Posts by gaiagirl

67

Crazy JW Superstitions...

by Confucious in

hey!

ok, we all know of this uncanny word play about not saying, "you were lucky," and not saying "bless you" after someone sneezes.

but this is a bizarre one i heard.

gaiagirl

It was widely held among the sisters in my area that use of tampons was not proper, especially for single sisters, and those who used them were no longer virgins.

23

Euphemisms for cursing among JWs

by gaiagirl in

jw
friends

in an effort to show that they had put on a 'new' personality, many who joined the wtbts would adjust their speech patterns to avoid common expressions of cursing or profanity.

yet there would still arise times when they would become frustrated, angry or disgusted at someone or at a situation, and wish to express their feelings.

here are a couple of substitutes for cursing heard among jws ...... forget you.

In an effort to show that they had put on a 'new' personality, many who joined the WTBTS would adjust their speech patterns to avoid common expressions of cursing or profanity. Yet there would still arise times when they would become frustrated, angry or disgusted at someone or at a situation, and wish to express their feelings. Here are a couple of substitutes for cursing heard among JWs .....

Forget You.

Dumas (pronounced like a proper name). Useage: "Don't be such a Dumas".

Rectal Orfice. Useage: "That householder was such a rectal orfice".

Any more?

18

Vatican Astronomer Maintains Christianity is Not Adverse to Science

by Kenneson in

jw
friends

is christianity anti-science?

are christianity and science compatible?

the following are the thoughts of brother guy consolmagno, curator of meteorites at the vatican observatory; in a recent interview, he made some interesting observations i was unaware of.

gaiagirl

When the bubonic plague struck the Roman Empire in 540 C.E., the Church declared the field of Greek and Roman medicine heresy, leaving the only treatment for sufferers of any ailment "bleeding".

Concerning a spherical planet Earth, St. Augustine wrote "It is impossible that there should be inhabitants on the opposite side of the Earth, since no such race is recorded by Scripture among the descendants of Adam."

In 398, the Fourth Council of Carthage forbade bishops to read books written by non-Christians.

Jerome, one of the Church fathers living in the fourth century wrote rejoicing that the classical writings of antiquity were being forgotten in his lifetime.

In 415, a Christian mob attacked Hypatia, the head of the Library of Alexandria, and scraped the flesh from her bones with abalone shells, then burned her body. They then proceeded to burn the Library and its 700,000 volumes, which had been collected over several centuries.

In 525, Cosmos Indicopleustes writes a Christian geography book titled "Topography", in which he denies the possibility of a spherical planet, describing earth as "quadrangular". He denies the possibility of containing oceans on a spherical world, and that earth cannot rotate on her axis, because a support for the axis cannot be seen.

To claim the Christianity took the lead in any science is to be simply ignorant of history. To cite just a couple of examples:

Greek astronomers knew Earth was spherical, and orbited the Sun, centuries before the Christian era.

Ancient Egyptians understood the concept of I.U.D.s as contraceptive devices before the time of the Exodus.

Abortion

by natalienu in

jw
friends

last year i went through the painful ordeal of having an abortion.

it was a tough decision to make but i have no desire to give birth any time soon, if at all.

but after mixing with those blasted jws they began to ever so slowly put guilt into me for my past choice.

gaiagirl

The best essay I ever read concerning abortion was by the late Dr. Carl Sagan and his wife Ann Druyan. Originally published in Parade magazine, April 22, 1990 as "The Question of Abortion: A Search For Answers", and reprinted as Chapter 15 in his book "Billions and Billions".

The article asks the question "Can one be both pro-choice and pro-life" and looks at both sides of the subject in what I felt was a very fair manner, including the scriptural references which fundamentalists use to support their cause, and also including the scientific data available at the time the article was written.

In the early stages of development, there is very little to distinguish a fetus which will become a human from a fetus which will become any other vertebrate creature. Many people don't consider non-human creatures to be persons, so the question boils down to "when does the fetus become a person"? and the answer is "when uniquely human characteristics develop". The most human characteristic has nothing to do with the external form, but our brainwave patterns. Our brains are developed differently than even our closest genetic relatives, chimpanzees. Yet the brain doesn't show these distinct patterns until the 24th to 27th week of pregnancy, around the sixth month. Prior to that time, the fetus has some detectable brain activity, but it isn't different from what would be detected in any other vertebrate fetus.

From this, I gather that the soul hasn't moved in yet, because the vessel isn't ready to contain it. So if the decision is made to terminate the pregnancy, one isn't killing a soul, one is instead halting construction on the residence which would eventually be home to a soul. The soul which might have moved into that vessel will find another vessel instead. Should the decision to terminate be made after the 24th-27th week, the soul still would not die, but merely move out and find another vessel.

