Posts by David

17

God & universe #1 - God's position and authority

by Anders Andersen in

while thinking about the nature of god, i suddenly thought of something else: how jw speak about god in relation to the universe.. they say that.

jehovah created the universe.

destroying satan and answering the questions that were raised in eden will restore peace and unity in the whole universe.. .

David_Jay

One of the reasons it is worded this way is due to the adoption of Adventist ideas by Jehovah's Witnesses. JWs limit all that is known about God to the physical universe because 1.) that is all that is explicitedly discussed in Scripture and 2.) time is an important factor to this religion, and it's theology demands that God be governed by the same laws of time that we are.

The Judeo-Christian concept of "God" is pre-Biblical and has itself evolved during the time of the Second Temple and up through the formal canonization of the New Testament, which was in the 4th century CE. These concepts, many of which are cultural and part of Jewry, are read into Scripture, especially into Liturgical proclamation.

Adentists and, by default, Jehovah's Witnesses reject almost all such historical theology as false because it is not explicitedly Biblical. There is no liturgy in either of these religions as a result, and therefore no connection to the cultures that formulated Scripture or direct access to any of their traditions. Witnesses would automatically reject such views anyway since there is no or little Biblical mention of them.

This is both problematic and illogical becuase without pre-Biblical ideas and an outside and greater authority than Scripture to dictate what is and what is not inspired Writ, the Bible itself could never exist. "True religion" would have to come first before there could be writers equipped enough to compose any texts. Scripture is produced by religion, not the basis for it. In this case the "chicken" has to exist before it can lay an "egg."

The Witnesses have a theology that limits God's revelation to what is written in the Bible. To them this superceeds the Great Theophany experienced by the Jews at the foot of Mt. Sinai (which is considered by Jews the greatest revelation they ever received), and is more authoritative than the Apostolic witness made up of those who lived side by side with Jesus Christ. In JW theology, only what is "written" is revelation, meaning any other words uttered by Christ are not as authoritative even if there is greater testimony from the Apostolic college or if ever archeological evidence came forth to verify the events of the Great Theophany. It has to be in the Bible or it is "bust"!

Becuase of this JWs have a very childish concept of the God of Abraham. JWs believe that "God" has a spirit body and lives in a "place" called Heaven. Both concepts, a spirit "body" and the belief that Heaven qualifies as a "place" are contrary and even somewhat forbidden as idolatry in Judaism. Both Judaism and Christianity believe spirits cannot possess bodies since a "body" is coporeal, which according to traditional theology is a thing that can only exist in a material state. "Spirit" by the original tradition defies being limited to a "body," as spirit belongs to the realm outside the temporal state where, according to the same tradition, there is no time or space.

Without such fundamentals essential to Judeo-Chrisitian thought, JW religion limits "God" to terminology such as "the universe," and refers to God as a being that has to have the ability to "foresee" events much like a psychic. Judeo-Christian views of God claim the universe as a "creation" making time and space things God created and thus not bound to. Becuase of this God does not need the power to "foresee" events in time as, being greater than time (which is a mere creation of God's), the past, present, and future are all immediately accessible at the same moment. These ideas are not directly found in Scripture as they are far older and were simply understood by the traditions that shaped and the cultures that employed these texts. Thus Watchtower-ism is void of them.

24

The Olivet Discourse

by biblexaminer in

i'm interested in hearing someone explain the olivet discourse.. note, there's much discussion on other sites, but so far, i've not heard an explanation of the entire discourse in a way that is logical, in full harmony and complete.. some feel that they have figured out one piece or another.

however, when inconsistencies are highlighted, the discussion ends.

some make outlandish claims.. i know that the watchtower version is so much refuse.

David_Jay

Biblexaminer,

I agree with you, actually, as I was not advocating the critical view as exegetically conclusive or as my personal stand. It isn't offered dogmatically either, if I am correct.

The information is highly philological as well, so it is not what I would call "practical" to the average Christian. Roman Catholcism, for instance, advocates these views but uses them as a building block and sees no end in critical findings alone. From there several schools of hermeneutical approach are applied to come up with the various views acceptable in that religion (there is practically no dogmatic requisite about this discourse from the Holy See however). Some of these interpretations conclude in manners that suggest that the philology plays little or no part in the end, which is along the lines of what you mention.

54

Things JW's and Atheists have in common

by juandefiero in

i was just thinking about something someone said on another thread.

to paraphrase, 'jw beliefs like there being no hellfire, immortal soul, the condition at death...have the ring of truth.'.

i realized, atheists believe these things too!.

