Posts by David

30

Original Sin / Salvation without a literal Adam and Eve?

by Coded Logic in

something i've never understood is if adam and eve are just metaphorical where did "original sin" come from.

and, if there was no original sin, what is the value of jesus sacrifice?.

i know a lot of christians believe in evolution but i've never understood how such a belief is structured.

David_Jay

Cofty's essay on the matter is quite on top of it from the other perspective as well, that of mainstream Fundamentalism and even the conservative movements in Protestantism. (You should write professionally, Cofty...about anything. You are good with words.)

Jehovah's Witness have built their idea of God based on this foundation, making God a deity that has such high standards that physical death and bloodletting are the only way to satisfy His judgment and quench His demands for atonement. Their idea that God demands a physical sacrifice for sins comes from the misapplication of Hebrews 9:22, namely that the Mosaic Law was interpreted by this Christian statement.

The problem is that there are many ways to read Hebrews 9:22, and only one fits the accepted Jewish interpretation. Jews don't believe that animal sacrifices are the panacea to remove sin. As several rabbis I know have explained it to me, "If we believed that we would have rebuilt another Temple as soon as we could."

The Jewish sacrificial system was about thanking God for life through food. Since food sustains life, some of what was eaten was "given back to God" to say "thank you" (though this portion usually ended up being reserved for the priests at service in the Temple). Blood was poured out of animals because the ancients believed that the very life force of beings existed within it. The life force of a creature belonged to God, so it had to be properly given back through the sacrificial system. To this day Jews generally cannot eat hunted game because the idea behind kosher laws is that blood has to be sufficient drained to demonstrate that God is recognized as the giver of life. Rabbis generally are not widely available for all who hunt, therefore kosher law is generally viewed as broken if game is consumed, even today, unless it can be proven that the animal was slaughter and bled under the direction of a rabbi. The ancient sacrificial system, while concerned with religious worship, was largely in place for this very thing regarding keeping kosher.

"Today we have modern kosher butchering systems," one of these rabbis explained to me. "Now we can make sure Jews don't mishandle animal life or blood through rabbis on staff for just that purpose. But the idea that sin could only be erased by blood, if that was ever fully understood in the way Christians believe, was not of our making."

While blood was originally seen as a means of atonement via the sacrificial system, it was only one of the ways sins could be forgiven. As their theology progressed and Judaism evolved (and Jewish theology even has space for the belief that God evolves in His ways to), sacrificing animals as a means of atonement for sins was phased out. Already by the time of Solomon Judaism had begun to embrace the idea that personal repentance could do just as good or better than the offering of an animal's blood. (For a thorough Jewish explanation from one of their best sources, see Jews for Judaism: Leviticus 17:11.)

Simply put, the verse from Hebrews is often applied by some Christians, like the JWs, as if it expresses a Jewish view. The only way it can do this is if the verse is rendered something similar to this: "Indeed, under the law, it might almost be said that everything is cleansed by blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness." (Revised English Bible) The author of Hebrews, if they had the Jewish understanding in mind, may have actually meant that sacrificial shedding of animal blood is such a rule of thumb in the Mosaic Law, so much so that it seemed that without blood forgiveness could not occur. The author of Hebrews then builds upon this as an illustrative symbol of Christ's sacrifice, but never states that this is a definitive law in itself. The Jewish Bible regularly testifies to the fact that God does not require blood and that repentance and forgiveness can and will occur without it for Jews.--See Psalm 50:13-15; Isaiah 43:23-25; Proverbs 16:6; Ezekiel 18:21-30.

30

Original Sin / Salvation without a literal Adam and Eve?

by Coded Logic in

something i've never understood is if adam and eve are just metaphorical where did "original sin" come from.

and, if there was no original sin, what is the value of jesus sacrifice?.

i know a lot of christians believe in evolution but i've never understood how such a belief is structured.

David_Jay

From what I remember from Theology 101 (and if I can find my books I will get the actual quotes to you), while Adam and Eve are believed to represent the literal first humans, the narrative is what is written in figurative language. This is generally the same starting point in both Jewish and Christian circles.

Judaism, Catholicism, and Orthodoxy (along with most mainstream Protestants) concur that this is not a story about how sin was introduced into humanity as much as it is a story teaching that sin has been a factor in the human condition from the outset. The narrative simplifies this in an illustrative manner by giving the "first couple" a directive which they cannot fully complete without interference of the basic makeup of human nature.

