Posts by David

84

Why I'm not agnostic

by Coded Logic in

i think the time to be agnostic is when you have evidence on both sides of a claim.

for example, i'm agnostic about the existence of a historical jesus.

i think a reasonable case can be made that jesus was a man who was turned into a legend over a period of a couple of decades.

David_Jay

For me the case is neither atheism or theism (or something in between). To me this is too elementary of a way of looking at things.

A lack of evidence does not mean something does not exist. String theory, the theory of parallel universes or a multiverse are things I am not willing to dismiss though some scientists do. I don't need my wife to give me scientific evidence of her love for me or expect to find any evidence that my dog likes me. I believe in these things, but there is no evidence of things like "love" and my dog's appreciation for me.

On the other hand I don't buy into the "faith is built on evidence" argument of Jehovah's Witnesses and some theists. "Faith" is supposed to be the opposite of evidence. I can put faith in a friend that they will do something though they have not done it before. The event of what I put faith or trust in has not occurred. Faith in this instance is something that one can take pride in because of it not being based on evidence. Otherwise being out on a limb means nothing.

I think it is a waste of time to argue over something that doesn't exist. I don't argue with others about Bloopadoopawoopa-Kupnta (I just made that up), because such a thing doesn't exist. So what if you believe in it? It's not real.

On the other hand, if there is a God, how is my mentally accepting his existence relevant or important? Even Scripture says that demons also believe in God, but for them it means nothing but a reason to expect adverse judgment. (James 2:19) Mere belief in God doesn't help demons, and allegedly they've seen him! They obviously know God. If the actual knowledge of God cannot save demons, what good is my mere faith in someone I have not witnessed like they have?

If I'm going to be on the fence about the issue, why? It has not been established that other universes can't exist. It has not been established that higher forms of life don't exist. You can't disprove something that has yet to be discovered, and "kinda" thinking something might be out there that can't be understood is, to me, like saying you might exist but you are beyond my understanding. Just because I don't know you're out there doesn't mean you aren't real, and if I met you I am sure I could get to understand you.

People like to argue about "God is real" and "God is not real." I don't care. I don't think convictions or adopting a creed or taking pride that you don't believe in something that you also don't believe is not there (which, if you think about it doesn't make sense to have any pride in) is worth my piddle. That's all childish to me.

It takes no courage or intelligence to reject that which doesn't exist.

Mere faith in a deity doesn't mean you are faithful to the same.

Not taking issue with an issue is like not getting treatment for your cancer because you aren't sure if it will work or not.

I personally have moved on from the whole thing.

30

Control - Whose worse, the JWs or the traditional churches?

by fulltimestudent in

jw
friends

we once experienced, the "you'll die at armegeddon," fear instilled into us as jw's.. was that worse or better than the fear of eternal torment instilled by more conventional religions?.

john spong gives his view.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkah3hemv3m.

David_Jay

To add to the information about "colporteurs"...

The whole "colporteur" thing was NOT an invention of the Jehovah's Witnesses. They were an invention of the British Bible Society.

When the famed trek of the poor Welch girl, Mary Jones, inspired the first Bible society in the world, those who were hired to sell the British Society's Bibles were called "colporteurs" from a French word, "colportage" which simple means to peddle books. To this day those who sell and distribute Bibles for Bible Societies are called "colporteurs."

The Bible students tried to create their own Bible society in competition with the original and ecumenical ones (which still exist by the way among the United Bible Societies). The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society was their invention, and they copied everything the bigger non-sectarian societies did, including calling their own salespersons "colporteurs."

The JWs changed the name to "pioneer" when they wanted to "prove" they were not "engaged in a commercial work." The "filling out of monthly reports" are indeed holdovers from the salesman/colporteur days.

30

Control - Whose worse, the JWs or the traditional churches?

by fulltimestudent in

jw
friends

we once experienced, the "you'll die at armegeddon," fear instilled into us as jw's.. was that worse or better than the fear of eternal torment instilled by more conventional religions?.

john spong gives his view.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkah3hemv3m.

David_Jay

Putting aside personal views of religion (and asking for patience and understanding from those who might find our own personal negative critiques about religion in our posts unreasonable), I have found that for myself and several other ex-JWs that it takes years of being out of the Watchtower before you get an honest glimpse of what outside religions really are like.

Far from perfect, even greatly flawed, they are nothing like the devilish descriptions forced into our psyches when we used to sit hour after hour mindlessly accepting the vomit served at Kingdom Halls. Religion in general and Christendom in particular, despite all their failures, has been the subject of false representation as much as everything else outside the crusty old Watchtower.

Some are just as judgmental, somewhat controlling, maybe even equally stupid (Mormonism comes to mind when I say that), but with the type of unfairness and uncaring that stinks up the Watchtower...no, that's hard to beat.

