Posts by TerryWalstrom

17

Video: How to use the site / basic navigation

by Simon in

please don't laugh - i just threw this together and didn't bother making a script first so probably repeat myself or make no sense at all at times.. hopefully it will demonstrate a few tips for using the site more effectively.. i'll do one on signing up and logging in next and also how to edit, reply etc.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rx5d3ct0y50.

TerryWalstrom

I still don't know how to go back in (within the time limit) and edit a post.

70

Be nice to theists - they are victims of their genes

by cofty in

identical twin studies show there is a strong inheritable component to religiosity.

thomas bouchard studied identical and fraternal twins raised apart and tested them on religious attitudes.. the correlation for the former turned out to be 62% compared to just 2% for the latter.

his colleague.

TerryWalstrom

What is the distinction and where is the difference in a genetically influenced religious person and a non-genetically influenced humanist?

If an atheist volunteers in soup kitchens or a priest who molests little boys, are we going to argue for superiority/inferiority above and beyond some baseline?

Remember that book THE BELL CURVE which set off a firestorm?

The authors argued central argument is that human intelligence is substantially influenced by both inherited and environmental factors and is a better predictor of many personal dynamics, including financial income, job performance, birth out of wedlock, and involvement in crime than are an individual's parental socioeconomic status, or education level. They also argue that those with high intelligence, the "cognitive elite", are becoming separated from those of average and below-average intelligence.

Guess what? They stepped on a land mine! They extended this thesis to the untouchable third rail of. . . RACE!

The authors were reported throughout the popular press as arguing that these IQ differences are genetic. They wrote in chapter 13: "It seems highly likely to us that both genes and the environment have something to do with racial differences." The introduction to the chapter more cautiously states, "The debate about whether and how much genes and environment have to do with ethnic differences remains unresolved."

Somebody please explain how this topic differs from that controversy.

30

How is Genesis scientifically incorrect?

by EndofMysteries in

i'll add many things in the bible i don't agree with, but the bible is a collection of books.

now to make sure i'm reading as closely to what is written in genesis, i look at this hebrew interlinear, because english translating and rearranging of words can change it.

http://www.scripture4all.org/onlineinterlinear/otpdf/gen1.pdf.

TerryWalstrom

The first story’s order of creation (Genesis 1:1–2:3):
* light and darkness
* sky waters, sea waters, and a vault between them
* land and plants
* sun, moon, stars
* aquatic and flying animals
* land animals and people (male and female)

The second story’s order of creation (Genesis 2:4–25):
* earth and heavens (including a garden in Eden, and various streams of water)
* man (Adam)
* rain; beasts of the field, birds of the air; plants (exact order not specified)
* woman

The order doesn’t match up—they cannot be taken literally. Fortunately, a good number of Christians, including some prominent paleontologists, understand this. The Roman Catholic church has even specifically commented on the matter, denying that it should be taken literally.

52

USING CONTEXT to understand 'supernatural' Jesus

by TerryWalstrom in

to 27 b.c.e.. in the years of roman republic, no man was called a god (or even a king).

however, 200 years of peace under a ruler imperator, (emperor) gradually relaxed the fears of romans of having a dictator.

surely the gods had bestowed unusual approval!

TerryWalstrom

I'm always serious; even when I'm kidding:)

As Chaucer said, "Ful ofte in game a sooth I have herd saye!"

10

PESHER: an Historic scheme of INTERPRETING SCRIPTURE. . . Watchtower style!

by TerryWalstrom in

george bernard shaw said: no man ever believes that the bible means what it says.

he is always convinced that it says what he means.. shaw must have had pesher in mind!

but, what is pesher?.

TerryWalstrom

It must be really intoxicating to be BELIEVED by so many people willing to lay down their lives at whatever peculiar imagining you set forward!

T.E. Lawrence spoke to this in Seven Pillars of Wisdom. He wondered aloud if faith and belief by others didn't somehow legitimize itself in himself. Truly, he began acting as though he truly were extraordinary. Is this some universal principle of "Fake it till you make it?"

What is acting all about if not convincing the audience to suspend disbelief?

Maybe this is THE true truth.

FAITH is not belief so much as it is suspending DIS belief.

Acting the part is becoming the part.

38

ARE WATCHTOWER SOCIETY STATISTICS REALLY TRUSTWORTHY?

by TerryWalstrom in

of these, over 2,000 were admitted to concentration camps.

1,000 died in prison and concentration camps.

another 1,000 of jehovah's witnesses died in prisons and concentration camps.".

TerryWalstrom

Lying is an interesting way of labeling the intentional massaging of facts to serve an end.

When Mormon scholars approached their council of Apostles to confess the awful fact honest research had refuted certain unshakeable beliefs of the church, they were told, "This isn't faith-building."

What an insidious way of saying, "Keep your research to yourself."

I would say this. If you KNOW you are right (delusional as this is) and believe yours is a divine mission, how empowered does that make you to achieve your end goals--despite--contrary facts?

Didn't Ray Franz say the GB was "Captive to a concept" of Organization as established by Jehovah? This imaginary imprimatur is like alcoholism.

When they crash the car of prophecy, they can shrug sheepishly and say, "I was drunk."

10

PESHER: an Historic scheme of INTERPRETING SCRIPTURE. . . Watchtower style!

by TerryWalstrom in

george bernard shaw said: no man ever believes that the bible means what it says.

he is always convinced that it says what he means.. shaw must have had pesher in mind!

but, what is pesher?.

TerryWalstrom

I have to wonder how 'knowingly' the person of C.T.Russell, J.F.Rutherford, N.H. Knorr, Frederck Franz, et al resorted to Pesher to force scripture into their modern chronologic schemes?

That is to say, did the feel historically justifed? Or, was it merely self-aggrandizment?

