The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Is anyone else on here "Protestant," as would be defined by standard Protestants.

Originally Posted by cascade9 Nice evasion, but my point still stands- either the evidence that pionts towards evolution (eg fossil records and geological records) is a lie, or 'god' has been interacting with the world and 'creating' creatures over a long timespan.

This will be dealt with when I finish reading Dawkins's "Evidence of Evolution". Contrary to my expectation it is much fun, and he's honest and outspoken about stuff, which is good.
But that I'll handle a bit later, just let me finish. "Blind Watchmaker" and "Selfish Gene" were of no use to me as they explain what I already know from school.

NOTE: The Dawkins' "Gene" is of course "Selfish" and not "Egoistic", thanks reed9 for correction. Just in Russian we only have the word literally pronounced as "egoistic" and no other one like "selfish", and my Dawkins was in Russian. And I was so absorbed in stuff that relaxed my guard regarding Russian-English differences, that used a wrong word.

Jerusalem in 70 C.E. was not totally destroyed (even Titus Flavius Josephus didnt claim that). The temple was, and most of the city, but not all. Unless you want to put the writing of the books that the genealogies appear in at some point after 70 C.E. (which would make them lies, at least as far as the author goes) the only reason to bring up the seige of Jerusalem is the Mashiach.

BTW, the books where Jesus' genealogy appears were written before 70 CE. Those genealogies, however, could easily be verified and, no doubt, WERE verified when Jesus was alive, so to prove wrong at least his being "son of David". No such accusation, however, are known to have been made. And genealogies, it appears, weren't big secret then.
Luke, besides, is very accurate and precise in other historical details, both in his gospel and the book of Acts. This tells something about his personality, too.
Another important factor: whatever reasons he had to give Jesus a different genealogy (why, he could just copy from Matthew at NO RISK!!!), it appears he had some, and that without any risk of being turned down by many who knew about the stuff MUCH more than we can suggest today. It appears, if the situation was just as bad as they tell it now, it would be better for him to copy from Matthew.

The genalogies in the bible are suspect. Maybe not for at least some christians, but for the Jews they are.

Funny. Because the translated texts of the Bible are translated from Hebrew originals kept by Jewish copyists. Besides, some translations were made in ancient times. Some later. Some later yet and into different languages. Comparison between all these helps to see what changes there are and when they appeared. No other historical book allows for such careful analysis.
For the Jews everything is now "suspect" in the Bible, except the Pentatech. I can guess why.

You've using the Talmud to say that Jews dont read the Torah? Laughable. As for time frame, you are aware that exactly the same charge can be leveld at 'christians'?

Holy Scriptures acknowledged by Jewish tradition are not at all limited to Torah. VERY important part make the prophets and psalms.
And YES, lots of them who call themselves Christians don't read the Bible at all, but value very much the books of the "fathers of the church". Russian Orthodox, for example. Just as many Muslims don't read Qur'an for various "good" reasons.

Originally Posted by reed9 Out of curiosity, how do you reconcile the many failed predictions that JW's have made throughout the years? What is the rational you folks make up to avoid being wrong?

We're not afraid of being occasionally wrong, nor of admitting to our mistakes.
BTW the apostles originally thought Jesus would establish Jewish rule over the earth right away, yet he didn't. They were ready to change. There were many other things in which their understanding had to be changed,too.

Jesus promised to come "when we least expect"(Mth 24:44); JW in the past somehow underestimated the impact of those words and made efforts to predict (Acts 1:7,8). Yet those guys understood MANY other things right and had good results from their preaching work. In time, as corrections were made, the results grew proportionally and the understanding today is very precise. But still, the understanding of what is yet to come is being refined from year to year.

The important point we make is: "It is not the Bible which is wrong, it is our imperfect understanding of some details." On main principles the Bible is pretty clear, and in this points there are no changes.

