Looking After Widows and Orphans... and Spending One's "Riches"

by AGuest 136 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  ÁrbolesdeArabia

  @longhairedgirl: I can't think of anyone who want's crazies showering their face with,plaque, tarter and saliva as they "rant and rave" about nothing! I can still see and picture the stinky unbathed ones who smell like "fermented cat-urine", and JWs bring these nuts into a Kingdom Hall, Miasma and All!

  You and I probably stopped feeling guilt trying to bring the other group to meetings, service, the incontient members. You know the ones other tier-one JWs avoided bring in their cars but told their "tier-two members" to help assist the "defacators" or "pants wetters."

  The Clean-Organization, how many GB members helped bring filthy people to a Kingdom Hall? The COs or DOs never had to push the "wheel-chairs carrying mystery body oders" into a Kingdom Hall only to have the friends freak out or caugh!

  I worked near 2nd Street in Down Town Los Angeles (Near the old Banking District) for periods of time "Skid-Row" (Sebastian Bach :)))) at points I reached "Compassion Overload", I wanted out of that area as fast as possible, the perpetual begging, stench of rot, beer, urine, excrement make my stomach roll as I write this. Groups from the "Mission" would descend onto this region, have "foot washings for Winos", and this made them feel close to God!

  Just don't put to much faith into any particular group, I think your experieince with the JWs has taught you as much. I learned in the "high end society" there are just as much shit-heads and devils as there are in any class of humans. We have to trust our guts, and learn quick which people might best be left with less than a quick glance.

  I guess I lost my thread ideas, I agree with you whole-heartedly with avoiding as many whackos as possible, sometimes I have no choice with certain charities (even Paul Ryan went to the Soup Kitchen when nobody was there!) who I will interact with but I enjoy the work.
• 

  NewChapter

  history has taught us what we are at our best and what we are at our worst.

  HAS it? If that's the case, why are there still conflicts in the Middle East? I'm thinking that not everyone has learned history's "lessons." And so, then, what for these? Law. For some, civil law. For some, religious law. And for some of us... spiritual law, which is love.

  Again, I said that history has taught us what we are at our best AND what we are at our worst. I didn't say anything about 'lessons'. I'm talking about knowledge. From a purely human standpoint, we have learned about ourselves, and as time passes, we learn more. Love has nothing to do with spiritual laws---that is just your way of kidnapping the concept and making it fit your agenda.

  I have a cousin that is a zookeeper. They used to be more controlling of animals, when they wanted them on the scales, or needed to care for them. But they've changed their ways. Instead, they now learn the behavior of the animals and work with it. So instead of picking one up, possibly tranquilizing it, and putting it on the scale, they will learn what they can do to cause the animal to naturally stand on the scale. Now do they then reason, "Oh, we taught that animal to get on the scale?" NO. because they didn't. The animal did what came natural to them, and they worked with it. In essence, the animal trained THEM, and at least they know that.

  That's very similar to what you are trying to do. You want to say that what comes natural to humans, love or whatever, was somehow taught to them from some law given by a non-existent entity. But you are just taking advantage of what is already human nature and giving the credit for that to some invented character.

  See---people love---that's proof that god exists and put that love there. No it isn't. That is proof that humans love, and people have opportunistically taken that and said it was their gods or god that put it there. No. It was there. Along with other good things, and many bad things too.

  Long before there was tithing, there was charity and community effort. Humans lived in foraging bands, and they took care of each other. Nobody had to tell them to do that. It was beneficial to the entire band. It wasn't until city/states came in with their agricultural gods that the balance was knocked out. Where some could attain wealth and privilige at the expense of their fellow humans. Social stratification developed---class systems. Amazingly, the gods followed suit!

  Love has nothing to do with gods other than humans created all gods and gave them human attributes. Humans, through evolution, are the authors of love. Not gods. Humans are also the authors of gods.

  As to the violence and so forth. Well just check out our primate cousins. Gratefully we have higher cognitive abilities and can fight against these tendencies. Gods don't make that possible, but humans have that potential. Some live up to it better than others. Those that cling to biblical teachings don't live up to it, because the god portrayed there does not live up to it. But it's getting better. That doesn't mean it's perfect, because perfection is a false concept when it comes to human behavior. As is the teaching that we fell from some perfect state into this wretchedness. Untrue. We are what we are, good and bad, and it has nothing to do with gods.
• 

  Band on the Run

  Reading this thread made me think of a biography of Benjamin Franklin that I read. You can't live in the Philly area without seeing Franklin worship.

