cofty.
Change the subject when faced with reason as usual.
Yes! and not a trace of shame at mishandling someone's statements.
fulltimestudent
JoinedPosts by fulltimestudent
-
72
Coping With Atheism (Long-ish Post...sorry!)
by humblepotato inlong time lurker (2009-ish), first time poster.
first of all, i want to say thank you everyone who contributes to these boards and provokes stimulating conversations and thought processes.
all the opinions and different perspectives are very enlightening.
-
-
fulltimestudent
Yes! and not a trace of shame at mishandling someone's statements. -
54
Polytheism in the Book of Daniel, a late second temple religious document
by fulltimestudent inas jehovah's witnesses we committed ourselves to a blind belief in a monotheistic judaism that was automatically transmitted to a new religious organisation, started (we were taught) by jesus.. that's the premise which this thread will discuss.
i suggest that sufficient evidence is available to throw doubt on both those beliefs.
so this thread will argue (over about a week-hopefully) that:.
-
-
fulltimestudent
jhine: How a Jew would explain this figure I do not know , it would be interesting to read Jewish commentary on this . Did Boyarin do that ? I am not familiar with his writing . As I said before the only meaning of a word or passage that is helpful is the one used by the writer , and the closest we can come to that surely is in the thoughts of his fellow Jews .
Boyarin, does attempt to analyse prior Jewish usage of certain expressions, for example the two expressions used about the messiah, 'son of man,' and 'son of god.'
I'd attempt to summarise, except that means I have to go to Sydney University to access Boyarin's book (My own university is not holding the book, and I have to complete my trip organising (- will sleep in Shanghai on wed. night- Aust. and Chns time -smile).
If it interests you, look around your local libraries for a copy (some university libraries will let you read on their premises). Details of the book are in the first few posts of this thread.
Attempting to reconstruct beliefs is a complex matter, more so because of the commonly held belief that Yahweh is the real author of the Bible.
As we have observed, by some 70-80 years after Jesus died, Justin Martyr could call Jesus, 'god.' Did any other early Christian object to that statement? If they did, and the document is extant, I have yet to read it.
And yet, as Geza Vermes observes ( Vermes, Christian Beginnings-From Nazareth to Nicaea, AD 30-325, Allen Lane, 2012. pp 106-113), in a sub-section he names, "The Status of Christ in the Pauline Religion."
" Paul never envisaged Jesus as fully sharing the nature of the deity. When compared to God the father, 'the son' always occupies an inferior position in Pauline thought. ... The co-equality of the divine persons is a concept that is still centuries away."
Vermes' analyses the prayers (formulas) of the writings attributed to Paul and notes that in general the prayers are directed to "God" as the father and not to Jesus.
Its impressive to read his list of prayer extracts and see that point clearly.
Clearly that buys an argument, and I want to say its all immaterial to me, I am as personally distant to the emotions of the argument, as I am in (to use a non-religious example) any arguments concerning prejudice that may be evident in the writings of Ammianus.
So enjoy your intellectual journey through the maze of first century religious thought. I think in the end you will probably arrive at the same conclusion as many modern scholars, which is:
That there was a great diversity of beliefs in both first century Judaism and Christianity.
Therefore. the idea that there was a common "truth" taught by Jesus, and handed on to the apostles. is quite mistaken.
Which leads is to another conclusion, the idea that the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses today is both the custodian and transmitter of that truth is also erroneous.
-
54
Polytheism in the Book of Daniel, a late second temple religious document
by fulltimestudent inas jehovah's witnesses we committed ourselves to a blind belief in a monotheistic judaism that was automatically transmitted to a new religious organisation, started (we were taught) by jesus.. that's the premise which this thread will discuss.
i suggest that sufficient evidence is available to throw doubt on both those beliefs.
so this thread will argue (over about a week-hopefully) that:.
-
-
fulltimestudent
SS: Interesting concept, brainwashed only to be brainwashed by someone else equates free will.
