David_Jay

Joined

• started 23 topics
• posted 874 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by David_Jay

• 
  33

  Can any believer make a case for the superiority of faith over knowledge?

  by Half banana in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i find it curious why so many here on this site, in the face of factual evidence for things such as evolution and the impossibility for anyone to make a coherent interpretation for the bible, would still prefer faith to knowledge?.

  can any believer attempt a defence of this position?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  David_Jay

  One thing more.

  It is not necessarily "impossible" to get a logical explanation of the Bible. It is that most people, including many in the religion's pews, either never study it or expose themselves to it.

  Crack open the Oxford study edition of the NRSV or the newly released Catholic NABRE published by the USCCB, and you will find introductory notes and a complex footnote apparatus so foreign to what you usually read on this site (in the arguments of religious vs atheist persons) that you might wonder if believer's of the Bible really ever read their Bibles.

  The arguments from both sides that I often (but not always) see here are usually so far removed from what is taught in these volumes, you might assume that few have exposure to mainstream philology and basic exegetical theory.

  Many here have a very good grasp of these issues, but maybe just as many, both atheist and theist, are arguing issues that are so ignorant of real theological concepts that they just don't matter. Neither party's arguments are based on an educated approach, neither side comes to the argument with their homework done, and almost none of their arguments have any practical value outside of this forum where the majority of religious people don't even have the views that are illogically being argued over here in some threads.

  But it has to be admitted that these same critical approaches to Scripture, the same that offer a very coherent and logical explanation to the Bible, shared by the majority of Judeo-Christian movements, do not claim "faith" is superior to knowledge.

  Shouldn't those who wish to argue against the value of Scripture and religion be more effective in their fight if they concentrated on arguing against the critical analysis of, say like what is found in the NABRE's footnotes, than the misconceptions of a few? If Scripture is wrong, then concentrate on ripping the NABRE, the Jewish Annotated New Tetsament, and Oxford's study volume of NRSV to shreds. It's easy to go after the other stuff.

  If you can't topple the critical approaches, the other views of the minority matter little. And getting angry or insulting or attacking those who suggest that won't disprove those academics of the critical method that keep the majority of the world believing in the Bible.
• 
  33

  Can any believer make a case for the superiority of faith over knowledge?

  by Half banana in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i find it curious why so many here on this site, in the face of factual evidence for things such as evolution and the impossibility for anyone to make a coherent interpretation for the bible, would still prefer faith to knowledge?.

  can any believer attempt a defence of this position?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  David_Jay

  Half banana,

  Sounds like you got what I was saying, except that the "faith" being argued here is actually limited to the minority of Christian groups. It has no equal in the traditional religions like Catholicism or Judaism.

  Religions linked with America's Second Great Awakening era, however, have this "faith" as a counter not merely to knowledge of secular things but to their religious history as well.
• 
  33

  Can any believer make a case for the superiority of faith over knowledge?

  by Half banana in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i find it curious why so many here on this site, in the face of factual evidence for things such as evolution and the impossibility for anyone to make a coherent interpretation for the bible, would still prefer faith to knowledge?.

  can any believer attempt a defence of this position?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  David_Jay

  The problem could lie more in the fact that people on both sides of the issue, religious people included, are highly ignorant of Scripture and the words often rendered as "faith."

  "Enumah" is the Hebrew word, and "pistis" is the Greek word. While most often rendered as "faith" or "belief," neither word actually means that.

  Many religious people equate "belief" or "faith" to be little more than a mental acknowledgment that something is so, such as the existence of God. But the words used in Scripture never refer to a simple credulous mental exercise of that type.

  The words in Hebrew and Greek mean "to be/act faithfully" or "to employ trust." They never mean to "just believe" as if mentally accepting the existence of God is all that is implied.

  It is even unscriptural to have such a "faith" in God. James 2:18 states: "You believe in the one God, do you? Well and good. But so do the demons, and for them it is a cause to tremble in fear." Mere mental acknowledgment that God is real or exists is never meritorious on its own, the text explains, as demons have met and seen God yet their knowledge of his existence doesn't bring them salvation or change their fate.

  Such credulity is never advertised in Scripture as a substitute for learning or study, but you will often find religious people claiming it is.

  And faith in Scripture is not a requisite for salvation either. Abraham did not have the Scriptures to follow, nor Isaac or Jacob. Yet God claims to be their God, speaking as if they are alive or "saved." (Matthew 22:31, 32) They never had the Bible for a single day to put faith in or follow.