Despite what many of us think about the whole "God" concept, most people find the relgion of their choice appealing. For the most part, many of them are "liberating" to those who join them, Many of them are at the forefront of fights for justice in the world, such as the MCC religion and Reformed Judaism. Even the "evil harlot" Catholic Church is undergoing growth, sweeping changes, and is becoming more identified with mercy and freedom under the pontificate of Francis. Calls for freedom of conscience are sounding throughout Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and other relgious movements like never before.

Is it all genuine? That remains to be seen. But is any of it matching the lying descriptions of religion still in regurgitation from the Jehovah's Witnesses. No. Like everything else, they lied about religion too. Lying about reality is a form of manipulative control as well.

Again I personally have to leave the churches and religions of the world to their actions and your own interpretations of them. But one thing they aren't doing is trying to control people by lying to them about Jehovah's Witnesses and, usually, the world in general. If there was an annual award for unjust manipulative control among religious groups, I think people would be bored over the fact that the same religion has kept winning year after after year especially since 1914.

3

Religious Freedom, what does it mean?

by James Mixon in

can a religion violate that principle of religious freedom with it's own members?.

religious freedom which says that no one is to use force on another human being in matters of.

of conscience, in matters religious.

David_Jay

As far as I know, only the Roman Catholic Church has made the issue of "conscience" actual doctrine in their theology. This does not mean that other religions have not included it or touched on it in their theology (or that I have likely missed study of a religious group that has done so), but Catholicism has raised points dogmatically demanded upon members as part of their convictions and practice since Vatican II.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (the official compendium of Catholic doctrine as it now stands since Vatican II) states the following about conscience:

Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. "He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters."--CCC 1782.

This now exists in Catholicism because that religion recognized grave and "sinful" errors on behalf of many of its members in various moments in the Church's own history where because of failing to recognize the freedom of conscience of other humans the Church itself, according to its own admission, committed grave offenses against God.

One of the most famous cases in which the Catholic Church admits it violated the principle of religious freedom for its own members is the case of St. Joan of Arc. In attempting to force Jeanne d'Arc to recant her actions and statements regarding personal revelations from heaven, the Church used extreme force on another human in an attempt to stop her communication with what Jeanne claimed were angels and saints offering her direction from God and attempted to dictate how Jeanne could or could not dress in response. In other words, as poetically expressed in the stage version written centuries later by George Bernard Shaw, the Church was 'punishing her for talking to God.' As history shows this young woman was burned at the stake for stating should would not violate her conscience in how she worshiped or the type of clothing she wished to wear.

The Church would later exonerate her of all charges, and after 500 years of examination into her case quite embarrassingly canonized her as a saint.

Her case is not the only instance the Church worked against itself. You would think a religion like Catholicism would want people to believe in earthly visions and miracles, but it likewise persecuted another French maiden, Bernadette Soubirous who received visions of the Virgin Mary, and several centuries again attempted to silence the events surrounding alleged appearances of the Virgin Mary to three children near Fatima, Portugal. Both situations would have the Church acquiesce to their validity, with St. Bernadette discovering the famed fountain at Lourdes, France and the apparitions in Fatima ending in the only alleged modern-day "miracle" witnessed by a large crowd of people.*

The Church has hoped to have learned its lesson, but as years have passed since Vatican II various popes have had to issue formal apologies for the violation of its own principles, not only to the Jews, but to Protestants, such as the recent papal apology from Pope Francis for the Church's persecution of the Waldensians. Many Catholics believe that the Holy See will eventually change its views regarding homosexuality, and thus predict that its current stand will again find the Church apologizing for being on the wrong side of history once more.

The cases involving St. Joan of Arc and the others following have involved testimony within the Church that religious freedom had been violated, but I have not seen this taken to an actual secular court. I also am not aware of the issue of freedom of conscience being considered a human right by any other religion in the same dogmatic fashion, definitely not in Watchtower theology.

*-The mention of the "miracles" in this post are not to be viewed as a personal belief in these events, in any formal religion, or inviting posts to disprove the events. The reality or lack thereof of the events being mentioned is not the point. The focus is that the Catholic Church, like the Jews who rejected Christ, often rejected its own so-called "prophets" and their "prophecies," even to the point of murdering the "messengers from God" in order to silence the alleged "messages from Heaven" and even, in the case of Lourdes and Fatima, to prevent crowds from witnessing "miracles" through force. The argument is not that these things are real or not, but that the Catholic Church understands very well that power can be so intoxicating that it can, will, and has caused faithful Catholics to "bite off their own foot in spite of themselves." Realizing the paradox caused by such ironic actions, the Church has made it a doctrine that any attempt to prevent a person from acting in accordance with their own conscience in matters religious, even in the rejection thereof, is a grave error. This still has not prevented the Church from repeating its mistakes in history, as it seems that all religions have a lust for silencing Heaven through bloodshed if necessary.

