Posts by David

6

Why bring God when you can do it yourself?

by elbib in

when under temptation, one can easily deflate it by simply changing his thoughts and choosing his associations wisely.

(philippians 4:8, 9; 1 corinthians 15:33) then why did jesus teach us to pray to god: “lead us not into temptation”?

(mathew 6:13) .

David_Jay

You are correct, elbib. Employed in the fashion employed by the Witnesses, the Scriptures are confusing.

The Witnesses, as you are likely aware, follow a popular principle that many of the other New Religious Movements of America's Secong Great Awakening adopted. Invented by the bishop-turned heretic Marcion of Sinope, they read the Bible as if it is God's ultimate, final, and exhaustive authority and form of revelation. This gnostic principle is opposite of Christinaity which in contrast views Jesus Christ as the basis for their religion, and the Scriptures as a product of this revelation.

Marcion taught that the Gnostics were correct that only a select minority was chosen by God to be saved from the evil world, but that the Gnostics were equally wrong in saying that no one else could gain salvation. The Gnostics claimed that "salvific knowledge" or "gnosis" was hidden in the holy writ of religions, and only the chosen minority could understand these secrets. Marcion believed the holy writ was limited to Paul's epistles and an edited form of Luke's Gospel, but that this select group could teach this "gnosis" to followers who would need to follow and hang on to every word of the chosen ones less they perish with this world.

Oddly, Marcion was reportedly "surprised" when he was excommunicated and stripped of his position for his teaching. But his ideas and followers never really died off. The Church Fathers eventually had to develop an official canon of liturgical and teaching texts in response to Marcion's challenge, but the idea kept rising up over the centuries.

The American era of the religious awakening revivals rejected traditional religious ideas, including those of the Reformation. Marcion's ideas became popular once again, with the Bible being used as if it was an exhaustive, all-encompassing revelation from God. The problem was that each new group saw themselves as "chosen" by God to bring the only truth that had been "hidden" in the holy writ of Judaism and Christianity...until their new "chosen" group appeared that is.

Read disconnected from the original relgious liturgy and traditions by which the texts were created, the Bible gives quite an incomplete picture. These groups took advantage of the resulting incomplete picture created by disconnecting them from traditional religion, claiming the traditions that shaped the text were all of human or evil origin, and that without following the select chosen leaders of these "Last Day restorationists," the hidden and saving knowledge of the Scriptures could never be discerned.

6

Why bring God when you can do it yourself?

by elbib in

when under temptation, one can easily deflate it by simply changing his thoughts and choosing his associations wisely.

(philippians 4:8, 9; 1 corinthians 15:33) then why did jesus teach us to pray to god: “lead us not into temptation”?

(mathew 6:13) .

David_Jay

While the way these texts you quote are precise formal-equivalent or word-for-word translations, these types of renditions can cause readers problems if they read them as if they were written using English idiom. This is all that is causing confusion.

For instance, if I were to say: "What is the count of years in your possession?" That is an accurate word-for-word translation of a Spanish phrase. But it might confuse English readers because it follows Spanish idiom. We don't say the phrase this way in English. Instead we say: "How old are you?" Note the vast difference?

Whereas word-for-word Bible translations lend to great study, they often lend little to comprehension for readers, especially those who know little about the idiomatic terms unique to the cultures, eras, and languages of the Scriptures.

In ancient Hebrew culture, prayerful speech attributes all things, good and evil, to God. It is not a literal means of expression, but meant to imply that divine providence can allow evil only for the eventuality that God will deal with it at the proper time. Idioms are forms of speech often hard to fully appreciate outside of understanding the original language, and even by the time Jesus uttered the words of the famous Lord's Prayer, this type of speech was somewhat archaic. Judaism had already begun to stop attributing evil to God in its theology during the Second Temple era, but the liturgical language of prayer still reflected Biblical speech of pre-Babylonian exile which still did that.

"Do not lead us to temptation," actually means "do not let us fall prey to our temptations" or "give us the strength to face our tests successfully." The expression could actually be rendered "spare us from the hour of test" in reference to what some in Judaism called the "Messianic woes," times of testing that would come from the evil one or persecutors expected by some Jews in the Messianic era.

A similar vein is understood in reference to the use of parables by Jesus. Some of the Hebrew Scripture accounts, while apparently based on historical figures, are actually parable-like morality stories that often take great liberties with dramatic license for teaching purposes. The first few chapters of Daniel are such an example as is the entire book of Jonah. When people read these as literal accounts they come to wrong conclusions in the end, like the Watchtower has for 100 years.

