by punkofnice in

i have seen debates and shizzle about god or not god etc etc.. i was even confronted by an aggressive and trheatening muslim in the street, who was angry that i wanted proof that god existed.

he ranted on a load of old b0110cks about 'hell' and stuff.

finally he yelled at me: 'do you want god to write your name in the sky?

rawe

Hi Soft+gentle,

To be completely honest, I am arguing for a concept that makes sense and continues to dignify both the believer and the non-believer. But I am also exploring, via this thread, the idea. In other words, I would like to bat this idea back and forth to see if it can hold up and remain rational.

Richard Dawkins said very smartly in his book The God Delusion, (I paraphrase), in regards to the Gods of the past, we are all atheists, modern atheists just go one God more. I remember reading that, sitting in my car outside Costco, after I left the faith in 2007, thinking how brilliant that logic was. Indeed, on what basis do we so smuggly claim Zeus does not exist? Or why is it so easy for us in the modern world to dismiss his existence?

The answer Christians give of course is not really that bad -- namely, Christ continues to be believed because he exists. His power, tied to existence, has defeated wrong and false belief and continuing to insist (or hope?) he doesn't exist is what is delusional.

But, yes, in answer to PunkOfNice, I believe God exists, but only within the minds of believers. And this mode of existence helps explain the difference we sense between Christ and Zeus in the modern world. Of couse there are 7 billion people on the planet and I would not be surprised if at least some continue to hold Zeus as real or even Obi-Wan for that matter. But Christ is a widely held belief.

Cheers,

-Randy

544

FINALLY! Can you prove God exists? If you can I won't ask again!

by punkofnice in

i have seen debates and shizzle about god or not god etc etc.. i was even confronted by an aggressive and trheatening muslim in the street, who was angry that i wanted proof that god existed.

he ranted on a load of old b0110cks about 'hell' and stuff.

finally he yelled at me: 'do you want god to write your name in the sky?

rawe

Hi Tammy,

"In the God-mind theory, God could leave a person? Is this the opposite of what you have been saying, that God and the person would be inseparable and the same? I could be misunderstanding you, sorry. Perhaps you could rephrase? Thanks : )"

I need to shove off to bed too. Within the framework of the theory, Christ should always be able to reach you. I.e. going into a steel box would not prevent Christ from being there. This is so, because there is no physical barrier involved, because Christ exists within your mind as a construct and obviously that makes 'Christ' part of you, within you. Yet, this does not mean you would be unable to conceive of Christ leaving you. You could, for various reasons feel forsaken.

Think too of the witnessing you do about Christ, what do you actually say to the other person? You may share thoughts you've picked up from the Bible. If you've studied that material and it has influenced you -- that would be natural. But it is not likely you would suggest non-personal concepts. Rather thoughts will tend to focus on person-centric. As Jesus said, "I am with you." Could you imagine, someone speaking about Christ in non-personal ways? For example, would it not seem very odd if a person said, "Christ would like to help you, but he doesn't know what you need, he has never met you." Or "Christ isn't interested in us right now, he is working on plans that he'll be acting on a few thousands years from now."

What all this boils down to is the inescapable fact that all our concepts of others are ultimately within our noggins. We do not even need someone to be physically present for us to think about them. Is it possible to have thoughts about purely imagined individuals who otherwise do not exist in reality? We can, otherwise we could not enjoy watching a fictional character in a movie. Can Obi-Wan Kenobi come with us into a steel box? If we have watched Star Wars and have concept of the character, he can go wherever we go. The concept of him is in our minds -- put there by George Lucas.

But Christ is obviously different than Obi-Wan. Unlike Obi-Wan the concept of Christ, relates to a number of very important things to us personally. Such as a sense of justice, being loved, being supported, having a purpose, or even helping us survive our ultimate demise -- death. I believe it is for that reason the concept tends to drift towards the ego-centric. You might find this strange, but if Christ is truly personal towards the believer, for the most part, even as an atheist, I think that is healthy. It also the importance of these things to us personally, that makes Christ powerful, inspiring and a motivator, even if he does not exist apart from our us. I.e. Godly power without actually having to exist -- now that is overcoming an amazing deficit! (I really do mean that sincerely)

Where we got in trouble as Witnesses was believing that our ability to please Jehovah God rested on unquestioned obedience to Christ's Brothers as represented by the Governing Body. In that model we wound up handing over our intellect to another who could abuse it for their own selfish interests.

