Malawi and MCP Cards?

[Many Miles]

39 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Wouldn’t this put the materialist atheists who are scientists in the realm of spiritual men? Not only do they want to examine all things, but they insist that their tools, the tools of science, are the only means with which to do it. 

You spoke highly of acupuncture a while back.

Atheists are humans who do not believe in God because they don't see evidence for God, or at least not the God of the Bible. These could fall into different categories in terms of spirituality. One could be an atheist because he's unable to see evidence though he is looking for it. This would put him in the category of spiritual man because he's looking, but in this case he'd be a person who has no helper (he's unable), and sooner or later, according to the Bible, God would help this person. Another could be an atheist because he doesn't want to look into everything and he doesn't want to bother to believe in a God. This would put the person in the category of physical man.

Scientists are trained to use inductive reasoning to find probabilities and then narrow things down more definitively with deductive conclusions, if they are unable to find direct evidence. Mostly scientists are looking for direct evidence. When they do find direct evidence then they apply inductive and then deductive reasoning as either is warranted to further their exploration of all things. Based on what you posit above, I'd say of a scientist who's looking to the universe to examine all things without regard for what others may think of his search, that he's a spiritual man because, according to the Bible, the natural world is God's testimony too. Hence, though a scientist may not end up believing in the biblical God, he ends up obeying natural law like Cornelius did, and Cornelius was a spiritual man aside from Judaism and Christianity.

As for acupuncture, I said it was false to say the practice is pseudoscience.

In my response, which you quote above, I was careful not to say all claims by acupuncturists are scientific. I just said it's false to say the practice is pseudoscience. My reason for saying this is that, as I stated earlier, scientific methods of information examination shows some peripheral neuropathies are demonstrated to respond to acupuncture. Such a systematic review falls within the realm of scientific method. [Emphasis added this go-round]

39 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Do you think the spiritual man should look into what is described as ‘the deep things of Satan’ in the spirit of examining all things?

A spiritual man would find themselves abiding by natural law. Hence, if "the deep things of Satan" are notions that defy natural law then there's nothing there to see, because they'd already know the information is contrary to nature hence rather than being information it would be disinformation. A person who looks into all things does not look where nothing is there to see. They go where the information is. Juan brought up Eve earlier, suggesting maybe she wanted to know why she was not supposed to eat of the forbidden tree. Satan coaxed her into eating of it. But she didn't have to look into "the deep things of Satan" to answer that why question. She already knew it was wrong to eat of the forbidden fruit. So all she needed to do then and there was abstain from eating the fruit. She could have inquired about the "why" by a method other than the proverbial "spark test" (clicking a lighter looking for a natural gas leak!).

39 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Thus far, I’m a little partial to @George88’s two preceding comments. If I didn’t fear their mix / fortification with ChatAI functionality, I would upvote them. I don’t want to get stuck upvoting, only to find I have upvoted a  ‘Danger Will Robinson’ robot. But I should probably work to overcome my phobia, as @Alphonse has.

God bless you for having the patience to read that stuff. I have neither the time nor inclination. In public and private each has made it known they have no interest whatsoever in constructive dialogue. When it comes to them, and others like them, I find myself helpless due to limited time. I only wish each well. But they need more than I am able to give.

[Many Miles]

13 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

At that time, the life-saving direction that we receive from Jehovah’s organization may not appear practical from a human standpoint. All of us must be ready to obey any instructions we may receive, whether these appear sound from a strategic or human standpoint or not. - https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/w20131115/seven-shepherds-eight-dukes/

That is a statement that should be read, digested and responded to with great caution.

[TrueTomHarley]

18 hours ago, JW Insider said:

As I recall, you had already listened to that particular Great Courses professor and it raised your curiosity about the history of this particular teaching. I thought that our version was similar to Ellen G White's (Seventh Day Adventist) 1858 doctrine that comes under the heading of "The Great Controversy Between Christ and Satan." It is summarized here as:

The devil is always in the  ‘as I recall’ details.

I recall it somewhat differently and probably the truth lies in a compromise between the two recollections. I have on my shelf James Hall’s GC lecture series ‘The Philosophy of Religion.’ I’ve probably listened to close to 100 of the Great Courses lecture series. ‘Imagine how much you will learn if you spend just a half hour each day in the company of some of the greatest minds in the world,’ the introduction to each course says, ignoring only the great minds at JWorg. I vouch for the intro. I have indeed learned a lot. I am far, far less dumb than I used to be.

Usually, I get these GCs from the library. But the library didn’t have the one of James Hall, so I had to order it from eBay. No way would I ever ever have done that had you not put me on the trail. But now I think what you put me on the trail of was a conversational online snippet in which a Seventh Day Adventist pointed to that course, and said, ‘Yes! The professor covered our explanation of suffering and said it was the only one that made sense!’

