We are slowly getting into recycling. People in the big cities are already more used to it than in the countryside (where I live). I'm probably slightly more sensitive to it than the majority, but I wouldn't bother too much in the situation you describe. It's a quantitative matter, so the daily habit is more important than an occasional gesture. (And maybe, because of my religious background, I wouldn't like getting "pharisaic" about it!)
Narkissos
JoinedPosts by Narkissos
-
13
A culture of conservationism?
by seattleniceguy ini'm currently going back to school to study biology and biomimicry.
i'm hoping to work to develop green technologies - better energy sources, better product packaging, better waste disposal, and so on.
i'm concerned for the earth, and i sometimes wish that everyone would suddenly start consuming less or more responsibly, but i realize that it simply will not happen overnight.
-
-
-
69
What Is God Doing?
by Satanus inwhat can you point to right now, that god is doing?
if he is maintaining the universe, can this be scientifically shown?
if he gives life to the newly firtilised egg cell, can that be scientifically shown?
-
-
Narkissos
I'd like to address the question from a different (cultural) standpoint. On this view, God had a beginning. Before the 6th century BC there was no God -- only gods.
And, yes, God came into existence by negating the (other) gods. As Nietzsche put it, "the gods are dead -- they died laughing when they heard one of them claiming he was the only one." Negation is at the very basis of the concept of God (still present when monotheists deny the other monotheists' God as someone said). The destruction of "idols" which was fundamental to the idea of God was to set back someday against God himself as the "great Idol" (Nietzsche again).
So what is this God (who is only 2500 or so years old at most) doing now? To any overall world view he is probably dead, since even the most theist political thinkers do not believe anymore in theism, but in secularism as the common space in which the different religious communities may coexist. Or maybe he is sound asleep and the believers are his last dream -- or nightmare...
-
20
Josephus-Luke connection
by peacefulpete ini found this online article interesting.
an additional point not in the article below is that josephus claimed to have been a remarkable boy who at 14 sat and impressed the jewish teachers, "luke" just one upped his jesus to do the same at 12. i think the author of luke utilized the josephus works to historize the jesus story.
the rest is further evidence of this.
-
-
Narkissos
As was mentioned earlier on some "Magi Star" thread, a narrative comparison of the birth stories in Matthew and Luke show they are incompatible. In Matthew, Joseph and Mary just live in Bethlehem and later move to Nazareth (2:22f). In Luke, they live in Nazareth (1:26) and the (anachronistic) census is necessary for Jesus to be born in Bethlehem.
Btw, I'm pretty convinced by the above argument on Josephus-Luke connection. It was also one of Eisenman's strongest points in his book on James.
-
11
voice of thunder
by peacefulpete inin john 12 jesus prayers to his father and a voice from heaven responds.
verse 30 has jesus saying that the voice was for the crowd's benefit not his.
interestingly the passage also says that those around him heard only thunder, interpreting this as a message from heaven.
-
-
Narkissos
In classical Hebrew the thunder is commonly called "qol elohim" (voice of gods, or voice of a god), e.g. Exodus 9:28; cf. Isaiah 30:30; Jeremiah 10:13 or Job 37:2. The word "qol" has a very large semantic range which includes "voice" and "sound" (for instance, in Genesis 3:8 what is usually translated "the voice of Yhwh" can as well mean "the sound of Yhwh's footsteps", i.e. "the sound of the breeze in the trees"). In the "Baalist" Psalm 29 we have a vivid depiction of the "voice of Yhwh" as thunder.
The Gospel of John is fond of playing on misunderstandings (the discussion with Nicodemus in chapter 3 is a good example). The interpretations "thunder" or "an angel spoke" (v. 29) are presented as popular misunderstandings of the divine voice which only the Johannine Jesus grasps correctly (this could be compared to the anti-baalist revelation to Elijah in 1Kings 19: Yhwh is NOT in the thunderstorm). Remember demons and angels only occur in GJohn as metaphors (1:51; 20:12) or as a popular belief (to describe Jesus' supposed lunacy, 7:20; 8:48f,52; 10:20f). When compared to the other Gospels, the early material of John's Gospel seems very akin to the Sadducees' view (the Beloved disciple is supposed to be an acquaintance of the high priest, 18:15; see also 11:50f).
-
12
Naming the divine
by Euphemism ini have a question for the great mass of people on this site who are neither atheists nor religious.. .
i don't believe in god.
i don't think that there's some supernatural being who performs miracles, or inspires holy writings, or listens to prayers, or judges the dead, or anything like that.
