Posts by David

33

whats so bad about believing people go to heaven?

by sowhatnow in

it occurred to me today, that so often, my mother will make the comment that .

"those false religions teach that everyone is going to heaven when they die, oh sure, .

all you have to do is be a good person, and off you go to heaven.

David_Jay

It is not the belief or heaven, per se. It is being "right" and finding something to mark others as "wrong."

It's called "compartmentalization," and it is a behavior that the religion of Jehovah's Witnesses encourage and reward. It helps create solidarity within the ranks by inducing an "us-against-them" attitude. Religious cults and political ideologies are best known for this trait.

To illustrate, if tomorrow the Governing Body announces "you must now believe that all Jehovah's Witnesses go to heaven," your mother will likely instantly adopt this updated view as well. "Going to heaven" will no longer be talked about her or other JWs in the same light. Instead they will find another reason to "downplay" the beliefs and convictions of others.

Several things are happening here: The first is the fundamental compartmentalization, i.e., marking things, people, religions, etc. as "good" or "evil" (with nothing in between). The second is self-delusion by means of repetition. In order to keep the "us-against-them" scenario fresh and inducing zeal, the subject gives themselves "lessons" by bringing up conversations about how "wrong" others are and going over the points on how right this makes the them. This is done almost as if they were teaching a class of new recruits, and it is not surprising to find that these "lessons" take place in meditative sessions which appear no different than talking to oneself.

Once the compartmentalization and "lesson" are completed, the subject is reassured in their beliefs. They can then go on to something else. The scenario will repeat as needed, such as when something occurs that creative cognitive dissonance. Instead of responding to the evidence, the subject "digs in" further into their beliefs by repeating the process.

"Going to heaven" has nothing to do with it, really. The idea, even to some who don't believe in a deity, sounds only reasonable. If there is a God, who wouldn't want to see that God face-to-face? We all want proof. Some who study religion claim that a central need of many to "touch" the spiritual side of ourselves or even "touch God" is quite well spelled-out in "heaven after death" doctrines.

It follows that since it is quite a jump to deny what might be an innate desire for many, this particular "heaven" lesson gets repeated often by Jehovah's Witnesses to reassure themselves that they are not "missing out" in what most everyone sees as a common end to religious belief.

I mean, what's the use of having a religion if at some point you don't get to see your god in one way or another?

13

A Thought Experiment

by InjusticeSystem in

i am hoping some of you may be up for participating in a little creative thought experiment .

the question i would like to pose (and if it has already been asked i apologize, for some reason i cannot search for topics on my mobile) is this: what would the evidence show if the jehovah's witness' literal reading of genesis was true?

i realize that is a fairly broad question, but for example a more pointed question could be: if the vapor canopy hypothesis is correct (i have confirmed with my elder father that this is still a currently accepted understanding), what evidence in our genome or that of other creatures or on earth would we expect to see?

David_Jay

Not only is the "vapor" or "water canopy" (as we JWs called it in the 1980s) not representative of the original reading of the ancient Hebrew view of the universe (demonstrated in the chart I uploaded on my last post on this thread), the whole idea that "it never rained on earth until Noah built the ark" and that "the flood was historical" are further Watchtower nonsense that has no support from Biblical scholars, including the majority of those in so-called Christendom.

The idea that the "expanse" or "firmament" was some envelope of water that was later punctured to create the flood and allow the "waters above the expanse (firmament)" to flood the earth in Noah's day would have meant that all of outer space would have flooded down on earth. We wouldn't be here if that was true.

Remember, according to the chart, the cosmological model of the ancient Hebrews did not include a vacuum of space. The vacuum of space was just an ever-extending sea of water in their eyes. The "heaven" where God lives is above this "outer space" of waters. That is why you often read things in the Scriptures such as:

"The Lord sits enthroned over the floodwaters; the Lord sits enthroned—king forever!"--Psalm 29:10.

