Posts by adamah

48

Was Paul a "tentmaker"?

by CyrusThePersian in

in acts 18:2,3 we read:.

"there he met a jew named aquila, a native of pontus, who had recently come from italy with his wife priscilla, because claudius had ordered all jews to leave rome.

paul went to see them, and because he was a tentmaker as they were, he stayed and worked with them.".

Although I think the 'stage scenery making' idea is unlikely for the Pharisee-raised Paul, I could see someone holding to that idea. There are a number of theatrical allusions in Paul's writings that would lend to the conjecture that he had some connection with the stage (via prop making).

It's interesting that the skeuopoios (mask-maker) is mentioned as having also been the person who manufactured special theatrical clothing and other properties:

http://www.props.eric-hart.com/education/ancient-greek-theatre-props/

Masks were used to make amplify the expression of the actor, and still is the classic symbol of an actor, eg:

Of course, the significant hurdle here is to remember the time period/location of the claim: since theatrics of 1st century Greece necessarily often included pagan elements and theatrical depictions of interactions with the Greek pantheon of Gods, playrights and their ilk would represent the example of the flawed ideas of mortal men; that might present a teensie-weensie bit of a moral challenge to a member of a Jewish cult off-shoot (which Christianity represented) to make his living by supporting the efforts of sinners. Paul spent his life polemicizing against Greek philosophy (the wisdom of men), so that's going to be a problem with the hypothesis that he worked in the theatre.

Adam

37

When "The Persecution" Comes - What a Let Down that turned out to be!

by cofty in

when i was young there was endless speculation about "the persecution".

i have very clear memories as a child sitting in the old kingdom hall in coatbridge hearing it talked about from the platform.

it was a frequent topic at home.. sometimes there was lurid detail about what sort of torture "they" might use against us to make us betray others.

adamah

The Watchtower (1962) says:

This underscores the importance of right thinking and dependence upon Jehovah. When wrong thoughts enter the mind they should be rejected at once; they should not be entertained, opening the way to sin. (Jas. 1:14, 15)

What a classic example of "Newspeak" from George Orwell's classic futuristic novel, '1984' (published in 1949). It's as if Watchtower Society's Writing Dept. are serving as the 'Minitruth' (ministry of truth, the gov't agency that dispensed official party-line propaganda), and it sure seems they were big fans of Orwell, since they didn't miss a trick.

respectful observer said-

I also recall having a reversable coat when I was young. I remember speculating how it would be that much easier to escape from the police out in service now that I had this fancy new coat.

That was a back-up I guess, only needed if the two burly muscle-bound angels that were supposed to protect you lost track of the time while 'blasting' their calves at the gym, and didn't show....

You've got to love how the JWs "shot-gun" their defense strategies, always having a back-up fantasy plan ready to go, just in case the primary fantasy defense fails.

As a young prepubescent male hearing the talks about Nazi torture at a convention, there must've been an ancedote about how the Nazi guards would try to get witnesses to commit sin for their sadistic amusement and to break their integrity by forcing them to have sex with each other (as an adult, it's not too far out of line with psychological torture measures: I'm reminded of those pictures from Abu Gharib showing prisoners being forced to form naked dog-piles, or simulating oral sex on each other, etc).

As a ten yr old male (who didn't exactly even KNOW what sex was all about), I distinctly remember thinking that if I were in that situation I'd close my eyes, pray intently, and despite the beatings, I wouldn't comply with their wishes to have sex with a young JW female and the guards would have to physically FORCE me to have sex. I would remain immobile, and thus steadfast in MY faith.

And THAT'S a perfectly healthy mental image to foster in the mind of a 10 yr old, LOL!

Adam

26

Local Needs Talk: Brothers must repair dents and scratches on their vehicles...

by Calebs Airplane in

so about 8 years ago, we had a local needs talk about dents an scratches !!!!

it was given by the cobe and this guy was just your normal everyday elder.

except he had his occasional pet peeves... like (you guessed it) dents and scratches on some of the brothers' vehicles.

adamah

Remember, Jesus always stressed the importance of physical appearance to his disciples, teaching them to be conscious of the image they presented to the world. He even showed them how to repair unsightly dents on chariots by performing miraculous minor body repair work and the healing of paint (it's a little-known fact that one of Jesus' apostles was St Earl Scheib, the one most loved by Jesus).

