the sept. 1 watchtower has a question from readers concerning the 144,000. it asks how we know if the number 144,000. is a literal number.
it then quotes from a scholar, robert thomas, who wrote an exegetical commentary on revelation.. he says that , in revelation 7, the contrast of a definite number ( 144,000) with an indefinite number ( the "great crowd").
proves that the 144,000 is a literal number.. .
Somewhat related observation:
In the idea that no one man would be able to "number" the great crowd -- due to it's immense size -- does it not seem rather unlikely that one man would be able to "number" a group as large as 144,000 as well? Who could even do that?
Bradley
looking through some of the society's earlier wt's, it does seems as though they tend to see apostates as lonely and isolated people.
i can only find one reference to organised apostates in the wt.. so i wonder how they feel about the recent plethora of fests that are taking place?.
it's certainly having a nullifying effect on the enforced isolation that they like to see resulting from disfellowshipping.
When I was a Witness I was always under the impression that apostates were in some way organized, not lonely and isolated. The WT likes to give the "us versus them" mentality, and it suits their purposes better if they paint the situation as "their organization (political/religious/apostate) versus our organization."
In reality, apostates as a world-wide group are a hodge-podge of different personalities all with diverse, often conflicting, religious and philosophical ideas. Ex-witness boards, along with "apostafests", have almost nothing to do with "bringing down the WT" in any organized way. The term "free for all" comes to mind.
Bradley
someone recommended that i give "e-harmony.com" a try.
it's a dating network that is supposed to be state-of-the-art and attract more intelligent people than your typical "nerve.com" jack-off fest.
it's a little pricey...$50 for one month!
kls,
Har-de-har-har.
in my life, there have been two, and only two, "official" resignations:.
1) when i was at bethel: resigned 'before my 4" because i couldn't tolerate the disillusionment and hypocrisy;.
2) when i was a ms: resigned because i couldn't tolerate the abuse that we servants recieved at the hands of the co (and other accumulated disappointments with the presiding overseer).. otherwise, every "worldly" job i had, i stuck with it, in spite of my discomfort(s) with the job, or the bosses.. perhaps it's a contrast of "this one pays your rent and puts food in your belly, and the other one doesn't.".
I tried to resign as an MS a couple times and the elders wouldn't let me. They made me a book study conductor instead.
Of course, I finally did get deleted.
Bradley
someone recommended that i give "e-harmony.com" a try.
it's a dating network that is supposed to be state-of-the-art and attract more intelligent people than your typical "nerve.com" jack-off fest.
it's a little pricey...$50 for one month!
I haven't tried it (no need, I have a partner) but I suspect it is also geared exclusively towards heterosexuality. Just a guess.
Shit. I was hoping to date a couple lesbians.
B.
someone recommended that i give "e-harmony.com" a try.
it's a dating network that is supposed to be state-of-the-art and attract more intelligent people than your typical "nerve.com" jack-off fest.
it's a little pricey...$50 for one month!
Someone recommended that I give "e-harmony.com" a try. It's a dating network that is supposed to be state-of-the-art and attract more intelligent people than your typical "nerve.com" jack-off fest. It's a little pricey...$50 for one month! The only thing I don't like about it is that is seems geared toward people who want to get married. Hell, I don't want to get married for a long time, or even, NEVER!
Anyone ever try this site? Comments? Suggestions? Jokes?
Bradley
current mathematical models of the universe involve what is termed 'hyper-dimension.".
ever read the book flatland?
it describes how a 2-dimensional being would perceive the intersection of a 3-dimensional object in "their" universe.. a flatlander would never be able to comprehend a sphere.
Funkyderek,
My concluding thoughts:
Empiricism has it's limitations and modern science is not as "neat" as we would sometimes like to think.
Rationality is essential to human knowledge, although it too has it's limitations and "pure rationality" is neither possible nor desireable.
Other than that, have a nice day.
B.
current mathematical models of the universe involve what is termed 'hyper-dimension.".
ever read the book flatland?
it describes how a 2-dimensional being would perceive the intersection of a 3-dimensional object in "their" universe.. a flatlander would never be able to comprehend a sphere.
Sunnygal,
As you no doubt have noticed, my thoughts on this matter have changed over time. Keep in mind, though, that although it is good to be open-minded you do run the risk of your brain falling out.