  He was so different from our public school legends. Franklin was a staunch defender of King George III and as post master general for all the American colonies was deeply enmeshed in colonial administration. He was more famous than Sinatra, the Beatles, and Dylan combined for his practical work on electricity. Before he developed the lightning rod, countless thousands of people died each church b/c of home fires. His business ventures, politics, and passions all interacted with each other.

  Franklin believed in self-improvement in the colonies. He helped set up fire departments, libraries, scientific groups. He was no religious nut. Part of his whole being was reaction against his Puritan upbringing. As I travel around the city, it is remarkable how the colonists came together and set up societies to better their lives. Humans are social animals. One can be loving and generous without faith. It is absurd to believe that one needs faith to help others unselfishly.

  The existentialists were atheists. They actively resisted Hitler as a moral cause.

  People know my life has been very hard. Some of us still live with the picture of humanity that the WT invokes. I love the world. Humans do bad things but so does God, if one believes the OT. I cry when I hear Bach or Handel. We turn to each other for comfort. I expect there are strong evolutionary reasons to do so. John Donne, No Man is an Island.

  Any church that does not encourage mutual benefit societies is out of sync with humanity in general.
• 

  elderelite

  Silly me. I assumed you were talking metaphorically about capitol punishment.... I shall return to not caring :)
• 

  AGuest

  Silly me. I assumed you were talking metaphorically about capitol punishment....

  Capital punishment?? No, you really were assuming, there. I would have been more than happy to further clarify, though, had you asked. But that's right - some folks have all the answers (and so don't need to ask). Except maybe about whether the Maasai kill lions or not...

  I shall return to not caring :)

  Return denotes have already been there at least once. You have not been "not caring", so... But I implore you... TRY. Please.

  Again, I said that history has taught us what we are at our best AND what we are at our worst. I didn't say anything about 'lessons'.

  "Taught" denotes someone learning. What's learned... is a "lesson". What I stated is that we apparently haven't learned whatever lesson it was that YOU believe history has "taught" us. What's the confusion here?

  I'm talking about knowledge.

  So am I. Knowledge denotes understanding. And, apparently, "we" (from the "us" you mentioned)... haven't received the understanding... knowledge... that YOU think we have. "We"... as in humankind. Now perhaps a few individuals have learned some things... some lessons... but "we" the species? Not so much.

  From a purely human standpoint, we have learned about ourselves, and as time passes, we learn more. Love has nothing to do with spiritual laws---that is just your way of kidnapping the concept and making it fit your agenda.

  Now, see, here's the thing: some, including myself, would say that we have learned that love has EVERYTHING to do with spiritual laws. That that is the "knowledge"... WE... have. And we learned it... by learning about ourselves... as such was revealed to us spiritually. Indeed, I am willing to wager that more would say that... than wouldn't. Where, then, does put what you assert?

  I have a cousin that is a zookeeper. They used to be more controlling of animals, when they wanted them on the scales, or needed to care for them. But they've changed their ways. Instead, they now learn the behavior of the animals and work with it. So instead of picking one up, possibly tranquilizing it, and putting it on the scale, they will learn what they can do to cause the animal to naturally stand on the scale. Now do they then reason, "Oh, we taught that animal to get on the scale?" NO. because they didn't. The animal did what came natural to them, and they worked with it. In essence, the animal trained THEM, and at least they know that.

  Had they understood that animals think to begin with... that each has its own spirit and personality... they could have skipped the whole controlling with tranquilizers part to begin with. And had they ASKED... they could have understood this... had KNOWLEDGE of it... long, long ago. Guess what? A whole LOT of people got THAT one... long, long ago. Why? Because they condescend to acknowledge that, just like us, animals are spirits. Just in different vessels. Your cousins colleagues (and perhaps s/he herself/himself) didn't go that far. They considered these fellow spirits as "dumb" (as in unintelligent) and so operated on that basis. A mistake. So, sure, they know that they motivate an animal to make the choice they need it to NOW... but, again, they COULD have known that about 6,000 years ago. Noah did.

