Yeah. Well, let's just get a little context here. Anyone who has read ODG's posts should have a pretty good idea about the level of thought and education that goes into them. Near as I can tell, he hasn't ben much of a bomb-thrower here. So when he finds himself angry about anti-semitism, one might hope that the main response is polite disagreement with an explanation of intent. Unfortunately, the responses have not, in general, been that way.
This is a very odd board.
has anybody heard an official reason that the trinity brochure is deceased?.
the gb have been released basically new versions of old brochures with wild abandon, and yet the trinity brochure which has absolutely no equivalent is no longer in print.. why?.
we all know there were dodgy references/quotations therein, but you would think by now the gb would have put some effort into a viable replacement if it were posssible.. nobody seems to be making too much of this as far as i can see.. the trinity brochure was very naughty.
The lift a quote from a 19th century American pastor who paraphrased Tertullian, connecting a sentence from Against Praxeus with a sentence from Against Hermogenes with an elipsis. They then asserted the whole thing was a quite from Tertullian.
After that, what else do you need? We're done with it, right?
I actually have had conversations with JWs about this brochure. My favorite discussion ended with the JW agreeing that there were some less-than-proper citation habits in that work and that the translations we actually have of the Early Church Fathers clearly show them to be "proto-Trinitarians," but that he suspected the translations themselves were biased. The discussion had to be paused while he worked through the Rosetta Stone Latin course (for Tertullian) so that he could evaluate the original Latin works.
i posted this on another thread and am pasting it here to start a new one because i would be interested in getting others' thoughts on it.. there has been a downward spiral in the quality of the written publications since the death of fred franz in december 1992. whatever else can be said about franz, the man did have some education and his writing was of good quality.
others in the writing department also had some skill and command of language that gave cogency to their work.
but since franz's death, a huge leadership vacuum has opened in the wts.
Jesuit Scholar, I think you have identified the extermination of the last hope for JW schoarship. On the other hand, there never was much hope; it must be impossible to move from pyramids predicting the End to serious theology. Right?
On the other hand, the Mormons show some signs of attempting to be taken more seriously. I've read serious defenses of some parts of their approach and heard of some LDS writers attempting to engage with non-LDS writers. Both of these small steps are impossible for JWs, it seems to me.
On the other hand, the LDS have one of them university things, which is well-regarded.
Oh, snap! But I thought it was a Bronze Age book, what am I missing?
i posted this on another thread and am pasting it here to start a new one because i would be interested in getting others' thoughts on it.. there has been a downward spiral in the quality of the written publications since the death of fred franz in december 1992. whatever else can be said about franz, the man did have some education and his writing was of good quality.
others in the writing department also had some skill and command of language that gave cogency to their work.
but since franz's death, a huge leadership vacuum has opened in the wts.
Interesting observation, Quendi. I think that the org has actualy learned a lesson over the last couple decades. I mean, it's all great to notice a decline in writing quality but those smart guys writing back in the day wrote some genuinely batshit crazy stuff. 364 pages of psycho-interpretation of the book of Daniel? 1975? The doctrine on blood? So, there's a way in which this might be a rational response away from the mad scientists who, despite their ability, were really just making shit up.
Moreover, given what we know about how Ray Franz completely understood the facts about 607 and lied his ass off in print, it isn't clear how far we should push the idea that there was some golden age of Biblical research in the JWs.
But a lot of that might just be a difference in perspective. I think the entire JW movement was always nonsense and never could be taken seriously by anyone who had a clue. Lots of others tend toward a position that leans more toward "reformation." From this perspective, the main problem with the JWs is a couple doctrines and too much authoritarianism.
I tend to disagree. I don't think there was ever a golden age for the JWs. Dunlop and R. Franz might have been nice guys who could write a coherent sentence, but the entire religion has always been completely absurd. They supported that absurdity until they were forced to stop.
article found here.. .
those who grow up in an atheist household are least likely to maintain their beliefs about religion as adults, according to a study by georgetown university's center for applied research in the apostolate (cara).only about 30 percent of those who grow up in an atheist household remain atheists as adults.
this "retention rate" was the lowest among the 20 separate categories in the study.. there were 1,387 atheists (weighted) in the survey.
