Posts by fulltimestudent

berkeley, cachallenging long-held views on the origins of divinity, biologists at the university of california, berkeley, presented findings thursday that confirm god, the almighty creator of the universe, evolved from an ancient chimpanzee deity.. the recently discovered sacred ancestor, a divine chimp species scientists have named pan sanctorum, reportedly gave rise over millions of years to the lord our god, maker of heaven and earth.. although perhaps not obvious at first glance, there are actually overwhelming similarities between the supreme being of today and this early primate deity who preceded him, said dr. richard kamen, a leading biologist who also heads berkeleys paleotheology department.

the holy chimp moved around on all fours, but its descendants eventually began walking upright to expend less energy while foraging across the infinite reaches of the universe.

fulltimestudent

Umm! No wonder the Yahweh/Jesus combo god tries to make monkeys out of us all, especially around memorial season>

54

Polytheism in the Book of Daniel, a late second temple religious document

by fulltimestudent in

as 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

Response to TTTE.

1. Origin of the word divine:
Late Middle English: via Old French from Latin divinus, from divus 'godlike' (related to deus 'god').MORE Divine ‘godlike’ came via Old French from Latindivinus, from divus ‘godlike’ (related to deus ‘god’, source of Middle English deify).

Reference: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/divine

Used as an adjective, the Oxford defines the word this way:

adjective (diviner, divinest)1Of or like God or a god:

--------------------

And as a noun: (the Divine)Providence or God.

In the descriptive verses in Daniel 7, the terms used are descriptive.

In the case of the first figure, he is called, " The Ancient of Days"

And the second, "one like the son of man."

Are this figures supposed to represent humans or Divinities. (Gods)?

You are (of course) entitled to give whatever meaning you wish to a word, but the plain English meaning is as a reference to "the/a God"

So some translations render the controversial text in John 1:1 by using the word divine in lieu of "God", or, "a god."

Here's a quotation from Wikipedia:

Translations by James Moffatt, Hugh J. Schonfield and Edgar Goodspeed render part of the verse as "...and the Word was divine."

An Orthodox Bible Commentary notes: "This second theos could also be translated ‘divine’ as the construction indicates "a qualitative sense for theos".

Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_1:1

I cite that verse, not to sidetrack into that controversy, but simply to give an example of the use of the Englsih word, Divine, by some translators.

Therefore when you argue:

"Now Boyarin makes a fundamental mistake as almost all of us do when he said...
"What this text projects is a second divine figure, to whom will be given eternal dominion of the entire world. .
There is no second “divine figure” in view here as there is no first “divine figure” in view. He has wrongly used the word divine from our language to try to describe something from ancient Hebrew."

I ask simply, according to English usage, is the word 'divine,' out of place? I don't think that can be argued. All the English words that can be used, are English and not original.

What word do you think Boyarin should have used?

16

When did Christianity Separate from Judaism?

by fulltimestudent in

this is a subject of some importance, the view of the witnesses, likely inherited from franz's influence, seems to be that early christianity developed as a separate religion to the jews.. the view of most contemporary scholars is that the separation occurred slowly, and that influential early christians (e.g.

such as paul, peter, john and james) still saw themselves as jews.. to those of us that are no longer christians (and, most ex-witnesses here, seem to gradually move to that position) this is not an important issue.. but to an organisation that claims it has "the truth," surely it should know the truth about its origins.

yet the evidence is that the modern day religion of jehovah's witnesses, does not know the "truth" concerning the origins of early christianity.

fulltimestudent

Great story, CalebinFloroda. Thnx, for telling it here.

The biggest mistake (IMHO), is that standard (for lack of a better word) Christians including the standard JWs, is to assume that both first century CE Judaism and Christianity was homogenous and united in their belief systems. Of course, there were some common beliefs, but there were also some really wild beliefs also.

