Posts by David

205

Mathematically Measuring Evolution.

by towerwatchman in

mathematically measuring evolution.. when judging relationships in terms of morphological characteristics we will always be bound by the subjective.

morphologically one cannot exactly measure the distance between two organisms strictly in mathematical terms.

using the standard method of taxonomy we cannot quantify the difference between a horse and a mouse, or know which is closer mouse to cat, or mouse to fish.

David_Jay

Towerwatchman said:

i believe in following the evidence till where it leads us. Following the evidence, this disproves common ancestry.

My point was not to claim that God created the world via evolution or even directly. Neither was my issue about whatever evidence you may or may not "believe" in.

My point is that your claiming to be a theist while claiming God did not create life via evolution presumes limits on your definition of God.

Making God fit into such definite limitations is an attempt to create an idol. You don't have to build a literal golden calf to make God into a man-made image. You can do so by doctrine, saying that God can do such and such, but God cannot do this or does not do that. Humans who create definitions like "God does not create via evolution" are creating a god for themselves no different than the idolatry Christians claim to detest. How can a mortal have a complete comprehension of what God can and cannot and does not do in reference to creating life?

Answer me this: If there is a God, why can't God create by means of evolution? Why is the only possibility the one you are stating?

How do you know that your views of God and how God created life are correct? Even the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses claims that that they are not inspired and have made mistakes and that Christ never promised "perfect" spiritual food "at the proper time." If this is so, how can you guarantee that your view that God did not create the world by evolution is free of imperfections or complete?

And where does evolution teach there is no God? Charles Darwin was honored by the Church of England with a burial in Westminster Abbey for his achievements in this work. While Darwin was an agnostic, he never taught there was no possibility of God, and mainstream Christianity even embraced his work as offering the scientific answer to how life came to be. The Bishop of Carlisle stated in Darwin's memorial funeral sermon: "It would have been unfortunate if anything had occurred to give weight and currency to the foolish notion which some have diligently propagated, but for which Mr. Darwin was not responsible, that there is a necessary conflict between a knowledge of Nature and a belief in God."

I find that most people who take sides on this issue have never read Origin of Species or even seen a copy. Have you? Do you know what Darwin actually said? Most who have an opinion have never read Darwin's own notes or his views on how what he discovered applied to theological concepts. Most only know what they do from secondhand sources, or just through blurbs, cited quotes, or watching a television program or two. Suddenly such people believe they have enough information to form an opinion. Some people will even read books on the subject but still never the actual information written by Darwin himself. The issue of evolution is not one about whether there is a God or not, so it does only harm to the religionist who fails to educate themselves on the matter.

205

Mathematically Measuring Evolution.

by towerwatchman in

mathematically measuring evolution.. when judging relationships in terms of morphological characteristics we will always be bound by the subjective.

morphologically one cannot exactly measure the distance between two organisms strictly in mathematical terms.

using the standard method of taxonomy we cannot quantify the difference between a horse and a mouse, or know which is closer mouse to cat, or mouse to fish.

David_Jay

I always thought it odd how some Christians find that it speaks well for their idea of Deity to say that God created everything separately and individually, as it is, without the flexibility to adapt and become more than what it was locked into being at the time of its being formed.

To me I think it would speak more in the favor of God to design a universe in which life would develop via evolution, where life adapts, where it is flexible and free. That kind of life has a chance of going on and on, becoming stronger, smarter, ever more incapable of being snuffed out. That would more be like the life an eternal God would create. Such life can advance to a point of coming to understand God better as time goes on, whereas a static being could never hope to advance to really reflect the image of something as grand as an Almighty eternal Creator.

Not that atheists need to recognize God, no sir. In fact, one might argue that since atheists too can clearly see that life evolved, this would be more the reason to give thought to the possibility that the God of Abraham might exist. But too many Christians say, "No. There is no logic to our God. Only magic." But I say: Why believe in a God of miracles when you can accept a God of reality?