Even with the latest revision, the New World Translation is still very stilted and the translators apparently didn't care to make the text read as easily as they could (to likely perpetuate the "vapor canopy" belief). NWT has Genesis 1:6 as "'Let there be an expanse between the waters, and let there be a division between the waters and the waters.' Then God went on to make the expanse and divided the waters beneath the expanse from the waters above the expanse. God called the expanse Heaven." Confusing, no?

The Common English Bible on the other hand renders it: "'Let there be a dome in the middle of the waters to separate the waters from each other.” God made the dome and separated the waters under the dome from the waters above the dome. And it happened in that way. God named the dome Sky."

The dome was meant to allow the space for air and life to exist for earth under the vast cosmos of waters that the ancients believed space was filled with. Most eastern cultures even believed water contained all the elements for life and that life was actually drawn from the great cosmos of seas.

This is why 2 Peter 3:5 states: "Heaven and earth were formed long ago out of water and by means of water. And it was through these that the world of that time was flooded and destroyed."

There is circumstantial evidence that because the ancient Mesopotamian cultures were subject to floods that a common flood legend circulated among them. It appears that each claimed the story as original to their own particular ethnic group, and the Hebrews were no different. Subject to a series of doublets, it is quite evident that the Noah story in the Hebrew text developed from a series of redactions that occurred over time.

But it was after the Babylonian exile that the story appears to have become set as we have it today. While it is unclear if the Hebrew's "Noah" figure was a literal man who survived one of the great Mesopotamian floods with his family and a few farm animals (and scholars believe the original story, whichever culture it actually came from, is as simple as that), the Babylonians had a twist that was borrowed and altered the Jewish tale the most.

The official Roman Catholic Bible in the U.S., the NABRE, states the following in a footnote in Genesis 6 about the flood: "The biblical story ultimately draws upon an ancient Mesopotamian tradition of a great flood, preserved in the Sumerian flood story, the eleventh tablet of the Gilgamesh Epic, and (embedded in a longer creation story) the Atrahasis Epic."

The scholarly view is that the Jews recognized the Babylonian tale as their own "Noah" story, and once Babylon fell and they returned to their land, the Jews incorporated the Babylonian details to poke fun at the now defunct Babylonian gods (who were viewed as defeated with the Jewish return to the Fertile Crescent). The details that atheists (and yes, many believing theists too) often point out are impossible to justify (the building of the ark, its size, the idea that two of each animal were saved within, etc.) are the details from the heathen tales added by the Jews to their own after the return from Babylon.

Why would they do this? The theory goes that the idea that the Babylonians would worship gods responsible for destroying the earth by flood (why worship a god who will kill you at whim?) was ridiculous to the Jews. These points got woven into the story to include not only some universality but as a response to these ideas, and with a different ending to make a religious point. In the Jewish story (unlike the others) their God is "sorry" or "regrets" the idea of flooding the world. God promises never to do it again, and even gives the sign of his "bow" hung up in the heavens (showing he will never strike humanity with "arrows") as a promise. Noah and his family, representative of all humanity now, then give God worship in response. The flood story is no longer so much a story of a literal flood therefore as it is a demonstration of the differences between the Hebrew God and that of the Gentiles. The Jewish God is not the kind that destroys like heathen gods. The Hebrew God saves, makes promises to, and cares for creation.

While it appears the Jews and early Christians saw some historical significance to the story, it is difficult to say exact what that could be. Even the comments about it by Jesus and Peter are brief and in connection with a moral lesson in eschatology, employing apocalyptic language in all cases. Though the allegorical view (mixed with a chance of history) won out among Jews and Christians over the generations, the Second Awakening in the United States gave birth to a new "Dark Ages" among the new religious movements, Adventism (the father of JW religion) being one of them.

With this came the literal reading among these new movements that no rain came down on earth until after the flood (since no rain is mentioned in the Bible until then). Rejecting thousands of years of previous theology, the Jehovah's Witnesses are too self-centered in their being "the only true channel" of interpretation to test their exegetical conclusions with both history and critical scholarship.

