My questions would be "Who are you? Which groups of humans (if any) got it right when making up a religion? Tell me about yourself and why you didn't reveal yourself to me."
That's not what Stephen Fry would do. He makes the assumption that he knows the mind of god and attacks the god for not being nice to humans. In other words, he accepts the problem of evil and assumes that the god he is facing gives a damn about some obscure species on a minor planet in one of billions of galaxies. Later on Stephen Fry concedes that he could be talking to the Greek gods or some other gods but by then it's too late.
The god he is addressing may or may not have done any of the things in the Bible. If he isn't that god then he will know that Stephen Fry is attacking a strawman. If he is the god of the Bible then presumably he/she/it had his/her/its reasons for doing apparently evil things and Stephen Fry is about to get educated about the real mind of god. That may turn out badly for Stephen Fry.
If you ever run into any real gods I'd advise you not to mess with them.
Many of my atheist friends think that Fry's response is fantastic because he really shocks the interviewer, Gay Byrne [Stephen Fry on God]. That's naive. Most intelligent Christians have developed some very good rationalizations concerning the problem of evil. They've heard it all before and they know how to respond. One of the classic responses is that cannot they know the mind of god. But Stephen Fry knows the mind of god and this is puzzling because Fry is an atheist.
235 comments :
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 235 of 235Do you consider Andy to be a true Christian ?
I don't know Andy and even if I did who am I to judge him or any other human being claiming to be Christian, agnostic or an atheist ? That is not our mission. We can expose non-biblical religious teachings but this is not the same thing as judging individuals. I'm very close with quite a few agnostics, atheists, confused about their sexuality. I don't judge them. Why should I?
Professor Gąsiorowski,
Thank you for valuable input. Can you state with certainty what the vowels were originally?
I can summarise the evidence for you, and tell you what the most likely reconstruction is, given the present state of our knowledge. "State with certainty" is not what science is about, especially if the evidence is limited.
Since the ancient Semitic writing systems were consonantal, at least the pronunciation of the consonantal skeleton can be regarded as established beyond reasonable doubt: Y as in "yard", H as in "hat" (not mute), W as in "wet", and finally H as in "hat" again.
”I can summarise the evidence for you, and tell you what the most likely reconstruction is, given the present state of our knowledge. "State with certainty" is not what science is about, especially if the evidence is limited.
So, as you have acknowledged yourself that the evidence is limited.
What are the other scientifically acceptable possibilities for the vowels that were pronounced by the Jews? I'm mean just because we don't know 100% today what those vowels were it doesn't mean they were never pronounced by them.
Y+ vowel H + vowel W +vowel H +vowel.
Interestingly, even religions that eliminated God’s name from their Bible translations have left some evidence how God’s name should be spelled and therefore pronounced:
Jehovah’s name in churches of Christendom
Jehovah's name in Canadian Churches:
The evidence is as follows: the likely etymology of the name (which suggests a particular vowel pattern in accordance with the morphological rules of Ancient Hebrew), textual record of the name (or of related West Semitic theonyms) in languages whose writing systems distinguish vowels (Assyrian, Greek), and its use in theophoric personal names (which became fixed and fossilised before the prohibition against pronouncing YHWH was imposed). When God's name occurred as the first member of a compound personal name, it became yô- or yəhô-; as a final member, -yāhû or -yāh. Given the normal phonological developments in Ancient Hebrew, they must go back to the compositional form *yahw. The cumulative weight of the evidence supports *yahweh as the correct reconstruction of the full name.
The late "taboo" vocalisations yĕhōwāh or yĕhōwih borrowed their vowels from Adonai (ˀadōnāy) or Elohim (ˀĕlōhim), depending on the context. Note that in yĕhōwāh the expected ă was replaced by the ĕ of Elohim in order to avoid an a vowel in the first syllable (which actually proves that the original value was a!).
Very interesting Piotr.
I also did some more reading on the subject, as you noted Jehovah is actually a combination of two of God's names i.e. "YHWH" which is believed to be derived from a verb meaning "to exist" and "Adonai" mening "masters", note the plural.
Also Elohim is a plural of El, meaning "strong one".
August 11, 1995
Milton G. Henschel, President
Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society
25 Columbia Heights
Brooklyn, New York
U.S.A. 11201
AN OPEN LETTER
Dear Mr. Henschel:
Yesterday I obtained a copy of the August 22 Awake! magazine with its articles on "The Holocaust: Who Spoke Out?". On reading the articles in that issue of Awake!, I was thoroughly shocked and disgusted.