Cheers,

-Randy

544

FINALLY! Can you prove God exists? If you can I won't ask again!

by punkofnice in

i have seen debates and shizzle about god or not god etc etc.. i was even confronted by an aggressive and trheatening muslim in the street, who was angry that i wanted proof that god existed.

he ranted on a load of old b0110cks about 'hell' and stuff.

finally he yelled at me: 'do you want god to write your name in the sky?

rawe

Hi Tammy,

Thank you for responding detail. If I could ask you to expand just a bit more on this point...

"Not voices, no. But I do hear His voice. Not as in with audible ears, but His distinct voice, in spirit, within me. Sometimes in words, sometimes in reminders of scripture that help me to see something He is trying to tell me; sometimes in images or reminders of a known event that will also help me see something; sometimes just in understanding granted."

What are your circumstances when this voice is most apparent? God-of-the-mind theory would suggest that you'll most often hear God's voice when you're able to shutdown other sensory input. So you'll more likely feel closer to God in quiet circumstance than when you're engrossed in some task. For example closing your eyes while saying a prayer is one way of shutting of input and thus pushing your mind into more internal reflection. Postures and places of meditation work this way too. I would add that being under heavy stress may be an exception to this rule, but for different reasons.

"It can totally be separated from me."

Wow! Okay, I didn't expect that. Allow me to take another run at it. If you and God are really one and the same thing, then you will not be able to separate God from yourself. So, for example, if you and God are the same, you should always feel, without exception, God understands you. It would be truly odd, as per this theory, for you to say, "God just doesn't 'get' me." Of course it is common for believers to say, "I just don't know what the Lord wants for me" -- that would simply reflect the person themselves, is unsure of the best path forward. But what should not happen is a true sense of distance and lack of understanding between you and God, as if you could entertain the idea that there was some physical place, say inside a steel box, where God couldn't reach you, if he wanted to.

In contrast the God-mind theory would allow for God to leave you. This view is reflected in dying words of Jesus where he says, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?", which of course is quote from Psalms. Two things can explain this, one is simply that an expectation of action on God's part fails to materialize and that confuses the believer. Perhaps more likely is a tendency to self-condemn where we feel some action on our part has offended God.

I look forward to your thoughts.

Cheers,

-Randy

544

FINALLY! Can you prove God exists? If you can I won't ask again!

by punkofnice in

i have seen debates and shizzle about god or not god etc etc.. i was even confronted by an aggressive and trheatening muslim in the street, who was angry that i wanted proof that god existed.

he ranted on a load of old b0110cks about 'hell' and stuff.

finally he yelled at me: 'do you want god to write your name in the sky?

rawe

Hi Tammy,

Your post is interesting. My theory of the existence of God is that he does exist but within the mind of believers. If that theory is correct it should show up in a couple different ways. There should be nothing that we can objectively measure that would indicate the existence of God as a real external entity. For example the existence of Pluto was theorized before it was actually viewed. The theory the backs our understanding of gravity was used to calculate Pluto's influence and infer existence and then used to actually spot Pluto in the night sky over Flagstaff, AZ.

The second thing that should be true, if my mind-God-theory is correct, is expressions should tend to be ego-centric. I say 'ego-centric' only because I don't know another way to express the idea. I am not meaning to use this phrase in a negative way -- just that thoughts about God should self-reflect. God, in this case, should know you, answer to you, be an intimate companion.

Saying God exists within the mind of believers only, may seem to diminish his stature, but I actually don't think so. It makes God exactly as powerful as the believer is and it turns out humans can accomplish some pretty darn amazing things -- like Ghandi standing up to one of the most poweful nations on earth. Or the monks in Burma taking huge personal risks to engage in political protest.

Here are a few quotes from your post that seemed to me to fit these two categories, first the self-reflection...

"Christ has always been my lifeline. Doubts that I have ever had, have always brought me back to Him. Originally mainly from what He taught; now from what He teaches and speaks. (present tense) I do not believe He is real. I know that He is."

