Matthew begins with a genealogy. This genealogy gives the Mother and the Father in terms of bloodline.
If Jesus was born of a virgin; I ask what is the purpose of giving JOSEPH'S bloodline? It is irrelevent.
What more needs to be asked?
Posts by Terry
-
45virgin birth in Matt and Luke?
by peacefulpete inrobert price (incredible shrinking son of man) has alerted me to an interesting possibility that matt and luke (that is, the original authors) may not have intended that jesus had a miraculous conception.
mark never gives any hint that he was aware of any birth tradition surrounding his jesus, matt and luke have generally been considered the first to incorporate this element into the legend.
however price and jane schaberg (baba pg.116) have reexamined the texts and come to a different conclusion.
-
-
-
26
What do you know? And, How do you know it?
by Terry inremember how certain you were as a jw?
you just knew what you knew was right 100%
you staked your life on it, didn't you?
-
-
Terry
SheilaM said:
Simplistic as it may seem and I've said it before the knowledge comes from within, the change comes from within and you achieve that by doing the self work of learning.
**********************************************************************************************************
Could you clarify a bit for me? I'd make sense of your statement the following way. (Correct me if I am wrong in stating it this way)
My mind is like my kitchen. I bring ingredients in from OUTSIDE. Once inside I take those ingredients and combine them with a recipe of my own choosing and create a meal fit for consumption; delicious and nutritious.
Or, are you saying you are born with your kitchen already stocked with ingredients?
If the latter, could you expand on that for me? Thanks.
-
30
What have you been reading lately?
by Preston inblood meridian by cormac mccarthy.
i am legend by richard matheson.
my work is not yet done by thomas ligotti.
-
-
Terry
Excellent choices all! Cormack McCarthy--yes. I'll bet you found him by way of Harold Bloom. Am I wrong?
I'm reading:
SECRET ORIGINS OF THE BIBLE by Tim Callahan
(Callahan writes for Skeptic Magazine too)
JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES Proclaimers of God's Kingdom by Satan
APOCALYPSES by Eugen Weber (Prophesies, Cults, and Millennial Beliefs through the ages)
THE JESUITS by Malachi Martin (The Society of Jesus and the Betrayal of the Roman Catholic Church)
The ANCIENT HISTORIANS by Michael Grant
The IDEAS OF AYN RAND by Ronald E. Merrill
SHADOW ON THE SUN BY Richard Matheson
Seven books at a time? Well, it is a rather bad habit I developed as a teenager. I force myself to read only one chapter of each at a time so that I can use the easy books as an enticement to force me to read the hard books.
Great topic!
-
9
Politics and religion
by onacruse ini've often posted that, imo, politics and religion are simply 2 heads on the same hydra--the hydra of social interactions, each "head" contributing its own part to the constraints of how we interact with each other.. i was just talking with a friend, and he pointed out to me a distinction that merits consideration:.
you can walk away from a religion, with the consequent restructuring of your belief-system.
but the results of political decisions (taxes, benefits, etc) are forced upon you, nation by nation, and you have no choice (in spite of your vote).
-
-
Terry
Philosophy is a method of using your intellect to discover what works.
We are physical creatures. We are finite. Our nature determines our
method of survival. Our minds are our only means of self-preservation.
We have to discover what kind of enviornment we thrive in and learn to take the necessary steps to ensure that survival.
But, if we are to live above the level of mere survival our existence must be improved; we must learn the truth that : NATURE, to be commanded, must be obeyed.
What does that mean? Unless you understand the objective nature of the real world you cannot mould it to suit your purposes.
Man must discover the limits and contrive the strategy of surmounting those limits.
Two thousand years ago a man could not fly. When darkness came he could not see. Great distances could not be quickly traversed. The lights in the sky were speculative visions.
But, men who used their rational powers seized nature in their own hands. In heroic efforts of will they focused and sifted and abstracted and learned. Men became inventors and discoverers and scientists and tore away the shrouds of ignorance that smothered them in the darkness of lesser animals.
Mankind, through the efforts of a very few, rose above subsistence and superstition and broke the bonds of gravity to plunge into the dazzling glory of transcendance.
But, while those thinkers, those philsophers, those rational minds were dragging mankind ever upward toward better lives, healthier bodies and more rational knowledge, others more sinister had their agendas.