Alas, the Fundamentalist and literalist Christian who forces God into an idol of their own making, incapable of being intelligent and creative enough to create a universe where life is as spontaneous within as it is in God. Their "God" can't create things by evolution. No wonder intelligent, logic, moral people can't wrap their minds around such a "God."

Their "God" has to fit within defined parameters like those made for a golden calf, with hooves that must go there, horns that must go on top over there, and a tail at its end to keep flies from going into its anus. A "God" like that has limits. And they are so proud of this "God" of theirs: "'God' is this, and 'God' is that, and we have all the truth and know all about 'God,' and 'God' must fit the parameters of our doctrine."

Not much of a god if it has to fit according to what you teach, if you ask me.

43

Atheism would not appeared if …

by venus in

· if religions were immune to division.

· if scriptures were immune to scientific errors.

· if religious leaders were immune to hypocrisy.

David_Jay

A Cambridge study suggests that atheism was not necessarily caused by religion. In fact, the evidence at hand suggests that atheism appears to have been around as long as religion.

The OP, while offering some value, is also quite limited to the scope of the restorationist Protestant movements that developed from America's Second Great Awakening period. These groups, like the Seventh Day Adventists, the Mormons, and Jehovah's Witnesses, fit into the paradigm you suggest, but others do not.

Note, for example, your second point:

If Scriptures were immune to scientific errors. Judaism, Buddhism, and even early Christianity were not based upon Scriptures. Instead these movements would later produce and add religious texts to their already functioning religions. These texts did not act as the foundation of their doctrines as it does for the restoration movements. The idea that religion is based upon "proof texts" and a particular canon of scripture was developed by Marcion of Sinope of the 2nd century C.E. These new religious movements from the 18th and 19th centuries revived Marcionism and introduced the claim that not only should religion be based upon scripture but science and history as well.

For this point to be applicable all religions would have to start from a scripture text as well as claim that the texts are meant to be read as historically and scientifically inerrant. Judaism, for instance, has never advanced the idea that Genesis was a historical account.

The claim that religion must be based upon sacred texts is problematic as scripture texts don't compose themselves. They are the product of religious adherents, meaning that a religious writer must exist first. For this to be true a functioning religion with a set ritual or cult of worship would have had to exist to begin with in order for there to be a religious adherent who could compose such a text. The idea you espouse is based on religious movements that to a lesser or greater degree took scripture texts composed by other groups and made special claim to them. Their theology rests on the paradigm that would have to mean that scripture came before religions since the texts act as their basis (an impossibility).

Theism cannot be argued to be the natural course of all, even in ancient times. Therefore atheism's existence cannot be said to rely on the existence of theism.

17

So according to the bible, "believing" is enough to have everlasting life.

by NikL in

i am certain this has been brought up many times before.

according to john 6.... 44 no man can come to me unless the father, who sent me, draws him,+ and i will resurrect him on the last day.+ 45 it is written in the prophets: ‘they will all be taught by jehovah.+ everyone who has listened to the father and has learned comes to me.

46 not that any man has seen the father,+ except the one who is from god; this one has seen the father.+ 47 most truly i say to you, whoever believes has everlasting life.+.

David_Jay

There is also the hermeneutic approach that the Gospel of John was advancing Jesus as an Epiphany of God, and not the Incarnation per se.

The Incarnation is a doctrine that would not be formed until the period of the Nicene Fathers. Persons like Ignatius and Justin Martyr laid the groundwork, but the idea of the Incarnation is more than the idea advanced in John.

The author of John speaks of Jesus as the Shekinah or "light" of God, along with speaking of Jesus in terms of the personification of Wisdom as found in extrabiblical works, such as the Wisdom of Solomon. The idea is that John was teaching that God was come in the Person of Jesus, much like God is present in the Shekinah but is not the Shekinah itself (or rather the Shekinah isn't all there is to God).