I strongly encourage anyone with questions about this topic to read chapter 15 of "Billions and Billions", as it provides what to me seems like a very rational and comforting viewpoint.

20

Favorite Scripture? Here's mine...

by confusedjw in

do you have a favorite scripture?

mine is ecc 7:3 "better is vexation than laughter, for by the crossness of the face the heart becomes better.

ever realize you are a certain way and it just makes your face cringe?

gaiagirl

Jeremiah 44:17-18" But we will do everything that we have vowed, burn incense to the queen of heaven, and pour out libations to her, as we did, both we and our fathers, our kings, and our princes, in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem, for then we had plenty of food, and prospered, and saw no evil. But since we left off burning incense to the queen of heaven and pouring out libations to her, we have lacked everything and have been consumed by the sword and by famine."

21

Gender Lines

by Mysterygirl in

i have just finished reading a book called gender outlaw.

in this book the righter has an opion that gender is based on "moden life" rather then the "human form", ie do you look, act, talk and have the package of a male or female in your current state and even life upbringing - or were we born male or female and that is that.. if we look, act and talk and even have the package of the gender that we insist that we are, does that mean we are male or female ( i say that i am a woman, i have the package of a woman, i look like a woman and i talk like a woman, my drives licence and birth certificate say that im a woman) so what am i ???.

the reason that i am asking this is, i had a visit from a elder (that i have never meet before)and he was talking about my transexuality and the reason i was dfs.

gaiagirl

People often tend to think in terms of "either/or", basically holding the opinion that "it must be this or that". It amounts to lazy thinking, trying pigeonhole everything into a specific category.

From a biological standpoint, the gender of a child is determined by whether the father contributes a Y chromosome or an X chromosome. The mother always contributes an X chromosome, but the father may contribute either X or Y. So a "100% male" would have XY chromosome (there are no known YY people, because men don't have children), and a "100% female" would have XX chromosome. However, in practice, some have XXY, so that they have characteristics of both genders. So some men have a tendency to develop breasts, some women have a tendency to develop facial hair, etc. And some have sexual characteristics of both genders, as you do. This demonstrates that gender isn't a case of "either/or". Your particular genetic combination placed you somewhere near the middle of the possible extremes.

If you feel a female persona/gender role fits better, you should live as you wish, without being forced into a mold which you may not feel you fit. Certainly, the elders of your congregation are not qualified to determine which gender role is best for you.

58

question: why are humans worth more than animals?

by Realist in

jw
friends

ok putting religious reasoning aside what is a rational reason why humans are viewed worth more than higher animals?

why is a human worth more than lets say a chimp, a pig or a cow?.

neurophysiological studies show that animals suffer probably just as much as humans....but similar to little children they cannot understand the pain and express it as human adults can.

gaiagirl

I feel that humans are not worth more than animals. Solomon had it right when it wrote Eccl 3:19-22. Every living thing has a soul, and those souls come from and return to the same place. The original purpose for giving thanks prior to a meal is not to thank some sky-god for "giving" you food, but rather an expression of appreciation to the other creature which surrendered its soul for you. Its all part of the wheel of life. Our bodies are made of atoms which were once part of other animals, or of plants, or of rocks. When the body dies, it breaks down and becomes part of someone else, but the soul doesn't die, it just vacates the non-functioning body, like someone moving out of a decrepit house.

I don't see any difference in the quality of the soul which inhabits a human, a dog, a whale, even an insect or a tree. There may be a difference in the QUANTITY of soul-material which a particular organism can handle, based on the complexity of that creatures nervous system. So an ant, or a jellyfish, probably doesn't contain a large amount of soul, because their nervous system isn't highly complex. However they contain exactly the same KIND of soul we do, just not so much of it. One might argue that an entire ant colony might act as a sort of "community soul", and approach or even exceed the volume of a human soul. Certainly, some ants seem to act in a cooperative manner with the rest of their colony, and to plan ahead, building bridges to cross streams, etc.

Most people who have owned dogs, cats, etc would agree that those creatures possess souls. Koko, the famous gorilla, converses using American Sign Language. She has a vocabulary of several hundred words, creates sentences when seeing new things (for example, the first time she ever saw an airplane, she signed to her trainer "You, me, go for ride"). She had a kitten as a companion, and when the kitten died, she demonstrated clear signs of grief. Koko functions at approximately the level of a human 4-5 year old. I cannot conceive how any sane person could deny Koko has a soul.

