PaulS

13 hours ago, theMadJW said:

Well- I DO.

But since you don't believe in the Bible, points moot!

What is this 'in' concerning the Bible that you think I don't have belief of?

13 hours ago, theMadJW said:

Rather puts an end to your argument.

You put your FAITH in science- which is funded by corporations, and has a LOT of theory masquerading as 'Fact'.

Which corporations are you referring to that fund 'science'? Are you suggesting that any funding of science is part of a giant conspiracy or something when it comes to misleading people?  I know Christian and Churches who fund science and research - are you grouping them in there too?  What 'theories' can you demonstrate are 'masquerading' as fact?

58 minutes ago, theMadJW said:

You put your faith in Science, I put my faith elsewhere!

Of course that is your prerogative, but I don't see it as so flippant.

Faith or belief gives much comfort to many, but that doesn't necessarily make it accurate.  Whereas science is not 'faith' at all, but rather it is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.  Scientific practices such as observation and experiment; the development of falsifiable hypotheses; the relentless questioning of established views—have proven uniquely powerful in revealing the surprising, underlying structure of the world we live in, including subatomic particles, the role of germs in the spread of disease, and the neural basis of mental life.  And of course, evolution.

As I said before, it is an incontrovertible fact that humans have evolved during the history of life on Earth.  The only people that refuse to acknowledge this are religious people who, I would argue, are putting faith before evidence.  They are following religious dogma, not evidence based on facts.  I used to do this when I was a practicing fundamental Christian - it was comforting 'knowing' that my beliefs were right.  Acknowledging the science of evolution can be the most threatening thing to a Christian's faith - if there was no original sin, no Adam & Eve story, then what do we make of Jesus & atonement!  They are good questions and perhaps a good place for Progressive Christianity to start.   

The people who wrote things that made it to today's bible, were just trying to understand the earth.  Creation stories made sense because they didn't have the science available to them to better understand things.  That's why they used to think the earth was flat, that the sun revolved around the earth, that rain came down through shutters in the sky, that God made man out of mud.  Science and modernity has helped us better understand the origins of our, and other, species.  To ignore this is choosing to put belief before evidence, but I know how hard it is to 'choose' to question one's faith.  

11 hours ago, theMadJW said:

Thanks, Paul! I'm finding this site very appealing!

That's great.  I hope you enjoy participating here.

11 hours ago, theMadJW said:

I'm not your typical JW.

I did (am am doing) a LOT of research on the Bible.

There have been attempts to change it (discovered by comparing manuscripts thru the different ages), and no one KNOWS who wrote many books.

Yet, the Bible is sound- both historically and scientifically (except when comparing it to THEORIES),

Therefore, if people believe it (as I do) they should LISTEN to (especially) Jesus. 

Churchianity REFUSES to! 

I am sure you are convinced that people should believe the bible as you do - most Christians are.  But noticeably of course, many Christians disagree on what that 'belief' entails.  It seems 'Churchianity' to you is just that other Christians don't believe the same as you - You're right and they're wrong.  That's a pretty common position amongst Christians from what I can see.

There is a lot of information throughout our archives and previous threads here about biblical research and what biblical scholarship can show us.  I hope you enjoy your research. I personally find, still to this day, it amazing about how much I 'knew' to be true about Jesus/God/Christianity is actually up for debate.  My only recommendation for you would be to relax your certainty when researching.  If you are open to understanding biblical scholarship, you may find out many different things that you are presently convinced you know.

Whatever the case, enjoy the ride.

10 hours ago, theMadJW said:

IF you believe the Bible it is so!

Yeah, nah.  Believing 'the' bible is like 'believing' a recipe book.  It is a conglomeration of a number of writings that somebody (or a group of somebodies) decided at some point would comprise of the single volume we now call the Holy Bible.  There were lots of different writings and ideas that didn't make the grade for one reason or another.  Even the OT references writings that we can't read today because they no longer exist, but they were important to believers at that time.  There is no shortage of people to tell me how I 'should' believe the bible, funnily enough, how they all believe the bible is different between themselves.  Yet no doubt they are all convinced that they have the correct understanding.