That makes sense in the face that Jehovah's Witnesses are so uneducated that they believe the word "critical" in this sense means disapproving instead of "analytical" as it is in reference to a method of study.

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

Opusdei,

I am aware of a critical document theory that states that the first chapter of Genesis was the last portion of the creation narrative to be composed, and that this composition occurred after the Babylonian captivity.

Within the theory is room for that very hypothesis you mention. It isn't universally accepted, but neither is it beyond possibility. The theory entertains that the author's intention was to advance the idea that the Babylonian captivity was punishment from God due to failure to observe the Law, especially the Sabbath. Therefore, the theory concludes, the author's intent was to teach that obedience to the Mosaic Law was the intention of God from the beginning of creation, built into the Jewish culture.

The narrative is composed of a triplet (3 days, 3 days, and the Sabbath), divided into a doublet (the first three days a tableau for the events of the last three), and a finale in observance of the Sabbath. It may have even been the Sabbath prayer used by the Jews during the Babylonian exile or shortly after turned Scripture. It has been used ever since in the Sabbath home service following the candle lighting, recited during Kiddush.

However I don't know how far this has grown into something dogmatic or doctrinal. Most Christians seem to know little about this, even though it is printed in practically all study Bibles of all denominations and found in the footnotes of the Catholic NABRE, the official translation of the Catholic Church in the United States.

13

A Thought Experiment

by InjusticeSystem in

i am hoping some of you may be up for participating in a little creative thought experiment .

the question i would like to pose (and if it has already been asked i apologize, for some reason i cannot search for topics on my mobile) is this: what would the evidence show if the jehovah's witness' literal reading of genesis was true?

i realize that is a fairly broad question, but for example a more pointed question could be: if the vapor canopy hypothesis is correct (i have confirmed with my elder father that this is still a currently accepted understanding), what evidence in our genome or that of other creatures or on earth would we expect to see?

David_Jay

While my personal views are mostly in line with Cofty's, I do know that the "water canopy" idea I was taught as a Witness has no equal in nominal Judeo-Christian theology.

The word is usually translated in academically accepted Bibles as "firmament" or outright as "dome." (For example the NRSV or NABRE.) The ancients did not believe in the vacuum of space. Ancient Jewish cosmology taught that outer space was filled with water. Earth was a flat surface or disc that was built upon pillars, with a physical dome separating the waters above in space from the waters in the sea below on earth.

According to this model the stars, moon, and sun were items attached to this dome which revolved around the flat disc of the earth. Rain or snow or hail came through tiny hatches in the dome that allowed the "outer space" waters to fall upon earth.

The diagram below shows what most Christians and Jews understand that the ancient Hebrews believed in. This is why most of these same religious groups teach evolution, the Big Bang, etc., becuase they know that the Biblical explanations were based on limited perceptions not based in science. It is the Watchtower that makes up explanations to reconcile the Witness belief that the Bible has to be scientifically true.

32

What are the biggest holes in the ransom sacrifice?

by Half banana in

how honest are the proponents of jesus as the ransom sacrifice?.

curious to see what type of response there is on a topic like this or does their study only seek to confirm their preconceptions and ignore uncomfortable facts?.

David_Jay

Finkelstein--

From what I got from my Jewish family members and their rabbis, Judaism does not allow for a dying Messiah that gets resurrected.

Judaism does not see the Genesis account as teaching "original sin," and therefore there is no doctrine of "salvation" in any branch of Judaism.

No "original sin" then no need to "save" you or me from it by a "dying Messiah."

To the best of my memory from discussions with them, there can be no "ransom sacrifice" via Jesus because to Jews...

1. Sin is not a innate feature of humanity. Sin is an action.

2. The prophet Ezekiel taught that God never charges children with the sin of their parents.

3. Human sacrifice is forbidden by the Mosiac Law (Jews actually teach that the Abrahamic sacrifice was God's way of telling Abraham that God does NOT accept human sacrifice).