There's a great line by psychologist Gordon Allport who said to 'be aware of what you choose to overlook' or something to that effect. I think it's healthy to shift our mental outlooks from time to time, if for no other reason than to experience variety!
Bradley
current mathematical models of the universe involve what is termed 'hyper-dimension.".
ever read the book flatland?
it describes how a 2-dimensional being would perceive the intersection of a 3-dimensional object in "their" universe.. a flatlander would never be able to comprehend a sphere.
funkyderek,
How would you know that it is not likely? Would you care to put a probablity on it?I certainly can't put a numerical probability on the existence of "hyper-dimensional life". However, the probability... is vanishingly small.
It was not my intention to sound dogmatic. In an infinite universe (or multiverse) anything that can be imagined and can't be disproved must be assigned a non-zero probability. But the theories being discussed don't easily lead to the conclusions postulated.Actually, what has been discussed has not even been theory but imaginative speculation. Progress in knowledge starts when we brainstorm the possibilities, even if they are "far out." To automatically dismiss unusual ideas is a sure way to stay mired in our current understanding of things. Sometimes we have to temporarily suspend our disbelief and preconceived ideas so as to recognize the possible. Groupthink pervades some scientific circles as well as religious ones.
And if your conclusions are already formed anything you don't want to be true won't be possible.If you are refferring to biological life your statement would make sense, since these dimensions are far smaller than organic molecules. But what if life can also be arranged in a completely different manner, one that is wholly unlike anything that we can presently imagine.I thought the term "life" was being used in some real sense. If you're expanding it to include things "unlike anything that we can presently imagine" then, of course, all bets are off. If your definitions are suitably vague, anything you want can be true.
OK, what I should have said is that, to the best of my knowledge, there is no reason to believe this to be the case, nor is there any evidence for it, nor is it possible under the rules of any useful theory nor is it considered likely by experts in the field. Perhaps I should add this caveat to everything I say.No, just to unsubstantiated dogmatic claims.
Who said I, or anyone else, gives the "angels in other dimensions" idea the same weight as established scientific fact? Nonetheless, to automatically discount the idea, or even a small part of the idea, as silly or dumb, which you insinuate, is not good.The fact of the matter is that there is so much we simply to not understand and it would be the height of arrogance to proclaim as reality that which is only speculation as well as dismiss as unreal what is only imaginatively hypothetical.Agreed, but that does not mean giving the same weight to completely fanciful constructs as to theoretically plausible scenarios
And it is important to remember that some scientific ideas have been bitterly opposed, even with full knowledge of the data supporting the idea. Einstein never liked, or believed in, quantum physics; his famous phrase, "God does not play dice" comes from this fact. Lynn Margulis's endosymbiotic theory in biology was laughed at by numerous people, and only years later was accepted by the scientific establishment. There are countless other examples that could be given. For an excellent essay on some of the inherent difficulties in the scientific establishment see Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.Science is, and should be, a conservative enterprise, but it is interesting to note that many of the great advances in our knowledge have come from those who pushed the boundaries of what is "proper" science. Not too long ago anyone who might have described subatomic reality the way modern quantum physicists do would have been laughed at with derision and been proclaimed a believer in the occult.It is, of course, important to remember that nobody just woke up one day and decided to invent quantum physics. There were leaps of imagination, certainly, but anything without a strong theoretical basis would have been given short shrift; and without evidence would have been rejected. The evidence supporting quantum theory is so strong, however, that despite its apparent paradoxes and the difficulties the human brain has grasping it, it is universally accepted.
So we're at a toss up then. They'll laugh at Deepak Chopra and Richard Dawkins. Wonderful! BradleyA hundred years from now people will be rather amused at what we believe is not possible.And most likely, at what we believe is possible. They will probably laugh heartily at those who tried to combine quantum physics with eastern mysticism and those who misuse words like "force" "energy" and "dimension" to lend support to their pet theories.
current mathematical models of the universe involve what is termed 'hyper-dimension.".
ever read the book flatland?
it describes how a 2-dimensional being would perceive the intersection of a 3-dimensional object in "their" universe.. a flatlander would never be able to comprehend a sphere.
Dolphman,
The number 10 can be written in such a way that does not include 0; the Roman numeral "X" for instance. I'm not sure if your analogy is as useful as you might have thought. I also think you may be a little dogmatic in asserting that God and a mystical spiritual reality do indeed exist, whereas I simply allow for the possibility. We should all doubt. And doubt our doubts as well.
B.