Jesus used the same type of teaching genre, offering stories which obviously could not be literal which were designed to make people ask questions of him. For a person to be a disciple in Judaism, they often had to approach a rabbi several times with a question before a direct answer was given them (some in Judaism do something similar today). The teaching technique demonstrates the student's seriousness of resolve to find an answer and the rabbi's desire to teach the disciple how to think for themselves to find right answers.

The parables are the same. If people were not serious about learning from Jesus, they would not inquire and follow him to ask for an explanation. Those that would, Jesus would often act like many rabbis still do, acting surprised that the student didn't understand. It's just a Hebrew teaching technique, like methods used at the college level in universities which are used by professors to weed out true students from those who are just warming seats, so to speak.

The expression about why Jesus speaks in parables that you quote is also a Semitic idiom. It can be rendered: "I teach in parables to teach them that they don't currently look deep enough into things, nor do they listen with deep enough intent, nor do they really use their brain to think." Jesus wanted unity, but not followers who had little more interest than "passing the class," to use a current modern idiom.

36

Faith, where now?

by Theburstbubble in

so for the first time ever i went to a church service at my local church (coe) and i have to say it was awful!

it was just like a ritual.

the vicar would say something and then the congregation would all say a phrase in unison back to him.

David_Jay

Cofty has raised a very important point.

The "humble Bible study" of Russell and his companions was flawed from the start. Like Mormonism, which is a religion that sees writings as the starting point and measure for Christianity, Russell was influenced by Adventism's similar view of religious revelation.

Christianity (and its father religion Judaism) is not based on writings. Christianity produced writings. The books that became the New Testament were not the basis for its religious doctrines but selected due to their use in liturgical worship over the first 350 years of Christianity's existence.

The Christian canon developed because of Marcion of Sinope, a bishop that turned to Gnosticism, who taught that holy writ was the ultimate form of spiritual enlightenment or revelation and thus the only true measure of Christian doctrine. His canon, limited to a few of Paul's epistles, an edited-down version of Luke, and a rejection of the entire library of Hebrew works, moved Christian bishops to use their authority to set a standard for books that aligned with official use. The process would not be completed until the 4th century.

Judaism is (allegedly) based on a series of theophanies given to the patriarchs, to Moses, and the Great Theophany at Sinai, or so the claim is made. The Jews later composed the books based on the religious interpretation of their own history (a work that did not take shape until after the Babylonian exile ended).

Christianity originated in a similar manner. Based on a series of epiphanies based on the identity of Jesus of Nazareth, the Christian movement was born. Like Judaism before it, Christianity was not based on writings, rather it produced writings. Christianity, according to its own historical claim, is based on Jesus being the ultimate and final revelation in God, not the Scriptures. As so-called religious "truth" was found in the people of Israel, Christian "truth" was deposited in the community or "church" of Christian believers.

The Bible is merely a product of these movements, considered inspired and a revelation in and of themselves, true, but a testimony to something greater nevertheless. Russell's mistake was that of Joseph Smith. They, like Marcion of Sinope, believed and advocated the Gnostic teaching that the ultimate revelation of truth was found in the written word of religious movements, and not anywhere else in the community of believers that originally produced them.

Limiting themselves to the scope of what is composed on paper, all three men came up with odd and "unique" doctrines contrary to those taught by the communities that composed the texts. Without noting a deposit of faith that consists of both theological practice and written works, and accepting only the written texts, peculiar religions resulted. (In Smith's case he went one step further and claimed that an additional written text was also necessary.)

Limiting oneself to the Bible independent of the religions, cultures, peoples and theology that composed them is dangerous. It would be like taking the writings of the Dalai Lama and following them but rejecting his religion. It would be like basing a religion on Hubbard's "Dianetics" but claiming that Scientology did not have to be studied or followed. That is absurd, but it is what Russell did when studying the Bible and claiming that the Christianity that composed it and canonized it should be rejected, to curse the religion but praise its product, its book.

One does not have to be a theist to see the insanity of following the Gnostic rule that ultimate truth is found only in the written texts of a religion, but not in the religion itself. If the religion is false then its writings can't be true, especially when the religion came first and produced the writings, using its own authority to canonize them.

7

What is the Modern Christian's Role, According to the Bible

by jacobm in

if any other christians can answer this:.

what is the role of the believer in this day of the church (the body of christ, not the building)?.

is preaching a main goal?.

David_Jay

I have to agree with Jan's great reply.

In my Roman Catholic tradition the role of the Body of Christ, the Church, is to make God's Kingdom a present and practical reality for people.