David_Jay

Prologos,

Since I am not the author of the theological definition of "temporal" vs. "eternal" in religious terms, I cannot say more than the religious persons who developed these terms in the first place. My mention of these definitions is not to imply that I have anything invested in these religious definitions either. I am just repeating them.

I do know, however, that according to Roman Catholicism, there was no time until the universe came into existence. God existed since according to them God is eternal, but the universe and the space-time continuum did not. Eternity as they and Jews define it is not a form of time. To them eternity is far different from living forever. They are not the same, according to them.

Speaking in your terms I am sure you might find a way to bring things together according to your worldview (which seems a very healthy approach in MHO), but this will not change the doctrinal and dogmatic definitions in religions. While theology can change, dogmas cannot, and I cannot say what this falls under for them. But I am sure, knowing Jews and Catholics, there is room for personal interpretation as well in this.

54

Things JW's and Atheists have in common

by juandefiero in

i was just thinking about something someone said on another thread.

to paraphrase, 'jw beliefs like there being no hellfire, immortal soul, the condition at death...have the ring of truth.'.

i realized, atheists believe these things too!.

David_Jay

Cofty,

I was not saying this was my personal conviction, neither that I agreed with it or that this was true or based on any evidence.

I am merely pointing out that the Watchtower theology regarding the God of Abraham is strikingly different from that of Jews and nominal Chrisitans.

Both Jews and Christians who hold to this definition cite that it is part of what they call "divine revelation," and they do not site any scientific formula, theory, or physical evidence for the transcendent (which wouldn't exist because by definition that which is transcendent cannot be measured, witnessed, touched, etc.).

Citing what other persons believe is never a claim that I hold such beliefs, are recommending them, or that I do or don't agree with them.

54

Things JW's and Atheists have in common

by juandefiero in

i was just thinking about something someone said on another thread.

to paraphrase, 'jw beliefs like there being no hellfire, immortal soul, the condition at death...have the ring of truth.'.

i realized, atheists believe these things too!.

David_Jay

Anders Anderson,

Here is something you may need to add to the "pot," so to speak, when considering the "God question."

Having recently left the JWs, you may not be aware that the Judeo-Christian definition of "God" is extremely different from the Watchtower definition, so much so that rejecting one does not include rejecting the other. To illustrate (with brevity this time ):

JW "GOD": Dwells in the confines of the current space-time continuum, marks, keeps, and experiences time as humans do, even makes plans to do things based on setting dates. God lives forever and ever.

JEWISH-CHRISTIAN "GOD": Transcendent, i.e., does NOT live in the universe and does not participate in or is in any way confined to the limits of the space-time continuum whatsoever. God does not "live forever," as time has no effect on God nor does God experience the changes or passing of time. Instead God is "eternal." God does not plan events in the future, nor does God foresee or foretell events as the past, present, and future are all present to God at all times. Eternity takes up no time to experience. God does not live or dwell "somewhere." There is a beginning to the universe, but not to God.

I was literally shocked to learn these things. In theology the space-time continuum/physical universe is referred to as the "temporal plane." God exists outside the temporal plane because God created it. God's existence is called the "eternal plane" or simply "eternity." The eternal gets its definition by what God is, and not vice versa.

Thus the God of Abraham, as understood by Jews and those in Christendom, doesn't "think" according to any "rules." Laws of physics only apply in the temporal plane, being products of creation. God doesn't have a beginning because according to this theological definition a "beginning" implies a linear timeline, and there is no timeline in eternity.

54

Things JW's and Atheists have in common

by juandefiero in

i was just thinking about something someone said on another thread.

to paraphrase, 'jw beliefs like there being no hellfire, immortal soul, the condition at death...have the ring of truth.'.

i realized, atheists believe these things too!.

David_Jay

One has to take in account that atheists differ greatly from one another.

While some atheists dismiss the idea of the Judeo-Christain concept of God, another like my doctor (I just learned) may believe in spirit beings (in my doctor's case something metaphysical). In this view only the God of Abraham is dismissed, but not the possibility of other types of spirits or higher plane beings.

Some atheists believe that the existence of deities is impossible, including that of spirit beings in very traditional sense.

Others merely do not worship a deity but are part of a religion that recognizes their existence, like Janism or Buddhism. Some Jews are atheist but quite religious at the same time.

Still others do not believe in gods, angels, etc., because there is no scientific evidence, but they claim they would sway in favor of whatever tomorrow's discoveries may uncover including the discovery of spirit beings.