  Unbelievers are also spoken of in Scripture as being excused from their sins on Judgment Day merely because they follow the law of their own conscience at Romans 2:14-16. Others are condemned for worshipping false gods due to ignoring not Scripture but failing to study the truths found in nature that argue against the existence of elemental deities. (Romans 1:19-23) Faith is not the option offered or requisite for these persons. Instead learning about the world around us and being faithful to one's own conscience is the alternative to falling to "the wrath of God" in these texts.

  The over simplification of "faith" is often a reason many atheists reject the arguments of many religious people. It isn't a bad idea either to do so becuase the idea that faith somehow replaces knowledge is nowhere found in Scripture and absent from Judaism, Catholicism and Orthodoxy which reject such views.
• 
  46

  The Pope Tells Trump He's Not A Christian

  by minimus in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  this should be fun.

  building a wall is unchristian.

  i can't understand why the pope is getting involved in american politics.. poor donald..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  David_Jay

  But to add to the direct conversation I must add that both sides now agree that the Pope was neither getting involved in politics nor directly speaking about Donald Trump.

  http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/19/politics/donald-trump-pope-francis/

  https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-fabricated-fight-between-pope-francis-and-donald-trump/2016/02/19/07073806-d74a-11e5-be55-2cc3c1e4b76b_story.html

  http://www.nbcnews.com/news/pope-francis/vatican-pope-francis-was-not-singling-out-donald-trump-wall-n521871

  Besides wanting to beat a dead horse which is neither dead nor a horse, whatever our personal feelings about the Catholic Church might be they aren't truth if only based on emotion or hearsay. We can't call for those of the Watchtower to be critical thinkers and open to change of their views when we cannot or do not do the same.
• 
  46

  The Pope Tells Trump He's Not A Christian

  by minimus in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  this should be fun.

  building a wall is unchristian.

  i can't understand why the pope is getting involved in american politics.. poor donald..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  David_Jay

  I don't believe anyone is necessarily above enduring criticism. But I do think it is time to put a well-worn and incorrect Watchtower teaching to rest about the Pope that baker brought up.

  Catholics do not teach or believe the pope is infallible. Pope=infallible, that is the Watchtower at its most ignorant, uneducated height.

  What the Catholic Church teaches is that when a doctrine of faith is under question and all the research is done for and against an issue, the pope can declare the result in favor of the doctrine never being questionable again.

  This means the pope can declare a doctrine once under debate as dogma, namely that the DOCTRINE is infallible. But several things need to be in play for this to happen.

  1. The questionable doctrine must be put to the test with not merely clergy but especially the laity being questioned regarding their understanding of the issues involved.

  2. The doctrine cannot be newly invented by anyone, including a pope. The question can only involve that which has been (or believed to have been) embraced as doctrine since the beginning of the Church.

  3. The pope and/or college of cardinals working in unison with the pope can only declare the doctrine as dogma or infallible in accordance with the evidence presented.

  Only twice in 2000 years have popes ever made such formal statements regarding doctrine. Unlike the Governing Body, declaring a doctrine as infallible dogma requires the laity to be involved, and both dogmatic pronouncements sided with the view of the laity over what many scholars believed when they were made.

  That is not nothing like the Governing Body and the way it does things and invents unquestionable doctrine in closed sessions.
• 
  22

  Someone needs to tell "The Librarian" to stop feeding the apostate trolls.

  by StarTrekAngel in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  David_Jay

  There are many things wrong with the Jehovah's Witnesses...many, many things. But this is not one of them.

  Just as being an ex-JW does not automatically make you a "mentally diseased apostate," being a JW does not automatically make you a person with questionable morals.

  Good people get caught up in this religion. Good people are still within, many struggling with trying to get out. While there, most do their best at being their best. And many with no intention on leaving aren't any more a danger to your child than the good, faithful priest and kind nun in a Catholic parish who are not involved with child molestation (and in fact fighting against it).

  Most of us here were once Jehovah's Witnesses. When we were kind to a child, was that due to some morally questionable desires we had? I doubt it. Regardless of how much we did or didn't believe in the doctrine, most of us were not a threat to children. Human nature generally moves us to act as protector and educator, not predator, even when it is not our own child. That is why sexual child abuse is so horrible becuase it goes against our basic human instincts regarding children.

  Regardless what Jehovah's Witnesses believe or teach, none of this makes them any less human. They may regard us ex-JW as less human or "mentally diseased," but we will not be the same in kind. These are people, you were once one of them, and we are not so far removed from one another as we often like to think. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Condemning genuine kindness in others condemns us when we act the same.