Well, its your concept SS, so stick with it mate.
The majority of our beliefs are shared, inherited in some way. Your teacher at school, endeavouring to instill an understanding of geometry in your precocious brain, learned his understanding from others that stretches (in part) to a time before Jesus walked the earth. (although, we have no evidence that Jesus understood anything about geometry).
The idea of this thread was rather simple. That although Judaism is seen as monotheistic (and you spent a lot of time in a concordance picking out texts to cite that), Boyarin proposed that Daniel 7 (written after the Hellenisation of Palestine) indicated that the author(s) of the Daniel manuscript was prepared to envision two gods, though he depicts both through symbols.
I'm reasonably confident that even you, will see the first 'god' in Daniel 7:9, the 'ancient of days' who comes to sit on his throne, as representing the 'Yahweh' god figure. And, I'm sure that most Christians will see the other figure, the 'son of man' as representing (in Christian theology) the 'Messiah.'
Boyarin's contention is that this second person, arriving on the clouds of heaven, must also be a 'god,' so he asks, was Jewish monotheism so pure and straightforward as you seem to think.
Of course, if like the JWs, you want to believe that ALL the Bible, (every word of it) was written under the guidance of the "ancient of days, and that the "ancient of days," was a jealous god that would brook no rivals, then you will reject Boyarin's suggestion, and go on spouting proof texts, that to you indicate only one god.
If there are demigods in existence and Jesus was a demigod, then that may provide you with and intellectual escape clause.
But then I guess, you'll turn around and say that the Greeks were polytheists, because they believed in more than one god, when it is clear that there was one supreme god, Zeus/Jupiter, (just as in Daniel's ch. 7 vision, there was one supreme god), who gives the other god, supreme power over the earth. To be consistent, should you say that this is also evidence of polytheism?
Did Jesus believe that he was this 'other god?'
Luke 21:27 seems to suggest that the author of the Luke document thought that he did, as he portrays his version of the messiah saying, "And then they will see the son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory."
And, irrespective of your own conclusions concerning the grammatical construction of John 1:1, in some way the author of the John document thought that his version of the messiah was divine.
It the time of writing of the John document is as late as some think, it ties in well with Justin Martyrs' belief that Jesus was his God. (written circa 110 CE).
So is Boyarin so wrong, when he suggests that the Daniel document is pointing to a contamination of Jewish monotheism by the introduction of a second divine figure?
-
15
I'm late to the party on this Gog of Magog change...
by sd-7 inso this may 2015 study edition...i know you guys have talked about it already, but wow.
this is classic.
mostly i like to revel in the presentation of these changes.
-
-
fulltimestudent
hahahahahahahaha!
Someone is reading good academic research at last!
But individual Jehovah's witnesses are NOT ALLOWED to read that same research, and if they do break that taboo, they cannot discuss it with fellow believers. If they do break the cernsorship rules they face disciplining action, or worse.
What bullsh*t !!!!!!!
Thnx for posting this thread.
-
72
Coping With Atheism (Long-ish Post...sorry!)
by humblepotato inlong time lurker (2009-ish), first time poster.
first of all, i want to say thank you everyone who contributes to these boards and provokes stimulating conversations and thought processes.
all the opinions and different perspectives are very enlightening.
-
-
fulltimestudent
Further! When we spread our investigative net wider, we find that Barrett DOES believe that children have an innate belief in god, but that he denied (on at least one occasion that he meant to imply the claim that Perry makes.
On the site: Patheos
( http://www.patheos.com/blogs/epiphenom/2009/01/childish-beliefs-of-dr-justin-barrett.html )
there is an account of an attack on Barrett's claims by another Oxford academic:
Here’s what Grayling had to say about it:
Barrett and friends infer from the first half of these unexceptionable facts that children are hardwired to believe in a supreme being. Not only does this ignore the evidence from developmental psychology about the second stage of cognitive maturation, but is in itself a very big – and obviously hopeful – jump indeed. Moreover it ignores the fact that large tracts of humankind (the Chinese for a numerous example) have no beliefs in a supreme being, innate or learned, and that most primitive religion is animistic.