The Greek philsophers ideally discussed the concept of a PHILSOPHER KING who might embody greatness of mind with magnificence of deed on behalf of his nation. Such a ruler would not need the tyrannical sword of death to improve his lot by subjugating others. The Philsopher King would, by dint of empowering progressive advancement and fair judgement, enable mankind to flourish equably.
This man never materialized!
Aristotle devoutly tutored the son of Philip of Macedon, the king's son, with the ennobling spirit of knowledge and service. This son grew to be Alexander the Great. His zeal was that of spreading the GREEK ethos throughout the known world. His was a missionary zeal for all things Greek. Anyone who could not speak greek was blubbering gibberish (hence the term: barbarian; mean blubbering gibberish).
Alexander was great only in that he was an efficient fighting machine. His travels in ancient lands were a mission of destruction to any who opposed his will. True, he spread Greek thought. But, at what price in blood?
I cite the above example for a reason.
The ideal is only "ideal" from a certain point of view. Nothing is ideal for everybody. To the non-Greek the ideal of Alexander was a threat to their national identity, their language and their very selves.
Philosophy works for the individual when a man discovers what his nature is and what it must become. How a man "becomes" cannot be at the cost of others. Religion enters!
Why should any man follow the rules of others? Who can force a particular behavior? The answer is: God. God is the profound extrapolation of the ideal: All good and all powerful, just and true.
By insisting there is a mind and a power above all else and signing that god's name to a list of behaviors, the middleman (priest) offers the reason :WHY MUST I OBEY?
So too with a political ruler. What is legitimate about a ruler that any man should obey him? It must involve POWER and it must involve some claim to transcendant goodness and justness.
History is a list. The list is paired. On one side we have the names of rulers. On the other side we have the names of priests, prophets, mystics of all kinds. The ruler gains legitimacy from mystic. How?
The mystic has power over the minds of men. Fear, superstition and a claim to ethical dominance enslave man to the punishment of god or the reward of service in his name.
The political ruler must use the religious ruler. Parasite and host.
Parasite: politician/priest Host: mankind
The engine that drives this false symbiosis is fear and ignorance; power and persuasion.
Only an individual is truly free. But, even the wisest and mightiest of individuals is but one human being. To accomplish great change the individual must have numbers: co-operative collusion; a multitude of hands and shoulders pushing against obstacles.
And that is the built-in rub!
The minute an individual joins forces with others an awful price is paid:
1.Compromise
2.Dominance/submission
3.Obedience
The failure of politics is the failure of religion is the failure of mankind to achieve the dignity of autonomous action. Thus we become fractions and factions and splinters and sects and cults and chaos.
Democracy asks permission of those who must obey. The Constitution tells what rights and freedoms an individual possesses and the Bill of Rights protects man from his own government.
The citizen is free and the government is bound; that is ideal democracy. All men are created equal? How? By this. All men are born human. Our humanity is in our shared nature. We all share the nature that what we NEED to survive and flourish is identical. We cannot escape our human nature. We are all created equal by our humanity. It is our law and our agreement with that law that create us as a people.
So then, why do we not live in Utopia? Because men must rule men. Because laws are administered by men. Because the advantage to power is greater to the one weilding it than it is to the one to whom it is being dealt.
Win-win is the ideal. But, power cannot be equalized. A leader is not a leader unless he turns his head behind him and see followers lining up.
When we win; we lose.
Hell is other people.
-
26
What do you know? And, How do you know it?
by Terry inremember how certain you were as a jw?
you just knew what you knew was right 100%
you staked your life on it, didn't you?
-
-
Terry
Logansrun says: Absolute certainty? It's chimerical.
