And just to set the record straight--I live in my grandmother's house in her attic...and for your information also spend time on my iPad winning prizes playing Candy Crush!
Boom! I sure schooled you!
David_Jay
JoinedPosts by David_Jay
-
205
Mathematically Measuring Evolution.
by towerwatchman inmathematically 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.
-
-
-
205
Mathematically Measuring Evolution.
by towerwatchman inmathematically 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
You are probably living in your mother’s house as a basement dweller, living out your existence in the virtual world!
Yes, that is what a really successful and happy person who holds degrees and has enough money to live off until they die would write back, yes.
And I don't believe in character assassination like David Jay. This will show him!
-
205
Mathematically Measuring Evolution.
by towerwatchman inmathematically 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,
No one believes you here. Your actions belie all your claims.
-
205
Mathematically Measuring Evolution.
by towerwatchman inmathematically 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,
This has nothing to do with the Jewish understanding of Genesis:
In Genesis day is interpreted from [yowm /yome/] which translates as “day” 2008 times, “time” 64 times, “chronicles ” 37 times, “daily” 32 times, “ever” 17 times, “year” 14 times, “continually” 10 times, “when” 10 times, “as” 10 times, “while” eight times, “full always” four times, “whole” four times, “alway” four times, and translated miscellaneously 44 times. The semantic range of a word is all the possible meanings of that word in the given language. Yome’s semantic range is restricted to only five meanings. 1.a period of light in a day night cycle, 2. a period of twenty four hours 3. a general or vague concept of time. 4. a specific point of time 5. a period of a year.
Etc.
I read from this part of Genesis in Hebrew every Shabbat during Kiddush. I read and speak in Hebrew daily and been speaking it since childhood. None of what you write is correct. You don't speak Biblical Hebrew, do you? I'm Israeli, and I speak several Jewish dialects along with Hebrew.
Jew could be either nationality or religion. The most we have here is his opinion.
I am both a Jew by heritage, from Judean and Cohen (Levitical) stock. It is not my opinion that Jews in general accept evolution. Note the official pew research center information on this at http://www.pewforum.org/2009/02/04/religious-groups-views-on-evolution/.
So it is not an opinion after all. I'll bet you can't admit you were obviously wrong here. And since you were wrong here, where else?
Only a self centered individual would consider that Judeo-Christian is some attempt to harmonize both world view.
Note that this is not a self-centered issue I raised. It is definitely one that bothers almost all Jews:
http://washingtonjewishweek.com/34907/judeo-christian-values/news/national-news/
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/dispatches/2014/12/31/the-absurdity-of-the-phrase-judeo-christian/
Again you are wrong and uneducated about this. And if you were wrong here, where else in your comments?
Care to give scriptural proof from the Hebrew Scriptures that evolution is true.
All educated people know that Jews don't follow the JW pattern of providing "scriptural proof" for their convictions.
Our religion is not based on the Jewish Bible or Tanakh (we don't call it the "Hebrew Scriptures" ). The "proof text" system was developed by Marcion of Sinope, a Christian heretic of the 2nd century. JWs and other Christians who are "Bible-based" revived Marcionism and it's "prove it from the Scriptures" approach. Jews don't follow Marcion, a Gnostic.
Unlike the religion of Bible-based Christians, Judaism isn't based on Scripture. We compose Scripture based on our religion. Our religion grows and evolves as history and science does. So we are not stuck reading the Bible as if we have to still live in the past or use it to provide "scriptural proof" of our beliefs like the heretic Marcion.
I was raised in it and then late in my teens left. Such insulting generalizations. And people wonder why sometimes I become mean.
And regardless if you were raised in it or not, if you are really an exJW then that means you were once baptized as one. I know a lot of people raised in the JW religion who don't ever join. But if you did, then you still joined a cult. If not, then you lied about being an exJW.
But you weren't lying about being mean. You are that.
You are acting just like a forum flamer, an Internet troll who because they fail to make it in the real world have to put on a display on the Internet. I just proved several of your points wrong, could probably spend more time doing the same, but like most people like you, you probably don't have the humility to admit you don't know what you speak of. You will just keep on attempting to prove you are right and everyone else wrong.
Don't act like you are a waste of time and space. That's what you're doing. I know there should probably be a decent human being in you somewhere, but obviously you don't care to let that decency come to the top. I won't waste my time on people who act like you have been acting here. What a shame.
And people wonder why sometimes I become mean.
I don't wonder why. Jesus himself said good trees don't produce bad fruit and bad trees can't produce good. Your being mean is your fruit. It says a lot about the kind of tree you really are. I just hope you don't stay this mean, unbearable person for the rest of your life. I would rather surround myself with JWs than you with your behavior you're displaying right now.
-
205
Mathematically Measuring Evolution.
by towerwatchman inmathematically 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,
A little more on your liberal use of the expression "Judeo-Christian."
Jews find the expression hurtful because that label assumes, at the expense of authentic Jewish custom and practice, that Jews and Christians believe in and value the same things.
Unless you know for sure that what you're speaking of represents the practices, views, culture, theology, etc. of my people, it is unfair and misleading to label it as "Judeo-Christian."
Evolution is widely accepted by Jews across the world. We have no reason to claim that Adonai did not create life by use of evolution. Since you don't share this view of God, it would be appreciated if you would be more accurate on the use of the label "Judeo-Christian." Do keep in mind too that it can even be seen as anti-Semitic and thus very hurtful to some Jews.
-
205
Mathematically Measuring Evolution.
by towerwatchman inmathematically 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,
I'm Jewish, born into a Jewish family, raised by a JW aunt for several years and returned to Judaism after growing up.
The expression "Judeo-Christian" is a Christian way of claiming that their interpretation of something either comes from us or replaces our view. There is no such thing. We Jews don't adhere to anything Judeo-Christian and find that expression more than a little distasteful.
From antiquity Jews have viewed the creation account in Genesis as allegory. It is based on the tableau paradigm used to describe the building of the Tabernacle, Solomon's Temple, and Ezekiel's Temple. Because of this the Genesis account is not literal. The first chapter of Genesis is considered the last section of Torah to be composed, added after our return from Babylon.
Since I don't recognize Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah or as any type of authrority, you are still failing to answer my question on how you know you are right about what you claim regarding God. My point is that you are not greater than the imperfect and uninspired Governing Body, are you? Claiming you are an exJW isn't a gold star on your resume. It just tells others that you probably weren't smart enough to avoid joining a cult. If you weren't right about your choice to become a JW, how do you know you are correct now?
Just because you're an exJW now doesn't mean you are suddenly right about all you currently believe, including evolution. You need more than what you're saying because people who joined cults don't have a great track record when it comes to being right about what they claim is true. I believe your sincerity that you are so sure now about what you're saying, but wasn't that also true when you used to be a JW too?
In other words, don't tell me how you know you're right. Tell me how you know you can't possibly be wrong. What are your fail-safes? Demonstrate how your conviction about evolution cannot possibly be a holdover from Watchtower indoctrination. I might be more willing to accept your statements once you do that.
And lastly, just because I didn't print out the entire title to "Origin" doesn't mean I was speaking about a different book. Your reply however does suggest you may get some type of satisfaction in being unkind. I hope I am wrong about that. I am sure you didn't mean to come across that way. Christians generally try to be nice, unless I am mistaken about that too and you claim to be neither.
-
205
Mathematically Measuring Evolution.
by towerwatchman inmathematically 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 inmathematically 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 ini 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.