10 hours ago, theMadJW said:

Interpretation- what it SAYS or religious dogma.

What do you think of when you here the word "hell"?

My experience is everybody, JW's included, will have a belief that the way 'they' read the text is correct.  Clearly there are wide and diverse opinions and beliefs about what texts actually mean (and I'm not even touching here on whether the writings are accurate copies of what was actually said or even in fact if words were said, if the speaker's own 2000 year old understanding is actually correct).  Discussing different views can be interesting, but I don't think anybody's view is ever formed without some sort of conditioning or influence from other factors.  So you might call it 'dogma' whereas I would call it 'influence'.

When I think of the word 'hell' I think of all the different understandings and interpretations that people will tell you Hell means.  I also think that Hell as mentioned in the NT is never mentioned in the OT.  I also recognize how Hell as it is sometimes thought of in the NT was never a thought bubble inn ancient Israel's mind until a hundred or so years before Jesus existed and was only introduced as a Greek influence.  So yeah, when it comes to hearing the word 'hell', I think a lot of different things.

10 hours ago, theMadJW said:

Evolution, as far a one thing changing into a different lifeform) is still a THEORY- they can't begin to tell how life STARTED, scientist have been trying to do it for a century or so- but they started calling it "Biogenesis"! 

Jehovah did ZAP the first man into creation, anymore that He did the entire universe!

 

Whilst in context evolution is both a fact and theory, it is an incontrovertible fact that humans have evolved during the history of life on Earth. And biologists have identified and investigated mechanisms that can explain the major patterns of change.  So in this regard it is not 'just' a theory.  That we haven't yet ascertained all of the precise details as to how life started doesn't discount what we have ascertained about evolution.

21 hours ago, theMadJW said:

EVERY online 'Christian' forum has me banned after QUOTING JESUS!

You won't get banned here for quoting Jesus.  But quoting Jesus is not that hard to do - anyone who has a bible can quote what Jesus is alleged to have said.  Whether the sources are accurate or not, and how they are interpreted, is another matter entirely.

17 hours ago, theMadJW said:

Well, it charts the very BEGINNING of man's dilemma, and the CREATION of man- it's a fitting place to start!

MadJW - does this mean you don't accept the science of evolution, or are you interpreting man's "creation" as something 'supernatural', e.g. God just zapped fully-made man into existence?  I read Genesis more as myth and storytelling, from a people who couldn't possibly know better but who were trying to understand the world and their experience in it.

On 11/30/2021 at 6:19 AM, theMadJW said:

If you take a look at the words, it is obvious that a person who actually BELIEVES Christ Jesus (not Church Dogma), and follows it IS  a Christian!

The vast majority aren't seen by Jesus words "Few find the road to life!"

I would argue that is a point of debate and depends on individual opinions.  Progressive Christians would probably argue they believe some things about Jesus but not others, and I have seen there are Christians who say progressive Christians can't be Christians, just like I know some Christians think JWs aren't Christian or at the very least, are out of step with true Christianity.  So I think it is only 'obvious' to somebody who claims 'they' know.

On 11/30/2021 at 6:15 AM, theMadJW said:

It's quite simple: Christ said that his God had taught him what to say- so the TRUTH is the words of the Almighty Himself!

Of course, Jesus could be mistaken.  He may have fervently believed that even, but whether it is true or not is another matter.

On 11/30/2021 at 6:04 AM, theMadJW said:

Scriptures or Church Dogma instead?

The issue I (and many Progressive Christians) have with 'scripture', is that we now know that a lot of it has been written by people falsely claiming to be somebody they weren't, that scribes have altered texts throughout the ages, and that many texts are open to all sorts of interpretation.  There are huge question marks concerning a lot of  scripture and even whether Jesus or others actually did do things aor say things represented in scripture.

That's not saying nothing can be gained or enjoyed by reading scripture, just that to me the choice isn't as stark as 'scripture or dogma'. I think in any religion, even Jehovah Witnesses, dogma plays a part in how those groups form their beliefs and understanding.

On 11/30/2021 at 6:01 AM, theMadJW said:

Most forums BAN us JWs!

