Posts by Euphemism

13

Atheists For Jesus - Richard Dawkins

by mavie in

jw
friends

http://richarddawkins.net/article,20,atheists-for-jesus,richard-dawkins.

rather enjoyable, especially the picture of dawkins in the "atheists for jesus" t-shirt..

Euphemism

I don't think we disagree, Panda, but perhaps my point wasn't clear.

As I understand it, Dawkins' "selfish gene" refers to the fact that nothing ultimately matters for the fate of a gene other than reproduction; it either flourishes, or dies out. It has nothing to do with the idea of "selfishness" in human beings--i.e. a concern only for one's own interests, and disregard for those of others.

If you look at the link that started this whole thread, it's Dawkins himself saying that he admires the teachings of Jesus. Not Jesus' supernaturalism, but rather his calls for compassion and kindness. (Of course, as Narkissos pointed out, there are actually different literary Jesuses, and undoubtedly none of them match the historical Jesus, if there even was such a person.)

I agree with you that in this day and age, there is no need for morality to wrap itself in the cloak of religion. That is precisely my--and I believe, Dawkins'--point: contrary to some people's misconception of atheism, there is no conflict between being an atheist and promoting genuine (i.e. rational and compassionate, rather than arbitrary and divisive) morality.

147

Merry Becomes A Muslim (a bit long)

by Merry Magdalene in

who is merry?

i was born in 1965, the same year that malcolm x was assassinated.

my father had committed suicide a few months into my mother's pregnancy so we lived with her parents until she married again when i was about 18 months old.

Euphemism

First off, kudos for converting to Islam in a tiny town in Northern Idaho. You obviously aren't too concerned with what people think of you. Or maybe you enjoy being different.

Question, though... how can you really say that this is not driven by emotion, unlike your previous religious experiences? I have no doubt that you have found something positive and fulfilling within the Islamic tradition, and part of that seems to be the explicit disavowal of personal fulfillment. (Narkissos has written some great stuff in the past about the appeal of self-renunciation; mostly in a Christian/JW context, but it sounds similar to what you are doing now as well.)

OTOH, can you fully say that you accept Islam as an intellectual proposition? If you've read through the Quran several times, you realize that it contains not only the many positive quotes from the site that you linked to, but also many quotes that I suspect you disagree with (e.g. the infamous 'fight and slay the pagans wherever you may find them' (9:5); fornicators or adulterers should be flogged with a hundred stripes (24:2); condemnation of homosexuality; etc). The scholars of Sharia and Wahabbism can support their position from the Quran just as eloquently as the more liberal Muslims can.

Even slavery--you say that the Quran discouraged slavery, but still allowed it. That is understandable given its historical context. But if the book is so dependent on historical context, how can you say that it is "what everyone thinks God, in theory, should have given to mankind but didn't"? Shouldn't the book that God gives, if there is such a thing, be good for all times and places?

Anyway, I don't mean to be argumentative, but since you posted this thread, I assume you expected some discussion to ensue. I apprecate reading your experiences, and respectfully look forward to hearing your thoughts in reply.

13

Atheists For Jesus - Richard Dawkins

by mavie in

jw
friends

http://richarddawkins.net/article,20,atheists-for-jesus,richard-dawkins.

rather enjoyable, especially the picture of dawkins in the "atheists for jesus" t-shirt..

Euphemism

Good point, Narkissos. I think that if you wanted to promote the sort of philosophy Dawkins is talking about, 'Atheists for Buddha' would be more accurate. But of course, it wouldn't have quite the same impact.

I also agree with you that too much niceness is unnatural. There's a reason why society always has its saints. Even secular society: our 'saints' are the people who toil in refugee camps, in war zones, or among the homeless. And while we all admire and respect what they do, most of us wouldn't try to be that way ourselves, or raise our kids to be that way. Spending weekends or a college summer volunteering--that's normal. Spending years abroad to the detriment of our own health or well-being--that's not something most of us would want to do, or want our families to do.

Even in normal, daily life, excessive niceness can often be a cover for codependency--focusing on others' needs as a way of suppressing one's own inner need. 'Turn the other cheek' is not a recipe for a happy and satisfying life.

That said, Buddhism and the Sermon on the Mount do have fundamental insights about human nature, and the way that our evolved instincts interfere with our long-term happiness. Approaching the world with compassion and an understanding of other people's needs, putting aside vengeance and resentment, treating others as we would like to be treated--those are all practices that make a person happier and more peaceful, without necessarily becoming a doormat.

So essentially, I agree with Dawkins. Being atheists doesn't mean that we brush aside the great moral teachings of all time. It doesn't necessarily mean objectivism (i.e. viewing selfishness as a virtue), or believing that just because the world is a naturally cruel place, it must always remain that way. Promoting humanism and compassion is far more important than promoting a particular view of metaphysics or philosophy. So in that sense, I guess I'm another 'Atheist for Jesus'.

38

Legal wrangling concerning the Governing Body today from my mom.

by restrangled in

jw
friends

she stated that the attorney handling her estate, because of florida law could not take the "death requests form, from the society" because of the case concerning terry shiavo.

(the attorney handling my mom's case is not a witness and she was furious that she was asked to sign a document stating that if the governing body changed their minds on something this would apply to her.. what is strange is that an outside attorney would have a document like this.

is anyone aware of this?.

Euphemism

Just a guess... if the context is that she was leaving money to the Society in her will, then probably it was a clause saying that the Governing Body could redirect the contribution to a different legal entity (in case they decide to reshuffle corporations again).