Other atheists have beliefs in reincarnation, life after death in metaphysical terms, the possibility of continuing on in a parallel universe, etc. The list can go on and on.

Even when an atheist rejects some of the things JWs do, it is not due to sharing a view in common. Witnesses accept "truths" on the grounds that their interpretation of the Bible excludes or includes such possibilities, an interpretation which can be changed tomorrow at the whim of the Governing Body. Any "similarities" are from superficial examination as they are not arrived at from a common examination.

24

The Olivet Discourse

by biblexaminer in

i'm interested in hearing someone explain the olivet discourse.. note, there's much discussion on other sites, but so far, i've not heard an explanation of the entire discourse in a way that is logical, in full harmony and complete.. some feel that they have figured out one piece or another.

however, when inconsistencies are highlighted, the discussion ends.

some make outlandish claims.. i know that the watchtower version is so much refuse.

David_Jay

Here's a bit of a different take, based on critical scholarship (not my own).

Referred to in many critical circles as the Eschatological Discourse, it is agreed upon by scholars that each of the Synoptics employ it in different manners, each with a slightly different purpose.

The Marcan version is provoked by Jesus' disinterest in the Herodian edifices with the questions of the apostles due perhaps to a line of Jewish belief that the Temple would fall only in the end of days. The discourse occurs in the final section of Mark which deals with "revealing" the reason for the Messiah's coming, which according to the Marcan version is summed up in the events of the Passion. This makes the discourse part of the revelation of who Christ truly is, but it offers little beyond advocating a constant need for watchfulness in the end.

Matthew's account (though believed to use Mark's as a source) does not occur as part of the Passion. Instead it acts as the finale to the ministry in Judea and Jerusalem. While in Mark the discourse centers mainly on the Temple due to the likely elementary belief of its survival until the end of history, Matthew's account seems to divide the two events more carefully into 1.) the destruction of the Temple, and 2.) the end of the age. In Matthew's account the demise of the Temple is typical of history's end, but the details about this end coinciding with the Parousia are described in language borrowed from Hebrew apocalypse, such as found in Daniel. The account ends with two parables which may or may not have been a part of the actual Olivet discourse. Matthew is well known for combining like material categorically over chronological order, so this is possible. The lack of connection with Mark's glorified Jesus and the parable conclusions suggest that an exegetical approach similar to apocalyptic deciphering was perhaps already being employed by this gospel's composition instead of expecting a literal Parousia of Christ being connected to the historical fall of the Temple (which had likely already occurred by Matthew's composition).

The Lucan account is more like Mark's. The discourse is spurred on by the same and gives a similarly combined answer using the Second Temple's demise as a sounding board. But the "signs" of the end are interpreted more as symptoms of everyday life that are taken advantage of only by the false prophets and are set as a warning against being deceived into believing that Christ has returned. It ends with the Marcan view that actual interpretation is not as important as being vigilant at all times. Luke also ends Jesus' ministry with this discourse, as does Matthew, separating it from his account of the Passion.

While different schools of thought exist, mainstream eschatology in Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, Methodist, and Presbyterian exegesis favors none of the approaches that suggest a literal interpretation of history's end via this discourse. As the Marcan and Lucan endings suggest, vigilance is viewed as the final requiste taught by these accounts.

Matthew's discourse suggests an even richer moral lesson, adding two parables to remind disciples not only of the importance of vigilance but of living out their discipleship each and every way through active participation in God's redemption of the poor, stating that their salvation would depend not on interpreting the "signs" of the discourse but finding Christ "in disguise" as the poor and marginalized who need to be ministered to.

54

Things JW's and Atheists have in common

by juandefiero in

i was just thinking about something someone said on another thread.

to paraphrase, 'jw beliefs like there being no hellfire, immortal soul, the condition at death...have the ring of truth.'.

i realized, atheists believe these things too!.

David_Jay

Anders Anderson,

I have to strongly disagree. Jehovah's Witnesses are not actually “evidence-driven” as an atheist generally is in their convictions.

“Evidence” is data or information that confirms, verifies, or validates a view, hypothesis, or proposition. It can even be used to affirm some “beliefs,” depending what these “beliefs” consist of, of course.

But the theology of Jehovah's Witnesses and the conclusions they arrive at have nothing to do with logistical methods or even just plain reasoning that atheists or even many religious people may engage in.

Jehovah's Witnesses base their conclusions on a technique known in hermeneutics as “proof texting.” It isn't “evidence-driven.” Instead it is “citation-” or “source-driven.” This form of theology claims that the Bible is the ultimate source of revelation from God, greater and more substantial than the theophanies witnessed by the patriarchs, the experience of the apostolic college in living with Jesus of Nazareth, and any other person, event or tradition that shaped the Bible. It is no different from Joseph Smith's “discovering” a book and basing a religion on a text history knew nothing about.