4. Adam was neither an angel nor a god, therefore neither St. Michael the Archangel or God incarnate is an equivalent ransom; the "scales of justice" would be unbalanced in the opposite direction.

5. People are responsible for their own sins and can repent of them for forgiveness.

6. The Mosaic Law only allowed animal sacrifice to cover "unintentional" sin. All other forms of sin required retribution of different sorts (i.e. "an eye for an eye," equal payment plus an additional fee, stoning, etc.). Adam's sin was not unintentional therefore blood cannot cover it.

7. The Messiah who restores Israel, not gets rejected and killed by Israel. Thus anyone who gets rejected by the Jews automatically cannot be the Messiah since to be the Messiah the Jews have to accept the person as their ruler.

8. Blood that covers sin must be poured out on the altar before the Tabernacle or Temple in order for forgiveness. Jesus died outside Jerusalem's walls.

9. Israel sees itself in a religion that grows via enlightenment, both spiritual and humanistic, and the idea of animal sacrifice belongs to a period of primitive humans. Judaism (like life in general) evolves. It doesn't follow the Bible. The Bible follows Judaism.

10. "Redemption" in Hebrew theology refers to saving humanity from its ills, injustice, suffering, but not saving it from "original sin" which Jews believe no human has.

Besides some Jews don't believe the Messiah is a person anymore. Reform Judaism, for example, holds that the "Messiah" is an ideal regarding human evolution in which humanity, religious and secular, evolves into the "person" pictured by the figurative Messiah idea. Humanity, many Jews believe, has the capacity to heal itself and society of its ills, thus becoming what was pictured by the Messiah. The idea behind this comes from the fact that there are no specific verses that talk about the "Messiah," per se. The Messiah concept is a tradition of Judaism, not a figure specifically spelled out in Scripture.

32

What are the biggest holes in the ransom sacrifice?

by Half banana in

how honest are the proponents of jesus as the ransom sacrifice?.

curious to see what type of response there is on a topic like this or does their study only seek to confirm their preconceptions and ignore uncomfortable facts?.

David_Jay

Half banana,

With all due respect (and a lot of agreement with a lot of what you write), I don't know if the comment that critical textual scholarship in the hands of those with religious convictions is likely unreliable ("won't cut the mustard," as you put it). Being quite familiar with the process, I have to say this can't be the case universally.

In my college days, I became good friends with a Bible scholar who was, get this, an atheist. And he is not the only one, I learned from him. Did you know that some religious Jews are also atheist at the same time? And some of these are scholars too.

I know, it wouldn't make sense according to what we were taught in the Watchtower. But like Buddhism, belief in deity is not central or relevant to Judaism. The whole "God is dead" mantra actually is ascribed to some of the Jews who, surviving the Holocaust (and before the Jews returned to Israel and the Six-Day War) came to the conclusion that the only possibility allowing for such a thing was the death of the God of Abraham...interesting story, but that is getting off the subject.

The point is that critical Biblical analysis is a methodology, like science. That means scholars have to develop a working hypothesis, prove their theory, and have their results validated by disinterested parties before they can publish and use their conclusions-- just like any other critical method demands.

Becuase not all Biblical scholars believe in God or are religious, it helps in the validating process. The majority of such academic findings is that Scripture is largely allegorical or written in similar narrative. Now if you are against such views, then you agree with conservative Christians that the Bible is fact. But knowing you don't means you agree with the main conclusions of the method.

The majority of Christian leaders do as well, but it seems in America (where Fundamentalism is creeping into the Catholic Church) this is not sitting well. Under direction of the Holy See, the American bishops have limited the American Catholics to one official Bible text, the New American Bible Revised Edition, and it is so heavy in critical footnotes that some pages are more than half critical notation.