So I plowed through the 36-lecture course, and sigh—will have to do it again, I suppose, if I am serious about this next writing project, and it is a dog and a half. Yes, it does cover his ‘theodicy.’ Yes, it does say it is the only one logically consistent. But it is not really ‘his’ theodicy. It is the only one Hall considers that posits ‘dualism,’ that is, that God has an opponent, a Satan, and that you can pin the blame on him. ‘That makes sense, the professor said. But he does not give any account as to how that situation came to pass, only that there is such a villain, so that it is somethng of a nothingburger.

Quite frankly, it floored me that out of the many theodicies this fellow considered, only one of them took into account that God just might have an adversary who does, causes, or triggers the evil deeds. Every other theodicy assumes God holding all the cards in every way.

I’m pretty sure I’ve reconstructed what happened. That said, memory is a slippery thing. I am chastened by @Pudgy correcting me long ago. I had not left 3 or 4 comments on ‘apostate’ sites, he said. It was more like 20. No, it was 3 or 4, I said. He repeated it was 20. I repeated it was 3 or 4.  He insisted, not only that it was 20, but that during his career, he had been a highly trained engineer and was therefore accustomed to being precise. ‘If you were a highly trained engineer, and no longer are, possibly the reason is that you cannot count!’ I shot back. ‘Why on earth would I lie about it?!’

Sigh—he was right. I apologized when I realized it much later. I had only left 3 or 4 recently. But long ago, I had experimented on another sit, which brought the total to around 20. Of course, a search on social media makes little distinction between recent and some time ago. Memory is treacherous. 

 

[Many Miles]

4 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Memory is treacherous. 

FACT

[Juan Rivera]

 

On 11/28/2023 at 2:34 PM, TrueTomHarley said:

Witnesses will say that we need some ‘authority’ that is more than collective popular opinion, and so they put themselves where such authority exists. What we need is authority that reflects godly thinking and not just evolving human wisdom. Plainly, there will be some flaws in such authority, since everything humans touch is flawed. ‘We have this treasure [of the ministry] in earthen vessels [us—with all our imperfections] the NT writer advises. But when Christians cast off such authority in favor of something, say, more democratic in nature, they presently become almost indistinguishable from the evolving and declining standards of the greater world.

On 11/28/2023 at 2:34 PM, TrueTomHarley said:

It took a while for me to realize that, among some branches of Christians, there is virtue in ‘moving beyond’ the Bible. Most Witnesses will assume that if they can demonstrate they are adhering to the Bible, they’re golden. Those other church people will hang their heads sheepishly. Or they will argue that something is not translated accurately, or interpreted accurately, or that it applied to a specific and temporary situation. Instead, ‘progressive’ Christians take pride in moving beyond the Bible. It is not a misunderstanding for them. It is deliberate. They will even look upon you pityingly for still practicing ‘primitive’ Christianity, as though a spiritual Neanderthal who should have evolved with the times, but hasn’t.

The expression ‘primitive Christianity’—‘scholars’ will say that Jehovah's Witnesses practice it. We take it as a compliment, but it is actually an insult. It may not be intended as an insult, but the terminology itself is coined by those who view matters that way. In any other context, would you be flattered by being described as ‘primitive?’ Moreover, who would ever do it other than someone thoroughly steeped in evolution? Their philosophical view spill over into everything else. Humans evolved from the caveman. So should you, in their view. Grow up from your ‘caveman’ religion.

Anyone seeking to adhere to the Bible as written will be described today as a ‘cult.’ This is certainly true of Jehovah’s Witnesses, but it is also true of ‘fundamentalist’ faiths which, in their own eyes, at least, are also adhering to the Bible. The branches of Christianity that are progressive, that ‘keep up’ with the times, that do not make a fuss about the morality it deems outdated, is never described that way.

@TrueTomHarley You are right.  It seems the problem is deeper than just pointing to verses, since it is not that such persons cut such passages out of their Bibles but rather that they interpret such passages differently than we do. Nor does simply calling their interpretation of such passages not valid solve the problem. That’s because we don’t share agreement concerning what makes interpretations valid or invalid. Without at least the mutual recognition and embrace of a shared interpretive framework as authoritative, those persons who deny the authority of any framework, including any interpretative framework, and who have not yet fallen into any other theological error, are only living unaware on the confine of their own framework. Take for example Evangelicalism. Their children, or their children’s children, will no longer even be Christian. "Within two generations, evangelicalism will be a house deserted of half its occupants"~Michael Spencer. See his article illustrating this, from 2009 :

The coming evangelical collapse: https://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2009/0310/p09s01-coop.html

 

[TrueTomHarley]

23 minutes ago, Many Miles said:

God bless you for having the patience to read that stuff. I have neither the time nor inclination. In public and private each has made it known they have no interest whatsoever in constructive dialogue.