3

Translating Animal 'Talk.'

by fulltimestudent in

listen first:.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=30&v=wozgcyoi9l8.

this is an area of particular interest to me.

fulltimestudent

Listen first:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=30&v=wOzgCyoi9l8

This is an area of particular interest to me. One of the first realisations in my 'awakening,' was eth realisation that the Bible was plain wrong in the statement made at 2 Peter 2:12:

The KJV translates it as:

But these, as natural brute* beasts, ...

In the NWT (large study version), Freddy decided to say:

But these, like unreasoning animals ...

The NIV is similar:

They are like unreasoning animals

The RSV decided on:

these, like irrational animals, creatures of instinct,

Even 30 years ago, it was becoming evident, that the idea that animals could not reason (think) was wrong. And, if that idea, as expressed in the above verse, is wrong, then clearly the Bible is not inspired and the whole christian thingie is bullsh*t.

Since then, science has collected more and more evidence that the idea of 'unreasoning' animals is based on superstition, not evidence. I've posted on this from time to time.

Now, none of us will understand the gibbon 'talk' in the above video, but by a process of recording sounds, and watching reactions it became clear that different sounds meant different things, and the article in this link discusses the research that went into decoding gibbon-speak.

link: http://www.sci-news.com/biology/science-language-lar-gibbons-02683.html

--------------------

*The word that the KJV translates as 'brute,' is alogos with the essential English meaning of:

destitute of reason
See, https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/Lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?strongs=G249&t=KJV
hence 'unreasoning'

16

When did Christianity Separate from Judaism?

by fulltimestudent in

this is a subject of some importance, the view of the witnesses, likely inherited from franz's influence, seems to be that early christianity developed as a separate religion to the jews.. the view of most contemporary scholars is that the separation occurred slowly, and that influential early christians (e.g.

such as paul, peter, john and james) still saw themselves as jews.. to those of us that are no longer christians (and, most ex-witnesses here, seem to gradually move to that position) this is not an important issue.. but to an organisation that claims it has "the truth," surely it should know the truth about its origins.

yet the evidence is that the modern day religion of jehovah's witnesses, does not know the "truth" concerning the origins of early christianity.

fulltimestudent

Vidiot- I agree, and I noted last semester that it was likely a gradual process and that some scholars were talking about 200 years, and not the JW idea of an immediate split

Anyway, someone has gone to a lot of trouble with this "Evolutionery Tree of Myth and Religion:"

reference: http://rahoorkhuit93.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/timeline-myth-religion.jpg

2

Sex and the Church - BBC2

by cofty in

if you are in the uk check out an interesting new documentary series that starts on bbc2 at 9pm, this evening or catch up on iplayer.. from pleasure to sindiarmaid macculloch explores how christianity has shaped western attitudes to sex, gender and sexuality throughout history, beginning by examining how the early christians transformed intercourse from a biological necessity into a vice and from a pleasure into a sin.

the historian explains how greek ideas of sexual abstinence were adopted by the early christians, looks at how st paul, st jerome and st augustine developed increasingly negative ideas about sex, and tells the story of the rise of monasticism across the west.

fulltimestudent

Thnx Cofty, I need to include a section in my research essay (this semester) on the difference between western attitudes to sex and Asian attitudes to sex. This may be useful, at least for ideas to chase down.

8

Christian self-righteousness

by fulltimestudent in

jw
friends

doesn't matter what brand of christianity - this cartoon says it all:.

.

fulltimestudent

You liked that one-here's another. A bit more savage, I think, but pertinent.

15

Japanese torture of American prisoners in WW2 revealed

by fulltimestudent in

this is not a new story.

the japanese military in ww2 were barbaric in the way they treated captured servicemen.

i was about ten when my father's best friend came home from a japanese prison camp.

fulltimestudent

Looking for something else just now, I came across this drawing:

Its from an American Journal and portrays the British Army in India executing captured Indian soldiers (after the Indian mutiny) by strapping them to the muzzle of a cannon and blasting them to bits. It was intended to scare the sh*t out of Indians.

Can't really be compared to what the Japanese military did, but the image demonstrates that unreasonable cruelty is not confined to one particular race or military.