  Understandably many are angry and greatly hurt after leaving the Watchtower, but like everything else, we need to keep our emotions in check. When we start seeing everything the Witnesses do with suspicion, that is a signal we may have let things go too far. Emotion can only take you to a certain point and negative feelings can't be your master. Use common sense and common decency.

  And stick to facts instead of calling each elder who shows kindness to a child a potential child molesting pervert.
• 
  25

  Evil Bible

  by Simon in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  hadn't seen this site before, i thought i'd share it:.

  http://www.evilbible.com/.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  David_Jay

  Of course, this page is just talking about Christians and their use of the Bible.

  Including the New Testament (except for Luke and Acts), the Bible was written by Jews. Why not go after the Jews? They wrote it. That's where all the trouble started. If the Bible is evil, then so are the Jews and Jewish thought. It's all their fault. If there is someone to blame for the evils of the Bible and all that has been visited upon the world of humanity for its application, it's the Jews, am I right?

  It's not the Christians' fault. Gentiles didn't come up with concept of YHWH or a "Messiah" (which is a Jewish concept). It's those pesky Jews, right?

  Of course, I'm of Jewish ancestry and all my family are Jews. Maybe you should go after me and call me and my family and the products of our culture evil.

  No, I'm not advocating religion (I've had my fill of mean church pastors, child-abusing clergy and rabbis, and self-serving church members), but I am saying that we need to be careful and logical about approaches to support particular conclusions. We may believe the Bible false and have no love for religion, but the Bible isn't a product of the Gentile or non-Jewish world.

  With just a minor correction and removing the blame from the Christians over to the actual culture that produced the Bible, very few people would be willing to applaud and promote a site that calls what the Jews do and what their culture produced as "evil." All the reasonable arguments therein would be lost by such a presentation. Besides, most Jews and Christians have a very advanced critical view of Scripture, and some of these views on the site are overly simplified Fundamentalist arguments. Atheists need to be able to run (and can run) at the same academic standard the majority of Bible believers do.

  And yes, as the release of The Annotated Jewish New Testament (NRSV) demonstrates, many Jews around the world have begun a movement that, while not accepting the doctrinal conclusions, is attempting to reclaim the NT writings as a product of Jewish culture. So is the blame properly directed? Is it merely a doctrinal issue? Is it just Christians? It isn't, is it? If you're gonna blame someone about the Bible, you cannot stop at those who merely read it.

  For all the applause a site like this might deserve, I think atheists are capable of (and many are) arguing points presented from the likes of scholars who produce such things as published by Oxford Press and Loyola and other mainstream Bible publishers who produce critical editions of Scripture translations. Those are where the real arguments should be directed, and not merely at those views which are considered backwards by Christendom itself.

  Again, I think it is great that we who choose to be atheists are able to freely express such thoughts today, but let us be accurate in our information, think things through, and test whether the simple replacing of adjectives and other descriptive terms wouldn't equally be thought of as a "hate piece." Logic goes hand-in-hand with reasonableness, tolerance, and scholarly academia.
• 
  44

  This is Just getting Ridiculous and out of hand with the Borg

  by MrsR-Awaken in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  saw this on reddit it was posted by user morgan_sparlock .

  to me honestly this would of been prohibited 10 years ago, but now every dub is obsessed with this website, it's everywhere even a damn iphone cover... ooh they don't approve of idolatry ooh no they don't accept cross veneration thats bullshit to me!!!

  its getting to a point that they are venerating this website (company logo) it's their version of the cross.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  David_Jay

  
• 
  79

  What's a word that describes the way Witnesses behave as a group?

  by paul from cleveland in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i can't recall the word that describes a group that keeps to itself like the witnesses do.

  i thought it was "insular" but i don't think that's the one i'm looking for after reading the definition.

  i remember an elder using the word "clannish" and that has the proper definition but it reminds me of a group of elves.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  David_Jay

  Talesin is on to something and probably right on the button there. The Witnesses do indeed practice a form of "isolationism," that is a disinterest in the world around them, especially regarding political affairs.
• 
  79

  What's a word that describes the way Witnesses behave as a group?

  by paul from cleveland in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i can't recall the word that describes a group that keeps to itself like the witnesses do.

  i thought it was "insular" but i don't think that's the one i'm looking for after reading the definition.

  i remember an elder using the word "clannish" and that has the proper definition but it reminds me of a group of elves.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  David_Jay

  Ah! You are looking for a word that describes their "separatism" that they practice, similar to the Amish.

  That may be difficult because they don't totally separate themselves or even see themselves as a culture that requires that type of social removal in order for preservation. But it is something similar, no?

  They are not like the Amish, but more like the Mormons in their being "separate" from others. Is there a word for that type of separatism? Hmmm.