I was particularily struck by saying he speaks to you in the present tense. I assume you don't mean you're literally hearing voices. It seems more like you're saying his teaching resonate with your life in the here and now. Is that what you mean? Also the assertive phase "I know" speaks to internal knowledge and certainty. If my theory is correct, for you to deny the existence of God at this point, would be to deny your own existence. Given that, atheism is simply not going to be rational in this context.

On the inability to objectively measure the existence of God...

"One person cannot prove to another person that there is God. That sort of imperical proof that non-beleivers are asking for. Because you cannot prove the spiritual with tools meant to measure the physical. You have to use different tools."

On the surface it looks like a simple acknowledgement that settling the question of the existence of Pluto is a different task than that for God. Adding the bit about "different tools" and "spiritual tools" is interesting. Some given to thinking in terms of the concrete and literal would simply say these phrases have no real meaning. But to me it more indicates a struggle with trying to express something you know, in a near absolute sense, yet cannot be separated from yourself as an individual. One of the differences that strikes me between believers and non-believers is the degree of self-knowledge. Many believers are certain, they know with little doubt, God exists. Non-believers in almost every case I have observed will say, that they are not certain it can be proven God does not exist.

Lastly, the rational mind...

"But other people lose faith, or set their faith aside, because they do not like what God is (or is not) doing, according to what man has taught them about God. So usually, it is in a false god that they have lost their faith."

Some non-believers might jump at statements like this, to say the conclusion you've reached misses the obvious -- namely that God does not exist -- but even worse it imputes bad motive on the non-believer. But I see this differently. I see this as the believing mind struggling to understand what is essentially a non-rational concept. If you know that God exists, why then do others not believe? This can be made all the more confusing when you meet and interact with non-believers, many of whom you'll discover think and act in much the same way as believers, have the same range of likes, dislikes and morals, etc.

The human mind is constantly seeking to be rational. To make sense of the world around it. For example where your optic nerve connects to the back of your eye it creates two blind spots in your field of vision. But you don't notice them, because your mind simply fills in the void. Other examples of this occur where one is deprived of good information to the senses. You'll see something off in the distance, but not really well enough to recognize it, your mind will just make something up until you get closer to the object. In this context your believing mind is forcing you to come to some conclusion that remains rational. If the non-existence of God is non-rational it must be rejected.

Cheers,

-Randy

544

FINALLY! Can you prove God exists? If you can I won't ask again!

by punkofnice in

i have seen debates and shizzle about god or not god etc etc.. i was even confronted by an aggressive and trheatening muslim in the street, who was angry that i wanted proof that god existed.

he ranted on a load of old b0110cks about 'hell' and stuff.

finally he yelled at me: 'do you want god to write your name in the sky?

rawe

Hi PunkOfNice,

"If god doesn't exist then what's the meaning of life?"

Before I add to this thread, others here may be interested to know PunkOfNice and I know each other from the Ex-Jehovah's Witness Forum and Recovery site on yuku.com.

I self-identify as an atheist, but like most in the category would say there may be no way to prove God doesn't exist. I would also say, I do believe God exists within the minds of believers and he can have a set of shared attributes if those believers talk about such things and reach a consensus view.

What is the meaning of life? Or, as we may have asked a householder: Does life have a purpose? The answer I believe is simple: life has no meaning and no purpose. And that is the problem, our ability to plan with purpose is tied to our survival. Our ability to judge the intent of another mind (animal or human) is tied to our survival. Thus we may not be well equiped to deal with something that has no purpose or meaning.

Perhaps the most ironic thing that comes up in this debate is the word 'chance', so often used by Witnesses. At the most fundemental level it does seem there is an essential randomness at the subatomic level. But we should not let that confuse us into believing the physical systems are primarily driven by chance. In fact the laws of nature as so well defined that concrete predictions can be made. The simple act of watching a weather report shows how this works. Thus the example of the evolution of the eye is not a question of chance. In fact the physical limits on what would work at at biological level for radiation sensor the eyes are, is so narrow only a couple different patterns appear in nature.

But... the ultimate definition of chance and randomness is... God! If a superbeing exists and interacts in a capricious manner with our world, then an amazing thing happens to knowledge. It doesn't become a question of if one can know if God exists or not, it becomes a question of can one know anything at all? And that's the kicker. We can know the world only to the extent we understand the laws of nature and only to the extent that such laws are not violated. If we have to also account for a random capricious law breaker, then we can't really know anything, not even in principal.