...And BTW most important predictions DID come true, it was the understanding of the events which was to be clarified and clarified it was in time. 1914 as a turning point was calculated 30 years before it happened, but understanding took time.
End of WWII and formation of UN was predicted in 1943 basing on the understanding of the Revelation book prophecies.

Originally Posted by SL00b JWs are forced to either attempt to convert their own family members, or stop associating with them.

Not at all, but we rather follow 1 Corinthians 7:12-15. Family members must make their own free choice, but whatever it be they still remain family members, close relatives, part of the family. In fact, JW have the strongest families with the lowest % of divorces.
Here in Russia the gov is trying to press us hard, so they call experts to prove how "dangerous" we are. The fact about families was stated by one such expertise, which was then used in Euro Court in favour of us.

And I really appreciate your rather fair approach to our teachings and position: the stuff about cross is much ridiculed and criticised by people who don't even bother to make a research.

Originally Posted by kostya BTW, the books where Jesus' genealogy appears were written before 70 CE.

Categorically and inarguably false.

Matthew: http://www.usccb.org/bible/scripture.cfm?bk=Matthew&ch=

"In addition to what Matthew drew from Mark and Q, his gospel contains material that is found only there. This is often designated “M,” written or oral tradition that was available to the author. Since Mark was written shortly before or shortly after A.D. 70 (see Introduction to Mark), Matthew was composed certainly after that date, which marks the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans at the time of the First Jewish Revolt (A.D. 66–70), and probably at least a decade later since Matthew’s use of Mark presupposes a wide diffusion of that gospel. The post-A.D. 70 date is confirmed within the text by Mt 22:7, which refers to the destruction of Jerusalem."

Luke: http://www.usccb.org/bible/scripture.cfm?bk=Luke&ch=

"Because of its dependence on the Gospel of Mark and because details in Luke’s Gospel (Lk 13:35a; 19:43–44; 21:20; 23:28–31) imply that the author was acquainted with the destruction of the city of Jerusalem by the Romans in A.D. 70, the Gospel of Luke is dated by most scholars after that date; many propose A.D. 80–90 as the time of composition."

Originally Posted by kostya Those genealogies, however, could easily be verified and, no doubt, WERE verified when Jesus was alive, so to prove wrong at least his being "son of David". No such accusation, however, are known to have been made. And genealogies, it appears, weren't big secret then.

You have absolutely no evidence to support any of this. And the strongest argument against? The Babylonian Captivity. Are you going to try to argue that slaves kept solid geneological records?

Originally Posted by kostya Luke, besides, is very accurate and precise in other historical details, both in his gospel and the book of Acts.

He is? About what?

Originally Posted by kostya Another important factor: whatever reasons he had to give Jesus a different genealogy (why, he could just copy from Matthew at NO RISK!!!), it appears he had some, and that without any risk of being turned down by many who knew about the stuff MUCH more than we can suggest today. It appears, if the situation was just as bad as they tell it now, it would be better for him to copy from Matthew.

Unless, of course, he wasn't aware of Matthew. Which, given the content, is more than likely. In fact, notice how Matthew isn't included in the sources, back in that same link I gave you earlier regarding Luke:

"Among the likely sources for the composition of this gospel were the Gospel of Mark, a written collection of sayings of Jesus known also to the author of the Gospel of Matthew (Q; see Introduction to Matthew), and other special traditions that were used by Luke alone among the gospel writers. "

Originally Posted by kostya Funny. Because the translated texts of the Bible are translated from Hebrew originals kept by Jewish copyists. Besides, some translations were made in ancient times. Some later. Some later yet and into different languages. Comparison between all these helps to see what changes there are and when they appeared. No other historical book allows for such careful analysis.

Hebrew originals? Depending on what books you're talking about, absolutely, categorically, unequivocably false. Nothing in the New Testament ever existed in its original form in Hebrew. The original languages there were primarily Aramaic and Greek.