B. ********************************************************************** Notice how certain he is that it is chimerical? :) ******************************************************************************* One thing philosophy offers not found in other disciplines; shaky reasoning is self-refuting. To offer the argument that "nothing is certain" is to often a statement of certainty. To offer the argument that "nothing is absolute" is to make an absolute statement. To say "there is no knowledge" is a statement of knowledge. If someone says to you: "There is no proof of existence" Ask them: "Who said that?" To say "all is illusion" is a statement that purports clarity of vision. I blame Plato and Immanuel Kant and their ilk for the attack on man's only defense against chaos: his mind. If you want to control others you must destroy their self-defense, which is their rational mind. If you wish to be controlled by others you must surrender your will to think on your own. I submit that there are only two kinds of thinkers. One kind builds on the idea that what "is" can be identified and known. The other destroys by saying "we cannot know". The evidence of which philosophy produces wisdom, progress and life above survival level speaks for itself. The tyrants of history step into the breech between man's knowledge and his doubts. The tyrants seize the initiative. Tyrants inform you that you CANNOT know anything and that you are nothing. Tyrants proceed to fill that empty space with their own agenda. Tyrants are always mystics. A mystic has a secret connection to knowledge which they assert is real. If you want to "know" you must deal THROUGH them. The tyrants and mystics always become a go-between; a mediator between man and ultimate "truth". When you let go of your own steering mechanism your life ceases to be your own. Surrender your mind and you cease to exist as the individual. The slavemaster don't want individuals who think, who question, who protest and who disagree. The slavemaster only wants obedience. The warning bell that must ring the loudest? OBEY! The above illustrates why I asked the question: WHAT do you know? and HOW do you know it? Ask yourself: What is the difference between the actions of a drowning man and a swimmer?
-
27
LIGHTNING BOLT from Gawd! Paul's turnaround?
by Terry inlast night in bed listening to the terrible electric storm that raged outside i was thinking of a local football player who had been struck by lightning while jogging on the school track.
i then had what they call an epiphany.. it became clear to me that, perhaps, paul had been struck by lightning on the road to damascus and partially blinded and perhaps sustained a permanent infirmity.. further, being struck by lightning would be taken as a sign from god that he needed to reassess his course in life.
he was a thug doing enforcement for the high priest against the upstart christian sect.
-
-
Terry
Narkissos
DOSTOYEVSKY looked for god by looking at evil. If evil were real; god must be real.
It is an odd equation, no?
William Peter Blatty (writer of The Exorcist) agreed with Dostoyevsky. He posited that, if one could prove the existence of the Devil, automatically the balance to the equation would be God!
Faith is a most remarkable invention. Faith shouts at the Universe:
IT IS TRUE BECAUSE I INSIST!
A desperate man must needs shout in this manner.
What I need; I must have! I need God; I must have him
I cannot prove the God I need is there; so, I will create a linkage between what is and what MUST be.
This is the beginning of the journey. A man writes his own map.
A dull man needs no proof. A genius must build it.
When the Jews returned from Babylonian exile to Jerusalem they were a ragtag and dismal assembly. The deck of self-belief had been shuffled. What did it all mean? What story was true? Who was right? How do we continue without one path?
Out of that need for___something___to weld the disparate desperate mob into a nation came the solution. What was needed was...................."found". Seemingly out of nowhere, a most convenient copy of the LAW was discovered! Just in the nick of time! It rescued the ethnic and unruly refugees into a perfect picture; an ideal of what their "history" and their "law" told them to be: GOD'S CHOSEN PEOPLE.
When Jesus was executed the followers of this Messianic hope were left with only paths to take.
1.Give it up
2.Discover exactly what was needed to go on.
Just in the nick of time word spread that Jesus had risen from the dead!
When the world at large (pagan and Roman) put its collective heel on the neck of this band of Messianic idealists the broad shadow of extinction loomed large. What could save this Jesus-belief from the abyss?
Just in the nick of time Paul arrives and explains everything; it all fits together. The law and the prophets warned us this would happen; Jesus had to die, you see.
In 1914 the Jesus predictions of a band of true-believer adventists were on the brink of humiliating extinction. What would save them from a headlong plunge over the edge?
Just in the nick of time an INVISIBLE 2nd coming doctrine was "revealed" to the very ones who needed it.
What is my point? People invent their cause; they create their crisis; they discover their means of rescue---all with improbable regularity. Is there any difference in what a novelist does in plotting?
Dostoyevsky, William Peter Blatty, Ezra, the apostles, Paul and C.T.Russell have more in common than they would ever have imagined.
-
23
Are "New Age" women more sexually open?
by logansrun ini tend to think so.
perhaps it's the kama sutra thing, but it seems that most women who are into astrology, clairvoyance, eastern religions, yoga and the like are more open sexually.
also, it seems that most women either are involved in christianity or the new age.