Being more than a mere static government, God's reign is expressed by Christians not by making doctrines into unfeeling stones to judgmentally throw at others, but by an active participation in God's love for humanity and the physical world around us. It is less about making new members or even demanding that people adopt our theology or religion, and more finding ways to meet the real needs facing individuals today.

People are often marginalized, suffering in systems that keep them poor and wanting, stripped of their dignity, or told that they would be loved by God only if they changed this or that about them. But God loves people whether they believe in God or not. All people deserve freedom from want, freedom to exercise their conscience as they see fit, and freedom from isolation. One cannot merely offer Bible education or demand that people convert as a requisite to your caring for them. And we often have to put our personal conflicts and doubts aside in order to genuinely love others in ways that move us beyond our personal conceptual boundaries. People are far more important than inner church doctrinal debates and political conflicts.

The modern world is composed of more than believers or those who are searching or even want to believe. All these people are, as Christianity teaches, children of God regardless. And as such all need to be treated with the love that the image of God in each person demands be given of us.

While it is vital to teach the Gospel through accurate instruction, it is far more import to live the Gospel by loving your neighbor as the image of God they truly, really are. Without that, there is no Gospel or Bible to teach.

36

Faith, where now?

by Theburstbubble in

so for the first time ever i went to a church service at my local church (coe) and i have to say it was awful!

it was just like a ritual.

the vicar would say something and then the congregation would all say a phrase in unison back to him.

David_Jay

Correction on my last post: In describing the earliest of liturgies, my post should read that it is ascribed to St. James the Just.

As to how people in churches with ritual learn Scripture, did you know that the Watchtower never told you that we would not have Scripture if it were not for these ritual liturgies?

The canon of Scripture, both Jewish and Christian, were determined by their use in liturgy. (For those of you who were kept in the dark about religion history while in the Watchtower, "liturgy" is a formal worship service; it is like a script to follow, stating what prayers get said, what psalms get sung, what Scripture texts get said, and on what day of the year this happens.) The Jewish Tabernacle/Temple liturgy consisted of prayers which became the psalms. Some of these were chanted or sung between a leading priest and the worshiping audience, often in responsorial antiphons where the audience repeated a chorus in reply to the worship leader, such as found in Psalm 136.

The Temple service became adjusted for smaller synagogue service. This liturgy used an annual cycle of readings from the Torah and the other books of what would become the Jewish Scriptures, read on a schedule that marked the annual festivals prescribed by the Law.

The earliest Christian liturgies, like the above mentioned, adapted the synagogue service. But they introduced two new facets: Justin Martyr, writing in the 150s CE, stated that "on the day called after the sun there takes place a meeting....The memoirs of the apostles are read, as are the writings of the prophets...When the reader has finished, the president, in his speech, admonishes and urges all....Then we all stand and pray together aloud. When the prayers are ended, we greet one another with a kiss. At that point, as we have already said, bread is brought, with wine mixed with water."

These items were used for a weekly Eucharist/communion service. Justin wrote that "none is allowed to share unless he believes the things we teach are true....For we do not receive them as ordinary bread and ordinary wine, but as Jesus Christ our Savior."

The texts used in common around the world in this liturgy eventually became the Christian Scripture canon, originally consisting of the Alexandrine Septuagint for the canon of the Old Testament and establishing the New Testament by the end of the 4th century. People learned the Scriptures by hearing them read on a cycle similar to the synangogue service, except these cycles became based on the birth, life, ministry, Passion, and resurrection of Christ throughout the year instead of the Jewish festivals.

The Bible was not available to individuals either in ancient Israel or even the first centuries of Christianity. Besides the canon being unsettled for Christians until the late 300s and literacy levels being low, widespread ownership of the Bible did not occur until the famous barefoot walk of the poor Welsh girl, Mary Jones, inspired Bible societies in the mid 1800s throughout the West to find a way to invent a way to provide Bibles for all.

Russell was born into a world where a loud minority of Adventists (and other new movements from the Second Great Awakening era in the USA) promoted an ignorant history that made it sound as if all people have always had access to a copy of the Scriptures since the first century, but had been oppressed from free Bible study by "papists and liturgical Protestantism." The truth is that individual Bible ownership is a relatively modern phenomenon that was born about 80 or so years before World War I. Prior to this there were almost no means to provide Bibles to anyone except mostly churches and the rich, and most people learned the Bible in church groups or from the liturgy and catechesis (as well as Protestant Sunday schools).