  That's very similar to what you are trying to do. You want to say that what comes natural to humans, love or whatever, was somehow taught to them from some law given by a non-existent entity.

  No, I'm not saying that - history says it. And science corroborates it. Again, put a couple of two-year-olds in a room with one toy...

  But you are just taking advantage of what is already human nature and giving the credit for that to some invented character.

  That's YOUR take. It's an error... but you are entitled to have it.

  See---people love---that's proof that god exists and put that love there. No it isn't.

  Seeing people love is no more proof to ME that God exists... than seeing people hate and kill one another is indication that He doesn't (which it IS to YOU). CHRIST is proof to ME that God exists. As he is recorded to have said, so that people like you... who DON'T see God can know HOW to... "If you see ME (him), you see God." I see him... so I KNOW God exists. I mean, don't you folks say, "Seeing IS believing"? I see. So I believe.

  That is proof that humans love, and people have opportunistically taken that and said it was their gods or god that put it there.

  Some people, yes.

  No. It was there. Along with other good things, and many bad things too.

  If what you say is true, then you have just completely debunked every argument I can think of for the possibilty of human evolution. Because you are saying that humans... homo sapiens... were always there, as well. Or... that their predecessors... even the most primitive... always loved. Or did love evolve, too? If so... then it WASN'T there... was it?

  Long before there was tithing, there was charity and community effort.

  Well, yes, there was! That was the POINT of the Law that instituted tithing! The Israelites, having lived among the Egyptians for centuries... FORGOT about charity and community effort! They FORGOT how to treat one another, their brother, their neighbor, strangers, their enemies. That was the POINT of the Law: to give them something to LOOK at... to REMIND them. But their hearts were SO hard, not even the Law written on STONE by the hand of GOD... made a difference! Why? Because... unlike the people of the nations who "do by nature the things OF the Law"... these... had no NATURAL affection. Which is the case for MOST of mankind. Affection is not NATURAL to them... and so they need LAWS to guide them. Again, for some civil laws, for some religious laws... and for some, spiritual laws.

  Humans lived in foraging bands, and they took care of each other.

  And never attacked or were attacked by any others. No, because they knew BETTER. Okay.

  Nobody had to tell them to do that.

  They banded together for PROTECTION... not for LOVE. The love... developed... after they came to know one another... IF they came to know one another and IF it developed at all.

  It was beneficial to the entire band.

  Yes. Because of the OTHER bands that threatened them. You think one member of the band could rely on another member to have his back when a marauding band came along... if they HADN'T formed some kind of bond? Had they treated one another poorly, then each would have been on his/her own when enemies came ("What, help YOU? Girl, I ain't helping you - you broke my best cooking pot last week... and never even offered to replace it! You know what I'm talkin' 'bout - the one tribal leader Hamalek gave me for being his favorite... with all the little copper thingies on it... You got pissed 'cause I'm his favorite and he made you get out of his bed for me. So, I don't care what happens to you! I mean, unless you wanna give me that obsidian and bronze bracelet and nose ring set he gave YOU for cooking his goat just like he likes it. Otherwise, they can rape your hiney, for all I care! Matter of fact, if you keep lookin' at me like that, I just might tell 'em where you hidin'!").

  Think, NC... THINK.

  It wasn't until city/states came in with their agricultural gods that the balance was knocked out. Where some could attain wealth and privilige at the expense of their fellow humans. Social stratification developed---class systems. Amazingly, the gods followed suit!

  Worship of gods existed long, long before that. Mass habitation is what led to the exploitation of that worship, yes. Hence, Tehran and Abraham, were told to leave Ur. Although Egypt was also ensconced in poly-idolic worship, it wasn't as bad - they maintained SOME knowledge of JAH and so Abraham and company fared better spiritually in Canaan than he would have in the East.

  Love has nothing to do with gods other than humans created all gods and gave them human attributes.

  Again, that is your take. And an error.

  Humans, through evolution, are the authors of love.

  Well, they might want to consider a rewrite...

  Not gods.

  Well, not the false ones, no.

  Humans are also the authors of gods.