-
-
Narkissos
Peacefulpete: I had never heard about the "Bright" label, but on your advice I found and read Dawkins' article in The Guardian. I'm not very enthusiastic either. First, that's the kind of label we don't really need (yet) in Voltaire's country: here any public religious / cultic / occult commitment will definitely bring more scorn than trust or respect. I can imagine that a sort of "rationalistic pride" may be useful in countries (such as the U.S.?) where religious people are deemed more trustworthy, or serious, than unbelievers. Even so, I would have picked up something less elitist, on a social/educational standpoint. Because "bright", as I feel it, could create much misunderstanding and even hate, especially in view of the dominant judeo-christian "value" of "humility"... I also think of the Iranian model (my wife is Iranian), where much of the popular support for the fundamentalistic Islamic revolution was fueled by a spirit of revenge against the "enlightened" upper-class and its "bright" Western views under the Shah. A lack of pedagogy can bring us centuries backwards.
-
31
New Light-----1986----The International Year Of Peace Fulfilled???
by minimus inthey're saying the prophecy is possibly fulfilled of "peace and security and then sudden destruction" in the year 1986 when world leaders dubbed that year as the "year of peace".
the feb.1st watchtower mentions that just as a pregnant woman over 9 months gradually has signs of a baby's growth in the womb, so too, we may have a fulfillment of bible prophecy without knowing it fully beforehand until the effects and results become obvious.
my mother read excerpts of the wt.
-
-
Narkissos
I was df'd in 1986 and I remember the "year of peace" stuff (though it was not that assertive). Referring to it NOW seems incredible since, as Elsewhere said, it was supposed to be "sudden destruction"! I'm curious to read what they really write on that subject now...
-
48
What Makes You Read & Post On This Site?
by minimus inonce again, there's a lot of new people on this board as well as us "oldsters".
what was the original reason for you looking at this site and why did you make your first post?
and why do you stay here?
-
-
Narkissos
After I was df'd as an "apostate" in 1986, I almost never had any contact with xJWs (except a good friend of mine who was df'd at the same time). I went on my way through churches, theology and Biblical work -- and finally out of religion. Only this year, when I first had more time on my hands, I took part in French xJW forums, initially out of sheer curiosity. This, in turn, led me onto this site. And I enjoy it. It is an opportunity to discuss things I couldn't discuss for years, and I now realize how important they were to me. Also, I feel a board of people with a common PAST experience offers much more variety, interest, listening and respect than any group with common PRESENT interests (such as a church, a club or a political party).
-
31
Trusting ourselves vs trusting the org
by Lady Lee inin my discussion with estee yesterday the subject of how the wts edits their own literature came up.
it wasn't until after i left that i began to realize the extent of these edits or that they even occurred.. an example i gave is how i could clearly remember having read something in a magazine.
i could recall clearly where it even appeared on the page even if i could not recall what issue it was in.
-
-
Narkissos
Very interesting post. Although I don't think this typically "Orwellian" kind of information control is limited to the WT. Every (religious or political) power structure uses it, as much as it is able to do. Within the WT the information- and consequently mind-control is undoubtedly very high.
I remember the best help I got in trusting my own subjective perception of things when I was leaving the org. came from the N.T. johannine texts. Such as:
"I do not know whether he is a sinner. One thing I do know, that though I was blind, now I see." (John 9:25)
"As for you, the anointing that you received from him abides in you, and so you do not need anyone to teach you." (1 John 2:27)
-
21
" Nobody knows the day or the hour..accept the father".
by gumby inahhh!
but how about the year?????
i always wondered if those that predict the year of the lords return......somehow feel justified, that they would not be going against jesus words if they mearly predicted the year.....and not the day or hour.
-
-
Narkissos
So... many happy returns JC! (Or have I missed something?)
-
24
no sweaty blood
by peacefulpete inwe all remember the story in luke 22:44 where in jesus in agonizing prayer begins to sweat blood.
remember the extremely rare medical condition where a person being tortured can sweat blood that was cited as proof that the bible was true and how this should deepen our appreciation for the sacrifice of jesus?
well the footnote in the reference bible reveals that the earliest and best manuscripts of the nt do not have verses 43&44.
-
-
Narkissos
The idea of Christ's bodily "perfection" (as Adam before the Fall) seems to me a typically 19th-century adventist idea, if not limited to the WT (it would be interesting to know the current SDA view). It is linked to the specific understanding of Jesus' death as Adam's ransom, which is not taught this way in the N.T. (Romans 5 insists on the difference, not equivalence, between Adam and Christ). Some texts (e.g. Hebrews) may describe Jesus as "sinless" as a kind of vindicative reaction to the crucifixion which would mark him as a "sinner". But I never heard of a patristic extrapolation which would ascribe "perfection" with a special health status to Jesus (Leolaia, where are you?).