- See more at: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/epiphenom/2009/01/childish-beliefs-of-dr-justin-barrett.html#sthash.bEFiYEEC.dpuf
In response to that attack:Barrett responded by complaining:
Had Grayling attended the seminar as Brown did (or read my book, Why Would Anyone Believe in God?), he would know that I do not say that religion is “hardwired” or “innate” – rather that children have propensities to believe in gods because of how their minds naturally work.
- See more at: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/epiphenom/2009/01/childish-beliefs-of-dr-justin-barrett.html#sthash.bEFiYEEC.dpuf
So Perry, your christian brother Barrett, cuts the ground right away from under you, so that you fall into the chasm of being a mere propagandist.
A 'propensity' (tendency) is a long way from everyone "knowing" that god exists.
Footnote: the link again for that discussion is:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/epiphenom/2009/01/childish-beliefs-of-dr-justin-barrett.html
-
31
What do you think? Should chimpanzees be granted 'personhood'?
by fulltimestudent inthere's a current court case in ny which is hearing that question right now.
the precise issue is the continued captivity of two chimpanzees, (leo and hercules, names bestowed by humans) in a medical research laboratory at stony brook university.. i suggest that the application has some merit.
are not all of us "animals?
-
-
fulltimestudent
Tempest in a Teacupa day ago: So far as they can pay taxes too, no problem!
Yeah, that's OK, they can pay tax out of all the rent, they should receive from humans who have wrongfully alienated Chimpanzee land.--------------------------Barrold Bonds: a day agoif they're considered people can we fuck them?
How about turning the question around. If we say 'yes' to your question, will male chimpanzees be entitled to screw your daughter? -
72
Coping With Atheism (Long-ish Post...sorry!)
by humblepotato inlong time lurker (2009-ish), first time poster.
first of all, i want to say thank you everyone who contributes to these boards and provokes stimulating conversations and thought processes.
all the opinions and different perspectives are very enlightening.
-
-
fulltimestudent
WHY ARE CHRISTIANS ALWAYS SO INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST?.
Official publications of Jehovah’s witnesses have been exposed as misusing quotations by various non-witnesses. Put simply it means they LIE, through that mis-use.
Perry, uses the same manipulative technique.
In this thread, defender of truth asked Perry to provide evidence to support his (Perry’s) statement that ALL people know that god exists.
A very sweeping statement when you consider that surveys indicate that 66% of Chinese are atheists.
defender of truth: Perry said: "However, ALL people know God exists deep down."
What evidence do you have to support such a blanket statement, that you have made on behalf of the entire human race?In response, Perry with a great degree of confidence responds with this statement
Perry: Here you go D of T,
CHILDREN ARE BORN WITH BELIEF IN GOD
Extra-biblical source above.WHY ARE CHRISTIANS ALWAYS SO INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST.
So we can go to the link, and indeed we find a headline to an article that states:
Children are born with a belief in God
We also see the web-site name, “Uncommon Descent – Serving the Intelligent Design Community.
So the function of the web-site is to attempt to support a belief in creationism.
Let’s review the article. The lead paragraph states:
Researchers from Oxford’s Centre for Anthropology and Mind have found evidence that children are predisposed to believe in God or a supreme being. This is because of a natural assumption that everything in the world exists for a purpose and was therefore created.
Those statements can be challenged, but let’s leave them aside and check who made the claim>
We find it’s a person named Dr. Justin Barrett, who on investigation, turns out to be a devout Christian. (Are you surprised?) (See, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_L._Barrett ) Of course, Christians can do good research like anyone else. That’s not the issue at stake here. What’s at stake is the manipulation of the work of others.