American New Religious Movements which discarded the liturgy (most due to simple ignorance), developed religious "services" based on Protestant Sunday school settings, and not due to historical research on how Christians originally worshiped. The Watchtower religion came from these uneducated groups who made up an impossible first century "history" where "true Christians" went about preaching and studying from their personal copies of the Bible...despite the fact that such a history was totally impossible, false, and a fantasy of the stupid.

36

Faith, where now?

by Theburstbubble in

so for the first time ever i went to a church service at my local church (coe) and i have to say it was awful!

it was just like a ritual.

the vicar would say something and then the congregation would all say a phrase in unison back to him.

David_Jay

And I almost forgot...

Ritual can be a means to this transcendent contact that leads to belief and faith. Ritual played an important part in the Jewish worship at the Tabernacle and later the Temple. The first Christian services were based on a type of ritual called "liturgy," portions of which are found in the New Testament. All modern liturgies are based both on the Jewish tabernacle/Temple service and the oldest written liturgy or Mass composed by the first bishop of Jerusalem, St. James the Greater. The JW meetings are just classes in Watchtower theology, dry and devoid of spiritual experience as they are of ritual. One has to receive catechesis in the ritual of these services to see their ancient connections and meanings, and why they have been preserved for generations.

36

Faith, where now?

by Theburstbubble in

so for the first time ever i went to a church service at my local church (coe) and i have to say it was awful!

it was just like a ritual.

the vicar would say something and then the congregation would all say a phrase in unison back to him.

David_Jay

Thereis a significant difference between "faith" as taught by Jehovah's Witnesses and what non-JW Christians generally experience. Knowing the difference may help you make a decision, one that may help you find a religion that adds to your life, or like Cofty states, discover that a non-religious path fits you better.

Jehovah's Witnesses see faith as a response that believers are totally responsible for. For them it is based on a scholastic approach: studying the Bible and linking texts to come to conclusions that demonstrate a particular logic, one generally supporting Wachtower concepts. The study produces conclusions that are called "evidence" upon which to create or support beliefs. Mental acknowledgment and heartfelt devotion to these conclusions is what is called "faith" among the Witnesses. Any doubtful thoughts must be readily dismissed and are often seen as a sign that one is not a "true believer."

In mainstream Christian theology "faith" is a supernatural virtue. While like the Witnesses it consists of a personal response that includes assent of the mind and the will, according to religious people it has a divine dimension that without makes it totally impossible. Unlike JW doctrines which require belief based on the study and research and complete action of the devotee, the other type allegedly results in belief through an action of God which the devotee does not personally generate.

Scripture and Christian doctrine refers to religious faith as a product or "fruit" of contact with the Holy Spirit. (Galatians 5.22) Unlike Watchtower "faith" which is supposed to be the result of study and contact with the Governing Body, this other "faith" comes from some sort of contact with God. The contact allegedly results in revelation that allows persons to arrive at conclusions or assent to religious "truths" that could not fully believed in by pure human effort. (Compare Galatians 1.11-12 with Matthew 16.15-17) Whereas Witnesses often claim that they believe in their unique doctrines through their own efforts of study, beliefs backed by "evidence" and reason, the other type is said to be a stand-in or personal resolve when there is no evidence or reason to work with, even when there is nothing but reason for doubt.--Hebrews chapter 11.

So for those looking for a church or religion along Christian lines, one's choice is generally made depending on which path may aid in bringing about this response. For them it is about coming into contact with something that is transcendent, generally defies reason, and causes a person to respond with "leaps of faith," courageous steps which generally would not be done by the same individual alone.

This in no way means that a non-theist way is any less courageous. Not all persons take a path that adds to the community of humanity by a religious practice. If you find that nothing speaks to you in the religious world and that you are more taken to adopt convictions based on more humanistic effort, a fulfilling life can also be found according to the testimony of many atheists.

Again, if religion seems to be the path that calls to you, unlearn the Witness way of doing things. Religion is supposed to be the embracing of something greater, that transcends, that recognizes that we can't know everything or expect to be totally right about everything. Belief in this send becomes the result of some spiritual contact, not the manner in which one makes themselves religious.

If you wish to be part of a religion, be sure it is a way that helps you be free to be yourself, not something that takes that freedom away from you or makes you think you can judge others for taking paths exercising similar freedom but holding different convictions.

33

Can any believer make a case for the superiority of faith over knowledge?

by Half banana in

i find it curious why so many here on this site, in the face of factual evidence for things such as evolution and the impossibility for anyone to make a coherent interpretation for the bible, would still prefer faith to knowledge?.

can any believer attempt a defence of this position?.

David_Jay

Cofty, you know there is a question involved. That's what this thread is about, asking believers to supply an answer to the OP's question about their stand.

