Posts by Jonathan Drake

303

The best reasonable, rational, intelligent discussion on religion I've ever seen

by TerryWalstrom in

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hl6e4emx-4k

Jonathan Drake

Jonathan Drake - no amount of 'modernising the language' can make this particular verse any clearer. Correct?
So the question naturally arises: why would God write something, like the Bible, so muddled, confusing and open to interpretation?

It wasn't written in English. once it was written down it was in the common language of the day and the past events that surrounded it were fresh history. So for a good while the people had no problems, they read and new specifically what it was talking about and knew the language it was spoken in and later written in. Only after several generations went by did a problem arise, at a time when people no longer knew about the Meccans breaking the peace treatise and were easily convinced the Quran literally means, "kill them wherever you find them." Until now not only is the cultural context lost, but we have the issue of translating it.

the fault then would not be gods, or the books, but the loss of perspective. When I suggest modernization I mean add to the book the very necessary verses that make it clear what was going on AT THAT TIME, so as to reintroduce the perspective needed to see the meaning behind the words. If this was done, then the Quran could no longer be used as an excuse for these terrible things. The bible as well, add notes that make it clear the real inention- such as the tradition of the house steward. If this was done it'd be clear.

But again, the people wanting chaos would just find a new reason.

303

The best reasonable, rational, intelligent discussion on religion I've ever seen

by TerryWalstrom in

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hl6e4emx-4k

Jonathan Drake

Once Jesus was born in the flesh the angels knew

Thats really strange since it was Jesus in the flesh saying the Angels dont know. Lol

303

The best reasonable, rational, intelligent discussion on religion I've ever seen

by TerryWalstrom in

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hl6e4emx-4k

Jonathan Drake

We have the books. They advocate murder, rape, abortion, genocide, misogyny, slavery and theft.

Thats just your interpretation. You have no way of proving your interpretation is correct.

303

The best reasonable, rational, intelligent discussion on religion I've ever seen

by TerryWalstrom in

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hl6e4emx-4k

Jonathan Drake

Surely, you have to admit that both interpretations are plausible.

For sure, as I said on the previous page and once before, there is a serious communication issue existing if these interpretations can be reached. Modernizing the language in a way that more directly emphasizes the view intended and brings the book into a new more modern understanding is certainly necessary. But to ignore the fact that the issue is one of interpretation, and therefore first and foremost a problem with the individual who thinks these things are okay, throwing all the blame on the book completely, is just bonkers.

rewrite the book and make it say the most peaceful directives of any holy book now or to come and people who want to cause chaos will find a new reason for its justification. I've been called naive several times in this thread, but I think THIS is naive, thinking the only reason these people do what they do is because of a book. Come on.

303

The best reasonable, rational, intelligent discussion on religion I've ever seen

by TerryWalstrom in

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hl6e4emx-4k

Jonathan Drake

nothing about this subject is obvious

The quran advocates hitting a wife who lacks submission - this is obvious. ( you agreed that hitting your wife might be ok sometimes)
The author of the book was a child rapist - this is obvious.
The book condemns everybody who does not believe the pedophile prophet to an eternity of torture in hell - this is obvious.

First of all, the wife slap has nothing to do with submission at all.

Secondly, prove everything you just said with a first hand account. If you can not prove, with a first hand account, what the proper interpretation of the book is or what events did or didn't happen, then you are using a second hand account and it is hearsay that proves nothing.

its just your interpretation, to use your own argument.

we are arguing opinions, and it's a waste of time.

303

The best reasonable, rational, intelligent discussion on religion I've ever seen

by TerryWalstrom in

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hl6e4emx-4k

Jonathan Drake

You are both using this word, "obvious" freely despite the fact that nothing about this subject is obvious. You're talking about a series of events and a group of people and some specific people who are between 1,415 and 4,000+ years in the past... Lol

the best thing you can do is form a hypothesis that will never have the opportunity to be either proven or disproven unless we invent time travel. Because the only evidence EITHER side has is second hand hearsay. So if you want to talk about what is obvious, the only obvious thing is that we are both arguing different points of view that will never, ever be able to be proven - EVER.

303

The best reasonable, rational, intelligent discussion on religion I've ever seen

by TerryWalstrom in

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hl6e4emx-4k

Jonathan Drake

coftya minute ago
You are the only person who thinks you have shown the quran is not a handbook for hatred, intolerance, violence and misogyny.