Cheers,

-Randy

67

Tech49 on HOURS, TIME, and REPORTS

by Tech49 in

i thought i would share some of my observations on counting field service time, reports, etc.

and how those reports are viewed, to those that are still so fixated on numbers.. i served as secretary on the service committee for many years, and have seen it all!.

i was really disheartened when wt changed the requirement for aux pioneering to allow for 30 hrs, instead of the 50 it has been for so long.

rawe

Hi Tech49,

"Out of 30 people, probably 25% came anywhere near the 30hr commitment they signed up for."

That's interesting. I left the faith in 2007 before the time was dropped from 50 to 30. As a family we tried to Aux Pio every summer. When the time dropped from 60 to 50 I did find I could hit the goal without taking that much time off work. Although I too served as Secretary for a period of time my recall was most who signed up for the 50 hours made it, sometimes with an hour or two more.

For the last couple years before I left it became more obvious that going out in service for most was a sort of ritual, rather than anything truly productive. When my wife's Bible study moved to west side of Phoenix this issue became incredibly obvious. We actually went out to a meeting at the hall who held the territory and after the meeting tried to find someone willing to take the study -- it was a deer-in-the-headlights experience. One congregation member later called my wife and asked her "What are you trying pull?"

Cheers,

-Randy

76

Do You Believe Gods name is Jehovah and why?

by sarahsmile in

many internet sites claiming that god's names is jehovah.. do you believe it is the name of god?.

rawe

Hi Stauros,

"Jesus called Him Heavenly Father not Jehovah (YHWH)(YHVH). What does Jesus mean when he said let your name be sanctified?"

The opening line to the Lord's prayer is this:

Our Father in the heavens, let your name be sanctified. - Matthew 6:9

or as Luke has it: Father, let your name be sanctified. - Luke 11:2

The NWT tends to lay stress on action, as if the Father is doing something in regards to his name. In contrast, other translations tend to reflect an attribute of the Father's name:

Our Father [which art] (KJV) in heaven, hallowed be your name - Matthew 6:9 (NIV, NABS, KJV)

Although Darby agrees with the NWT: Our Father who art in the heavens, let thy name be sanctified - Darby

Thus I think there are two ways of understanding this verse. One is that the Father is implored to take some action to have his name sanctified. This of course is the nominal JW view. Or the name of the Father is intrinsically hallow or holy. Personally I think the latter is more likely and indeed one of the reasons why safeguards were in place against even saying "Jehovah."

Cheers,

-Randy

76

Do You Believe Gods name is Jehovah and why?

by sarahsmile in

many internet sites claiming that god's names is jehovah.. do you believe it is the name of god?.

rawe

Hi Sarahsmile, Phizzy & mP,

"WHile i agree that Paul was quoting the greek lxx, the question remains which books did he think were special. Its hard to tell given that he never actually makes an effort to say which or what. One can only conclude that God doesnt really care or is mighty sloppy with his messages."

Since posting I've been thinking more about this issue and how I might refine my views. Since we are so far removed in time for these authors we can only make educated guesses. I cannot say dogmatically Paul (or whoever is the author of Hebrews) is quoting the LXX, even though they agree in this "all the angels of God worship him." One might argue that while the Masoretic Text we have today doesn't have this phrase it does not absolutely mean the author of Hebrews didn't have access to a copy of OT in Hebrew that was more in agreement with the LXX.

Indeed this is what The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible says about this verse:

Deuteronomy 32:43 is an unusual verse in view of its contents. As the list of variant readings show, 4QDeut -- supported by the Septuagint -- differs markedly from the Masoretic Text and the Samaritan Pentateuch. For example, in the Qumran scroll it is "the heavens" which rejoice, not the nations; and God will avenge the blood of "his sons," not "his servants." Moreover, the mention of gods "bowing down to God" and "recompensing those who hate him" is absent from the Masoretic Text and the Samaritan Pentateuch. This verse provides a striking example of the very different readings that sometimes appear in the Dead Sea Scrolls. - Page 192

So it is possible the author of Hebrews had something resembling the Qumran scrolls in Hebrew. Yet we know there is no evidence NT authors ever wrote down anything more than "jah" as part of Hallelujah in regards to the name Jehovah. This is consistent with the fact they likely were using the LXX which in their day had Jehovah replaced with Lord.