Adamah

48

Was Paul a "tentmaker"?

by CyrusThePersian in

in acts 18:2,3 we read:.

"there he met a jew named aquila, a native of pontus, who had recently come from italy with his wife priscilla, because claudius had ordered all jews to leave rome.

paul went to see them, and because he was a tentmaker as they were, he stayed and worked with them.".

adamah

Interesting topic, Cyrus.

The prefix Σ κηνοσ (skenos) however can mean "tent" or "stage" as in a theatre stage. (Skenos is where we get the English theatrical terms "scene" and "scenery" by the way) Is it possible that Paul and Co. were theatrical scenery makers?

Occupations often are used symbolically in Bible characters, eg Abraham enjoyed the favored nomadic lifestyle of tending livestock, the apostles were fishermen (then turned their nets to men), etc. I suspect Paul's tentmaker is much the same.

I haven't had a chance to look into it deeply, but I'd consider the possibility that Paul made stage costumes (although I'm wondering how costumes or stage scenery could've been elaborate enough or different from normal clothes to provide full-time employment in that time?). 'Skenos' can also refer to the Gnostic belief of the mortal body only serving as temporary shelter for the soul (where a tent could be thought of as temporary shelter, akin to the mortal coil housing the soul in Gnosticism). Hence the occupation of tent-making could be a sly reference.

Of course, Paul offered many statements that indicate he was Gnostic-leaning, although the inevitable clean-up of later redactors tried to remove some of the more obvious references to Gnostic beliefs.

EDIT: here's a post by cameo-D from 4 yrs ago :

The apostle Paul was a tentmaker. Most scholars believe that he made "personal prayer tents" or 'taliths', not tents to live in.

Religion appears to have been a lucrative business venture for Paul.

"Tal" means tent. "ith" means little. Little tent.

Talith, talit, talis.... all mean the same as the prayer shawl.

Talis......Talisman.....

Talisman are magical charms believed to have mystical powers to ward off evil or to bring good luck. Some are believed to work miracles or to bring about miraculous effects.

Adamah

10

Touchstones of reason failed by Mormonism

by Qcmbr in

sorry , i said i'd post this last week but i played pc games with my bro instead.

my bad.. simple basic errors in the mormon meme that are missed by active members.. history.

book of mormon purports to describe actual historical events most notably two huge civilisations on the americas , one of which is israelite.

adamah

Qcmbr, thanks for the link: I'll check it out.

Qcmbr said-

and are simply falling back to testimony statements ('I feel the spirit', 'I know its true' etc.)

Sure, using only internal validation (eg appeals to personal intuition) works for so adherents of other religions; I don't see why it wouldn't work for Mormons, too, at least until they realize it's a flawed premise for oh, so many reasons. :)

Ironic really, as on the one hand Christians are told not to trust their internal flawed moral compasses, hence why they need to rely on God's superior moral laws. But isn't an appeal to intuition basically the same, since it's claiming to trust one's instincts and feelings (eg "it just rings true or makes sense to me"), which are admittedly flawed, in the first place?

In the end, although education is not the complete answer (as discussed by my 'seer stones' comment), I'm leaning towards the power of education (Logic 101, Human Psychology 101, etc) to reduce dependence on fantastic thinking.

It's interesting to watch the process occur in others, with changes slowly taking place over time as people free themselves of false unproven (and unprovable) assumptions. Certainly any belief system that includes magic underwear, 'everyone gets their own Planet!', and seer stones is sorely in need of a dose of rationalism and skepticism since it's Achille's Heel is the same as Christianity: they both profess a belief in the Torah/Tanakh.

Adam

89

"Snakes will eat dirt in the new order."

by Comatose in

i was talking with a jw i've known a long time and the topic of da new order came up.

she mentioned how nice it will be when all animals are at peace.

i asked why they had camouflage and defensive and offensive weapons if they were to always get along?

adamah

mP said-

" We are not talking about a single event, i fail to see how we can apply this logic in determing stuff about snakes. The best i could do was show some scriptures and refer to some commentators."

