Myelaine,
You didn't touch a nerve. If you cannot figure out why I stopped conversing with you, then nothing I can say will help, and I am not going to try. Apparently you will have to come to this realization on your own.
David_Jay
JoinedPosts by David_Jay
-
87
Think for Yourself: Reform Judaism Uses JW Blood Issue For Shavuot
by David_Jay inas the jewish holy day of shavuot (pentecost) begins this weekend, the reform judaism site publishes an interesting article entitled "judaism teaches: question authority, think for yourself.".
the article employs a jewish doctor's recollection of a jw patient who refused blood and died as an example of how both religious traditions greatly differ on how they see and apply god's law.. shavuot is the day jews recall god's giving the law to israel.
the article is significant in that it demonstrates how jews see the giving of the law as a call to questioning authority, including divine revelation itself whereas the death of the jw patient is contrasted as a slavish interpretation that misses the point behind jewish scripture.. for more see the article at:.
-
-
-
-
-
David_Jay
I use to do stand up comedy with a group in New England. To make a joke you have to include ridicule. There are often injustices, too, that can't be fought any other way.
For instance the musical The Book of Momon ridicules through the use of satire, and very effectively. I have thought about how such a technique (maybe minus the music) could be employed to get people to laugh at what the JWs believe.
I was just saying be careful when using it. I have had it backfire on me before because I got carried away with it having a flippant attitude when I was younger. It can take some talent to make it work right, and be a wonderful tool when that happens.
Besides that, there were no further intentions.
-
-
-
David_Jay
No, DJS, I said we often cross that line when intending to do the other. Beliefs are just things, and don't respond or react to emotions or words we throw at them. They won't go away because we don't like them.
But there is a place for calling attention to falsehood, injustice, evils. And justice often calls for ardor and anger and hatred for what is being fought. I was merely calling attention to the need for exercising one's freedom to employ ridicule with modesty.
-
-
-
David_Jay
Sparrowdown,
I won't be the first to say you must respect the JWs. But if their calling others a moron for not accepting their view of the world and their convictions is a reason to disrespect and ridicule them, then you might as well say it would be just for me to show disrespect for and ridicule Simon. He basically called me a moron in his post above. After all, as many of you know, I'm a practicing Jew.
But I don't feel or act that way. Just because someone may have negative feelings for me and/or things about me that I cherish is no reason for me to ridicule them back or treat them with disrespect. People deserve to be treated like humans, even the ones who think that my convictions somehow make me subhuman.
-
-
-
David_Jay
The problem with saying we are respecting or disrespecting beliefs is that we don't stop at mere convictions.
If you show respect for a conviction, it means you are really respecting a person with that conviction. Convictions or beliefs are things that cannot really receive respect.
The same goes for ridicule. Ideas and beliefs aren't affected by scorn and jeering. Showing contempt to a belief is wasted somewhat because it doesn't affect the belief itself. People generally scorn the person with the belief, they don't stop at the belief itself.
-
-
-
David_Jay
Cofty,
Oh no. Definitely not suggesting anything in favor of JW teachings.
But ridiculing as a facet of our personality that we feel is a justified response may cause problems for us. Ridicule is the act of subjecting something or someone to scorn, jeering, and often contemptuous language and behavior. When we say that such behavior in us is acceptable, we also have to admit that we, as imperfect humans, might cross lines we may not have originally intended.
Humans rarely stop at making ideas the subject of ridicule. It becomes far too easy to project the same contempt on those who hold such ideas. "Let's not just ridicule homosexuality, let's treat gay people with contempt." It happens all the time. It's how violence gets justified in the minds of people who think they know better and it is impossible for them to be wrong.
-
-
-
David_Jay
DJS,
I don't think there is anything such as "mean ole atheists." They are not exclusive of each other.
People can be mean, they may at the same be an atheist, but I think it would be unfair to somehow link them as if one was responsible for the other.