What about the idea NT writers referenced material that was beyond the OT we have today? Funny how things work out. The day after my post we ran across this verse in our family Bible reading (we read 2 pages most week days).

When you come, bring the cloak I left at Tro′as with Carpus, and the scrolls, especially the parchments. - 2 Timothy 4:13

All the quoting of OT material in the NT certainly suggests these scrolls and parchments were likely OT material and as already argued probably the LXX. But did other ideas influence NT authors? There are a couple places where I think one could argue that, for example...

I know a man in union with Christ who, fourteen years ago—whether in the body I do not know, or out of the body I do not know; God knows—was caught away as such to the third heaven. - 2 Corithians 12:2

This verse is a reference to an out-of-body experience which may have been more a first century influence than something one would get from the OT. I also do not believe one can find a reference to the "third heaven" in the OT. Here is another...

When an unclean spirit comes out of a man, it passes through parched places in search of a resting-place, and finds none - Matthew 12:43

I believe this description of unclean spirits reflects first century ideas more than what one would pick up in the OT.

Cheers,

-Randy

15

Your opinion is requested.

by DATA-DOG in

this is rough draft of a letter that i was thinking of sending to various human rights organizations.

i am interested in your thoughts.

i will not include anyone's website without their permission.

rawe

Hi DATA-DOG,

As part of our Shun Run this year, we ask Jehovah's Witnesses to specifically declare they support article 12 and 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Not too surprisingly we heard no response. I think your efforts here are a great idea! See...

http://exjehovahswitnessforum.yuku.com/topic/24854

Cheers,

-Randy

76

Do You Believe Gods name is Jehovah and why?

by sarahsmile in

many internet sites claiming that god's names is jehovah.. do you believe it is the name of god?.

rawe

Hi Sarahsmile,

"Personally I think all bibles should place the tegtagramanon back."

It depends on what the Bible translator is attempting to accomplish. There is little question the tetragrammaton (YHWH) appears thousands of times in the oldest Hebrew manuscripts we have. Likewise we know later copies replaced the tetragrammaton with Adonai (Lord). The Jehovah-to-Lord replacement also happened to the Greek Septuagint translation of the OT.

A big problem one has in translating the Bible is simply that it is not one book from one author at one time. It is a collection of books that were not stable on this issue. One of the problem in using the oldest Hebrew text for OT is that it creates a hybrid translation looked at from the Christian perspective. Thus when Paul says this...

All Scripture is inspired of God - 2 Timothy 3:16a

What exactly does he mean by 'Scripture'? I think it is safe to conclude he means the Greek Septuagint (LXX) and here is why...

Hebrews 1:6 says this: But when he again brings his Firstborn into the inhabited earth, he says: “And let all God’s angels do obeisance (sic) to him.”

The "All God's angels" is an OT quote from Deuteronomy, but look how it reads...

Be glad, YOU nations, with his people, For he will avenge the blood of his servants, And he will pay back vengeance to his adversaries And will indeed make atonement for the ground of his people. - Deuteronomy 32:43

The puzzle is solved when one looks this up in the Septuagint...

Rejoice, ye heavens, with him, and let all the angels of God worship him; rejoice ye Gentiles, with his people, and let all the sons of God strengthen themselves in him; for he will avenge the blood of his sons, and he will render vengeance, and recompense justice to his enemies, and will reward them that hate him; and the Lord shall purge the land of his people. - Deuteronomy 32:43 (LXX)

So... as a translator, I think it would be very legitimate to create a translation that did not include the divine name in OT, if the purpose was to create a Bible translation that reflected the religious text as used by the early Christian community. That text would be the LXX, which by that time had the name Jehovah replaced with Lord. This theory is supported by the following facts: (a) Christians writers wrote in Greek and thus would have relied on a Greek translation of the OT, (b) no extant manuscripts of NT include the tetragrammaton, (c) the quote of Deuteronomy in Hebrews shows the LXX was the source (d) and we know that later copies of the LXX had replaced Jehovah with Lord.

Cheers,
-Randy