The Incarnation involves the teaching that the one God exists in more than one divine Person, and that one of those Persons (namely the Second Person of the Trinity) became fully incarnate in Jesus. In other words unlike the Shekinah (which does not contain all there is of God), Jesus in human form was the total embodiment of the Second Person of the Trinity, an incarnation that was totally man but at the same time totally God the Son. No part of God the Son remained in heaven while Jesus was incarnate.

This idea is far more advanced than the Epiphany of John's Gospel, though it relies heavily upon it. One might even say they see the beginnings of the evolution of the idea in John.

As a Jew, of course, I subscribe to no such beliefs or even to a concept that demands a single, personal Messiah.

17

So according to the bible, "believing" is enough to have everlasting life.

by NikL in

i am certain this has been brought up many times before.

according to john 6.... 44 no man can come to me unless the father, who sent me, draws him,+ and i will resurrect him on the last day.+ 45 it is written in the prophets: ‘they will all be taught by jehovah.+ everyone who has listened to the father and has learned comes to me.

46 not that any man has seen the father,+ except the one who is from god; this one has seen the father.+ 47 most truly i say to you, whoever believes has everlasting life.+.

David_Jay

@NikL

The Greek word translated "works" means "accomplishments." It is the same word used to describe the product of an artist and that produced by someone in your employ, like a dressmaker you hire to make a dress.

James 2:17 thus reads: "Faithfulness that accomplishes nothing is itself dead." (Or better yet, "is a lifeless corpse.")

17

So according to the bible, "believing" is enough to have everlasting life.

by NikL in

i am certain this has been brought up many times before.

according to john 6.... 44 no man can come to me unless the father, who sent me, draws him,+ and i will resurrect him on the last day.+ 45 it is written in the prophets: ‘they will all be taught by jehovah.+ everyone who has listened to the father and has learned comes to me.

46 not that any man has seen the father,+ except the one who is from god; this one has seen the father.+ 47 most truly i say to you, whoever believes has everlasting life.+.

David_Jay

Actually no.

The Greek words translated "faith" and "believe" in the New Testament come from the Greek pistis. The Greek term is equivalent to the Hebrew word 'emunah.

These words do not refer to a mental assent or acknowledgement of a claim, a creed, or to credulity. Rather they signify a type of behavior or response. The Jehovah's Witnesses are not very far off in their offering of the term "exercise faith" in the NWT. It is merely redundant however.

The words pistis and 'emunah mean "faithfulness." They can also be rendered as "trust" and even "loyalty" in some instances.

Originally with the New Testament writers being Jewish (except for Luke), the terminology never meant to have mere "belief" in a premise or teaching, as it does now where Christians are asked to guard against doubting lest they lose their mental grasp of a stand or theological view. While the Church Fathers only slightly began to give the meaning of "assent to a creed or doctrine" to pistis in the early church, it would be the Reformation that would give new meaning to the terms, especially as they appear in Pauline writings, notably that of Romans more than anywhere else.

But in reality the terms refer to walking according to a set type of behavior as an expression of loyalty, to a concept yes, but not merely the mental grasping or believing aspect that is generally understood today. The original meanings can greatly alter the text if read directly from the Greek.

For instance, Matthew 17:20 is now meaningless due to the current view of the word "faith." The verse reads in the NRSV: "Truly I tell you, if you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move; and nothing will be impossible for you."

Because people think the word "faith" means "belief" this is generally applied as merely asking God for help and sitting back, waiting for God to do something. Yet the word pistis is not that static at all. A more precise way to render this verse would be: "If you were as faithful as a mustard seed, should you tell this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' it will move. Thus nothing will be impossible for you."

Mustard in Israel is notorious for overgrowing wildly, taking over the land where other crops and vegetation lives, choking the life out of them, and taking their place. There were thus laws in ancient Israel regarding restrictions on how and where it could and could not be planted because of this plant's behavior.