Judaism sees this not as "original sin" but as describing a facet of humanity that does not disqualify anyone from being the same "very good" creation mentioned in Genesis 1. Humans aren't perfect because they were not created that way. In Judaism the thought is that humans need God and, unlike some in Christianity, the Jewish view is that God may equally need humans. We are two parts of puzzle, say many Jews of this story, both needing one another to be whole like the two lovers that later sing to one another in the Song of Solomon.

Christianity would understand this story in the light of the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth and Pauline teaching to the Gentiles. In Jewish theology God redeems the children of Abraham on the basis of a promise with a future but has not done this for humanity in general, nor fully fulfilled the Abrahamic covenant. The idea in Chrisitanity is that this facet of imperfection keeps redemption from being fully realized, and for them Jesus has come to remove it.

The narrative in Genesis 3 was in the light of this understanding labeled "original sin." It doesn't change the original view that the story is figurative, however. "Original sin" is the theological concept or interpretation of the event, but the first suggestions of this come from the written Gospels and Paul's letters. The term itself, being theological, does not occur directly in Scripture form.

The idea that this was a literal series of events was late in Christian history. The revivals in American religion which gave birth to Fundamentalism occurred among teachers who were generally not formally educated in theology. They have interpreted not merely the Biblical stories as literal for this reason but some of the theological discussions of the same as well. References to the imagery in Scripture and exegesis were seen as validating that the details were factual.

These groups often shared in the rejection of the universities of higher learning where these are generally learned (originally colleges came from Christian churches rejected by these new religious movements), and thus their hermeneutical views became absent of the traditions that carried the Biblical concepts to their generation.

It is from these groups that the Jehovah's Witnesses sprung, and they carried this "tradition-rejecting" tradition into their religion, claiming the events in Genesis have to be real.

One final word: the sacrifice of the cross is not a concept which Christianity claims to fully understand like the Witnesses. Christianity teaches that in some mysterious way the Cross is the Tree of Life promised to Adam and Eve (and obviously their children) in the original story. Though nailed to a dead tree, like the sacrifices that provided food for the Israelites at the Temple, this Tree provides the "true food" of the body and blood of Christ that gives life to anyone who "eats" from it. Where JWs see this a a sacrifice needed to appease a God who demands such a victim, Christianity sees it as God giving his life as "food" to share his life with humanity.

38

Your Jehovah’s Witness Is Showing

by David_Jay in

since i just signed up and posted a few times without doing this yet, here is my story..

i think that i became a jehovahs witness because of my immaturity.

i had some quirky personality traits, and i joined finding that i fit in because, as i said to myself: these people get me.

David_Jay

Thanks to everyone for the welcomes and comments.

Bonsai, there is never anything wrong with an atheist challenging a religious person on their convictions. If the person is really set in their views and have done their homework, they will be open to it. At least they should be.

I didn't stay atheist for too much longer after that. But I am nothing like the religious Witnesses or Fundies of American Evangelicalism either. I knew that if I ever felt there was even a slight reason to even consider going down the path in adopting a religious path it would have to be adopted along lines foreign to the Watchtower experience.

My views are that if there is a God, then that God doesn't pass out merit or rewards because people mentally acknowledge God's existence. That sounds more like Mormonism, that if you just have the right amount of faith then you are right with God.

The God I think exists didn't create us to "just believe" anymore than God created the stars and planets to believe. I cannot be as perfect as the stars of the cosmos that faithfully follow their paths in such perfection that one can predetermine where they will be at a set time in the future and not be disappointed in how perfect they obey their course.

These inanimate objects in the heavens are more faithful that I am or can ever be, and if there is a Creator, then they are epitomes of perfection while I am not. They are perfect and faithful and do this without having the capacity to believe a thing. If there is a God, then God did not design them to believe or demand their belief as a requisite of their comparatively eternal existence.

I think religion is not a requisite for all humans. Not everyone is supposed to be a believer. Not all people have the capacity or need it to be exactly what they are here to be, whatever that is. If there is a God, then God planned atheists, made them, gave them the gift of their reason and logic, and the courage to take their stand.

Many religious people are unreasonable, selfish, hateful, and a lot that I have met while a Witness and even afterward are downright evil! These people need others to call them out. Did atheists stone the Jewish prophets? Did atheists condemn Joan of Arc to be burned at the stake, and then murder her that way for, of all things, merely talking to God? No. Religious people kill their own heroes.

