A morning with the Jehova's

[Sifu Ben]

Genesis 1? I can think of nothing that suggests deism in Genesis 1. Perhaps 2.16.

The free will = deism line is generally scoffed at by philosophers (with good reason, in my book) if that's what you're getting at?

LOL, just looked and I actually mean 2:2 (it's part of one continuous flow, so I'd forgotten it was 2 chapters). If read with a historical-grammatical (very literal) interpretation this verse is contrary to the christian understanding of God's action in the world. TBH more paradox than gaping flaw though, but again, any encouragement to get JWs to actually think about their faith.

[nfe]

Well, if you read it literally, in isolation, and then never read another line of the bible, then yes. But God rather clearly takes an interest in humanity after creation.

[Sifu Ben]

That being the problem with the grammatical-literal approach to interpretation, especially when added to the other dispensationalist approaches that typically go with it. JWs are very bad for this, but so are many "fundamentalist" groups, read a passage in isolation and then link it to a completely unrelated passage to "prove" your point.

[mikeluke]

My sister used to go to this place:

http://www.salisburyemmanuel.org.uk/index.html?/main/front.html

When she died we went to her funeral there which was really wacky...

Basically the coffin was up front near the altar and the minister spent the whole service telling us that we were sinners and that we would go to Hell!

Nothing about my sister, her life, etc etc

It was really wierd and we came out of there feeling a mixture of anger and amazement that some churches are like that.

Takes all sorts, I suppose....

[nfe]

That being the problem with the grammatical-literal approach to interpretation, especially when added to the other dispensationalist approaches that typically go with it. JWs are very bad for this, but so are many "fundamentalist" groups, read a passage in isolation and then link it to a completely unrelated passage to "prove" your point.

Well yes. But there are endless biblical passages that illustrate that well. Arguing deism from Genesis just seems peculiar and not something that'd ever deliver the point, to me - I spend much of my life debating biblical history, it's not one I'd ever pick up to demonstrate anything. Though Genesis itself is full of good stuff for the purpose.

[Johnny Mac]

Religion is all about control and it's a nice little earner. I detest it.
Man created God.
If people feel the need to worship somthing, then worship the Sun. Life in all forms would be pretty f*cked without it.

[FernandoDuarte]

Religion is all about control and it's a nice little earner. I detest it.
Man created God.
If people feel the need to worship somthing, then worship the Sun. Life in all forms would be pretty f*cked without it.

+1

[Philly Q]

If people feel the need to worship somthing, then worship the Sun. Life in all forms would be pretty f*cked without it.

True, but I wish it would stay behind clouds a bit more.  I want some RAIN!

[nfe]

Religion is all about control and it's a nice little earner. I detest it.

Again, very two dimensional, fundie-athiest thinking. "The majority of organised Abrahamic-derived faiths are about control and money in their modern incarnation" would be an appropriate sentence.

[Elliot]

So when did the 'modern incarnation' of the Abrahamic religions fall away into 'control and money' to make it 2D thinking?    

When was it for Christianity? The time of the Acts (if we accept that Acts is not a second century work borrowing heavily from fiction and other authors)? The time of Paul's epistles and his railings against other's interpretation of how 'the Gospel' works?  The time of Clement of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch and their demands that the Christians submit to their elders (πρεσβύτερος) ?  At the time of Constantine and the state take over of Christianity?  The rise of the Roman Popes?  Those periods all seem to be good dates to begin the start of giving credence the 2D fundie-atheist criticism of religion.  From pretty much the time it move from a cult around a Galilean carpenter to a organised entity it has been about control, and, no doubt, money.

Although as a cradal (although not credal) Calvinist, I have deep respect for people of faith.  If you can stick to the demands of religion you are either dedicated or a moron.

[nfe]

With Christianity, I'd argue that it first began to be used to control a populace when it replaced the Mithraic faith of Rome officially. Though many strands of it were never used in such a fashion, nor with any monetary interest. Judaism was much later, it being merely a device of hope for an endlessly oppressed people for most of its history.

 My problem with the statement is it's monstrous generalisation. There are plenty faiths which do not serve as control methods nor have any relation to money. And almost no faiths begin with those things in mind (in fact if you can point me to one which was, which has existed for more than a couple hundred years I'll be glad to learn of it), though most which have existed for a long time were eventually developed to serve in that fashion.

It's utterly preposterous to make such a blanket statement with any seriousness.

[Philly Q]

You guys kill me.  :P

[Johnny Mac]

Religion is all about control and it's a nice little earner. I detest it.

Again, very two dimensional, fundie-athiest thinking. "The majority of organised Abrahamic-derived faiths are about control and money in their modern incarnation" would be an appropriate sentence.

Really? How incredibly interesting ....... :roll:

[Sifu Ben]

That being the problem with the grammatical-literal approach to interpretation, especially when added to the other dispensationalist approaches that typically go with it. JWs are very bad for this, but so are many "fundamentalist" groups, read a passage in isolation and then link it to a completely unrelated passage to "prove" your point.

Well yes. But there are endless biblical passages that illustrate that well. Arguing deism from Genesis just seems peculiar and not something that'd ever deliver the point, to me - I spend much of my life debating biblical history, it's not one I'd ever pick up to demonstrate anything. Though Genesis itself is full of good stuff for the purpose.

The conversation's drifted a bit. The Genesis 2:2 paradox is specifically to address short earth creationism, where historical-grammatical interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis is essential to the doctrine.

[Sifu Ben]

I don't think religion is inherently about control, however people have a depressing tendency towards conformity, and there are always people who will manipulate this for their own advancement. This is by no means unique to religious groups, any activity where people have a shared interest which they become very involved in is at risk of developing these behaviours (martial arts groups are a classic example of this).
Ironically in Christian settings the best way to avoid being controlled by people is to read the bible.