What's there to FEAR! Scripture?

We're pretty accommodating and accepting here MadJW, and as long as people post in accordance with the Guidelines (https://tcpc.ipbhost.com/guidelines/) they accepted when they became a site member , there should be no issue.

I don't think too many here are in fear of scripture, but you may find many different interpretations and understandings of what scriptures means to who, including understanding history and what can and can't be substantiated, rather than simply held as a belief.  As long as you respect that, again, there should be no issue.

I hope you enjoy participating here.

Cheers

Paul

15 hours ago, tariki said:

Now, following what could be called The Invasion of the Body Snatchers" (😄) I shall depart. 

Thanks for participating here, Tariki, and you're welcome back anytime of course. 

Look after yourself.

Cheers

Paul

3 hours ago, Nolose said:

Correct, and too often religious beliefs look at other beliefs as crazy. Thats the problem, the attitude that "you're crazy, I'm not" is crazy.

I grew up in a fundamental Christian Church and thought nothing of it.  I thought all Christians were the same (more or less, Catholics didn't quite make the grade ) and I thought that non-believers understood Christianity but deliberately chose not to follow it.  Funnily enough, it wasn't until after I left Christianity that I came to learn that most non-Christians thought Christian's were crazy! 

17 hours ago, John Hunt said:

Personally, I think of myself as a Christian in so far as I attempt to follow the two great commandments, Matthew 22 etc -

Personally, I think Jesus probably was thinking of the God of Israel and his message was primarily directed at Jews telling them to get right with their (and THE) God.  I mean, after all, it was the culture and religious experience he grew up in, so I wouldn't be surprised if he was 'disapproving' so to speak of worshipping other Gods.  But I think you're right in that he didn't really care about that bit as much as he did about loving your neighbour as yourself which was demonstration of commitment to 'God' in that you were celebrating and respecting God's creation - your fellow man.

I don't think Jesus was God, or God's son, anymore than any one of us could take that title.  I do think though that Jesus had a unique way of looking at relationship with God and he had some groundbreaking ideas for Israel at that time about how relationship with God and others should really look.  I'm not quite as convinced he shared those feelings for non-Jews, but I don't need to know that to see for myself that loving our neighbours as ourselves is a pretty good rule to live by.

On 11/21/2021 at 12:39 AM, tariki said:

 In the "eastern" ways and paths it all involves "emptiness", "beginner's mind" and suchlike, often dismissed as pure nihilism in some quarters. 

Well there you go - maybe I'm becoming a Buddhist without knowing!

On 11/17/2021 at 6:09 PM, tariki said:

But I was interested in the whole idea of "meaninglessness"

I think I'm starting to understand meaningless as not something that should be portrayed as negative and forlorn, as in because there isn't somebody/something behind the scenes either observing or participating in our lives that subsequently there is no point, but rather precisely because our lives are meaningless, we actually have all the power in the universe to give our lives meaning.

9 hours ago, tariki said:

It really is a letting go. Which opens up the next unfolding moment without preconditions, allowing it to be what it will be.

Well Amida-driven or not, I agree that the above is a very useful way to frame one's life.

On 11/15/2021 at 4:39 PM, tariki said:

Hi Paul, as I said before, seeking to explain how I see things, the "spirit of all truth" is not in the possession of any creed, but is simply part of the very fabric of Reality. As we are all unique, unrepeatable, human beings, whatever guidance we receive is unique to us. 

Thankyou for sharing and explaining, Tariki.  I can see how such an understanding of Spirit would sit outside and alongside any Christian understanding of Spirit.  From what I take as Jimmy B's particular Christian take on the Holy Spirit.....I hope he may participate in further discussion.

10 hours ago, Nolose said:

Is it possible for all of us here to agree on the definition of these three terms?

I have no issue.  I think things can mean different things to different people but I do agree that for people to try and discuss a particular idea, we need to agree how to discuss that idea.

