Posts by Sulla

49

Would You Listen To A Prayer From A JW And Say Amen If They Said A Prayer In Your Presence?

by minimus in

jw
friends

my mom has had visits from various jws and they have asked her if they could say a prayer before they left.

i respectfully listened to the prayers while i was visiting and might silently say amen if i felt the prayer was appropriate for my mom.. i'm just curious, how would you handle this type of situation?.

Sulla

Not in my house, no.

195

Theistic Evolution

by cofty in

thoughtful christians including scientists like francis collins and kenneth miller accept the evidence for evolution unconditionally.

the only thing that distinguishes their understanding of life from the views of dawkins is that they believe god planned and started the process intentionally.. just a word about the subtle but vital distinction between "theistic evolution" and "intelligent design".... over-simplifications alert - intelligent design is creationism in disguise.

it is a modern twist on the "paley's watch" argument.

Sulla

Let me tell you how I understand your comment. The first man is metaphorical, and tells the story of when H. sapien first received souls. In effect, this was the point where humans became morally accountable to God, and soon after they failed, possibly not through one sin, but a pattern of sin?

Yes, NC, that is a reasonable summary of the position I've outlined. There is a distinction to be made about whether this moral accountability is external to their nature or not, but that may not be immediately relevant to this discussion.

195

Theistic Evolution

by cofty in

thoughtful christians including scientists like francis collins and kenneth miller accept the evidence for evolution unconditionally.

the only thing that distinguishes their understanding of life from the views of dawkins is that they believe god planned and started the process intentionally.. just a word about the subtle but vital distinction between "theistic evolution" and "intelligent design".... over-simplifications alert - intelligent design is creationism in disguise.

it is a modern twist on the "paley's watch" argument.

Sulla

Cofty, Again I'm late to the discussion but the fundamental issue is how does someone move back and forth from critical thinking to credulity to adopt a theistic-evolutionary position. A person who is accustomed to applying scientific method or critical thinking in general is far less likely to be comfortable with a conclusion arrived at without positive evidence.

peacefulpete, I think you're trying to steal a base here. What positive evidence do you have that your wife loves you (assuming you are married)? Because she has sex with you? Because she says so? What would count as positive evidence? And, haven't most men arrived at a comfortable conclusion without anything that really counts as positive evidence?

195

Theistic Evolution

by cofty in

thoughtful christians including scientists like francis collins and kenneth miller accept the evidence for evolution unconditionally.

the only thing that distinguishes their understanding of life from the views of dawkins is that they believe god planned and started the process intentionally.. just a word about the subtle but vital distinction between "theistic evolution" and "intelligent design".... over-simplifications alert - intelligent design is creationism in disguise.

it is a modern twist on the "paley's watch" argument.

Sulla

I understand there is a difference between JW theology and traditional Christian theology when it comes to the doctrine of sin. But I don't see how it relieves the difficulity. Whether you buy into "Adamic sin" as the WT does, or whether you believe that each of us is responsible for our own sinful nature, and its the sarifice of Jesus that covers our individual sin (instead of equalizing Adam's), the fact remains that when you have a literal Adam playing a role in the entry of sin into the human race, evolution becomes a problem - because there was no literal Adam.

Good question. The matter has generated some discussion elsewhere. It is true that Pius was down on the idea that a first man may not have eixsted and that he didn't see any obvious way to reconcile the concept of original sin with it. That said, there have been various attempts to think it through in the last 40 years or so.

On the one hand, if we have horses then it seems there was a first horse. As a practical matter, such an assignment is somewhat arbitrary -- there must be some sliding sacle of "horseness" that most agree is sufficiently met by Horse Zero. With humans, something similar would certainly apply. The difference being that, according to Catholic theology, humans have immaterial souls which are the sorts of thing that do not go out of existence when the bodies die. Since this is a contrast with the relatives of human beings, that would serve as a pretty clear line: humans are those primates with immaterial souls.

That is obviously not a falsifiable claim.

With respect to theologians who are smarter than I, it isn't immediately obvious to me why the concept of Original Sin relies on the historicity of some first man. Others have thought similarly: it may be that our "fallenness" is not the result of a single act by a single man, but a problem of the human race in general, arising from the moment we began to make moral judgments.

So, a chimp rips a rival limb from limb in competition for sexual rights or whatever. This is a chimp being a good chimp, but when a human does it and realizes that the moral universe is different for him than for the chimp, then you have an act that is proper for a chimp and not for a human. I tentatively suggest that the fact we live in a different moral universe and routinely fail to live in accord with this "true" nature is the essence of what we mean by Original Sin.

If this idea is not entirely preposterous, then it doesn't matter whether there was ever a single first man or not. This sin, this brokenness, is something that we all experience by virtue of the fact that we are all humans; it is both shared and inherited in this way. We live in a moral universe that calls us to be something we have great difficulty being: good and virtuous men in harmony with the One who Is (who, I assume, exists).

Anyhow, that's my thought.