The quite short article further argues:
At a lecture at Cambridge University’s Faraday Institute, Barrett cited psychological experiments carried out on children that reveal an instinctive belief in children towards acceptance of design and purpose. This leads to a natural belief in creation rather than evolution, even when they are told differently by parents or teachers. Anthropologists have found that in some cultures children accept belief in God even when specific religious teaching is withheld. He commented;
“Children’s normally and naturally developing minds make them prone to believe in divine creation and intelligent design. In contrast, evolution is unnatural for human minds; relatively difficult to believe.”
Barrett’s supporting evidence is research that concluded that there was an, “instinctive belief in children towards acceptance of design and purpose.”
Don’t you agree Perry, that having a mind construction that tends to look for an object’s ‘design’ and ‘purpose,’ is a long way from being born with a belief in God.
Did you read the full article before posting? Or, did you, with the same mindset as a witness, just accept the statement without examination. (Perhaps on the basis that faith is credulous)
-
17
OMG... what happened in a bar today
by leaving_quietly inso, i'm sitting in a bar, having a drink.
the bar participates in taptv, an online trivia thing.
the question that came up was, "what did jehovah's witnesses call themselves before 1931".
-
-
fulltimestudent
Billy the Ex-Bethelite: The history and methods of WT are rooted in salesmanship.
I blame their connections to Coca Cola.
See : http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/158919/rutherford-wm-heath-sr-coca-cola?page=1
The 1930's Rutherford slogan, "Advertise, Advertise, Advertise, the King and His Kingdom," sounds as though it could be right out of a Coca Cola sales manual.
-
31
What do you think? Should chimpanzees be granted 'personhood'?
by fulltimestudent inthere's a current court case in ny which is hearing that question right now.
the precise issue is the continued captivity of two chimpanzees, (leo and hercules, names bestowed by humans) in a medical research laboratory at stony brook university.. i suggest that the application has some merit.
are not all of us "animals?
-
-
fulltimestudent
There's a current court case in NY which is hearing that question right now. The precise issue is the continued captivity of two chimpanzees, (Leo and Hercules, names bestowed by humans) in a medical research laboratory at Stony Brook University.
I suggest that the application has some merit. Are not all of us "animals?" And, chimpanzees are provably related to humans with very a close genetic picture. They generally have an intelligence similar to a younger child, and can be taught to communicate.
So what's your take on the application?
-
64
The poor and deprived life of JW children.
by Esse quam videri ini find it hard to believe that adults on this forum make such a big deal about not celebrating birthdays, x-mas, easter, halloween, etc, etc, etc.
i grew up as a jw kid and it actually made me feel good, being different from the other kids in school.
we went to meetings.
-
-
fulltimestudent
Two of my friends kids are still in. I think that's because he (and, he was usually an elder) believed he should make life interesting for his kids. He made sure they had something to replace the O.W. celebrations. In their case it was a special family day, based around his wedding anniversary, when everyone got and gave gifts. He says he understood the need for ritual in people's lives. So assemblies and the Memorial were always a big deal, with some build up to the events.
Additionally, he took them to classes in school holidays, I recall him having his kids taught gymnastics for about a year.
Interestingly, both children (now adults with their own families) do the same. One daughter takes her kids to swimming classes, and they swim well, well enough to be considered for the state swimming squad in the state where they live. The other daughter is involved in modern dance in the European city where she now lives, and she takes her child to classes.
In neither case do the elders in their congregation appear disturbed by those activities.
Interestingly, where he lives, a couple of JW guys have rented an apartment. They both appear to be heavily involved (possibly pioneering) but own good quality bicycles and most days in summer go on long bike rides. One even has a 'hot' motor bike and 'lairises' around on it.
Maybe this is just the more relaxed world of Australia.
I quote it all to be fair. And, I should also note that I have seen some absolute bastards in some congregations and also wondered why the branch put up with their stupidity.