Originally Posted by kostya For the Jews everything is now "suspect" in the Bible, except the Pentatech. I can guess why.

The Old Testament was written mostly in Hebrew, yet that's the part you're suspect of. That's quite a contradiction you've made for yourself.

What we've established here, basically, is that you know even less about your own Bible than you do about evolution.

Originally Posted by kostya Not at all, but we rather follow 1 Corinthians 7:12-15. Family members must make their own free choice, but whatever it be they still remain family members, close relatives, part of the family. In fact, JW have the strongest families with the lowest % of divorces.

Wrong again. Divorce rates: http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/divorce.php

And yes, family members are still family members, yet JWs avoid socializing with their non-JW family members, and when they do, they preach. This is a doctrinal behavior, and I've seen it in my wife's family, so this isn't up for debate.

Originally Posted by kostya Jesus promised to come "when we least expect"(Mth 24:44); JW in the past somehow underestimated the impact of those words and made efforts to predict (Acts 1:7,8). Yet those guys understood MANY other things right and had good results from their preaching work. In time, as corrections were made, the results grew proportionally and the understanding today is very precise. But still, the understanding of what is yet to come is being refined from year to year.

Jesus promised, several times, and in no uncertain terms, that he would return to Earth during the natural lives of his Apostles. That is the definition of a failed prophecy.

Originally Posted by kostya ...And BTW most important predictions DID come true, it was the understanding of the events which was to be clarified and clarified it was in time. 1914 as a turning point was calculated 30 years before it happened, but understanding took time.

Citation or it never happened.

Originally Posted by kostya End of WWII and formation of UN was predicted in 1943 basing on the understanding of the Revelation book prophecies.

So armageddon already happened? Whew! That's a relief.

Originally Posted by SL00b Wrong again. Divorce rates: http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/divorce.php And yes, family members are still family members, yet JWs avoid socializing with their non-JW family members, and when they do, they preach. This is a doctrinal behavior, and I've seen it in my wife's family, so this isn't up for debate.

I think quoting sources provided by the haters of JW is hardly a reliable source of information.
Then again, a family is not 1 person, but at least 2 and mutual relations are envolved. So don't "simplify" the issue by relying on the word of the interested party.
But the below gives a better idea of what's going on in many cases.

Here's something more reliable (ECHR court decision on JW in Russia):

Nevertheless, as long as self-dedication to religious matters is the product of the believer's independent and free decision and however unhappy his or her family members may be about that decision, the ensuing estrangement cannot be taken to mean that the religion caused the break-up in the family. Quite often, the opposite is true: it is the resistance and unwillingness of non-religious family members to accept and to respect their religious relative's freedom to manifest and practise his or her religion that is the source of conflict. It is true that friction often exists in marriages where the spouses belong to different religious denominations or one of the spouses is a non-believer. However, this situation is common to all mixed-belief marriages and Jehovah's Witnesses are no exception.

And here:

The District Court was able to identify only six instances of family conflicts in the families of seven witnesses [of accusation -k.], five of whom were members of the Salvation Committee, an interested party in the case. However, given that the Moscow community was some ten thousand members strong, their personal stories could not furnish a reasonable basis for the finding that the Witnesses teachings had been the cause of an increased number of conflicts in Witnesses families.

Originally Posted by kostya I think quoting sources provided by the haters of JW is hardly a reliable source of information.

What, The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life are JW haters? Unless you have reason to believe the various surveys and studies cited are wrong, there is no reason to dismiss them because it comes from a source you have decided hates JWs. (Hate seems rather strong a word. The author is a former JW, apparently, who seems more concerned than hateful.)

Without knowing anything about where or how the ECHR got their information, it's impossible to judge their reliability. Also, neither of your quotes indicates that divorces are less common with JW.