The Watch Tower Society has long attempted a cover-up of the most dishonest sort. While your organization properly censures other religious communities for their compromises with and support of Nazism, it tries to claim that Jehovah's Witnesses, and Jehovah's Witnesses alone, never were guilty of such compromise. Yet history tells a different story. The "Erklärung" or "Declaration" published by the Watch Tower Society at the Berlin Convention of Jehovah's Witnesses in June 1933 is, in itself, clear evidence that the Society's president, Judge J. F. Rutherford, as accompanied by N. H. Knorr, manifested anti-Semitism, hostility to Great Britain and the United States, and to the League of Nations. Furthermore, the "Erklärung" clearly states that Jehovah's Witnesses supported the aims of the Third Reich.
In addition to the "Erklärung", there is the evidence of the Society's letter to Hitler sent on or immediately following June 25, 1933, and the public statements made about the Berlin convention by Konrad Franke in lectures throughout Germany some years ago. All of this I have made public in my book Apocalypse Delayed (1985)-which I know has been read at Watch Tower headquarters both from court documents and inside reports-and in the spring 1990 issue of The Christian Quest. So it is impossible for responsible members of your organization not to know the facts. Thus the August 22 Awake! is nothing short of an historical abomination.
I am aware of the feeble attempt of the 1974 Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses to exculpate Judge Rutherford and the Watch Tower Society in Brooklyn by claiming that the Society's German branch overseer, Paul Balzereit, "weakened" the "Erklärung". But the "Erklärung" or "Declaration" was published in both the German and English versions of the 1934 Year Book of Jehovah's Witnesses as an official statement of the Watch Tower Society. So it is impossible to believe that it was not sanctioned by Rutherford and the man who succeeded him as the Society's president, N. H. Knorr. Therefore, the leadership of Jehovah's Witnesses of that time attempted to commit what amounted to spiritual whoredom with the Third Reich in the fashion of the two sisters, Oholah and Oholibah of Ezekiel 23, according to the Society's own teachings.
...
Since I am well aware that the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses, of which you are a senior member, is carrying on what amounts to a "Big Lie" campaign (1) to make Jehovah's Witnesses appear to be God's faithful and discreet slave class on earth and (2) to discredit other religions, as a former Jehovah's Witness, a professional historian, and as a Christian who believes that God has no need of our lies, I feel forced to expose the facts to the general public. Hence, I am sending copies of this letter, plus the above listed documentation, to both religious and secular publications throughout the United States and Canada. I will, of course, also make them available to persons in other lands so that they may be made known wherever possible.
In closing, Mr. Henschel, I would beg the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses, who carry heavy responsibility before God and humankind, to come clean and admit the facts. Hypocrisy and falsifying the historical record are serious sins, as I am sure you are aware.
Sincerely yours,
M. James Penton, PhD
Professor Emeritus
Newbie will probably come along and say something like 'but but but SOME JW's were against Hitler!'
If you're thinking of trying something like that, Newbie, don't bother. Remember your words above: "...as a religious group Jehovah's Witnesses were the only ones who constantly resisted successfully the Nazis. (my bold)
And it's obvious that not all historians agree with that. Any who do agree are obviously uninformed or dishonest, unless you can prove that the letters and Declaration of Fact that Steve posted are fraudulent.
Believe it or not, some people are actually arguing about how sheep herders who lived 2400 years ago in some obscure part of the world pronounced the name of their imaginary god.
In an earlier comment I asked: "Newbie, do you believe that jehova's witnesses and all of the people that hitler waged war against were/are fellow "disciples" of jesus?"
(Newbie responded): "Of course not"
Newbie, then why did you quote that stuff from the bible about disciples? What the hell is your point?
I asked: "Do you believe that only jehova's witnesses (or christians in general) can "love" other people?"
Newbie responded: "I believe that Jehovah's Witnesses as a group have demonstrated that it is possible to love other than their religion members. One of the examples of that is our world wide preaching work in over 239 countries. Our literature is available in almost 700 languages and the website jw.org is going to be available in that many languages soon. We preach to everyone who wants to listen without prejudice."
What a load of evasive, irrelevant, self-serving gibberish. And this: "... it is possible to love other than their religion members." is one of the most arrogant and discriminatory statements that I have ever read. So, as a particular group of religious loons you have "demonstrated" that it's "possible" for you loons to love people other than the ones in your particular group of religious loons. How generous and 'loving' of you, NOT. And bothering people with your preaching isn't "love".
I asked: "Are you and Andy aware that there are about 38,000 christian sects"
Newbie responded: "I am. Does that mean that nobody knows that truth about Jehovah God? How many of those sects proclaim that Jehovah is God's name?"