-
-
-
David_Jay
While rejecting ideas that we may have good reason to be skeptical about can be warranted, ridicule is a very different thing. History is filled with very intellectual people ridiculing ideas and views, and later being embarrassed when proven wrong.
While I am not saying many of the views of JWs aren't totally unfounded, seeking them out for ridicule could backfire. Sometimes what seems totally stupid or impossible has turned out to be right, so just be careful that you don't be so trusting in yourself and your own views as if it is impossible to be mistaken.
Things originally ridiculed in the past included...
A Catholic priest who claimed he had uncovered evidence proving that the universe had a beginning. Up until then scientists agreed the universe had no beginning, and many atheists used the notion of a "beginning" of the universe as a reason to ridicule the Bible's opening statement at Genesis 1.1.
The priest was Georges Lemaitre, and his evidence is now the expanding model of the universe commonly referred to as the Big Bang theory.
Creating an electromechanical machine that could decipher encrypted messages better than the smartest group of humans. The Nazi's Enigma encoder seemed impossible to figure out, creating messages that the greatest minds among the British could not unravel. When a man claimed that a machine could do a better job than any human, he was laughed away and almost kept from proving his claim.
The man was cryptologist Alan Turning. His invention that actually made conquering the Nazis possible is what people today call a computer.
I could go on to talk about plate teutonics and contental drift, the motor invented by Henry Ford, even making a feature-length animated feature by some cartoonist by the name of Disney...yep, a lot of things were originally laughed at.
I am not saying that the doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses are true and on par with these examples. But I am saying that ridicule from scorn is not always wise. We need to act with some modesty because we aren't always as all-knowing or right about things as we may think we are.
If we make it a habit to ridicule things we don't believe are true, we may eventually make ourselves the subject of the same type of scorn when we go too far. Humans have proven that pride in our knowledge will eventually trip us up, especially when we think we have some type of enlightenment others are not privy to. So be careful.
-
10
"New Heavens & New Earth" (Why The Need For New Heavens?)
by NoMoreHustle ini have been thinking about this phrase lately "new heavens & new earth".
the new earth piece i guess i can see that one...... (still not really sure about that one) .
but why the need for "new heavens"?
-
-
David_Jay
In Biblical cosmogony, the "heavens" is a solid dome upon which the luminaries (sun, moon, stars) have been attached. The ancients, including the Jews, did not believe in the vacuum of space. Instead they imagined that the earth stood in the midst of a cosmic ocean of waters. The "dome" or "heavens" kept these cosmic waters from drenching the earth (except for the Noachin deluge upon which the "floodgates of the heavens" were opened).
Isaiah and Revelation use the term "new heavens and new earth" to describe what Jews and the first Jewish Christians called olam HaBa, "the world to come." Being a new or recreated "world," the physical features of the cosmogonic model would be required to be replaced. The old "dome" would be replaced with a new one, and the old earth (which in this model was a round flat surface plate held up by pillars that somehow stuck into the cosmic waters and supported the dome and plate) would be replaced with a new one.
The idea that the "firmament" of Genesis 1.6 was an atmospheric expanse was not shared by the Jews. Even the Christians believed that the earth was still a flat plate protected by this dome, as Peter writes about how "earth was formed out [or in the midst] of water and by means [or in the middle of] water." (2 Peter 3.5) My people, the Jews, thought the sky was a material fixture like most of their neighbors did in ancient times.
-
22
New to JWD, Hello!
by jwundubbed inmy story in a nutshell... .
scientist for a father; extremely mentally ill, 'annointed' mother.
was privy to and also suffered a lot of abuse.
-
-
David_Jay
Welcome. I enjoyed your "nutshell." Can't wait to learn more about you and get to experience more of what you have to offer (I have enjoyed reading your comments on other threads today).
And can any sense of humor be that bad if it is dry and sarcastic? I salt my food with dry sarcasm, that's how much I love it.