BTW, I think we mostly agree, based on the prior comments.

My point is that humans find it hard to agree on current events from our recent past (look at all the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11 and WTC which seemingly refuse to die, since people will believe what they WANT to believe). Hence the challenge is even greater when discussing not current events, but BELIEFS of those who lived 3,000 yrs ago! As I said, it's more than a bit like quibbling over angels on heads of pins when discussing beliefs, thinking claims can be proven without doubt.

I ran across this which is plausible conjecture of a possible inspiration for the flying serpent idea:

http://www.wondersandmarvels.com/2013/03/flying-snakes-in-ancient-egypt.html

It seems the "historian" Herodotus (in quotes, since it's applying a modern definition in an anachronistic manner, where the goal of ancient historicans wasn't to attempt to provide a factual account of the events they wrote about) had a fancy for the flying serpents in Arabian/Egyptian mythology. He may have even seen dinosaur fossils that had given rise to such mythology.

http://artesian.blogspot.com/2006/02/flying-snakes.html

And there's this:

http://www.genesispark.com/essays/fiery-serpent/

There are many examples in Genesis of how the authors took a muted attack on the religious beliefs and mythology of Babylonians and Egyptians (remember, the Torah was supposedly written by Moses, who was claimed to have been educated in the beliefs of the Egyptians, as he was adopted by the Pharoah's daughter), so this might be the same case of deprecating their beliefs by depicting the flying serpent as being a creation of YHWH (admittedly clever) who was put in it's place by God by taking away it's wings. That might explain the 'old flying serpent vs ibis' myth which is seemingly reflected in Numbers 21, as well as the current appearance of snakes. (Remember that Isaiah was likely written 300 yrs later).

Who knows, though: hence my point that any claims of certainty of KNOWING what ancients believed have long been lost in the sands of time.

Fortunately though, we're only discussing speculative details of a minor point that's likely NOT needed to convince anyone who's reasonably rational that the Adam and Eve account is a modified version of a pre-existing myth:

1) if the talking snake and wisdom-bestowing fruit doesn't convince them (which may be excused as miracles), there's always

2) the fundamental unfairness of God withholding wisdom from "perfect" mankind, teasing them with it by placing it in their reach, but then punishing them for acting like fools (those who lack wisdom) when that's exactly how God made them; that appears to be a clear-cut case of Divine entrapment (which isn't excused by miracles).

If THAT doesn't work to convince someone, then the difference between a walking vs flying serpent being forced to crawl as punishment is not likely to be the final straw that convinces someone it's only a myth.

Adamah

10

Touchstones of reason failed by Mormonism

by Qcmbr in

sorry , i said i'd post this last week but i played pc games with my bro instead.

my bad.. simple basic errors in the mormon meme that are missed by active members.. history.

book of mormon purports to describe actual historical events most notably two huge civilisations on the americas , one of which is israelite.

adamah

Qcmbr said:

I suspect we are seeing the moment before the implosion.

Allow me to suggest that you're likely projecting your personal wishes and perspective onto others, and assuming that since YOU'VE personally seen enough evidence you're assuming that OTHERS can see it, too, and will come to the same conclusion as you did. That's a LONG series of assumptions to make, based on the bias of placing rationalism above all.

If I had a pence/pound every time someone predicted the triumph of reason over irrational emotions I'd be a rich man by now. :) Heck, Thomas Paine wrote a pamphlet in 1800 called the "Age of Reason", calling for the same thing, and that was over 300 yrs ago.

So why is religion bigger than ever in 2013, where a recent poll shows that 80% of Americans insist that God has to be involved in human evolution?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2375035/Only-1-5-Americans-believes-human-beings-evolved-guidance-God.html

The "reason" is that religion appeals to MANY OTHER non-rational factors, such as emotions; it's not all about rational thinking for MOST believers. Religions understand that, and that's exactly WHY they use social control measures like shunning, ex-communication, etc, to bolster the goofy thinking.