The majority of Christians claim to have a response in their critical approach, an approach you said you immersed yourself in and claim "it was much ado about nothing."

If a believer said the same thing in response to the OP's question or even just your own well-thought out views, namely, "I've immersed myself in your views and found them much ado about nothing" that would be seen as a failure on their behalf to respond.

The same goes for us when we don't respond to their answers to the question as supplied in their voluminous works. We might win arguments on this forum in the settings we create for ourselves, but they won't work in a real world setting with people who base their belief on these critical analytical arguments. We need to help equip others who may be faced with this in order to prove successful against even the most "challenging" religious "rhetoric" which you call it.

I am sure your views would demolish any argument any theist could throw at you, but if you kept it to yourself it does nothing. You and your views are far more valuable than to be merely kept locked away.

33

Can any believer make a case for the superiority of faith over knowledge?

by Half banana in

i find it curious why so many here on this site, in the face of factual evidence for things such as evolution and the impossibility for anyone to make a coherent interpretation for the bible, would still prefer faith to knowledge?.

can any believer attempt a defence of this position?.

David_Jay

Your personal conclusions notwithstanding, Cofty, worthy as they are, will just be looked as a failure to supply a response.

That doesn't mean you don't have a response or a solution that works. But if we demand an answer in full from others, we must supply ours as well, in full. Silence will belie our claim to have arguments that work and disprove even the best analytic views they have.

And it must be more than a mere claim. If we have it, we should be able to show it instantly upon demand. We expect nothing less of others who claim opposing views we do not agree with.

33

Can any believer make a case for the superiority of faith over knowledge?

by Half banana in

i find it curious why so many here on this site, in the face of factual evidence for things such as evolution and the impossibility for anyone to make a coherent interpretation for the bible, would still prefer faith to knowledge?.

can any believer attempt a defence of this position?.

David_Jay

DogGone,

My apologies where my lack of abilities in writing have caused you confusion. Note that in my comments, while I make reference to the type of "faith" generally being argued against here, I also state that the majority of religious people in the Judeo-Christian tradition, namely the Orthodox-Catholics, do not employ such a view. These are the same which adhere to a very strict practice of reading Scripture in light of critical analysis. "Many" have the views we argue against here, but they are outnumbered by a far larger and better-equipped majority.

No one wins a game of chess by merely knocking over the opponent's pawns. Those are the little guys. They don't carry the power. If our skills at chess allow us to always knock over the pawns but little more, we can't say we are effective at playing chess.

The same is true when it comes to attacking the "faith" of Christians. We might have very good arguments for knocking down the beliefs of the "little guys," and if you read through this and many other threads on this site I admit that they are very good. We have very, very good thinkers on this forum.

But we kid ourselves if we think this does anything at making us successful against the views of Christianity.

The recently released (2011) NABRE is one of the most respected Bibles in academia today. It is not only the official Catholic Bible used in the USA, it also contains one of the most critical apparatuses found in a modern Bible version. Agreed, it is not at a level that a Jehovah's Witness could understand, but if we are to be successful at our arguments against faith, religion, and the Bible, we need to go after the big guys on the board, not the pawns.

Our arguments need to be effective enough to argue against what you read in the many lengthy introductions and footnotes throughout. The entire work is freely available on the web. Just go through two of the books, namely Genesis and Daniel and read the many explanatory footnotes to the various verses throughout in each chapter. Believe me, you can't do it in just a few hours. Their arguments and views are highly complex. That is the arsenal in the deposit of the big players on the board.

And that's just two of their Bible books, only what is found in the basic text of the NABRE, and that does not mention the study notes that come with the newly released Oxford Study edition of this translation, or the Little Rock edition. Not to mention other translations used by this denomination, such as the NRSV, it's Oxford study edition, and the New Jerusalem Bible (editions with full translator's footnotes). This is just some of the English language versions in one religion. They don't even pay attention with what the little guys on the board believe, so our best arguments here don't even register.

A war is not one when all you have is matches when the other guy has WMDs in its pockets. Our arguments are nothing if they don't compete with the big dogs. Running with the pups doesn't count. For us to be a success at taking down the beliefs of religion, we have to run at the speed of their top players, know their strengths inside and out, and take down their views and arguments. Otherwise, we've done nothing but take out the little guys who will just run for protection from the big guns who we have left standing.

"Faith" as we are arguing here, may be a crutch for many. But so is believing we have accomplished something by disproving arguments for religion that in the end don't really matter. Anyone can knock over a pawn. You are only successful when you can knock down the big guys. That's what it will take if we want to be successful at this argument.

David_Jay

Posts by David_Jay