Maybe this process is not so binary as that . . .

How likely this pitfall is a trap of the ego must be considered, too.

Isn't Pesher a kind of shout-out to the Universe: "IT'S ALL ABOUT ME" ???

67

Exactly what is the HISTORIC view of the DIVINE or of what being GOD meant long ago?

by TerryWalstrom in

the purpose of this topic is twofold.. first, any who are endlessly fascinated by scholarship, practised by genuine bible scholars, are urged by me to do what i did, subscribe to bart ehrman's blog.

the subscription money (as little as $3.95) goes entirely to charity.. secondarily, by broadening our view of the new testament era on up through two millennia to the present day, our knowledge of all things 'christian' is deepened to include actual knowledge (as opposed to watchtower fabrication.

by this i don't mean to imply you'll fall to your knees and get saved, but rather, you'll simply have facts to inform your present transitional mindset toward whatever end you finally choose.. now .

TerryWalstrom

My mission here on earth is done! :)

52

USING CONTEXT to understand 'supernatural' Jesus

by TerryWalstrom in

to 27 b.c.e.. in the years of roman republic, no man was called a god (or even a king).

however, 200 years of peace under a ruler imperator, (emperor) gradually relaxed the fears of romans of having a dictator.

surely the gods had bestowed unusual approval!

TerryWalstrom

I was talking to a Seminary student (Dallas Theological Seminary) recently. He was a good-looking, personable, charismatic, (in the Movie Star sense) and intelligent fellow.

I really don't know how I manage to attract these discussions. Or do I?

I spend most days sitting in a Starbucks writing away furiously. Curious people sit nearby and ask questions. I let slip this or that and---BINGO!

Be that as it may . . .

This magic Christian proceeded to confess he was on a personal Sabbatical, an Ad Hoc Rumspringa to reassess his life!

All he had ever known was evangelical certainty, inerrancy of Scripture, and a deep-seated sense of heavenly entitlement--that is--until recently. One day, he was praying and suddenly became aware that he was 'talking to himself.'

I confessed the exact same experience--and a dialogue quickly ensured.

The empty feeling of being a 'fraud,' had haunted him. He was smart enough to step out of himself and see how religious fellowship was a self-reinforcing delusion. This led to an epiphany that Seminary was but an intellectual gasp and grasp at yet another self-reinforcing delusion!

Holy tergiversation, Batman!

We spoke for over an hour. Other patrons stood or sat nearby with eyes wide at the other-worldliness of our recherche!

I've seen him twice since then. He always looks terribly happy to see me, and once more, we plunge into an odd dance. I guess I'm an old man (68) who fits into an Obi Wan template for younger aspiring Jedi. Dunno, really. Suffice to day, I profess only ignorance and experience at sloughing my own skin of absolute certainty---and it works a MIRACLE for the fellow to experience my experience of that journey!

Apparently, there are 'True Believers' out there who aspire to doubt! The melancholy burden of 'proving the numinous' is too great a load to live with. The sense of falseness makes them sick of their own posture in the community of belief.

I call it a 'thirst for authenticity of self.'

A person of intellectual bent wants to 'solve' the problem as though it were possible by KNOWING THINGS. Others, less honest, want to solve the problem by BELIEVEING THINGS. Lastly, come the wary, weary, wastrels (myself included) who solve the problem by ABANDONING every premise and starting anew.

I too grow angry at sureness because I see it as repugnant, self-satisfied laziness.

But--is it? Dunno. It feels that way at the moment.

Doubt is as comforting as an empty bank account. Belief is writing bad checks.

Hope is applying for a large bank loan by mortgaging the future.

The Seminary guy grows happier each time I see him. He is wondering how to 'come out of the closet' as a non-believer to his Dad and Mom. Yipes.

He knows a HUGE RECKONING is in store and he'll have to 'explain' the inexplicable.

He wanted advice from Obi wan.

I quoted an old movie adage from WAR GAMES.

"The only way to win is to---NOT PLAY."

I said to him, "You parents and Christian friends either love the authentic you--or they've been lying to themselves by loving the version of you which pretends. Which do you want it to be?"

To NOT have "THAT" conversation (in religious terms) is to be authentic.

My takeaway from this exchange is this.

We are all on a journey. Those who have absolute certainty are betting everything against the odds.

There are 41,000 denominations in Christianity. How lucky can a fellow be to accidentally hit the 'true' one--IF there is a 'true' one?

Perhaps a good life, well-lived, being a service to others is the better trade-off?

Regardless, I use these religious discussions as a reminder of how much volatility

there is in THINKING SOMETHING IS TRUE based on numinous ancient texts :)

67

Exactly what is the HISTORIC view of the DIVINE or of what being GOD meant long ago?

by TerryWalstrom in

the purpose of this topic is twofold.. first, any who are endlessly fascinated by scholarship, practised by genuine bible scholars, are urged by me to do what i did, subscribe to bart ehrman's blog.

the subscription money (as little as $3.95) goes entirely to charity.. secondarily, by broadening our view of the new testament era on up through two millennia to the present day, our knowledge of all things 'christian' is deepened to include actual knowledge (as opposed to watchtower fabrication.

by this i don't mean to imply you'll fall to your knees and get saved, but rather, you'll simply have facts to inform your present transitional mindset toward whatever end you finally choose.. now .

TerryWalstrom

I think most of us are fascinated by our own ignorance of the LAW of IDENTITY, although, without it, we are apt to make category errors rather easily.

In logic, the law of identity is the first of the three classical laws of thought. It states that “each thing is the same with itself and different from another”.
1. Category error:
  
  the error of assigning to something a quality or action that can properly be assigned to things only of another category, for example, treating abstract concepts as though they had a physical location.