I know an LDS elder who is an intelligent and highly-educated professional (he's an optometist who prescribes glasses and other optical devices), yet he apparently sees no problem with believing that Joseph Smith used miraculous 'seer stones' to translate Egyptian into English and receive Divine inspirations. This guy deals with optics on a DAILY BASIS, but unless those seer stones were actually prototypes of Google Glasses with an internet connection, it's not a rational belief.

I doubt he actually believes in 'seer stones', but he's acutely aware that he's a member of a cultural sub-group where his patients believe in it and are committed to agreeing to certain beliefs, so he goes along to get along, where part of the price of admission is holding one's mental nose in order to swallow irrational beliefs.

And to think LDS is going to kill the goose that laid the golden egg and admit to being one of a long line of religions that have engaged in an ancient scam flies completely contrary to human nature. It's not IMPOSSIBLE, just that it seems extremely unlikely to me (eg the organizational structure of LDS and JWs with governing bodies is DESIGNED to prevent such an event from happening). Is there ANY major religion which has admitted to being a bunch of hog-wash, or where the person who admitted it wasn't quickly demonized and distanced as an outsider (eg Franz)?

Hence we'll likely see a continuation and/or growth in those religions that decide to modify their theologies to resolve conflicts between rational and non-rational factors, eg by incorporating evolution into their beliefs, while still holding onto belief in a God who kicked off the process. That's the whole goal of 'scientific creationism', easing the dissonance of the more rational and educated believers by insisting on forcing their God into the test-tubes of science in public education, while demanding it still be labeled as 'science'.

The practice of blending new beliefs into the old theology once popular opinion and knowledge of the natural World demands it is called 'syncretism', and it's a trend that's as old as the hills, following quite predictable steps.

Nowadays, it starts when science conclusively shows the sheer silliness of some theologically-based claim or belief (eg God said that men think with their hearts in Genesis, or the Earth was flat, or at the center of the Universe, or has a dome-shaped solid firmament, etc). Then when that position is shown as being silly and contradictory to scientific evidence (eg brain, not heart was shown in 400BC to be center of cognition by Hippocrates), the fallback position then becomes claiming it was only a metaphorical belief or poetic use, and not meant as literal truth. Jesus didn't LITERALLY mean that hand-washing before eating didn't have any benefits, etc.

The downgrading of claims of literal truths into metaphorical/spiritual truths/figures of speech will hopefully continue, until HOPEFULLY someday the entire Bible may be realized to be metaphorical (at which point a new religion is likely to have taken it's place, and filled that niche or void).

You'd think the process of reason triumphing over emotion and superstition would be complete by 2013, but as I said in another thread, the existence of groups like the Flat Earth Society seems to suggest there's still a long way to go.

Adam

31

Catholic Cardinal Says Adam and Eve Didnt Exist

by His Excellency in

http://consciouslifenews.com/catholic-cardinal-adam-eve-didnt-exist/1127457/

adamah

Truthseeker says-

The problem with not believing in Adam and Eve is at some point in Earth's distant past, there had to be a only a handful of people living at the time just to procreate.

Statements like that strongly suggest you're likely not aware of basic principles of genetics which needed to understand human evolution, since the actual story is a bit more complex than "God Dun It!".

There is no need for ONLY one pair to create a new species (founder effect). In fact, a new species resulting from a single breeding pair IS possible, but it's a risky situation (due to the 'population bottlenecking' of the gene pool; it takes a long time for the gene pool to 'fan out' and recover in order to slowly increasing the species' resistance to various threats that may drive the species extinct by a single challenge, whether a genetic disease or an external challenge like a virus/bacteria, etc).

In the past, conservationists didn't think about the loss of genetic diversity in species, and would rejoice when they managed to save a single breeding pair of a species from the brink of extinction. Then they realized that what is actually lost is the genetic diversity of the species, which means that the odds of survival goes down since the species literally is genetically "putting all of their eggs in one basket".

(The wikipedia page above on population bottlenecking uses the example of the Northern Elephant Seal)

"So how many couples were there? Or was there just one couple, Adam and Eve?