Belief in God is not necessarily worth much. If there is a God then what good is merely belief in that God's existence? Again the stars are more faithful to God than people who claim they believe in God. Didn't even James write in his epistle: "You claim to believe in God, do you? All well and good, but so do the demons. They tremble with fear for it, too."--James 2:19, my direct rendition from the Greek.

It is not enough for good people among the religious to stand up for what is right. They often get trampled for it. And the believers often do nothing good until it is too late. Were not the first to liberate the Jews from the concentration camps the so-called "godless communists" of the Soviet army? Is God found in the worshiping believers who stood by and did nothing as millions were murdered via genocide, or is there God of real substance in the liberators who bend their knee to no deity by any name? I will take God in the form of an atheist who is good, kind, loving and just--and logical--over a believer who is dishonest, unjust, hateful and belligerent any day.

I became a professional liturgist for a church for a short time after leaving the Witnesses since my education included some academic theology and I really came to appreciate Liturgical prep. Most Christian churches employ a liturgical calendar and can't run without this very complex position being filled. It requires a lot of discipline and study.

But this church I went to work for was filled with bad people. Little did I realize, the church members resented the pastor for hiring an outsider (though liturgists are generally always outside specialists since it is somewhat of science in its own right, and most average church goers don't know anything about it). When the pastor went on a sabbatical, the church members had me fired. I sent some emails to the pastor to explain what had happened but never heard back. A position in commercial copywriting opened up, and I took it.

A year later I heard back from the pastor. My being let go was an action against church polity and even illegal, so when the pastor returned she immediately began a search for me to try to set things right. The leadership of the denomination got involved, and were very eager to do something about it.

While that sounds like things turned around, and some good was done, what I learned from the process revealed details that were awful. The emails I sent to the pastor never got to her. Church board members devised a plan to hack into the pastor's computer and intercept anything that might come from me via email. They not only erased my emails but had plans ready in the event I sent mail to her or anyone else in the religion's fellowship. They made up false stories about me and agreed to tell them to the pastor upon her return, and they even threatened and persecuted members who discovered what they had done and wanted to report them.

All this was uncovered and explained to me. I was disgusted. The pastor voluntarily left and the denomination allowed the church to go without a pastor and dissolve due to the board's actions.

Of course not everyone was bad. The people who tried to report the issues weren't, neither the pastor. But a lot of other people--a lot of them--were not any better for all their faith and belief.

Why would a theist openly tell a board populated by many atheists of how evil church people can be? Doesn't it hurt my case of being religious? Well that's just it. My beliefs don't define me. My actions do.

I don't believe in "belief." I don't believe in creeds. I don't believe that faith in things is all you need or that a divinity hands out merit and reward for mental acknowledgment or mental acceptance of this doctrine and that teaching. I think faithfulness like the stars is better than faith in the head or heart. I think it is best to do good than merely believe in good. All the belief in God won't feed another who is hungry, and that everybody deserves to be treated honorably, with respect, and cared for not on the basis of their creed but on because of the fact that they are fellow humans.

Sure, call me out this. I think you should. I want to be better than I am. I am certain I am mistaken here and there, maybe in some very large places I can't see. I need that. I want it. I might go into a little denial at first, but I put quite a few things in place to prevent me from staying there since I left the Witnesses behind.

We need voices of logic and intelligence in the world. I don't care if they are the voices of atheist or not. I just want them to be honest and true. I will love them for being just what they are. And since I know there is a God, I don't think God will deny me these voices I so greatly need, even if they come from atheists.

34

"There will be earthquakes...."

by Fisherman in

given: the prophecy is true.. what did jesus mean?

i have an app that alerts me of any earthquake all over the world.

since i got the app, it is one earthquake after another all over the world.

David_Jay

I belong to the school of thought that Bobcat mentions.

The Eschatalogical Discourse in Matthew, Mark, and Luke all begin with a mention of wars, famines, and earthquakes followed or preceded by a warning not to be deceived by people preaching that the end was thus near.

Luke's version is the most supportive of Bobcat's view, namely that earthquakes along with wars, famines, and the like have always been with us and will continue until the "end" Christ predicts. In the discourse Jesus warns that people using the expression "I AM" (a possible connection to the Divine Name) will claim that the time is near due to earthquakes, famines, wars, etc., and that people should not follow these who claim that this proves the nearness of the end.--Luke 21:7-9, see footnote to verse 8 in the NRSV.

Along this line of hermeneutical exegesis, the eschatological sign actually excludes earthquakes as nothing more than an everyday occurrence instead of an indicator of history's end.