Huh! Nobody has ever come to that conclusion before.  

(It is truly discouraging that ones should come here on the Open Club to advance that viewpoint, thereby revealing their lack of education in the scriptures, as though refugees from the Closed Club where all sorts of odd characters hang out.)

[Many Miles]

8 minutes ago, Juan Rivera said:

Without at least the mutual recognition and embrace of a shared interpretive framework as authoritative, those persons who deny the authority of any framework, including any interpretative framework, and who have not yet fallen into any other theological error, are only living unaware on the confine of their own framework.

I just want to draw a circle about something you say here Juan.

When discussing subjects with a view of learning from one another, it's productive to have a starting point based on things that are mutually recognized. Said another way, find what things are held in agreement and then construct deductive reasoning off of these as premises. For anyone who wants to learn, this is very helpful, because if they have any regard at all for sound reasoning, the person will yield to (or at least consider) the conclusion.

There is always some common ground upon which to hold a conversation. But it's not always the case that each person in the conversation has regard for sound reasoning. That's the difficult part.

[Many Miles]

4 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

(It is truly discouraging that ones should come here and advance that viewpoint.)

Agreed. But it's real.

[Pudgy]

There is only one  way to achieve “common ground” in considering Scriptural interpretation, and it looks like the NWT missed the opportunity …

[TrueTomHarley]

15 hours ago, Many Miles said:

The simplest approach would be to presume Paul is comparing non-teleological vs teleological.

Ah, rats! Now I have to look up the word ‘teleological.’

I’ve encountered it before, of course, and looked it up then, and said, ‘Oh, it’s that.’ Maybe I should have added it to my vocabulary—it has many syllables, more than rhinoceros—and unless you live in Africa, it comes up more frequently. But I think of that test Edison used to administer—I think his hiring of new staff depended upon it—consisting of myriad facts that he thought any contemporary person should know. Einstein took the test and failed it. Rather than being chagrined, he said the stuff was all in dictionaries, almanacs, and encyclopedias—you can look it up in two seconds if you need it.

I also think of Bart Ehrman, the Bible thumper who became a theologian but you can still see the Bible thumper in the theologian. He said that if you know a Latin expression and also a perfectly fine English expression that means the same thing, you should always use the Latin; that way people know you are educated. 

I’d be happier considering Paul’s teleological or non-teleological view if Paul himself had used the term. It is not as though he was too uneducated to pick up the lingo of the day. He received the bee’s knees of education, at the feet of Gamaliel, that learned worthy who bended the Sanhedrin to his will. I’d be happier if Jesus used such terms, or any of Bible’s faithful, even Moses schooled in all the wisdom of Egypt, or Daniel in that of Babylon, or Nehemiah in that of Persia. None of them did.

I get it that such words exist in order to facilitate knowledge, standardize the terms being the first step. Oh, it’s okay I suppose, but to lean too heavily on such vocabulary is to reveal a pursuit of knowledge different from how the Bible writers pursued it. A little might be okay, but I distrust a lot of it. I can’t help but think most (or all) GB members may not know what the word ‘theodicy’ means, even as (in my view) they have the only one that holds water.

The Bible is not for the high-brow and intellectual. It is for the low-brow and working class. That is why there is barely a mention of it in early secular history; the doings of the working class are of scant concern to those learned ones who write history. Of course, they are not of scant concern when it comes to harnessing their power for some greater project, such as war, or winning an election, or as factory workers for the industrial age, but if is something they originate themselves, it is ‘Can anything good come out of Nazarus? Supplying the answer to their own question, historians record but two or three brief mentions in early secular history.

I don’t think ‘rationality’ as a term should ever be used when discussing the veracity of spiritual things. It’s like playing on the gameboard and by the rules of your opponent; his first rule is that you can’t move any of your pieces. Use the terms ‘reasonable’ and ‘sensible’ instead. Witnesses subscribe to a way of worship that is backed by reasons—they can explain why they do this or that, and such reasons ‘make sense,’ they are not simply mysterious and incomprehensible dogma—beyond the mysteriousness and incomprehensibility that everyone faces—over the vastness of the universe, for example. A belief in God, say the Great Course professors, reflecting the way the world is today, is not rational. That doesn’t mean they disallow you doing it, but don’t go saying it is rational. They strive to examine all things via rationality, and the more they do so, the more unlikely they think God is. 

‘Well, how can you account for what every child knows, that ‘all houses are created by someone, so there must be a someone who created greater things? you will ask. They will regard you a little pityingly and explain how you are positing a spiritual being, a major escalation that their tools cannot detect. Occam’s Razor, more meaningful to them than all the Ten Commandments put together, says you can’t do that. The simplest explanation wins. No, they haven’t figured out how life originated, they admit, but their certain it will happen without offending Occam.