That seemingly simple question would require an essay, and even then, it takes YEARS of study in biology to get up to speed:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

You didn't understand the Bible overnight, so you can't expect a miracle of being filled with "Scientific Holy Spirit" to help you learn the much-more complex story of life on the planet in a short period.

BTW, I don't expect you will find the story of hominid evolution as emotionally satisfying, since it's not as cozy as "God Dun It!"; hence why 80% of Americans choose to cling to creationism despite MOUNTAINS of evidence. For lay-people, it's not about logic, but about being conscious of their "spiritual (emotional) needs" and let the scientific evidence be damned.

And if there is no Adam and Eve, how can it be said that Jesus descended from Adam given the genealogical account in Luke?"

Maybe you would like to explain why the Bible in Matthew and Luke offers TWO geneologies for Jesus, which are quite different (with one seemingly driven by a matrilineal vs patrilineal geneology, since remember: Jesus supposedly was conceived by His Father in Heaven via Holy Spirit (immaculate conception)? So why should Joseph's (his stepfather's) lineage even matter, unless Luke was trying to fit a square peg into a round hole)?

If you're a Christian, you owe it to yourself to read some books by Bart Ehrman: he's a theology graduate and New testament scholar and professor who has authored many different books that point out the logical inconsistencies in the New Testament.

This reasoning completly destroys the need for a Messiah and hence Christianity is just another road to nowhere.

And thus joining the ranks of a LONG TRADITION of theologically-driven beliefs based on man's desires: it's not the first, and it definitely won't be the last since many people typically prefer a comforting fantasy over stone-cold sober reality: they cherry-pick what they WANT to believe, even DESPITE evidence. Hence why there's STILL a Flat Earth Society, even in this day and age of satellites orbiting the Earth, moon shots, etc.

Adamah

226

You atheist really annoyed me

by confusedandalone in

jw
friends

when i first came to this site.

whenever i would try to talk about somethign from the bible that the jw's got wrong or reason on a scripture that had so much feeling you would stomp all over it.

talking about "flying spaghetti gods" and laugh at what seemed to be my expense and then leave the thread never to return and add any substance.

adamah

(SBF, from page 1, I think you're confusing rationalism with rationalization: they're very different concepts.)

Interesting thread, everyone.

To no one in particular, my two bits:

I'm a hard atheist (i.e. I make the POSITIVE claim God doesn't exist) when it comes to Jehovah, the God depicted in the Tanakh and worshipped by the Abrahamic religions. The Bible itself provides all the proof one needs to prove His non-existence, since the claims are completely impossible in a natural World (omniscience and omnipotence are completely contradictory traits). Speculating about the supernatural is like asking if a tree makes a sound in the forest if no one hears it: that's a WONDERFUL WAY to waste time, like arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin (angels, much less dancing angels, much less dancing angels who can balance on heads of pins, have absolutely no basis in reality, unless people WANT to believe in them).

I'd say I'm necessarily an agnostic for a generic 'unknown God', but awaiting (demanding) proof before I'm believing (not that there isn't any utility, or sound reason to believe BEFORE proof is presented: not being shunned is plenty of tangible benefit to at least PROFESS a belief, if you cannot manage to lie to yourself and convince yourself that you believe in God).

Consider this:

In all probability, we're likely NOT the only life-forms possessing some form of intelligence to exist in the Universe, and we haven't yet encountered other life forms is probably due to being separated by distance and time. If we DO encounter more-primitive life forms in our explorations, we may very well appear to them as if possessing magic, and being God-like to them (as Robert Heinlein said, "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic to outsiders").

Heck, you don't even need to leave the Earth to encounter other intelligent life forms: to dogs or apes, we ARE the Gods, the possessors of magical powers, able to communicate with other distant humans via spirits (radio waves), travel across the sky (airplanes, helicopters, hang gliders, etc), kill others at a distance (firearms, nuclear warheads), etc. We ARE possessors of the power of Gods, able to control the weather (cloud seeding), cure/heal disease, etc. Humans are just too afraid to admit their power, out of fear of being seen as blasphemous and arrogant (a trait the Bible makes the greatest sin).