I think we agreed on a previous page however, that it would be best if the books linguistics were modernized to make its meaning more obvious so as to thoroughly set aside any opportunity for drawing such extreme conclusions. I do agree this should happen, because I will concede the average reader of the Quran is not going to put in the research to see what it was talking about when it says the things it says- so it should be amended so as to make this clear. Because I won't deny people do reach the conclusions you are positing, and this should be dealt with by some kind of reform instead of met with being ignored and hoping it goes away.

we established this previously.

303

The best reasonable, rational, intelligent discussion on religion I've ever seen

by TerryWalstrom in

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hl6e4emx-4k

Jonathan Drake

the problem has never been the books. The books didn't direct these people to do insane things
Yes they do. You are denying the obvious. It's getting embarrassing.

Well at this point we are getting back to square one here. I've shown very effectively how and why the Quran does not direct people to kill. The one refusing the obvious is not me. The fact is some of you are CHOOSING to reach the same conclusion ISIS does when reading those verses while others CHOOSE to reach a very different one. But the issue isn't literary, the problem is misuse of CHOICE which is something every reader of the book controls- not the book itself. So regarding this, I have thoroughly addressed in previous pages and will not repeat it.

303

The best reasonable, rational, intelligent discussion on religion I've ever seen

by TerryWalstrom in

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hl6e4emx-4k

Jonathan Drake

Viviane3 hours ago
im not talking about the cults, just the books. I've said this I don't know how many times.
The books are about a middle eastern death cult that has evolved into a global death cult. They are inseparable. Saying over and over they are not the same doesn't make it true.

Man this thread...

So the problem with this statement, and I know that you know history because you've elsewhere proven you are familiar with it, is that the books came first. The cults were a later development, the sects were a later development - and these formed because of one man or a small group convincing other followers of the books that they meant something or were saying something that is absolutely insane. Upon this reasoning the, as you are calling them, "death cults" formed. But the fact is that not everyone draws the same conclusion from the books as these radical Muslims or the extreme Christians. You surely must know this, and the fact being true shows that (while the books could use some updated jargon and culture) the problem has never been the books. The books didn't direct these people to do insane things, the people reached these conclusions all on their own and of their own reasoning and efforts.

For this reason, they are separate because the fact that there are a vast majority of followers of these books that don't agree with the crazy people shows the book is not the issue.

57

New Caleb video uses fearmongering on children

by Jonathan Drake in

jw
friends

check it out.

literally the message is if you don't pay attention at the meetings you could die.

how insane, i feel like this must wake some people up..

Jonathan Drake

Take a look around at all the religions of the world and the utterly crazy crackpot ideas they are based on. The ability to indoctrinate is not dependent on logical arguments, it's on repetition and authority and they are being bombarded with both.

This is it exactly. They just keep with the same message, there is no flexing of the ability to "reason." BTW Simon, when I watched this video it did hit me just how accurate your nazi Germany's comparison really is despite my previous disagreement in the other thread. This is exactly the same as Hitlers brainwashing propaganda videos. They get you to turn off your reasoning and just listen and agree and blindly follow their will and reasoning. Now they are doing it with children via Caleb.

The following is from Mein Kampf

"Propaganda must not investigate the truth objectively and, in so far as it is favourable to the other side, present it according to the theoretical rules of justice; yet it must present only that aspect of the truth which is favourable to its own side. (...) The receptive powers of the masses are very restricted, and their understanding is feeble. On the other hand, they quickly forget. Such being the case, all effective propaganda must be confined to a few bare essentials and those must be expressed as far as possible in stereotyped formulas. These slogans should be persistently repeated until the very last individual has come to grasp the idea that has been put forward. (...) Every change that is made in the subject of a propagandist message must always emphasize the same conclusion. The leading slogan must of course be illustrated in many ways and from several angles, but in the end one must always return to the assertion of the same formula."

Scarily comparable, no? There's more:

"Propaganda must always address itself to the broad masses of the people. (...) All propaganda must be presented in a popular form and must fix its intellectual level so as not to be above the heads of the least intellectual of those to whom it is directed. (...) The art of propaganda consists precisely in being able to awaken the imagination of the public through an appeal to their feelings, in finding the appropriate psychological form that will arrest the attention and appeal to the hearts of the national masses. The broad masses of the people are not made up of diplomats or professors of public jurisprudence nor simply of persons who are able to form reasoned judgment in given cases, but a vacillating crowd of human children who are constantly wavering between one idea and another. (...) The great majority of a nation is so feminine in its character and outlook that its thought and conduct are ruled by sentiment rather than by sober reasoning. This sentiment, however, is not complex, but simple and consistent. It is not highly differentiated, but has only the negative and positive notions of love and hatred, right and wrong, truth and falsehood."

Taken quotes are from:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_propaganda

The way Hitlers propaganda policy compares to Watchtower is really scary IMHO.