Some conservative Catholics, in a demand to embrace some of the interpretations popular among Fundametalist neighbors, have attempted to revise an older Catholic Bible translation as an alternative to the one approved by the USCCB. But the American bishops will not give this version approval for public or private use (an imprimatur is required for Catholics to even privately read a Bible version), with the Holy See and apparently Pope Francis backing up the necessity of critical scholarship and some of its conclusions, even at the expense of revising some traditions. The issue is splitting the American Church at present, and the views from both ends are becoming more and more polarizing instead of seeking a way to build bridges. I've seen fights break out between Catholics over which Bible version they use, the approved Bishop's or the "other" conservative one.

I won't say that some of what gets published isn't colored by the overtly religious views of some (and you can definitely see that when it is happening), but this is not representative of the picture at large which is splitting the largest American Christian denomination over Bibles. Catholics who accept the NABRE on one side and others embracing a cleverly mislabeled RSV "2nd Catholic edition" on the other.

This wouldn't be hapenning if the critical method produced Bible theology that merely pandered to religious people.

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

My apologies, Opusdei, if I misunderstood you.

When you wrote, "Augustine pointed out that the whole account was a historical fact" I assumed from this you meant that he taught that all of Genesis 3 was fact.

As I pointed out from his own work, while he believed Adam and Eve were historical, he did not accept the narrative in the same light. Apparently you were saying the same thing when you said "whole account" which I read wrong. My pardons.

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

I'm afraid you have misquoted St. Augustine. He is well known for teaching that the Genesis account is allegorical. Even Wikipedia notes this :

"In the book, Augustine took the view that everything in the universe was created simultaneously by God, and not in seven days like a plain account of Genesis would require. He argues that the six-day structure of creation presented in the book of Genesis represents a logical framework, rather than the passage of time in a physical way. Augustine also doesn’t envisage original sin as originating structural changes in the universe, and even suggests that the bodies of Adam and Eve were already created mortal before the Fall. Apart from his specific views, Augustine recognizes that the interpretation of the creation story is difficult, and remarks that we should be willing to change our mind about it as new information comes up.[19]"--Italics added.

To date the Catholic Church still follows the views of the Church Fathers in not demanding a dogmatic literalist interpretation. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

"The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of man. Revelation [from God (not the Bible book of the same name)] gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents."--CCC 390.

But viewing the account as allegorical is not the same as viewing it as fiction, nor should the methodological use of the word "mythology" as sometimes applied to Biblical allegories in critical Biblical analysis be confused with the vernacular use of the word "myth," which most people take for a "false story." Instead within the narrative frame of an allegory is found a historical truth, according to this exegesis. Adam and Eve are not considered symbolic, neither is "original sin" something fictional according to this view. As Catholic Answers explains in an article regarding this: "The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques."

The narrative is not a literal report like that found in a history book, a documentary, or even a journalistic account, but the religious truth within is fact as these Christians see it. I personally cannot say how Catholics make this distinction, not being a Roman Catholic myself, but I do know there is no dogmatic demand on how a Catholic may or may not interpret the story found in Genesis 3 as well.

32

What are the biggest holes in the ransom sacrifice?

by Half banana in

how honest are the proponents of jesus as the ransom sacrifice?.

curious to see what type of response there is on a topic like this or does their study only seek to confirm their preconceptions and ignore uncomfortable facts?.

David_Jay

While not claiming any personal convictions in regard to the Trinity doctrine (nor advocating the following as "truth" or encouraging religion), I do recall being shocked to learn about something I as a Jehovah's Witnesses used to tease Trinitarians about.

Does anybody remember how Watchtower publications would attempt to explain the Trinity, then say it was a confusing doctrine, laugh at it being called a "mystery," and then mock how Christians would claim it was "the central doctrine" of their churches?

Actually, when getting my education and studying history, I was shocked to learn that Christianity doesn't believe like the Witnesses in regards to Christ's death. I was always taught at the Kingdom Hall that God demanded the death of another human being in order to set the scales of justice in balance before all the angels who were watching how Jehovah would settle the issue of sovereignity raised by Satan the Devil. But this is not what the churches of Christendom believe in. They don't really even use the expression "ransom sacrifice."