36

The faithful and discreet slave

by Ryan1 in

i have been doing a bit of research into the witnesses.

i have been told the faithful and discreet slaves reside in brooklyn ny.

these men believe they are appointed by god to lead the jehovah's witnesses and run a publishing company.. what scriptures do they use to back up this claim?.

Euphemism

LOL, Lore! We're a very pensive bunch, apparently... or at least, a bit full of ourselves.

36

The faithful and discreet slave

by Ryan1 in

i have been doing a bit of research into the witnesses.

i have been told the faithful and discreet slaves reside in brooklyn ny.

these men believe they are appointed by god to lead the jehovah's witnesses and run a publishing company.. what scriptures do they use to back up this claim?.

Euphemism

LittleToe, read Honesty's quote above, from the 94 WT:

In 1919 that slave was identified as the remnant of anointed Christians. Since then, as represented by the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses, it has been the center of theocracy on earth.

The GB represent the Slave, but technically they are not supposed to be the same thing.

It's a ridiculous distinction, and one that most Witnesses can't actually keep straight, because the WT always mentions them in the same breath (as in the quote above). But the distinction is still 'on the books.'

That said, from a practical perspective (sorry for all the niggling, Ryan!), there's absolutely no difference. Questioning the GB = questioning the Slave = your ass is grass.

21

Scripted Comments Only at WT Study - ?

by compound complex in

jw
friends

dear friends,.

i learned yesterday that a local co stated in his talk that comments at the wt study are to be from the page and nothing beyond, per brooklyn.

i wasn't there - this may be merely anecdotal and i cannot verify it at present.

Euphemism

I could swear that one of the publications (Benefit book, maybe?) said that the first comment on a paragraph should stick to material in the paragraph, but the comments after that should expand to personal experience, illustration, scripture, application, etc. This CO was just talking out of his ass even more than usual.

As it is, it's hard enough to stretch the Watchtower study to an hour. It would be impossible if they actually did what that CO said.

34

Watchtower increases pace of accelerated change

by truthseeker in

it's not even april yet, and the watchtower society is revving up it's change at an alarming pace.. this year, the changes have all been big.. first, they announce that there will be two editions of the watchtower - a private edition for members only with only the study articles in and a public edition with no articles.

the 24 elders may be involved in communicating divine truths to the governing body.

the long held teaching that 1935 is the cutoff date for selection and gathering of the anointed has gone the way of the 1914 generation change in a convenient "questions from readers" article.. you cannot wear casual clothes after the convention, even if going out to eat.. .

Euphemism

Holy crap, no shorts?

So are the conventioners not allowed to go to the hotel pool now, then? Or are they supposed to dive in to the water in full dress regalia, with badges pinned on?

26

The Evolution Revolution (research paper for school)

by looseend in

i was wondering if anyone else read this article in newsweek?

i am doing a reasearch paper for school on evolution.

i was wondering if i could get some help.

Euphemism

looseend wrote:I was wondering if anyone else read this article in NEWSWEEK? I am doing a reasearch paper for school on evolution. I was wondering if i could get some help. What are some serious opposing views on the evolution theory? Also, what would keep anyone from believing in it? Last, How can the scientific evidence supporting it be viewed?

First off, why should we help you with your homework? j/k

I would argue that there aren't really serious opposing views on evolution; at least not within the legitimate scientific community. If you're looking for most plausible advocates of Intelligent Design, however, you'll want to look at Michael Behe and the Discovery Institute.

What would keep anyone from believing it? There was a study recently that found that most people are deeply ignorant about evolution, even people who believe in it. What that tells me is that for most people, choosing whether or not to believe in evolution has little to do with the actual science. It's more a matter of how evolution fits into their overall world view. People who are secular or who respect the scientific establishment simply accept it as a matter of course; people who are traditionally religious or who distrust the scientfic establishment reject it as a matter of course. In neither case do most people actually know and understand the evidence. (I don't have a link to the study on hand, but I'm sure you can find it with a little searching.)

And if you're looking for scientific evidence for evolution, my best suggestions would be:
Talk.Origins archive: http://www.talkorigins.org/
Understanding Evolution: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

36

The faithful and discreet slave

by Ryan1 in

i have been doing a bit of research into the witnesses.

i have been told the faithful and discreet slaves reside in brooklyn ny.

these men believe they are appointed by god to lead the jehovah's witnesses and run a publishing company.. what scriptures do they use to back up this claim?.

Euphemism

Ryan... first off, welcome to the site.

I'd suggest your read the Personal Experiences section. You'll find lots and lots of people who were excommunicated (aka disfellowshipped), or who resigned (disassociated) from the church rather than face excommunication, all because of questioning the authority of the Governing Body or 'Slave', The Witnesses call the offense 'apostasy'.

As others have mentioned, technically the two terms are different. Narkissos (another poster who was disfellowshipped for 'apostasy') explains it very well in this post: the Governing Body govern in the name of the Faithful and Discreet Slave, just as the President of a republic governs in the name of the people. The difference is that the Governing Body is not elected; it evolved out of the Board of Directors of the Watchtower Society (a non-profit publishing company), which was appointed by the President of the Society; and since then, they've appointed their own successors. The succession has not been openly contested since 1917.

On a more personal note, most of us--myself included--who are disfellowshipped or disassociated have little to do with our Witness families, by their choice. Again, read the Personal Experiences section; you will find a heart-breaking number of stories.