Possibly the meaning of ‘rationality’ has changed over the years, like that of ‘gay.’ My globetrotting cousin would grouse to no end that she could no longer use the word gay because the homosexuals had taken it. ‘I’m no prude,’ she would say. ‘If they want to ‘swing both ways’ (would she really wink just then?) I’m perfectly okay with that. But why couldn’t they have invented their own word? Why did they have to take the word ‘gay?’

“She’s just mad that she can no-longer say ‘gay Paree,’ I told my right wing brother. But this was in the days of the French Fries / Freedom Fries fiasco, and my right wing brother said, ‘Why can’t she?’But

But rationality as defined today—my suspicion is that it was always that way— involves an attempt to prove faith by the standards of its advocate’s main tool, that of science. You cannot so prove it. Don’t try to play their game that says you should. It’s enough to ‘prove to yourself’ the good and perfect will of God. To the extent Christianity is an appear to the heart and not the head, it comes across as would a matter of taste. ‘Taste and see Jehovah is good,’ says the psalm. What if someone tastes and sees he is bad? Are you going to prove him wrong? No more than you can prove to the fellow who hates broccoli that it really tastes good.

15 hours ago, Many Miles said:

The simplest approach would be to presume Paul is comparing non-teleological vs teleological. Alternatively, it could be a comparison of a person who looks just at the here-and-now vs the future. It could also be the difference between those whose perspective is “let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we are to die” versus those who live purpose driven. (Also 1st to Corinth) All these are pretty much the same thing. In each case, the latter has to do with rational thought as a method of thinking.

No, I don’t think any of this is right. It is an attempt to put Christianity into a realm where it does not belong. I read it as though you say, ‘A physical man attempts to solve the world through his reason and a spiritual man doubles-down on his attempt to solve the world through his reason. 

As for me, I will do my best to speak as did Jesus, as does the Watchtower in trying to imitate him. I will not strive to learn the educated world’s lofty language, as though seeking admittance to the club. As soon as they find out I believe in Adam and Eve, they will throw me out anyway. I will not seek that elevated plain. I will speak as does Jehovah’s organization, in full recognition that it is mostly the lowly and meek who respond to the good news. I will say—sigh—‘What do you say as to this, Many Miles? Do you agree? Yes, No, or Maybe?’

[Pudgy]

I looked up teleological this morning, in several places, and have forgotten it already.…. same problem I had for about  eight years trying to remember Andy Kaufman’s name … I would always visualize Jim Carey.

He played Andy Kaufman as well as George C. Scott played Patton.

[Many Miles]

28 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

But rationality as defined today—my suspicion is that it was always that way— involves an attempt to prove faith by the standards of its advocate’s main tool, that of science.

No.

Rationality is a tool used by science, but it is not science.

Science is a systematic process intent on learning about our universe.

Rationality is a method of thinking intent on maintaining objectivity.

As a hammer is not carpentry even though carpenters use a hammer, rationality is not science even though scientists use rationality.

Rationality will not prove faith, but it can be used to test faith, and any faith worth holding is worth testing.

28 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

No, I don’t think any of this is right. It is an attempt to put Christianity into a realm where it does not belong. I read it as though you say, ‘A physical man attempts to solve the world through his reason and a spiritual man doubles-down on his attempt to solve the world through his reason. 

As the biblical text suggests, the biggest difference between the "physical man" and the "spiritual man" is that one is willing to examine everything and one does not care to.

28 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

As for me, I will do my best to speak as did Jesus, as does the Watchtower in trying to imitate him. I will not strive to learn the educated world’s lofty language, as though seeking admittance to the club.

Rational thought does not require lofty language, but it does require understanding how to avoid fallacy and how to be objective about evidence and inference.

28 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

As soon as they find out I believe in Adam and Eve, they will throw me out anyway. I will not seek that elevated plain. I will speak as does Jehovah’s organization, in full recognition that it is mostly the lowly and meek who respond to the good news. I will say—sigh—‘What do you say as to this, Many Miles? Do you agree? Yes, No, or Maybe?’

We should attain to speak to whatever audience is willing to learn.

Also in the 1st to Corinth,

"For, though I am free from all persons, I have made myself the slave to all, that I may gain the most persons. And so to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain Jews; to those under law I became as under law, though I myself am not under law, that I might gain those under law. To those without law I became as without law, although I am not without law toward God but under law toward Christ, that I might gain those without law. To the weak I became weak, that I might gain the weak. I have become all things to people of all sorts, that I might by all means save some."

Many Miles does not look for the best market. Many Miles shares what he can where he can wherever that happens to be, to help whoever is there as best he can.

In my experience, the hunger is there among all to learn a better way of life, which is what our worship is. I do not count converts on a report slip. God through his son Jesus are the ones who determine whose worship they accept, and I leave it to them.