The text in Matthew 17:20 does not have the Greek word "size" in it at all. Because of how the Reformation has changed Christian views on pistis, it is now read as if the context is implying the "size" of a mustard seed, to read the text as if it saying that if you have even a little amount of "mental assent" or "belief" in something, God will make it happen for you.

Read the other way around the words of Jesus mean that he didn't expect his disciples to just sit around after praying for something to happen. Like the mustard seed, they would act faithfully in their resolve and take over the situation for themselves. If you want the mountain to move, you don't sit by and wait for God to do it. You start pushing on the mountain. Jesus is saying that God will only help you out if you start pushing.

This fits in with the Jewish teaching: "Pray as if everything depends upon God, but act as if everything depends upon you."

This is also why Judaism is said to be "practiced" while Christianity is "believed." Some practicing Jews are atheist, and myself, even though I consider myself to be theist cannot honestly reduce my response to the concept of God to the term "belief." I don't subscribe to the notion of belief in doctrines, a common stand among Jews.

But one can right say that according to the belief of some, mostly Christians, it is all about having "belief." At the same time one cannot say that this stand is immediately taken from Scripture. It's more theology than anything else because membership in Christian movements often demand adherents to mentally assent to a creed or a theology. Most Christian movements will expel members that refuse to mentally assent or believe in certain things too, even though almost all of these concepts are supposed to be transcendent in nature.

13

Did Snakes have Legs? Yes/No

by Thirdson in

jw
friends

i managed to find a piece i wrote last year and subsequently lost.

thanks to the archiving efforts of a very good person i have managed to get it back.

thinking about some posts here recently regarding the genesis account of the fall of man, i recalled a conversation with a friend a few years back.

David_Jay

This is somewhat of a "cut and paste" from the answer I gave on a similar thread on the forum right now.

The Jewish answer to this question is "yes," but only in the Genesis narrative, not anywhere else.

The story is allegorical. As suggested by Jewish exegesis, in the narrative the serpent has both hands and legs (and obviously fingers and feet/toes). It loses these to the curse of Genesis 3:14.

In Judaism the talking snake is also not identified with Satan the Devil or any type of demonic being. Instead it is a type of personification that plays off the innocence of Adam and Eve. Their innocence is exemplified by their being nude (in Hebrew 'arummim,) whereas the serpent is "shrewd" ('arum). The play on words is lost in English, of course.

The narrative of the "serpent" and the transgressions of Adam and Eve set the tone for the Torah which follows. Remember that this is the beginning not of a history book but the foreshadowing framework for the Law of Moses, with the "sin" of Adam and Eve only setting the tone anticipating the need for the Torah (which, by the way, arrives later at Mt. Sinai and generally fills the rest of the Book of the Law, overtaking the narrative).

In Judaism the "serpent" is neither the "snake" of our current zoology nor the Devil in disguise. The narrative describes not the origin of sin, but merely describes the innate human appetite for evil that has Torah as its antidote. That this story is meant specifically to describe the Jewish position only and not a historical origin of humanity lies in the fact that Jews see the Torah as binding only on the nation of Israel, not Gentiles. It could therefore never be literal, historical, or universal.

15

Did the serpent have legs before the curse?

by Acluetofindtheuser in

genesis 3:14 – “then jehovah god said to the serpent: “because you have done this, you are the cursed one out of all the domestic animals and out of all the wild animals of the field.

on your belly you will go, and you will eat dust all the days of your life.”.

the old gb and gb 2.0 differ on this matter.

David_Jay

The Jewish answer to this question is "yes," but it's not what you might think.

"In Jewish religious thought Genesis is not regarded as meant for a literal reading, and Jewish tradition has not usually read it so," states the well-known Jewish scholar Steven T. Katz. Keeping this in mind, I repeat that the answer to the original question ("Did the serpent [in Genesis 3] have legs before the curse?") is: "Yes, the serpent did."

But the story is allegorical. As suggested by Jewish exegesis, in the narrative the serpent has both hands and legs (and obviously fingers and feet/toes). It loses these to the curse: "On your belly shall you crawl / And dirt shall you eat / All the days of your life." (Genesis 3:14, NJPS Tanakh) Again the account is not meant to be historical, claiming that snakes once had appendages.

