Phizzy, interesting observation, I think you've got a point. The article says that education isn't the most important factor, rather the way we think - critical thinking skills. As the researcher said: "what type of critical thinking you're prone to do..." And you're right, it depends on the measure of intuitiveness and the measure of deliberativeness. All of us have both, but not in equal measure.
Posts by Vidqun
-
29Why some are religious or not?
by Vidqun intime article: several years before pope francis became pope of the catholic church in 2013, psychologists began to debunk the idea that being more educated meant a person was less likely to be religious.
instead, a new social psychology theoryone that had little to do with education levelarose.
according to dual process theory, people are either deliberative or intuitive when they make decisions.
-
-
-
29
Why some are religious or not?
by Vidqun intime article: several years before pope francis became pope of the catholic church in 2013, psychologists began to debunk the idea that being more educated meant a person was less likely to be religious.
instead, a new social psychology theoryone that had little to do with education levelarose.
according to dual process theory, people are either deliberative or intuitive when they make decisions.
-
-
Vidqun
Time article: Several years before Pope Francis became pope of the Catholic Church in 2013, psychologists began to debunk the idea that being more educated meant a person was less likely to be religious. Instead, a new social psychology theory—one that had little to do with education level—arose. According to dual process theory, people are either deliberative or intuitive when they make decisions. People who are more deliberative tend to carefully think things through and find a rational reason for their choices, while people who are more intuitive do what appears to feel right.
I've always wondered about this. The above seems to make sense. Perhaps my intuitiveness talking? Any thoughts on the subject?
-
94
What other Shenanigans can we expect to see in the next 2 years?
by John Aquila inits been a little over 2 years since i left the watchtower.
in that time the magazines have been cut, the birth of jwtv, jw-org.
carts for preaching, removed district overseers, cut assemblies, demand all the money from the congregations, stop construction and layoff bethelites, change the format of the tmschool .
-
-
Vidqun
I do see the preaching work, as we knew it, will be something of the past. This is the year of the Internet and the JW.org cart. As early as '95 they have been saying that Matthew 24:14 has been fulfilled. See quote below.
w95 9/1 16: Looking forward especially to our time, Jesus said: “This good news of the kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations; and then the end will come.” (Matthew 24:14; Mark 13:10) Has this prophecy been fulfilled? Indeed, it has. From a small start in 1919, the preaching of the good news has now been extended to more than 230 countries. The witness is heard in the frozen North and in the steaming tropics. Large continents are covered, and remote islands are sought out so that their inhabitants can receive a witness.
-
27
The Watchtower Society is confused over its “Seventy Years” and "Seven Times"
by Doug Mason inuntil now, the watch tower society [wts] has argued that the 70 years was a period during which judah was totally and completely depopulated.
for this reason, it constantly argued that the period commenced when the jews left judah and entered egypt.
jerusalem was destroyed in the fifth month (two months before october/tishri).
-
-
Vidqun
By the way, the Society prefers the first century Jewish view. They are wrong. -
27
The Watchtower Society is confused over its “Seventy Years” and "Seven Times"
by Doug Mason inuntil now, the watch tower society [wts] has argued that the 70 years was a period during which judah was totally and completely depopulated.
for this reason, it constantly argued that the period commenced when the jews left judah and entered egypt.
jerusalem was destroyed in the fifth month (two months before october/tishri).