46

Evolution a Fact - Agreed but So What?

by LAWHFol in

in many debates between believers and non believers (nb), the nb uses evolution as some sort of proof to support the non existence of god.. i agree that evolution is a fact, however i feel that evolution is proof of some sort of benevolent original cause.. if i were to create an a.i.

, i would program into it the ability to self-refactor and evolve.. i would also randomly inject viruses into the program (evil) where the a.i.

would be forced to stretch its current capabilities & modify it's operating functions in order to get through the random virus, and continue living.. with a steady flow of different viruses, the a.i.

David_Jay

While I could be wrong, I do recall in forensic biology that the model was absent of any ideas for or against a creator.

However I accept the theory of evolution and have no argument with anyone who chooses it to champion their stands for or against their personal convictions regarding the existence or lack thereof for deities.

46

Evolution a Fact - Agreed but So What?

by LAWHFol in

in many debates between believers and non believers (nb), the nb uses evolution as some sort of proof to support the non existence of god.. i agree that evolution is a fact, however i feel that evolution is proof of some sort of benevolent original cause.. if i were to create an a.i.

, i would program into it the ability to self-refactor and evolve.. i would also randomly inject viruses into the program (evil) where the a.i.

would be forced to stretch its current capabilities & modify it's operating functions in order to get through the random virus, and continue living.. with a steady flow of different viruses, the a.i.

David_Jay

"Creationism" is only accepted by a minority of theists, mostly Fundamental Christians to be exact.

Creationism is not taught as doctrine by Catholics and Orthodox and non-Fundamentalist churches. Conservative and Reform Jews do not accept Creationism either. It is a mistake of JWs and a few others to perpetuate the misunderstanding that Genesis chapter 1 is accepted as literal by all Judeo-Christians, when this has never been the case.

The fact that the Church of England has Darwin entombed in a decorated and honored spot in Westminster Abbey is demonstrative that evidence is not the same as conclusion. These particular Christians accept evolution as true but do not come to the conclusion that it disproves their doctrine.

Again the model doesn't exclude either conclusion as possible, that there is an intelligent creator or that deities do not and cannot possibly exist. Evolution is the diagram of the path that life took, but it does not say that this path was set by a Creator or without one. While an established model for evolution exists in science, there is no such validated theory on the existence or lack of existence of deities, the possibility or impossibility of their being, nor is such inferred by the evolutionary model.

46

Evolution a Fact - Agreed but So What?

by LAWHFol in

in many debates between believers and non believers (nb), the nb uses evolution as some sort of proof to support the non existence of god.. i agree that evolution is a fact, however i feel that evolution is proof of some sort of benevolent original cause.. if i were to create an a.i.

, i would program into it the ability to self-refactor and evolve.. i would also randomly inject viruses into the program (evil) where the a.i.

would be forced to stretch its current capabilities & modify it's operating functions in order to get through the random virus, and continue living.. with a steady flow of different viruses, the a.i.

David_Jay

I hate to tell you this, SecretSlaveClass, but that is what we call the law of gravity in science. It is actually called the "theory of gravitation" and this model was discovered by Sir Isaac Newton.

The problem is not that science uses the term "theory" but that some like the JWs are too close-minded to educate themselves about science to understand and use the proper terms.

If Jehovah's Witnesses Had a Creed

by David_Jay in

i believe in jehovah god, sovereign of the universe,.

and in his son, jesus christ our lord,.

who was conceived of the holy spirit, born of the virgin mary,.

David_Jay

I believe in Jehovah God, sovereign of the universe,

and in his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord,

who was conceived of the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary,

but was originally created St. Michael the Archangel.

I believe Jesus died for my sins

in the body of a man

and that he was not raised in this body

because for some odd reason God needed it back as a ransom to cover over our sins.

I believe Jesus will return as promised

and indeed has returned in 1914

but nobody saw it because it was invisible.

I believe that God inspired the Holy Scriptures,

requiring mankind to read and study it as a requisite for everlasting life

but that God filled it with hidden meanings that could only be understood

some 2000 years after the events it describes by self-appointed members

of the Governing Body.

I believe without the Governing Body's instruction

the Bible's words are powerless to save.

I believe that 1975 was a date only some weak Jehovah's Witnesses

hoped would be the time for the end

and that apostates lie when they say the Witnesses taught it officially

even though the Governing Body apologized for the 1975 debacle in the 1980s

( and you only apologize for something you did).