“Proof texting” works like this:

Person A, a Jewish man, has a religious practice (wearing kippah or a yarmulke in prayer) that has been handed down from his Jewish culture, shaped by that culture's theology and historical experiences, but not mentioned in Scripture whatsoever.

Person B, a Jehovah's Witness, claims that the practice is false because it is not mentioned in Scripture. Person B also finds texts in the Bible that clearly state that 'men are not to have their heads covered' during prayer.

Person B concludes that their view is true because only their has textual support from the Scriptures.

“Evidence-driven” thinking works like this:

Judaism and Christianity came before and produced the Scriptures the Jehovah's Witnesses use. These Scriptures cannot logically be the “basis” for these religions because the texts were composed by those who already had the convictions they wrote about. The book did not come first. The writers came first. The writers did not get their religion after they wrote down words. Their religious beliefs inspired their writings.

The separate canons of these religions were shaped by religious tradition and authority, not by any written directive in any of the books of Scripture. There are no texts which spell out which books should or should not be included, and no texts that command a library or collection should exist in the first place. Even in Christianity, Jesus of Nazareth neither wrote nor commanded the writing of any texts, nor did Jesus make the study of Scripture a requisite for discipleship or salvation. The Hebrew Scriptures were canonized sometimes between the 1st and 7th century C.E., well after the Second Temple had fallen, and the New Testament was canonized by two bishops in the 4th century C.E., well after the death of Christ and his apostles.

By the time both these religions had their texts, they were well established. Generations of believers had come and gone, including the founders, all without ever having a Bible. Obviously the Bible cannot be the ultimate and final authority from God, otherwise the founder of these religions would not have truth since they were without the Bible. The Bible is the product of religion, not its basis.

Being that religious authority and tradition outside the Bible shaped the Bible itself, the same religious authority and tradition can rightly play a part in the theology of those who follow it. If that religious authority and tradition was good enough to set the canons of Scripture, it is equally authoritative to allow for a Jewish man to pray wearing kippah.

Besides, the Christian text regarding not using a “headcovering” when praying does not apply to Jews since the text was written to Gentile believers and before the practice of wearing kippah was adopted by Judaism.

Atheism, on the other hand, is not necessarily adopted because a person weighs their views with religion. My two best friends growing up were atheists because their parents were. They did not arrive to their convictions because they once were part of a religion and then decided to “employ logic.” They were born into a world where religion is not a concern or important option.

Atheists who do reject religion on the basis of logic do so because they consider evidence. “Proof texting” is not evidence. Just because the Bible says something does not mean it is true, neither does appealing to authority mean one has a fact.

To be honest, “proof texting” is merely an “appeal to authority” or “expert testimony,” and logic dictates that a claim is not true merely because it comes from an authority or expert. Evidence tests claims, not stops once it hears or reads them.

29

EXJW's in Mensa?

by Luther bertrand in

jw
friends

any exjw's or faders out there in mensa?

any online groups for this niche?

David_Jay

In line with the post by GrreatThinker--

I have a "high" IQ, was a child prodigy, and still test high on intelligent quotient tests in adulthood. I qualified for membership in Mensa International after my first test in my late 20s.

However, there is no such thing as a standard scale for measuring an IQ. I learned this after my first exam from the psychologist who tested me.

When people say "I have an IQ of 130" that doesn't mean anything because of the lack of a universal standard scale. The "130" is a score on a particular test, and it can be equal to an "83" on another and a "157" on another, and be called "average" on a totally different one that doesn't employ number scores.

Mensa International accepts for members those whose IQ test(s) reveal scores above 98% of the testing population, or at 2% or less on the far right of the Bell scale. If, just to give an example, you tested at "130" on a certain exam, but according to how the population is testing "130" was the average adult score for those taking the same test, then you wouldn't qualify.

If "130" on a totally different exam was only reached by 2% or less of the testing population, then you could be accepted as a Mensa member.

But there are things you need to take into account:

1. Most people, except for the most mentally gifted, will test lower and lower on IQ tests as they age. If you took a test as a youth, your score on the same test will likely be lower today (and that's totally normal for most).

2. High IQ scores don't always mean "smart" people. Just because you can beat any computer playing chess doesn't mean you have what it takes to balance a checkbook or get along with people or make a success of your life. Most people with high IQs have low EQs, meaning they have a hard time emotionally relating to the general public. Many of these people cannot hold down jobs or handle intimate relationships.