16

Muslim Stores in Dearborn enforce new dress code!

by Diest in

fury at muslim biz dress codes.

by gary buiso and kate briquelet.

last updated:1:10 pm, july 22, 2012. posted:12:57 am, july 22, 2012. j.c. ricepain in the neckline:hana dagostin (left) and ivana saftic balk at a dress code posted for a pharmacy on lee avenue in dearborn, michigan.

Sulla

You must be disappointed. I, of course, stand by my comment; feel free to substitute the claim that Hasidim are also not known for their tolerance.

16

Muslim Stores in Dearborn enforce new dress code!

by Diest in

fury at muslim biz dress codes.

by gary buiso and kate briquelet.

last updated:1:10 pm, july 22, 2012. posted:12:57 am, july 22, 2012. j.c. ricepain in the neckline:hana dagostin (left) and ivana saftic balk at a dress code posted for a pharmacy on lee avenue in dearborn, michigan.

Sulla

Guess you have to shop someplace else. Alternatively, open a hardware store that lets you dress as you please when you shop. But, yes, this is quite counter to the idea of tolerance. But, Islam does not have a particularly good reputation in this regard.

33

Lets pretend the JW's are right for a moment...

by puffthedragon in

don't worry, i'm not loosing my mind.

but whether you are christian, agnostic, atheist, thor-worshipper or otherwise, just pretend with me for a moment.. armageddon comes and wipes out wicked people.

there is a resurection and some kind of test and the ones that pass make it into the glorious new world.. how long would it last before a revolt?

Sulla

I thnk that the JW idea is that those who pass the final test have proven to be the kinds of people who don't disobey. That's not who they are. Also, since all the laws will be perfectly just and all needs will be taken care of, nobody would ever have any reason to sin.

It is a bit shallow, I agree.

5

The Truth That Leads To a BETTER Life

by King Solomon in

if you are reading this now, you are amongst the fortunate.

you haven't fallen for the lie any longer.

oh, it was a seductive message: "the truth that leads to eternal life".... wouldn't that be nice?.

Sulla

Perhaps you aren't getting the point of the myth.

5

The Truth That Leads To a BETTER Life

by King Solomon in

if you are reading this now, you are amongst the fortunate.

you haven't fallen for the lie any longer.

oh, it was a seductive message: "the truth that leads to eternal life".... wouldn't that be nice?.

Sulla

Not quite. The JWs bastardize the claim of the Christians: knowing the Father and Son is life. Original sin was the idea that we might grab divinity.

22

Is this valid reasoning for Trinitarian Doctrine?

by Flat_Accent in

i had been watching jwfairytale's videos recently, and he's been including snippets of this short film about a guy that becomes a jw and then changes to a born again, or so i think.

you can watch it here.

it's very dated, but quite enjoyable:.

Sulla

"complete Trinit" prior to 250? Not sure, there's bits and pieces here and there; mostly, the focus was on the divinity of Jesus.

With respect to Justin Martyr, several chapters really hit on the idea. Couple quick quotes:

Chapter 38

And Trypho said, "Sir, it were good for us if we obeyed our teachers, who laid down a law that we should have no intercourse with any of you, and that we should not have even any communication with you on these questions. For you utter many blasphemies, in that you seek to persuade us that this crucified man was with Moses and Aaron, and spoke to them in the pillar of the cloud; then that he became man, was crucified, and ascended up to heaven, and comes again to earth, and ought to be worshipped."

Chapter 48

And Trypho said, "We have heard what you think of these matters [of salvation through Christ -- Sulla]. Resume the discourse where you left off, and bring it to an end. For some of it appears to me to be paradoxical, and wholly incapable of proof. For when you say that this Christ existed as God before the ages, then that He submitted to be born and become man, yet that He is not man of man, this[assertion] appears to me to be not merely paradoxical, but also foolish."

Chapter 55

And Trypho answered, "We shall remember this your exposition, if you strengthen[your solution of] this difficulty by other arguments: but now resume the discourse, and show us that the Spirit of prophecy admits another God sides the Maker of all things, taking care not to speak of the sun and moon, which, it is written, God has given to the nations to worship as gods; and oftentimes the prophets, employing this manner of speech, say that 'thy God is a God of gods, and a Lord of lords,' adding frequently, 'the great and strong and terrible[God].' For such expressions are used, not as if they really were gods, but because the Scripture is teaching us that the true God, who made all things, is Lord alone of those who are reputed gods and lords. And in order that the Holy Spirit may convince of this, He said by the holy David, 'The gods of the nations, reputed gods, are idols of demons, and not gods;' and He denounces a curse on those who worship them."

Chapter 68

And Trypho said, "You endeavour to prove an incredible and well-nigh impossible thing;[namely], that God endured to be born and become man."

Basially, the 50s and 60s are chapters where Trypho and Justin go back and forth on exactly this question of Jesus being God. Justin makes use of several examples from the OT that get picked up by others: the incident at Mamre and the destruction of Sodom and others. He also makes use of the repeatedly-quoted 110 Psalm: "The Lord said to my Lord, ..." So, if you can get through the first 50 chapters, almost the rest of the work is discussing the divinity of Christ, or some aspect of it.