-
-
Vidqun
Bennyk, the first century Jewish view was that the land would lay desolate (for seventy years) after the destruction of Jerusalem. This one can see from their rendering of Dan.9:2 in the Masoretic Text and LXX Theodotian. The Hellenistic historian Berossus was right, whereas Josephus and the first century Jewish view was wrong. Jerusalem and surroundings were not desolate for seventy years. Here is an excerpt from one of my studies:
Berossus vs. Josephus: Later writers quote Berossus as saying that after the battle of Carchemish Nebuchadnezzar extended Babylonian influence into all Syria-Palestine and, when returning to Babylon (in his accession year, 605 BCE), he took Jewish captives into exile, confirming that the 70 year period, as a period of servitude to Babylon, would begin in 605 BCE. That would mean that the 70-year period would expire in 535 BCE. Berossus also insists that Nebuchadnezzar took Jewish captives in his accession year. No cuneiform documents support this. Yet, the book of Daniel (1:1-3) mentions a minor deportation in the third year of Jehoiakim, which would correspond to the first year of Nebuchadnezzar (cf. Jer. 25:1; 46:2). As a minor deportation, it is not surprising that it does not feature on the list of Jeremiah 52:28-30.
The Jewish historian Josephus respected Berossus. However, he states that in the year of the battle of Carchemish Nebuchadnezzar would conquer all of Syria-Palestine “excepting Judea,” thus contradicting Berossus and conflicting with the claim that 70 years of Jewish servitude began in Nebuchadnezzar’s accession year.—Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews X, vi, 1 [10.86]. Furthermore, Josephus elsewhere describes the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians and then says that “all Judea and Jerusalem, and the temple, continued to be a desert for seventy years” (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews X, ix, 7 [10.184]). He pointedly states that “our city was desolate during the interval of seventy years, until the days of Cyrus” (Josephus, Against Apion I, 19 [1.132]). Here he shares the misconception of a later editor and/or redactor of the book of Daniel, “fulfilling the devastations of Jerusalem, [namely,] seventy years” (cf. Dan. 9:2). The same goes for the second-century (CE) writer Theophilus of Antioch who believed the 70 years would commence with the destruction of the temple after Zedekiah had reigned 11 years. As seen, Jeremiah applied the seventy years to the Judahites’ Babylonian servitude, and not to the desolation of the land.
Dan. 9:2: In the OG we have oneidismos, meaning “reproach” (singular). See NETS. This is viewed as an error in the transmission: Jer. 25:9 and (I turn them) into a disgrace is read for MT and (I will turn them) into desolations. However, as seen, Dan. 9:2 is not drawn from Jer. 29:10, but Jer. 25:9-12. Here it could mean “reproach, disgrace, insult” (cf. Jer. 18:16; 19:8; Ezek. 5:13, 14). Specifically Jer. 25:9 “and something to whistle at and places devastated to time indefinite.” See BHS footnote. KBLex, in accordance with the textcritical note suggests an emendation to (“as a disgrace”). See J. Lust, E. Eynikel & K. Hauspie (2003). A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint: Revised Edition. Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft: Stuttgart. According to secular chronology, Jerusalem did not lie desolate for seventy years, but her reproach and humiliation could have started with Jehoiakim’s three year servitude, completing Jeremiah’s seventy year cycle (2 Kings 24:1, 2; cf. Is. 25:9, 11).
-
15
First post I’ve seen where a Circuit Overseer is trying to denigrate the Royal Commission. Are these new instructions from WT?
by John Aquila inhttps://www.reddit.com/r/exjw/comments/3mxy3t/circuit_overseers_giving_anti_royal_commission/.
-
-
Vidqun
My uber-Dub brother, an elder, and his wife are visiting. He's from Down Under, and according to his version, the elders put up a spectacular defense before the RC. I am sure he never watched the proceedings because he works full time. That must be the official WT reaction, what he was told by the CO and fellow elders. It's pathetic to say the least. Or it's a bad case of theocratic warfare, and he is lying. -
29
Jesus is not Michael the Archangel here is why
by paradisebeauty inone of the biggest missunderstanding and unbiblical teaching of the jw's is that jesus is michael the archangel.
here is what proffessor anthony buzzard has to say about this:.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puqzffyxno0.