Some humans demand animals do our will, whether they actually understand their role or not. Homo sapiens ARE in fact sometimes cruel Gods to other life-forms, breeding, raising, slaughtering, and consuming them for OUR survival: we ARE evil and cruel Gods to cattle and chickens, whether they're aware of it or not and whether we try to kill them "humanely" or not. They die, and we survive: ALL humans, including YOU, are the benefactors of "natural selection", whether you want to realize it or not.

Funny how THAT truth and reality is all around us, but most are so immersed in our personal narcissism due to being confined to our limited homo sapien perspective that so many will spend their entire lives looking up at the sky to Heaven, ever-diligent for an omnipotent and omniscient Greater God who will "save us"?

BTW, I'm not some animal rights activist who says we should stop eating animals (I LOVE a nice juicy steak too much to become a vegetarian on ethical grounds), just that people should recognize that we're in a good position as the dominant species on the Planet, and should have the courage to accept the moral responsibility and own up to what we do. People need to stop blaming it on a being that doesn't exist, no matter how hard it is to accept one's own responsibility for one's part they play in the system (the OT says that God made them kill the animals they often ate, in order to atone for their human sins; they rationalized it in Genesis 9:5-6, saying it was OK with YHWH to eat animals, just as long as they didn't eat their blood. That's alot of rationalization for killing and eating a non-dominant life form, in a World that operates on the cycle of life).

Adamah

14

After Armageddon...Then What?

by Cold Steel in

i've read the sarcastic short stories about it, but seriously, i'm stumped.. after armageddon, what then?

yeah, i know they'll bury our bodies or cart them off to be burned, but then the earth will become paradise and then what??

seriously, what do they (the leaders) do to remain relevant?.

adamah

Huh, I thought JWs believed they're going to be teaching the resurrected people who died before Armageddon, since they weren't given a 'fair opportunity' to follow Jehovah; hence their Bible studies with 'interested ones' in this 'wicked System of Things' is practice for the New System. So Armageddon is only Stage I, while Satan and his demons are restrained.

Then after 1,000 yrs, there'd be Stage II of Armageddon, where Satan and demons are released. Of course, Team Jehovah wins, and the New System would be ushered in. I thought that's what all of those paradise pictures were showing (the 24/7 panda petting, etc). Maybe they've changed the general prediction, but that's what I remember being told.

Even if you ACCEPT the fantasy, it seems more than a little bit flawed (not "perfect" justice), since someone who trusts their flawed logic and reasoning (using their God-given brain, which supposedly was made in the image of God's) who sees absolutely NO evidence of God's existence is going to be killed in Armageddon as a Godless atheist; worse, some JWs claim that physical evidence which actually SUPPORTS an atheist's rejection of the God claim would mean that YHWH is allowing Satan to plant "false flags" (dinosaur fossils, the science of molecular biology which coincidentally confirms evolution, etc) just to confuse people like me from making an informed decision. That's not a fair trial, and any Judge who allowed such tampering with evidence is not a fair judge, however you cut it.

But then someone who died BEFORE Armageddon is resurrected and they are given a second chance, but they get ABSOLUTE CONCRETE PROOF of God's existence by being resurrected? They get to witness miracles first-hand?

Problem is, if YHWH allows Satan to tamper with evidence BEFORE Armageddon, then what reason is there to think the trial is going to be any fairer AFTER Armageddon?

Someone clearly didn't think the theological implications though, but fortunately for them, it's not all about logic; it doesn't even have to make ANY sense.

Why do I say that?

Noah's Flood makes no sense, if you actually stop and think about it.

The Flood was SUPPOSED to have been "Armageddon, Take Uno", where supposedly only 8 people out of billions survived. God's "fix" to the problem of evil in the hearts of men" clearly didn't work, and was only a patch job since just a page later we're reading about "evil" Sodom and Gomorrah. Whoops....

JWs better hope YHWH has worked out the kinks that allowed evil to persist in the Deluge, since YHWH's track record at building 'evil containment systems' so far is 0/1 and reminds one of flawed human endeavors (eg Chernobyl). It can't be THAT much harder than building a radioactive waste containment system, right?

Adamah