We, or at least I, am not trying to argue that JW is worse than other religions or that you shouldn't have the right to believe in it. Only that religion, JW or otherwise, is nonsense, and that believers inevitably engage in all manner of logical fallacies and failures of reason in their attempts to defend their beliefs. If believers would be content to say that their faith has no reasonable basis and their "truth" has no relation to any sort of objective truth about the universe, I wouldn't have these arguments.

Originally Posted by SL00b What we've established here, basically, is that you know even less about your own Bible than you do about evolution.

Not you established, but the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
And BTW, thank you so much for the link!
As reed9 said , WOW, just WOW. And that Catholic Bishops!
Yea, they go even this far:

The unknown author, whom we shall continue to call Matthew for the sake of convenience,

On a second thought, only logical.

...If you remember how they tortured and persecuted the readers of the Bible, how they didn't allow its translation into spoken languages;
if you remember how EASY it was for Luther to defeat them utterly in a dispute because none of them knew the Bible, and Luther happened to take interest in it...
If you recall how much evil they have done in the name of Jesus, so that many people even hate it because of what Cath. Church has done. Because, whether you believe in Jesus or not, you can't fail to see how "little" they resemble of Jesus' characteristics.
BTW, here are a couple of prophecies saying about it: Revelation 17:3,6; 2 Thessalonians 2:3,4.

You can see the Bible has long been in the way and now they're but very happy to present it as a questionable document of unknown origin.

AND THANK YOU FOR THE LINK! To think they would be that bold.

My source is a more wholesome spiritual food :

While the Gospel credited to Matthew does not name him as the writer, the overwhelming testimony of early church historians stamps him as such. Perhaps no ancient book has its writer more clearly and unanimously established than the book of Matthew. From as far back as Papias of Hierapolis (early second century*C.E.) onward, we have a line of early witnesses to the fact that Matthew wrote this Gospel and that it is an authentic part of the Word of God.

Originally Posted by reed9 The author is a former JW[/URL], apparently, who seems more concerned than hateful.

My point exactly.
As a former JW he knows exactly how the matter stands.

I've been a JW for 16 years now, watching it all carefully from the very beginning lest something should prove false. You know, I wasn't born a JW. So when I decided to join them I told myself:"whenever I see any of this lying or pretending or sectarian stuff, I leave immediately and nothing will stop me!".
Nope! It all rings true and JW don't lie about themselves, neither is there any "you never know what your bosses are doing up there in their headquarters spending your money" stuff. We know pretty much what everyone else is doing, so there's no way there were lots of divorces without everyone knowing it.

...And so, with an air of being "concerned" he/she would post lies as "facts". What if not hatred can cause such behaviour?

Whoa, over 3000 replies, maybe this should be Linux and Religious Questions... sure seems like a lot of interest for a 2/3 group of agnostics and atheists. Just saying

Originally Posted by kostya Not you established, but the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. And BTW, thank you so much for the link! As reed9 said , WOW, just WOW. And that Catholic Bishops! Yea, they go even this far:On a second thought, only logical.

Its hardly just the catholics that have taken that position-

Information on Gospel of Matthew It is the near-universal position of scholarship that the Gospel of Matthew is dependent upon the Gospel of Mark. This position is accepted whether one subscribes to the dominant Two-Source Hypothesis or instead prefers the Farrer-Goulder hypothesis. It is also the consensus position that the evangelist was not the apostle Matthew.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/matthew.html

Sorry I don't believe in religion. I believe in faith, including the faith I was raised on and much more; but not religion. Religion is nothing more than the commercialization of faith and it preys on mans weaknesses.

Ask yourself, would Jesus wear a Rolex on a television show?

Originally Posted by desertranger Sorry I don't believe in religion. I believe in faith, including the faith I was raised on and much more; but not religion. Religion is nothing more than the commercialization of faith and it preys on mans weaknesses. Ask yourself, would Jesus wear a Rolex on a television show?

In this day and age he probably would ...so long as he didn't have to pay for it The truth is if was real, he was probably out to abscond with anything possible from his flock of followers.The same as todays evangelists