51

Why facts fail to reach the faithful, (even the intelligent ones)

by done4good in

jw
friends

i posted this on another thread, and decided it deserves its own...thoughts?.

an unfortunate artifact of evolution is that belief can, and often does trump fact.

survival is at the core of what belief is about.

David_Jay

SAHS,

But we mustn't delude ourselves either due to a distaste for worship of deities.

Religion is not always based around a cult of worship, nor do they all include deities or even an afterlife eschatology. Jainism for example is a humanist form of religion with no deity. The Jewish Sadducees as well many Jews today do not believe in an afterlife, and even those who do see no relevance in living with it as a goal in mind. Buddhism is a religion that seeks to free a person of all notions of and desires for eternity and has no central deity for worship.

Religion is not the opposite of atheism. It is a cultural system built around a set of mores and convictions that are employed to find the reason or explain one's place in the universe. While often employing ritual, these systems can be void of deity worship or seeking for the eternal.

Some who are (with good reason) done with religion often make general assumptions about religion as faulty as the credulous faith of some relgious people because of their failure to recognize that their own views can be subject to the same prejudices, ignorance, and/or simple emotion that in different forms can likewise cloud the thinking of "believers." When we fail to accept that being without religion cannot automatically prevent us from falling subject to the same process of self-delusion that is common to humanity, we might also fail to center our current state on a less than faulty conclusion.

Believing and keeping in mind that there is always a possibility that we can presently be mistaken in our current convictions is what got not a few of us in trouble before. We should always be prepared to improve our views and refine them. While not implying that this makes those who have chosen atheism or a new relgion after leaving the Watchtower in a position where we must now change our current views once again, no set of conviction excuses us from believing we are suddenly free from being capable of deluding ourselves becuase we are not adopting this particular view or that other one.

70

When is a theory 'just a theory'?

by HB in

the titles of cofty's excellent recent posts are all preceeded by the words "evolution is a fact...".

richard dawkins is encouraging people to use the term 'fact' in relation to evolution, especially when debating with creationists as the word 'theory' is confusing to many, and the latter often takes the discussion off on an often unproductive tangent.

the following may be of interest, it's from the bbc website - part of a regular series of articles called 'the vocabularist', discussing the origin and meaning of words: .

David_Jay

Fisherman,

Evolution is not a "theory" in the vernacular.

You also don't "prove" things in science, You "validate."

There is also no "burden of proof" in the scientific method. That is chiefly a legal term.

The theory of evolution is that organisms change over time as a result of changes in heritable characteristics or even behavioral traits. It's that simple.

You, yourself, evolved. You went from being a sperm and an ovum to a fetus, from a fetus to an infant. That infant didn't just get large and grow into a giant baby. You went from a baby to a child to an adolescent to an adult. This pattern is called "evolution."

This pattern of evolution is not merely experienced individually. All living organisms seem to come from a common source. The pattern life leaves behind that has been discerned is an evolving pattern, connecting what are now varied species together.

Thus ends the basic model. It doesn't explain how the process started, claim that it required direction or that direction wasn't needed, support atheism or theism. Life has left a pattern behind, and the data shows what is explained in the model.

But I will tell you what. I am sure you deserve to explain this pattern that biology claims supports evolution. Explain to us your scientific theory, have it independently validated by disinterested parties like all scientific theories are and explain it to us. Since models neither validate religion or atheism, no one here on this board will complain if you explain things according to the scientific method. If the evolution model is wrong, then what is the correct way to explain what life's historical pattern demonstrates?

24

Most Translated Website

by Pubsinger in

wt claims their website is the 'most translated' and claims over 750 languages.

but in the drop down language menu there are only about 50. so where are the others?

David_Jay

Applause and an "amen" to that, Sparrowdown.

It doesn't matter how many languages they translate things into. Translating "crap" into Spanish still leaves you with "caca."

24

Most Translated Website

by Pubsinger in

wt claims their website is the 'most translated' and claims over 750 languages.

but in the drop down language menu there are only about 50. so where are the others?

David_Jay

What does it matter how many languages their website is translated into?

Other religions don't make their members all over the world rely on just one website or on the Internet for that matter. So their "pride" in the number of languages means nothing.

The largest Christian denomination, the Roman Catholic Church, does not used the web as a major means to educate their members or the public. That is still done at the parish level, with real people, real classes, and with real books you don't have to download (but you can get them in e-reader format).

They print news papers, magazines, have many television networks (not channels, networks), radio networks, radio stations, tv stations, and several streaming networks.