In this thread, I started talking about early Christian beliefs and variations,  when Jimmy B responded that we should rely on the 'Holy Spirit' to be our guide.  So in this sense I was asking Jimmy B if that so labelled 'Holy Spirit' could be properly understood with credibility issues facing the various Gospel authors (and Paul) and also the notion that somehow the Spirit can guide 'correctly' when on the face of it, it seems to have trouble just getting Christian interpretation of the bible on the same page, let alone dealing with what individuals feel is 'guidance' from said Spirit.  Maybe Jimmy B will participate in the discussion in due course.

I think I understand Tariki's understanding of 'spirit' as being in the sense of a Reality that is healing.  I'm not sure I agree myself (in that the sense that I don't know we are 'healing' per se - maybe we are) and I prefer (presently at least) a term contributor Rom has used here before about the universe 'unfolding' - that is the universe is progressing as it will, for better or for worse, but not in the dualistic sense but just a common term for it being what it will be.

5 hours ago, JimmyB said:

By the Spirit I mean the Holy Spirit, which Jesus promised us would be our guide.  "But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. For he will not speak on his own authority, but will speak whatever he hears, and will tell you what is to come."  John 16:13

Again, this begs the question that if there is a single Holy Spirit that will guide all Christians into truth, why do so many Christian denominations have such distinctly different interpretations on the Bible?  Ranging from Catholics to Baptists to Mormons to Jehovah Witnesses to Pentecostals - the list goes on - there are something like 45,000 different denominations within Christianity.  Why wouldn't the Holy Spirit guide them all into the same 'truth'?

6 hours ago, JimmyB said:

It is important to understand that are we not only historically removed from the last "books" of the Bible, but that we are also removed from the culture that the people lived in when the "books" were written.  Personally, I don't bother with the historical aspect of Christianity but make an effort to understand what the Spirit is trying to show me about living a life worthy of Christ, even if I am thousands of years removed.

As is clear from Paul's epistles, there were problems with what doctrines the early Christinas believed, and we are very far removed from them culturally and linguistically.  So we must rely on the Holy Spirit to be our guide.  As we should.

Interestingly enough, the people who wrote about the 'Holy Spirit' doing these things also believed the world was going to end in their lifetimes.  Do you think that affects their credibility when it comes to things they also say about the Holy Spirit?  If they were wrong about the coming of God's Kingdom in their lifetimes, could their references to the 'Holy Spirit' just be cultural belief and not reality also?

And Bart Erhman makes some interesting points about the Holy Spirit 'guiding' Christians:

a) "if it’s true that the Holy Spirit is the one who provides the correct interpretation of Scripture, then why is it that so many people who claim to have the Holy Spirit cannot agree on what the Bible means?"  I mean simply look at the extensive number of Christian denominations with distinctively varied interpretations of scripture - undoubtedly all believing the HS has provided them with the correct guidance.

b) If I “need” the Holy Spirit to interpret passages of the bible (and I'm an atheist), why have I interpreted them in the same way that people who allegedly have the Holy Spirit have interpreted them?

So then if the Holy Spirit is unreliable concerning scriptural interpretation, is such not even more unreliable when we talk about it 'guiding' us in general?  Who is really doing the guiding - the HS or our own minds?

Hi members, site users, visitors and even those who prefer to peruse but keep to themselves :),

This site is a not-for-profit, privately-funded Forum, which I have committed to maintaining availability for the many people who use the resources here.  I personally, literally, found the forum as a lifesaver years ago and since then I have seen many people benefit from having access to a site and Forum like this, both in current threads and the plethora of information and topics discussed found within our archives.  I am yet to find a similar site/forum available on the internet.  To that end I really hope to keep the site up and running as long as I can.

This site will always remain freely available to anybody who wants to use it or participate here.  But as you can expect there is a cost in funding such a site (I'm just talking about fees here to the hosting company).  In 2021 almost 1/3 of the hosting costs were covered by donations.  Thanks to those who donated - you know who you are.

2022 is on its way and I am again recommitted to funding the site for another year.  I have had a generous unsolicited donation of $95 USD to contribute to 2022.  If you feel this forum is of any value to you and you would like to contribute, please consider a contribution via paypal to 1paulsmedley@gmail.com

Again, please do not feel obliged in any way, shape or form to contribute, but if you would like to, all the better!

Thanks people

Peace and goodwill

Paul