  Some gods, MANY gods, yes. The MOST Holy One of Israel, JAH of Armies... no.

  As to the violence and so forth. Well just check out our primate cousins. Gratefully we have higher cognitive abilities and can fight against these tendencies.

  Can, yes. Do? Not so much. Now why IS that... I mean, since WE... and not God... are love?

  Gods don't make that possible,

  For most, no. Because their gods don't exist. They're false. And so they CAN'T make it possible... or effectuate it at all.

  but humans have that potential. Some live up to it better than others.

  Yes, we do! Yes, they do! Some... "by nature." Others... by law. Again, civil... religious... or spiritual. And spiritually speaking, love... is the law. The ONLY law.

  Those that cling to biblical teachings don't live up to it, because the god portrayed there does not live up to it.

  I would totally agree. But then, I don't believe the Bible is an adequate source to teach love. It can help folks develop a FORM of it, perhaps. But only One can teach it completely... to its utmost fulfillment. And he does not exist in the Bible.

  But it's getting better.

  I think that would depend on who you ask. YOU don't have bombs dropping on YOUR home, so...

  That doesn't mean it's perfect, because perfection is a false concept when it comes to human behavior.

  Again, we agree. If, though, we never attain to perfection... we are doomed to continue repeating our "mistakes." Over... and over... and over... again. Which is what history TRULY tells us is the case. There is no way, however, that we CAN attain to perfection... on our own. Also, our understanding of what "perfection" is... is inaccurate.

  As is the teaching that we fell from some perfect state into this wretchedness.

  I don't believe that, either. Goodness, you assume a LOT when it comes to what [you think] I believe. And wait, what "wretchedness"? We're doing better, right? So, while it might be bad, surely it isn't "wretched." Right?

  Untrue.

  Agreed. It is an untrue and totally inaccurate of what occurred. I realize many believe... and teach... it to be true. I do neither. Please... stop lumping me among those whose beliefs you apparently are so as to make the erroneous assumptions you often do. Find out what I DO believe... and then go from there.

  We are what we are, good and bad, and it has nothing to do with gods.

  You are absolutely right: what we ARE has nothing to do with God(s). What we WERE certainly did, though... and what we can be again absolutely does.

  Again, peace to you.

  A slave of Christ,

  SA
• 

  NewChapter

  "Taught" denotes someone learning. What's learned... is a "lesson". What I stated is that we apparently haven't learned whatever lesson it was that YOU believe history has "taught" us. What's the confusion here?

  Because the way you are using the term 'lesson' is more than simply taking in knowledge, but more like lesson with a moral. The moral of the story. Have you learned your lesson, young man? That's not what I'm talking about. I am not saying that history has taught us some lesson in morals and if we don't change our behavior, we haven't taken in the knowledge. I am saying that history has more clearly, if not completely defined the parameters of our potential, both good and bad.

  We have reacted differently to this knowledge. Some of us look at it, and recognize the consequences of our actions, and decide that we intend to do the least harm and the most good we can within those parameters. Others take in that knowledge, and perhaps even define good and bad differently, and don't make the same commitment to improving life for everyone. Or, they may cling to tradition rather than rely on their own thinking and processing of the knowledge that is available to them. Or some my hold to ancient writings, that were produced at a time of limited enlightenment.

  This is because we are human, and no law is necessarily written on our hearts. Instead, we have potential within a structure, and how we act will depend on how we process this. It is not black and white. It is not God vs Satan, or Christ vs hate. That is just a co-opting of the parameters.
• 

  NewChapter

  Worship of gods existed long, long before that.

  You missed my point. I said that when we became agricutural, when we organized into city/states, when we stratified our society, amazingly our gods did the same. You won't find those kinds of gods among people living outside that culture. That is because we create the gods that we relate to and that support our society. Gods are constructs. Understand now?

  In this sense, I find Paganism at least more honest. Gods that relate to a specific culture and the cycles of their own seasons. The tragedy of this middle eastern, bronze-aged god, and the writings, is they grew to large. They sought to suppress cultures that could not relate to this brutal, foreign culture to play by rules that were never developed for very different people. It was more local than that.