3. "Genius" doesn't guarantee "high IQ" or vice versa. Some people are very talented or have extremely high mathematical IQs but very low language IQs. Just about anyone can be a "genius" in their own field, but very few people with high IQs ever do anything that gets noticed by the world as "genius."

Lastly having a high IQ has nothing to do with religion. My pioneer partner and I roomed together for two years, both of us lucky enough to meet another in the Org who tested above average on IQ tests. But he was much more higher on the IQ totem pole than I was, scoring in the 1%. He also couldn't relate to the average JW or at least play along as I did.

I left the religion of the Watchtower after about only a decade of being in but he never did. I heard that he passed away just last year, still a JW. Logical thinking can only take you so far if you don't allow yourself access to data without prejudice. If you don't get all the information, your conclusions are always incomplete or incorrect.

My buddy wouldn't study the Chruch Fathers or accept certain conclusions of particular biologists and physicists, apply critical hermeneutic principles when approaching religious texts or accept any conclusion contrary to what came from the Governing Body. Why not? Because besides being right or correct, we often want to believe we are good people. He knew these things were not what made a "good" person in the eyes of the Witnesses.

So he chose to believe that the measurement for "good" was the JW leadership. Logically, with this as an unchanging, unbending ingredient to any formula you develop, no matter how well you keep thinking principles in check, the conclusions will always be wanting.

So a high IQ doesn't mean much, nor does being an "expert" at thinking logically (he was a professional technical problem-solver for big companies). We are rarely gifted to be a good judge of our own wants, desires, and emotional needs and how we let these cloud are judgment from time to time. And humans in denial will deny they are in denial.

Add to this, sometimes we confuse being correct or right with the moral quality of being "good." Being smart, intellectual, educated, a genius, and even correct are not moral qualities. But since we get raised being rewarded for good grades, get praise for parroting the "correct answer" at Watchtower studies, even promoted at work for often "thinking" in line with our employer's philosophy, it is never easy to separate the two.

You don't have to go to college, have a high IQ, or even be a specialist at forensics (logical deduction) to leave the JWs behind. You only need to be willing to open your eyes, accept facts regardless if they agree with you, and have the courage to leave it all behind. It doesn't take brains, necessarily. It takes will power and a desire to "do" right more than merely "be" right.

41

Does Believing in God Make You Dumb?

by Brokeback Watchtower in

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzqaeusdmtk.

http://jdc.jefferson.edu/jmbcimfp/5/.

abstract.

David_Jay

I feel like I am hitting my head against a wall, but here goes.

There is a very big difference in saying "I am leaving this forum and not posting anymore" and what I said: "I am leaving this forum in the hands of those far better..." etc. I said I am going to sit back and listen.

Second, I have not been to a Kingdom Hall since the 1990s. I am 50 years old. I know that people can be atheists, are atheists, I have atheist friends, I even dated and almost married an atheist. I not only believe in evolution, I have taught it. If you are suspecting ignorance and this is your response, it doesn't speak well of those who do as I have clearly mentioned these things and how much I actively support atheists.

It is far from logical to believe that indulging one self to a situation where regular insults are an earmark will expand the EQ. Analytical thinking doesn't lend itself to insulting another. Lack of self-control and discipline do.

Thus the suggestion to "strengthen your abilities to control your thoughts and emotions and focus them more clearly into rational thought and expression" by subjecting oneself to others who cannot respond rationally and respectfully is a paradox. While there is something to be said for the "no pain, no gain" model, such can only be successful where there are controls to how much "pain" can create benefit. Subjecting oneself to where such things cannot be controlled is not of benefit. Too much weight, too much exercise, and POW, no benefit whatsoever.

I am convinced that you can do fine on your own without my input. You did not need it before, and by insulting you show you do not care for it now. You thus will not get it tomorrow. Insulting someone is not a way to welcome another or even treat a trusted friend. If you expect a positive response, you are expecting something like Stockholm Syndrome. Sorry, but I will never be grateful for such treatment from anybody.

After hearing that and reading comments in support of that view, I now know I am in the wrong place. So instead of sitting back and reading and being quiet this should be my exit.

It's not that the water's too cold to adjust to, it's that people keep swimming over and holding my head underwater until I almost drown. There's a difference. I'm human, like you. I also need to breathe, like you. I also need to be treated with respect, like you.

Thanks for listening. Good luck on whatever you all do from here.

David_Jay

Posts by David_Jay