Band,
It might interest you to know that the recidivism rate is not "so great". For a previous discussion of the many studies regarding this:
Otherwise, I appreciated your post. I was wondering how you came to the conclusion that there is no control of the drive? I've found you usually hold well supported opinions so I'm interested to learn.
Thank-you, to the usual suspects for your rational discourse.
I can't abide arguing with who can't grasp the difference between "want" and "did" or between "desire" and "action". It saddens me, since these posters are otherwise thoughful. This is just too painful and scary a subject for some, I fear.
italic 4th and 5th century.
629 in the 14th century.
429 in the 14th century (margin).
Yes, the the old text was accepted for hundreds of years - we have done some reading since then, thankfully.
But, it is not just Westcott and Hort, it is also the text produced by N/A and UBS. But, this won't matter to you, I'm sure, if you've decided scholarship peaked 500 years ago and has been declining ever since. Not much that I can say.
Curious, isn't it, that no ante-nicene father, that no writings during the Arian controversy, reference this text at all? Might be an important scripture for Athanasius to point out, no? Also curious, that no early versions render it this way and not a single early manuscript. Strange how it only pops up in the late fourth century. Even more strange that such as Wallance, Robertson, modern trinitarian translations such as NIV, NAB, ESV, TEV, and dozens more reject theos as genuine.... doesn't matter?
Thank-you for your research, it shows pretty clearly that you choose the KJV because it fits your bias, not because you have concluded it is the most faithful witness.
Conclusion > Evidence - backwards, friend, backwards - Evidence > Conclusion
italic 4th and 5th century.
629 in the 14th century.
429 in the 14th century (margin).
Perry, you
What do you say to the critique about your wild claim that Cyprian must have had access to the autographs of "John's" epistles? I'd say that is a pretty outrageous statement.
It is, I agree, evidence FOR the inclusion of the Comma Johanneum. This must be compared to the all the evidence AGAINST including it. It certainly doesn't argue that "it must be a valid reading". Goodness, if all textual criticism could be resolved so neatly we could fold up whole schools of scholarly inquiry!
On 1 Tim 3:16 - it does not say "God was manifest in the flesh". Look at an interlinear. That is a theologically biased translation where the subject is assumed for the reader - as bad as the NWT's throwing in [other] at will.
my husband and i (both born in jws with extended family all "in" except for one of my sisters who left when we did) left the church 5 years ago.
we did not fade, we just didn't believe it anymore, told our families so and left.
obviously, big drama in our family after this, messy feelings, etc.
For a much better presentation than I have made: http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/governing-body.php
Of course, you can always ask her if she really thinks the trumpets of Revelation involve Cedar Point Ohio... But, that is almost too easy. And we made fun of Mormons for underwear...
my husband and i (both born in jws with extended family all "in" except for one of my sisters who left when we did) left the church 5 years ago.
we did not fade, we just didn't believe it anymore, told our families so and left.
obviously, big drama in our family after this, messy feelings, etc.
I suggest pointing out any particular scripture will not suffice. Your mom will find a WT article which discusses it. It won't matter what it says, the fact that there is a WT answer, no matter how weak, will be taken at face value.
Therefore, I suggest a direct attack on the monster itself, the notion that Acts 15 supports the notion of a centralized governing body. The narrative the WT presents is that there was this happy little GB sitting around in Jerusalem who governed matters of doctrine and practice. Indeed, if you read Acts you can almost come up with that notion, Acts is such a sanitized, white-washed church history.
But, we have a completely different picture when we compare what Paul said about that body of old men. In Galatians 1 Paul goes out of his way to point out that he did NOT get his authority from "those who were apostles before I was". In fact, he only met Cephas three years after his Apostleship and did not bother with the others at that time. In fact, he was unknown to those in Judea. This was a GB?
Note how Paul goes on in Galatians 2 to describe his meetings with these folks in Jersusalem, these important Christians. He is very specific, very deliberate that he did not need, seek, want, recognize, thier endorsement. He was letting THEM know what he was doing, not asking permission. "those highly regarded men imparted nothing new to me. On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the good news." In fact, he talks about how he resisted Cephas later over the matter of the law.
Galatians, to me, shatters the entire idea of a central governing body in Jerusalem. Paul is saying, rather directly, that the Judean "Christians" were backward and working against Christ in thier adherence to the Law. Acts 15 is not a story of a governing body, but of the Jerusalem congregation coming to terms and accepting the teachings of Paul. It is the settling of a massive dispute between several power bases, not the expression of a single central power base.
Reading the two accounts side by side shows how the WT twists the story to create a pattern of authority which simply did not exist - the opposite existed.
this is my first time posting here, although i have been a visitor to it for around a year.
after doing a simple google search under "jehovah'switnesses" over a year ago, i found ttat.
i was deeply unhappy with the congregation and decided to educate myself, and boy what an education i have gotten so far.
That may be the best DA letter I have ever read.
"he is the image of the invisible god, the firstborn of all creation; because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities.
all [other] things have been created through him and for him.
" (col. 1:15-17, for context.
How do you feel the discussion ending with 1 Corinthians 15:27 plays with this argument from the evangelical perspective?
When it says "all things" or "every name" is it not evident it is with the execption of God? Or did Paul make a one time evidentiary appeal? Perhaps there are dramatic differences in context or linguistics that I am not getting.
http://www.salon.com/2013/09/10/richard_dawkins_defends_mild_pedophilia_says_it_does_not_cause_lasting_harm/.
Cofty, thanks. Looks like there are a few Sam Harris books I'll want to grab!
http://www.salon.com/2013/09/10/richard_dawkins_defends_mild_pedophilia_says_it_does_not_cause_lasting_harm/.
Crofty,
I've read a few works about game theory and the evolutionary underpinnings of altruistic behaviour, but I've never come across a scientific explanation of objective ethics; philosophical frameworks, sure. I'd really appreciate it if you could point me at some books you might recommend. I'm pretty weak on psychology and ethics, so I'd appreciate the pointers.