I believe that before the generation of 1914 passes away that Aramgeddon will come

and replace the present system with a paradise earth.

I believe that generation has been going on for over 100 years now,

and that the current overlapping generations explanation is truth.

I don't believe in hell or hellfire.

But I do believe, hope, and happily look forward to the day when

Jehovah will bring the death of millions of non-JWs by literal fire on earth.

I believe Jehovah plans to very soon slaughter the children of non-Witnesses

like Pharaoh and Herod slaughtered the innocent children of their day.

I believe that all other people are blinded by Satan.

I believe our religion was right when it said that TV evangelism was bad

but that our new JW Roku channel is good.

I believe if you don't call asking for money "soliciting" then it isn't soliciting. That's all it takes.

I believe that sexual child abuse is abhorred by Jehovah's Witnesses

and that victims of such abuse can only be believed if there are two witnesses to the act

and that these child victims should face those they accuse in a judicial meeting

or be silent and swept under the rug.

I believe that most of the relatively new ones who partake of the emblems at the Memorial

have a serious problem, probably mental,

and with about 7000 added since the 1990s, that means there are thousands of JWs

who have mental problems. (Come and surround yourselves with this growing number.)

I believe if you prove faithful now till Armageddon

you will have to prove faithful for another 1000 years

and then pass one more final test before you can be counted worthy of everlasting life,

but if you are of the Governing Body you only have to be faithful once until death.

I believe all these things are true

unless the Governing Body changes these things and has me believe something different tomorrow.

Amen.

44

Honeymoon over for the carts

by Deltawave in

speaking with inlaws i another congregation today who said exactly what is being said in our own hall.

the trolly work is long and boring and no one even notices they are there anymore but walk right on by.

jehovah really is speeding up the work lol.

David_Jay

So this is the result of years and years and years of the now-defunct Theocratic Ministry School and Service Meeting--standing silent by a stand displaying literature written in dumb-downed language with a smile on one's face?

You hear that sound of moaning. groaning, snapping, and rumbling? That is the sound of the millions of dead Jehovah's Witnesses from the past 100-years-plus turning over in their graves.

While I have no love for the religion, today's Witness dishonors the hard work and tradition of the generations of Witnesses that came before by not upholding their religious culture of speaking up with real conversations to get people involved and talking about God and his Kingdom.

Listen to that! The Kingdom proclaimers have grown silent! These are the inheritors of the "true religion" preached by the likes of the Apostle Peter and the Apostle Paul? Can you imagine them standing by a similar kiosk of the first century, some booth, standing with a smile as people passed them by in the marketplace? Can you imagine Jesus doing that in the Temple, standing by a booth of scrolls of the Torah, the Writings, and the Prophets, silent as people zoomed by in their busy lives? How short, action-less, and silent the Gospels would be if that was the case! We would have to rename "Acts of the Apostles" to "Hours of Standing By Silent and Doing Nothing of the Apostles"!

46

Evolution a Fact - Agreed but So What?

by LAWHFol in

in many debates between believers and non believers (nb), the nb uses evolution as some sort of proof to support the non existence of god.. i agree that evolution is a fact, however i feel that evolution is proof of some sort of benevolent original cause.. if i were to create an a.i.

, i would program into it the ability to self-refactor and evolve.. i would also randomly inject viruses into the program (evil) where the a.i.

would be forced to stretch its current capabilities & modify it's operating functions in order to get through the random virus, and continue living.. with a steady flow of different viruses, the a.i.

David_Jay

Finkelstein does have a point. The definition of "Creator" as generally accepted not only by Jehovah's Witnesses but many Christians makes cosmological cataclysm more than problematic for their theology. I myself see neither sustainable logic nor theological sense in limiting a deity to the type of "benevolence" that makes the stuff of literalist religion.

On the other hand, such a paradox does not exist for all religions. Judaism, while not entirely absent of an eschatology, has little to no investment in "living today for eternity" as do Christians like Catholics, JWs, and LDS. The present life may be all there is, or so goes this theology, and God may not or does not have to be present in any form in the world. For these God is neither subject to the definition of "benevolence" nor bound to any other standard common to Christianity and Islam's definition of what God is or cannot be.

A universal application of evolution as a champion for the cause of atheism or religion is hard to defend as, so previously explained, the model is limited to the process. Alluding to or excluding God is really adding philosophy and theology to the mix, and the model is the product of neither discipline. Science does not deal in the transcendent and thus cannot be used as a defender of either stand or conviction.

David_Jay

Posts by David_Jay