Their teaching is that God became human to teach humanity that we are, in reality, more like God than we realize. We needed no law or standards or even religious teaching to become like God because every human is innately created in the image of God, or so the lesson goes.

The central doctrine of the Trinity is the Incarnation, God becoming human, a "son of man" or even a "son" of himself (the ancients called incarnations of deities "sons"). According to the doctrine, God wanted to share the suffering of humanity and give that suffering redeeming value. The doctrine states that through what happened at the Cross, God changed the outcome of current realities: the sin of many in killing Jesus became the way for humankind's forgiveness, the dead wood of the Cross became the Tree of Life, the death of Jesus became life for the world, etc. According to Christendom the Sacrifice of the Cross (capitalized because it is an actual dogma) is not the offering of God a human sacrifice to appease the Creator due to Adam's sin. Instead it is God's offering to humanity the life of God so they can participate in what 2 Peter 1:4 calls a "sharing in the divine nature."

In other words, the Watchtower teaching is oddly the opposite of nominal Christianity's teaching. The JWs claim that God can only forgive us if a human is slaughtered and his blood is spilled. In Watchtower theology, God sends an angel to materialize and offer a blood sacrifice to the blood-demanding God "Jehovah." But the traditional Christian teaching is that God becomes like us to give us His life: we don't go up a mountain to see and receive instruction from God as did Moses, instead God comes down to instruct humanity as well as share His own life.

I thought this made the Watchtower view pretty shabby by comparison and made their "Jehovah" a really different God than what the rest of Christians believe in.

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

While the Church Fathers believed Adam and Eve were historical, that does not mean they believed the account of Genesis chapter 3 was likewise historical.

For instance, canonized Catholic saint Gregory Nazianzen (c. 329-390) wrote that the narrative of the Fall was set in simplified language, detailing that the Tree of Knowledge was but a symbol for "contemplation" (which in Roman Catholic theology is a type of wordless prayer that brings humans in mystical communicative intercourse with God).

There are other historical personages which Scripture often sets into parable type narrative. The prophet Jonah is supposed to be a historical prophet according to Jewish history, but the Biblical book is written as a humorous moral lesson with details impossible to reconcile with reality even by religious standards. The Hebrew Daniel is supposed to be historical, a hero who lived faithfully as a Jew among Gentiles before the Babylonian exile, but the "prophet Daniel" of the book in Scripture are but legends of him set in apocalyptic tableau (which is why Daniel is not considered one of the historical prophets in Judaism). Ruth is also a historical figure, but her narrative was likely invented during the time of Ezra and Nehemiah during the foreign wives controversy.

Jesus of Nazareth often used fictional narratives called "parables" to pass on what are viewed as religious truths. Some of the characters may be real personages known to the culture of the period (such as the "Lazarus" who dies alongside a nameless rich man--a poor beggar who would likely not be known by a name for any reason except the possibility that he was well-known in that era perhaps). The stories are complete fiction, but the situations are real, often drawing from real things common to first-century Jewish life with axioms that have practical value and universal applications in some instances, again all this despite their fictional nature.

Lastly, it is a common mistake of Jehovah's Witnesses to draw the conclusion that God requires the death of an Adam like figure to ransom humanity as JW theology claims God must be appeased by human sacrifice. This is a late interpretation, confined mostly to American religious movements that arose from the Second Great Awakening era. This idea has no commonality with the centuries-old view which is well established not merely in theology but in countless paintings, poetry, and even song throughout the centuries.

This older Christian exegesis is that Adam and Eve are also saved by Christ's death, and even the Church Fathers often speak of Adam being the first to be released from death by Christ. Christ is "Adam" in nominal Christology not because his death is an equivalent payment to balance the scales of justice (which is a Watchtower teaching) but that Christ becomes the new Father of the human race. In Orthodoxy and Catholicism, as well as Anglicism and even among some Lutheran teachers, Mary becomes the new "Eve" for humanity in the same manner.

David_Jay

Posts by David_Jay