A good illustration of this view regarding the nature of the soul is shown in the movie "Brother Bear", in which souls of humans and animals are clearly shown to exist together in the spirit world. The story revolves around a hunter who, for no good reason, kills a mother bear, thereby making her cub an orphan. His soul is forced to live in the body of a bear so that he can see life through a bears eyes. He still has a human soul, and for a while doesn't realize he is in a bears body. When he does find out, he wants to return to human form, and most of the movie revolves around his efforts to reach the place where he believes this can take place.

4

ARE RELIGIOUS ORGANISATIONS envirementally unfriendly?

by badboy in

jw
friends

.

i have received several envelopes(over several issues og mag) with my good news magazines, this got me thinking if religious organisations are wasting valuable resources.. what do you think?

gaiagirl

I've always wondered just how many trees are killed for each issue of the Watchtower and the Awake? How many acres of forest have been cleared to print those magazines since 1879? What a terrible waste!

35

Did the second-class status of JW women ever bother you? Does it now?

by True North in

jw
friends

if the jw organization were considered a normal business operating without the protections of being a religion, it obviously would have to make some big changes in order to avoid being sued out of existence for sex discrimination.

i wasn't raised to think that women should be relegated to second class status or that they should have less opportunities than men or be relegated to a limited set of life roles.

however, when i became a jw, i freely accepted all the sexist nonsense that came with the territory without ever being bothered by it.

gaiagirl

The attitude of women as second class persons didn't begin with the Bible, although the Bible was written by men who held such views, and so it reinforces those views.

There is archaeological evidence that earlier societies treated women on a much more equal footing, because women were viewed as the source of life. The world was seen as a living being, a feminine one, who gave every good thing to the beings who lived upon her body. Because things such as vegetation and seasons were observed to come and go in cycles, it was believed that the Earth would also recycle human lives. In other words, life was not a straight-line, one-time-only trip, but more like a trip on a Ferris Wheel.

Most of these early cultures were agricultural, with little evidence of fortifications around their cities. This era gradually ended beginning about 4000 B.C.E, when nomadic pastoral invaders moved out of the steppes of central Asia and into the settled agricultural regions of Europe.

These people, called the Kurgans, had a different world view. Instead of viewing nature as a generous provider, nature was an enemy who must be defeated or placated. These people viewed their deity as a male warrior god, and tried to emulate the qualites which they projected onto their god.

The last known remnant of the older egalitarian society were the Minoans, who finally succumbed to attacks from outside, assisted by some natural disasters. Their culture pretty much ended around 1500 B.C.E. Since that time, all the cultures we learn about in World History class pretty much treat women as second class people. This is also reflected in their pantheons, which still contain goddesses, but who are all subordinate to the supreme male god of that culture. The Greeks in Athens used to restrict their women to a separate part of the house, forbidding them from education, etc. Among Sumerians, women could have their teeth broken with bricks for saying certain things. Marriage among most of these cultures was an exchange of property between men, with the woman having little if any say in the matter, and this survives today in the custom of the brides father "giving her away" to her husband. The Biblical laws against fornication were to protect the economic value of a man's daughters, as a non-virgin was economically worthless. Therefore, a man who "corrupted" a virgin was essentially a thief, having "stolen" the value of another man's property. Similarly, adultery was condemned because one man had stolen "property" which belonged to another man.

More details on this topic can be found in:

The Chalice and the Blade, by Rianne Eisler (highly recommended)

Sacred Pleasure, by Rianne Eisler

Dawn Behind the Dawn, by Geoffery Ashe

When God Was A Woman, by Merlin Stone

38

Do jw's believe dinosaurs existed?

by farmer in

jw
friends

?

and what do they believe or not about evolution?

gaiagirl

I once saw a "questions from readers" article in a back issue of the Watchtower or Awake owned by an older brother in the congregation where we had our book study. This was probably the 1969 bound volume, in which it stated that dinosaurs may have existed up until the time of Noah!!!!! More about evolution...the teaching used to be that each and every different species (although the WTBTS used the word "kind" instead of "species") was a distinct, separate creation. So monitor lizards were created as a separate kind from crocodiles, which were created separate from snakes, which were created separate from skinks, which were created separate from horned toads, etc. All were said to be separate from any bird, although they didn't like to talk about fossil birds such as Archeopteryx, which had claws on its feathered wings, a reptilian tail, and reptilian teeth in its beak. Archeopteryx has a reptilian skeleton, very similar to a small velociraptor, if the fossil had not included impressions from its feathers, it would not have been known to have been a bird. But if you ask a JW, they will tell you it isn't a reptile evolving into a bird, but that it instead was a completely separate creation.