In Judaism the talking snake is also not identified with Satan the Devil or any type of demonic being. Instead it is a type of personification that plays off the innocence of Adam and Eve. Their innocence is exemplified by their being nude (in Hebrew 'arummim,) whereas the serpent is "shrewd" ('arum). The play on words is lost in English, of course.

Unlike Christianity which sees this as a story of a "fall from grace" and thus the origin of the "Original Sin" that gets passed on from Adam and Eve to their progeny, Jews read this as a story illustrating a simple truth: humans ruin things when they give in to ambition. Already created in the "image of God," humans are described as subject to being the architect of their own disasters when they choose to abuse their God-like status.

The "serpent" may be representative of this ambition or desire, thus setting the tone for the Torah which follows. Remember that Genesis is not a standalone work, but merely part of--and the introduction to--the entire Mosaic Law. This is the beginning not of a history book but the foreshadowing framework for the Law of Moses, with the "sin" of Adam and Eve only setting the tone anticipating the need for the Torah (which, by the way, arrives later at Mt. Sinai and generally fills the rest of the Book of the Law, overtaking the narrative).

In conclusion the "serpent" is neither the "snake" of our current zoology nor the Devil in disguise. The narrative describes not the origin of sin, but merely describes the innate human appetite for evil that has Torah as its antidote. That this story is meant specifically to describe the Jewish position only and not a historical origin of humanity lies in the fact that Jews see the Torah as binding only on the nation of Israel, not Gentiles. It could therefore never be literal, historical, or universal.

42

#1 ANSWER THIS: Why would an omnibenevolent and omniscient god put us through tests of faith?

by EdenOne in

i'll be starting a series "answer this:" with thought-provoking questions for debate.

your arguments for and against are most welcome.. i'll start with this: .

why would an omnibenevolent and omniscient god put us through tests of faith?.

David_Jay

An old friend of mine who was really like a brother to me in the Jehovah's Witnesses contacted me a couple of years ago. He let me know he no longer believed that the JWs are the true religion and, as he so eloquently put it "that crap about overlapping generations," and that he was ready to come on out. We talked a handful of times and then it all stopped. After some time of silence from him, I finally heard back. It was a brief note, and the last communication since, but just a brief text: "I can't leave. What if they're right?"

There is a method some teachers use with students. You often see it more with coaches and college professors than anyone else, but they will often put pupils to a test that can often lead to some abandoning the course or leaving the team. While some of those who give up are freely allowed to go, select others will be stopped. "Not you," the instructor will say. They will apply pressure to force such students to undergo their test. Why? Because they know the student's potential and the outcome of the student if they but allow themselves to undergo a test they would have otherwise given up on before attempting. Sometimes you have to test someone with the impossible in order for them to stop believing in the impossible. Sometimes the student must test their own perceptions in order to accept reality.

In Judaism, this is one of the main explanations on why God tests us. Like that friend of mine who is still a JW, he won't believe it if I or you or anyone else tells him that there isn't a chance that the Witnesses are right. He has to experience it for himself. He doesn't need to be reasoned with. He needs to experience for himself that he is being held captive by his own beliefs about the Witnesses. He has to see by example that his beliefs don't work, that the world is not flat. Sometimes God tests some of us to force us to face and overcome what holds us back. God knows the outcome, but we don't.

There are other possibilities too in some instances. Briefly they are:

1. We are wrong about how we define God's benevolence and, like a child who thinks their parents are being unfair or mean, see a test from a wrong perspective.

2. We are applying a limited Christian interpretation of Scripture to God, and are reading "tests" in the Bible where there are none. Was Adam and Eve really being tested with the Tree of Knowledge or is that something you are holding over from Watchtower theology?