Every language group is divided into episcopalities or national groups, each one of these has their own website (for example, for USA Catholics it is USCCB.org), and each of these is divided in to diocesan territories (with their own websites, newspapers, magazines, often with their own radio and tv stations) further more divided into parishes and parish groups on the neighborhood level.

All the myriad of language groups get severed directly from the parish roots on up. They don't rely on just one central website. Could you imagine the 1.2 billion Catholics around the world all using just one central website? Is there a computer network that could handle that type of traffic, supplying missals, hymnals, educational books, study materials, lectionaries, prayer books, copies of the Liturgy of the Hours, etc., etc., etc., to every Catholic on the planet like the JWs lean on their little website for the comparatively tiny dumbed-down crumbs they offer? Don't forget Bibles on top of all that, for each language group in the world. The Catholic Church also serves every single language group in the world, far more than the JWs.

And what about those countries, language groups, cultures and areas that don't use computers or the Internet? The RCC doesn't need them. They still do all their world ministry without having to go to one central website. And no member of the RCC on the planet has to buy an iPad or e-reader to go to Mass, read a Bible, or pray to God. And you don't have to donate for any literature either. If you are poor the RCC will feed you, clothe you, medicate you, and not require you to join or even believe in God to benefit from their ministry, let alone tell you to go to any website for more info.

And according to JWs, the Catholic Church is under the control of Satan the Devil. I guess Jehovah decided to phone it all in on a website becuase he couldn't compete or be bothered.

"Our website has been translated in more languages than any other!" So?

70

When is a theory 'just a theory'?

by HB in

the titles of cofty's excellent recent posts are all preceeded by the words "evolution is a fact...".

richard dawkins is encouraging people to use the term 'fact' in relation to evolution, especially when debating with creationists as the word 'theory' is confusing to many, and the latter often takes the discussion off on an often unproductive tangent.

the following may be of interest, it's from the bbc website - part of a regular series of articles called 'the vocabularist', discussing the origin and meaning of words: .

David_Jay

For those who have a hard time accepting that analytical methods have a vocabulary that differs from the vernacular, let's compare the use of words from critical document analysis (as used in Biblical study) and note the differences between vernacular usage (marked with a "v") and the critical document usage (marked "d"). We already compared...

1. MYTH: v. False story. d. Origin narrative.

2. FABLE: v. Fictitious tale. d. An apalogue or short story with a moral.

3. LEGEND: v. A popularly believed story that cannot be verified. d. A moral derived from the character of a historical person, usually set in a novela or fictional setting.

4. NOVELA: v. Short fictional story or a serial "soap opera," popular in Latin television. d. A legend based on a historical person or event, set in a particular genre that works as a device to tell the story

5. APOCALYPTIC: v. Having to do with the end of the world or a destructive end in general. d. A narrative genre in which political critique or intrigue are disguised as symbolic oracles (prophecies) from a divine source.

This is the way methodologies work. They have a language all their own. Often methodologies are using terms in their original sense whereas vernacular speech takes them and gives them a secondary meaning, "apocalyptic" being a popular example.

Some may not like the fact that analytical methods use terminology in ways that differ from the vernacular, but this has been the way of speech for generations. Languages generally have a "formal" means of address and a more relaxed "common" speech.

70

When is a theory 'just a theory'?

by HB in

the titles of cofty's excellent recent posts are all preceeded by the words "evolution is a fact...".

richard dawkins is encouraging people to use the term 'fact' in relation to evolution, especially when debating with creationists as the word 'theory' is confusing to many, and the latter often takes the discussion off on an often unproductive tangent.

the following may be of interest, it's from the bbc website - part of a regular series of articles called 'the vocabularist', discussing the origin and meaning of words: .

David_Jay

Cofty is correct in calling evolution a "fact," because of the fact that it is a "scientific theory."

The terminology in analysis is merely different than our vernacular speech. In the scientific method when one establishes a "fact" they have what is called a "working theory," which means a validated observation. In everyday speech that is what we call a "fact."

Most of us are not scientists, and even the most analytical of among us speak in the vernacular. For instance, whereas "fact" in everyday speech is equal to "scientific theory," the everyday use of the word "theory" in science is "hypothesis."

Analytical methods use terms differently than they are employed in everyday speech. Similar to the use of the word "theory" and it's different meanings in science compared to the vernacular, critical Biblical analysis uses the word "myth" in a different way than used in everyday speaking. A critical "myth" is a story explaining how something came to be employing narrative devices, a story of origins. In everyday speech we use the word "myth" to mean a "false" report. But a critical myth is neither necessarily false nor fact, it's just a tale of the origins of this or that.

So when one speaks in the vernacular it is correct to call evidence a "fact." When speaking in scientific terms it is the "theory of evolution."

David_Jay

Posts by David_Jay