Wow, talk about missing the point. And your obsession with the name "Jehova", as though the spelling of that word or anything else about it somehow proves anything about any connection between reality and your loony religious beliefs, is downright weird.
I asked: "Are you guys aware that hitler was a christian?"
Newbie responded: "Hitler claimed to be Catholic. I'm certain that his deeds do not qualify him as a Christian"
Aren't catholics christians? And didn't you say that you don't judge people? Yeah, take a look at your own words:
"...who am I to judge him or any other human being claiming to be Christian, agnostic or an atheist ? That is not our mission."
Of course you threw in this dishonest and arrogant BS in your lame attempt to make it look as though you're not judging anyone: "We can expose non-biblical religious teachings but this is not the same thing as judging individuals."
You also said; "I'm very close with quite a few agnostics, atheists, confused about their sexuality. I don't judge them. Why should I?"
I hope I'm not the only one who see a whole bunch of judging, bigotry, and dishonesty in those statements.
It's a gift that keeps on giving.
As far as I can tell the source documents are real.
Much of the material comes from fundie web site anxious to stick a knife into all those other false sects.
Imagine a web site run by Andy Wilberforce using cheesy html not seen since the dawn of the internet and you have the idea.
There must be some overarching principle at work here, any cult that atheists trot forth as one of the more reasonable and/or useful are the most likely to be hiding past and current heinous deeds.
Just look at the atheist poster child cult, the Amish, who it turns are are child abusers on a scale that would make the catholics green with envy, the only reason they have not been publicly outed so far is apparently a lack of resources in pursuing their program of child abuse.
Of course the JWs don't even try to hide their child abuse, both with the callous murder of their children vis-a-vis blood transfusions and as Diogenes pointed out, using their children as shock troops over the Pledge of Allegiance controversy.
The early history of the JWs is interesting, apparently the were sympathetic to the Jews, but much like Martin Luther who was initially sympathetic to the Jews as well, both became virulently anti-semitic after the glow wore off.
In the case of Luther it was after attempts to convert them to xtianity failed, I suspect with the JWs it was sheer expediency in an attempt to aligh themselves with the increasingly powerful Nazis.
I agree. I have always disliked use of the word evil - it reeks of underlying religious conviction (which is often not present). There might be bad things, very very bad things, but there is no evil.
Newbie, I'm sure that you've noticed my username. Now watch this:
I judge people. I try hard not to negatively judge people for things that they can't help, such as being black or white, or gay or straight, but I do negatively judge people for harmful behavior that they know (or should know) is harmful to others. Dishonesty, for example, is harmful to others.
Everyone 'judges' other people, in various ways. Some people just won't admit it.
Steve, So that I can be sure to understand, I have a question. Did you mean to say theists, not "atheists", in this part of your comment:
"There must be some overarching principle at work here, any cult that atheists trot forth as one of the more reasonable and/or useful are the most likely to be hiding past and current heinous deeds."
Thanks for your honest replies.
I've had taken some medical drugs and my experiences were nothing like that. It was crystal clear and my thinking was as rational as ever. And I wasn't taking any drugs at the time anyway.
Of course I shouldn't be believed on my own say so. Even Christians don't do that among themselves. When the Vatican declares someone a saint they have to have performed three miracles. There is rigorous scientific scrutiny to ensure there is no other possible explanation.
Jesus also tells us to test people who claim special gifts. They are not to be taken on face value. He said that you judge a tree by the fruit that it bares. Brilliant. IOW, if a person claims to help but doesn't then you know it is not a gift from God. And I would have to add that an extraordinary claim would require extraordinary proof. I was given a small, but profound insight by God. In every thing I've seen in the ten years since I have been more convinced in the truth of my revelation. My revelation was that God had judged the White race and that he was wiping it off the face of the earth. Look at Europe were state leaders are immigrating Muslims to make up for their declining population, all of them. Muslims have inferior technology yet America can not counter their threat, which is in fact growing. Look at the actions of President Obama. He can't say Muslim terrorist. He is closing the Guantanamo prison. And so on. There is most like nothing that will be done to stop the extinction of the most powerful people that have ever lived. I'd say that this information is very supportive of my revelation.
Regarding revelations from other faiths, I believe that if God is intelligent enough to create a universe I would be surprised if different people did not understand him in different ways. I don't discount a revelation from a Hindu. I would have to investigate it first, and it may be value.
There is on solution for the White race that could prevent it from going extinct. It would have to become Christine states. The chances of that happening are next to none. So I have no hope for the future of the White race.