Charles
Oscar
Finnegan
Trevor
Yancy
article found here.. .
those who grow up in an atheist household are least likely to maintain their beliefs about religion as adults, according to a study by georgetown university's center for applied research in the apostolate (cara).only about 30 percent of those who grow up in an atheist household remain atheists as adults.
this "retention rate" was the lowest among the 20 separate categories in the study.. there were 1,387 atheists (weighted) in the survey.
NewChapter, there was a considerable period of time after I was a JW that I had no religious affiliation whatever. During this period, I never once felt any sort of pressure to join a religion. This was deep in the American South, where one would expect, I don't know, something.
But, do I read you correctly to say that the pressure placed on you to join a religion took the form of being invited to study the Bible or hang out at Christian youth groups? And that this "pressure" is not sufficiently malign that you would wish to protect your child from it? Perhaps many people would view this an something more nearly the opposite of pressure. Tough to say.
But I am geninely puzzled that you confess such indifference to your child becoming a religious person, excepting Catholic or JW. You are an atheist and, therefore convinced that religions are teaching actual lies each week. How is it that you son't mind whether your child joins a group that is patently teaching lies?
article found here.. .
those who grow up in an atheist household are least likely to maintain their beliefs about religion as adults, according to a study by georgetown university's center for applied research in the apostolate (cara).only about 30 percent of those who grow up in an atheist household remain atheists as adults.
this "retention rate" was the lowest among the 20 separate categories in the study.. there were 1,387 atheists (weighted) in the survey.
Social pressure in the U.S. drives children of atheists away from atheism? I only have my personal experience, of course, but since I left the JWs I have never felt the slightest pressure to become religious from any person I ever met. In the last decade, I wonder if anyone has a personal experience where they felt like there was social pressure placed on them to convert away from atheism.
article found here.. .
those who grow up in an atheist household are least likely to maintain their beliefs about religion as adults, according to a study by georgetown university's center for applied research in the apostolate (cara).only about 30 percent of those who grow up in an atheist household remain atheists as adults.
this "retention rate" was the lowest among the 20 separate categories in the study.. there were 1,387 atheists (weighted) in the survey.
Two quick observations, cofty. First, your explanation for the very low retention rates is basically bad catechesis by atheist parents and a suggestion that some significant number of those who are categorized as atheists in the Pew study have categorized theselves improperly. I don't much like either of those explanations.
In the second case, Pew seems to have been pretty careful about this study, which goes back several years. Categories of self-selection don't seem to have limited choice very much -- we see the option for "nothing in particular," for example. Moreover, whatever problems might exist with weakly-attached atheists messing with the numbers must also apply to lots of other religious groups: there are very many weakly-attached Catholics.
The point about bad atheist catechesis is interesting, and I have seen in offered on this thread before. What I would suggest is that even good atheist catechesis is bad atheist catechesis. By that is just mean the central claims of atheism are a little, uh, wibble?
For example, you keep making this point: " Your need for a greater reality does not make it so - its just your story that helps you deal with life." True, but what you don't seem to grasp is that my need ofr greater reality also doesn't make it untrue. I may need to believe Spain have won the Euro Cup -- that doesn't make it either true or else false, it has no bearing on the fact. That makes a significant number of atheist statements about the matter entirely beside the point. Theists are bad people, theists merely need a crutch to face reality, theists aren't rational thinkers, etc. All of those things may be true, but none of them have any bearing on the question of the existence of God.
So why does a critical thinker like you keep bringing them up?
I think this points to another weakness in the atheist approach, one that becomes more obvious to those who were raised atheists instead of those who converted to the cause.
has anybody heard an official reason that the trinity brochure is deceased?.
the gb have been released basically new versions of old brochures with wild abandon, and yet the trinity brochure which has absolutely no equivalent is no longer in print.. why?.
we all know there were dodgy references/quotations therein, but you would think by now the gb would have put some effort into a viable replacement if it were posssible.. nobody seems to be making too much of this as far as i can see.. the trinity brochure was very naughty.
designs, I don't think Arius was a bishop.
I think the meta-problem with the brochure is that there is not a single true statement in the entire thing. The development of the doctrine was really convoluted and there are plenty of people who think Arius was the conservative in the argument, but the JW arguments are simply too exotic to be taken seriously. Add to that the ease with which the references can be shown to be fraudulent, and you have a genuine problem. The thing is a net loser. If it is available, it invites examination.