  Even so, considering the vast differences in these gods, and how well they fit the culture that originaly created them, it is very clear that these gods were created and there is no such thing as a 'false' god just as there is no such thing as a 'true' god. And yet, people still demonstrate the full spectrum of human behavior both good and bad. There is no law written on their hearts. Only choices, rewards, consequences and potential.
• 

  EntirelyPossible

  I've your stuff three times, AG, but you keep mixing acutal info with spiritual with metaphorical with .... I don't know what.

  Can you succintly state your point in just 3 or 4 sentences? You can leave off the peaces and dears and house of israel stuff....
• 

  AGuest

  I am saying that history has more clearly, if not completely defined the parameters of our potential, both good and bad.

  Yes, I understood that, dear NC (again, peace to you!); my point was that not everyone has "learned"... has knowledge... OF those parameters, either good OR bad.

  Some of us look at it, and recognize the consequences of our actions, and decide that we intend to do the least harm and the most good we can within those parameters. Others take in that knowledge, and perhaps even define good and bad differently, and don't make the same commitment to improving life for everyone. Or, they may cling to tradition rather than rely on their own thinking and processing of the knowledge that is available to them. Or some my hold to ancient writings, that were produced at a time of limited enlightenment.

  And some... have no idea that such parameters... or the potential they define... good or bad... exist. That is what I meant. You don't want me to generalize... but you do an awful lot of it yourself. Let me offer you something about that potential, though: it SHOULD be that the younger people of the world could, would, look at these more clearly defined parameters and "recognize the consequences of our actions, and decide that we intend to do the least harm and the most good we can within those parameters." How many terrorist bombers are elderly, though? How many Columbine/Avalon perps? How many of those who enlist in the various armies around the world are old? Etc., etc., etc.

  I haven't given up on humanity, dear NC. Not by a LONG shot. I absolutely recognize our potential. I just see that along with the potential to do GOOD... is the greater potential to do not so good. Even bad. Heinously so. And that while some may be able to do good "by nature," not all are so... endowed. And so, praise JAH... there is some "help" for those who need... and want... it. Like me.

  Again, peace to you!

  A slave of Christ,

  SA
• 

  NewChapter

  Yes, I understood that, dear NC (again, peace to you!); my point was that not everyone has "learned"... has knowledge... OF those parameters, either good OR bad.

  I'm not talking about individuals. I'm talking about collective knowledge. It is not equally distributed. If we look at countries that rule and live by bible standards, they may have even had that knowledge hidden from them. For them, the parameters have been narrowly defined, not giving individuals the full choice. Perhaps they do this by simply homeschooling their children, with their religion at the center of all. Those children will be ignorant to the possiblities of of science. literature, diversity. The world for them will be black and white, and it will not be them choosing the colors.

  Or perhaps it is bigger than that---countries that still kill homosexuals or shoot little girls in the face for wanting an education.

  They will also make claims that these are laws written and humans need to be submissive to such to live proper and good lives.

  God complicates things. Instead of reinforcing the good that people can do, telling them many things are possible, and the choice is theirs, some have chosen to overrun their personal conscience with an artifical absolute code. This is the way God says is best. Instead of convincing humans that they are fundamentally damaged, fallen, in need of salvation and reconcilement, teach them that they have choices to make and a full range of behaviors to choose from. Because that is the actual truth. They are not born 'bad' or 'sinners' they are simply born. And they will make a difference, but what type of difference they make is up to them. Why twist their emotions a views of other humans by imposing some bronze-aged, unenlightened culture on them? It causes problems.

  We have laws, because most of us believe that other humans should be kept safe from things, and not all humans will choose to do what is best by others. This is not a moral code that overrides their own conscience, but a social construction to keep things organized. Humans tend to be charitible. It's in our genes. But humans are many other things. If you insist that things like charity and love are an expression of god's laws written on their hearts, then you cannot sidestep and say that murder, and injustice is not ALSO written on their hearts by this god. You can't have it both ways. If there is some spiritual law written, then the parameters were written and this god must take responosiblity for all of it.

  Or, the truth. Humans just are, and they make their choices. When they do good, they are not expressing any particular god's law, but they are simply doing good and should get the credit for it. If they do bad, they should be held responsible and take the consequences. But this god doesn't get credit while avoiding responsibility. Humans don't. And human is what it all is. There is no god with invisible laws. There are humans.