3. You are reading into actual Scripture narratives of tests a successful outcome that isn't there. Christians tend to see Abraham's offering of Isaac as passing a test and proving his faithfulness. Jews often see it as Abraham failing to really understand God, having to be literally stopped due to his lack of insight. The suffering caused by the test is often seen by Jews as due to Abraham's failure, where as it is seen as a grace from God and victory by those who read it in the light of Christ's suffering and crucifixion.

4. God may not be as all-knowing as some say God is. Does a genius stop learning? Does a body builder stop exercising once they get that "perfect body" they've been working for? No. There is a view in Judaism that God created humans in order to grow in perfection. God would not choose to be static in the perfections God possesses. Because Jewish interaction with God is often to wrestle with God, debate God's demands, and do the very opposite of the obedience and submission which make up Christian and Islamic membership, Jews often feel God made humans to tell God "no," so God could learn that the universe won't fall apart if others live as freely as does God. Jews debate whether God really knows it all and often challenge God on this (like Abraham and Moses did).

Lastly, "tests" may not really come from God. This could very likely be a very ancient way Scripture described the normal challenges of life. Judaism often sees all things, good and bad, as part of God's creation. Therefore "tests" are merely being attributed to God in Scripture perhaps, just as evil sometimes is. Christians put too much emphasis on trying to read our ancient narratives and primitive mythos as applicable to the evolved and far-advanced God-concept as now understood by Jews. We Jews were primitive once too, you know. Trying to say God is exactly like you read in ancient descriptions of God is pretty unfair. How would you like it if people judged you today based on what they knew of you when you were still a Jehovah's Witness?

13

Reasons to break free from religion

by googleTTATT in

i am compiling my list.

you can add yours if you like to.. 1. the hypocrisy in religion.. 2. religion make good people bad and bad people worse and worse people worst.. 3. the false dates given in religion.. 4. religions use their fundamental books to suit their beliefs.. 5. wrong and distorted views about sexual life.

the list goes on.

David_Jay

WTWizard,

One of the things I despised about Jehovah's Witnesses was their constant imposing of a definition or standard upon something (a standard or definition they often invented) and then using this to prove their claims on how something has failed because it does not live up to that same made-up standard of definition.

It is not an axiom that religion is "supposed...to teach about metaphysics." In fact there is no such universally-accepted statement from academics, scientists, anthropologists, etc. that impose such a requisite adding that if a religion does not meet this standard then it fails for not 'teaching what it is supposed to teach.'

This doesn't mean that religion is therefore harmless and should be immediately taken up by all. But such a requirement is something you are clearly imposing upon religion, something you are inventing.

Religion may be as horrible as you claim, but your failure to reject the Jehovah's Witness practice of forcing a requisite upon religion and saying that it fails when it doesn't meet that standard demonstrates that you are only willing to part with those JW mindsets that no longer fit your current stand against all religion. Such a method of judging something is as dishonest and illogical outside the Watchtower as it is when practiced by those who still worship it.

Where for instance does Judaism program its members "to accept poverty and misery in your life, as a virtue"? Except for where Torah teaches Jews to accept and treat the poor no differently from an other, the objective is always to work to remove the burden of poverty and suffering from oneself and others. There is no virtue in accepting a state of suffering or being poor in Judaism. The main teaching of Tikkun Olam across Judaism is about eradicating poverty and suffering from ourselves and others. The common stereotype that "the Jews have all the money" comes from the fact that unlike Christianity and your uneducated claim, we teach no virtue in being poor and suffering. We are noted for often being quite productive and even more financially stable by comparison with others due to this tenet of Judaism.

Claiming that we generate that which encourages accepting an impoverished and suffering state is itself "stupid." You are posting unfounded claims which cannot be supported, and is this not often considered the very definition of what it means to be and act "stupid"?

I don't condemn your general stand on religion, but I do condemn the ignorant statements you are propagating to support your stand. Such a stand can be made on logic and facts without having to impose made-up and impossible-to-support standards for religions.

David_Jay

Posts by David_Jay