Here's something to think about. How could an advanced state such as ours not be concerned that our families do not replace themselves. Why do we care about whales going extinct and think we are racists if we talk about ourselves going extinct. And while we are going extinct the life expectancy is going up and we are all living longer and more material secure lives. It is an amazing social mechanism if you really think about it.
And did you meant to say theist instead of "atheist" in this part:
"Just look at the atheist poster child cult, the Amish..."
Yes the syntax is a bit tortured, isn't it ?
What I was attempting to convey is that atheists will use certain religions such as the Amish, Quakers, Jains as examples of more reasonable, harmless and/or useful religions.
I maintain that there is no such thing as a useful or harmless religion, and not to single out the poor persecuted religious the same holds true for any ideology based on authority, revelation and dogma.
Steve, thanks for your explanation.
I've said it before, but after all these rants of JW bashing I feel I should say it again: all the JWs I've met have been good decent people.
I think it's a pity that they are being deceived by their leaders though.
Peter, your weird, moderately racist rant is not enhancing your credibility. Quite the contrary. If there were such a person as God, I imagine he would understand population genetics a bit better than to tell you about "the White race".
Hey Andy,
Some of my best friends are JWs ...
Satan has a goatee.
but so does hipster Jesus. If there is anything sophisticated theology can tell us, its that god changes with the times, according to need.
You have to understand that Satan is just God from the mirror universe.
Good for you Steve, good for you...and the rest are catholic clergy?
I've mostly just met JWs socially, not very close. I don't know if they actually have a blacklist of people, but they stopped to come knocking on my door in the late eighties.
steve oberski,
"Hey Andy,
Some of my best friends are JWs ..."
I hope that your best friends from among JWs know or soon will find out what snake and two faced AH you are spewing lies and half truths about their religion in public. I can tolerate pretty much anything but false friends; wolves in sheep clothing.
Hey Johnny,
It was actually a tongue-in-cheek reference to the book "Some of My Best Friends Are Jews", by Robert Gessner.
steve I guess newbie unlike me figured it out and that's why he pissed
on you and your lying
At least it's a scientific question ;)
At least he had a name among so many LORDS today ;-)
It's important. You could be stoned for pronouncing it correctly.
But, how do we define “bad”?
Many embrace high levels of pain/suffering over long periods of time if it seems to have a payoff - e.g. winning the Super Bowl. Deny the ring bearers their pain and we take away their lifetimes of joy remembering their epic battle and their years of toil leading up to it. Deny an avid mountineer putting their life at great risk and we take away a lifetime memory of a few moments on top of the highest mountain.
I wonder if those dead set on eliminating pain/suffering in their imagined actually "good" world actually have a better alternative. Perhaps they are imagining worlds where pain is indeed a reality, but where unwelcome pain from say terminal cancer, that doesn’t seem to have a payoff, is not present. But, would even that be a better world?
For example, if one were to have the quality of empathy as a goal, Jeremy Rifkin's "The Empathic Civilization" shows how the experiences of unwelcome suffering and death would be essential ingredients. He believes that a characteristic like empathy in a world without unwelcome suffering and death... such as in a “heaven” is impossible. Can we presuppose that a world without suffering and death would be a better world?
There is some fun playing he/she/it, like a kid playing fireman or such, but exactly what mechanisms would we deploy to create a world where good and evil actually existed? I have to wonder if the devil is in the details (allegorically speaking).
I live in one of the most expensive real estate regions. The grandest house nearby is set on a large beautiful acreage. It belongs to that of a sheep herder. How do they do it! What do they know that we don't?
The last time I visited the fertile crescent it seemed pretty interesting. It seemed to be attracting a lot of other tourists. I'm not sure I would characterize it as obscure; exotic maybe. My kids tell me the Mediterranean region diet is the healthiest in the world.
I imagine Jews would be justifiably passionate about the fine details of what their sheep herding ancestors were up to. A few years ago a Jew made a case, regarding the god’s name, that there is nothing to argue about, but for reasons we may not have considered.
He argued that the name used three consonants of the Hebrew alphabet that were originally reused as vowels (similar to our reuse of Y as a vowel to this day). Since vowels were a fiendishly difficult linguistic development, and were regarded as world changing, a name using them would not only be unpronounceable (forbidden anyway) but convey its world changing nature. Damn those clever shepherds.
Or maybe it's just the fact that a) all of the things Christians are "quite knowledgeable" on are well documented in scripture and reaffiremed by Jesus, whereas motivations for things that people find abhorrent are not. Also a good Christian theology would point out that all of the shit that Fry is complaining about are the result of *sin*, which is something that mankind introduced into the world via their free will.
Post a Comment