-
-
Vidqun
The Bible portrays spirit creatures in different forms, but I think that's mostly for our benefit, and to distinguish their functions. A spirit creature is a spirit creature. Question is: What does "angel" mean? If it is a rank of a spirit creature, then the problem is not so big after all. Jesus' rank definitely improved after he came to earth, if one reads the first chapter of Hebrews. According to Genesis, an angel could materialize into a man. If that was the case, then Jesus being born as a human should not pose a problem for the Creator. Now what "woman" is being referred to in Genesis? Is it literal or symbolic? In Galatians (1:26) Paul refers to Jerusalem above as their "mother," which would be a figurative woman. -
29
Jesus is not Michael the Archangel here is why
by paradisebeauty inone of the biggest missunderstanding and unbiblical teaching of the jw's is that jesus is michael the archangel.
here is what proffessor anthony buzzard has to say about this:.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puqzffyxno0.
-
-
Vidqun
It seems to me that the writer of the book of Daniel believed that Michael will rule as king:
Dan 12:1. Michael to stand up. “Michael will stand up.” Daniel often uses the phrase “to stand up” to mean standing up as king. In other parts of Daniel, as well as this prophecy, the term “stand up” means that the person assumes authority to rule as a king (cf. Dan. 8:22, 23; 11:2, 3, 4, 7, 20, 21). Hence, when Michael ‘stands up’ he, too, starts to rule as a king.
arise, appear, come on the scene, esp. in the book of Daniel, to arise, come on the scene: Dn 8:22, 8:22, 8:23, 11:2, 11:3, 11:4, 12:1, cf. 11:7, v. 20, v. 21. See BDBLex.
-
29
Jesus is not Michael the Archangel here is why
by paradisebeauty inone of the biggest missunderstanding and unbiblical teaching of the jw's is that jesus is michael the archangel.
here is what proffessor anthony buzzard has to say about this:.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puqzffyxno0.
-
-
Vidqun
Again, here I prefer evidence from the OT and NT. Micah 5:2 says he has an "origin" (see HALOT). Rev. 3:14 says he has had a "beginning." He is also referred as God's firstborn son, etc. (Col. 1:18; Hebr. 1:6). So I am not at all convinced that he was not an angel (literal meaning: "messenger") before. Jesus, as co-worker, is clearly subservient to his father the Creator (1 Cor. 15:25-28). -
29
Jesus is not Michael the Archangel here is why
by paradisebeauty inone of the biggest missunderstanding and unbiblical teaching of the jw's is that jesus is michael the archangel.
here is what proffessor anthony buzzard has to say about this:.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puqzffyxno0.
-
-
Vidqun
Caleb, I'm really struggling with your logic here. As a Christian I believe in the OT and NT. Above is the totality of Biblical evidence. In addition, the Bible refers to specific ranks in heaven, e.g., angels, cherubs, seraphs, elders, etc. Can you see the dual function of Jesus and Michael? Can you see the overlap? The evidence is not clear cut at all.
Would you be able to call out with an archangel’s voice if you’re not an archangel (meaning “a member of the higher ranks in the celestial hierarchy, chief angel, archangel,” according to BDAG)? According to the book of Enoch, there are four angels of senior rank, and according to Tobit, seven. Aforementioned Biblical books refer to only one, Michael.
The majority of Christians do not want to equate Jesus with an angel because of Hebrews. Notice Hebrews 1:4 says: “he has become better than the angels…” But even if he did hold the rank of angel at one time, that has changed. He has received a promotion and now holds the rank of king. All the verses in Hebrews 1 point in this direction (future). As king he could be head or leader of the angels as Rev. 19 indicate? Michael seems to have the same function according to Rev. 12.
And really, does “with the sound of God’s trumpet,” equate him with God? How on earth do you come to that conclusion? I am sure as God’s designated king, he, that is God, would allow him to use his (God’s) trumpet on occasion. His voice might also sound like God's trumpet, still doesn't make him equal or the same as God.
Leaving quietly, yes, I follow what you are saying, but I interpret the evidence differently. As has been mentioned, that is my privelege and I cannot be disfellowshipped twice. Phew! Hurray!