-
-
Terry
I'm just one of those old (57) guys who thinks they should have an opinion on everything; so take what I'm going to say with an eleven-thousand pound grain of salt.....
Sexuality is nothing if not self-expression. In purest form, within the sex act, we cease to be brain-guided, in control, analytical intellects. Instead, the beast emerges. Our raw power as animal selves exits the primal cave of repression and rampages with mad abandon! Only in sex does the pure appetite of visceral existence explode into being. The cautious veneer of societal norms (and other bullshit) vaporizes.
The power and the glory of existence is the experience of sensory overload; the tickle of original feeling thundering into a lightning flash of brilliant physical illumination: ecstacy! Humans crave the experience of being alive! Sex can deliver that atomic payload with a radiant afterglow that stops all clocks and brings the universe to a standstill. Sex is the ultimate act of creation.
So-called "new age" women have escaped the chains of guilt. The dragon at the cave is always guilt and repression. By losing the bonds of a strangling religious view, Free Spirits soar.
Open minds lead to open experience.....and experience is the only real life.
-
26
Ladies, don't you hate it when guys over analyze everything?
by Maverick ina by-product of being a genuis-type guy is the tendancy to read too much into every action, word or event in a relationship.
i have killed more than one relationship this way.
with the gf's giving me comments such as, "why can't i have a normal boyfriend?
-
-
Terry
All this is said in a coming-out-of-Jehovahland context.
Witnesses are given the 50's stereotype view of men and women.
It shapes their world view.
Further, the person asking the question is addressing the "Ladies" who hate it when a guy
over analyzes. That frames the discussion which follows. It assumes a narrow view.
In my own personal opinion; women have their collective noses rubbed in reality far more than men ever do. Being a woman carries burdens men don't realize. Women are held to a higher standard. Pressure is everywhere. Nobody pressures women as much as other women!
But, gender based bias is ARTIFICIAL! It is an artificial construct (for people selling it) to paint women with a single color brush. The fact that so many women just bow their head and accept it is tragic.
Women who fight against a one-view gender bubble seem to have only one path available to them and that is to UGLIFY themselves in protest. This is obscene, to me.
"You demand I be beautiful and slim and blonde and dumb?" they seem to ask,
"Well, instead I'll be tattooed and pierced and tough and ugly!"
Some women (usually young) use themselves as battering rams. They plunge into self-destructive behaviors to prove they are tough and resilient and IN CONTROL. Mostly they are fighting against being FORCED to become what others declare them must become.
Nobody can truthfully make any statement about WOMEN which ends up being true. Humans are individuals. The scale of human behavior is a vast one with a multitude of grey between the black and the white.
But, in the context of "Ladies" who "hate it when guys over analyze everything" some things can be said which generally apply. That is the focus of my comments above.
-
23
Looking Back, Did You Neglect Your Family Because You Were In The "Truth"?
by minimus ini know many of us felt we were doing "god's work" and did not have to spend time with our families or even do things for ourselves.
our only focus was the ministry and the "truth"....... did you too, neglect yourself and your family??
?
-
-
Terry
The only "advancement" a man will have inside a Kingdom Hall will have to come from his ambition to brown-nose. There is a class division among brothers. You are either IN or you are OUT. A "macho" brother goes the extra mile.
Elders flex the muscle. Non-elders are poop-ons.
Men don't appreciate being made to feel small.
Being made to feel insignificant if you don't pull EXtra duty is what the strategy is all about.
Having somebody constantly prodding you to INCREASE your activity is to induce a feeling of worthlessness.
Is it any wonder husbands neglect their families just to prove they've got Kingdom-sized balls?
I don't know of many men who don't want to feel important in the eyes of their peers. How else to do this in the KH but to run the meetings?
Is it any wonder that most of the performing monkey types are old men? Who else have shed family responsibilty? When kids have left the house and your wife is quietly depressed you are free to jump into Jehovah's boiling cauldren of activity.
As a side note:
My "JW-active" friend Johnny has always been smart.
He tells the elders that he has to "provide" for his family FIRST.
He asks anyone approaching him to do "extra" a question:
"Are you going to pay my bills?"
It works every time.
-
56
Preaching Doom and Gloom in October?
by Sassy inmy ex husband (who is dfd but not a professsed apostate) told me yesterday that in october there is going to be a big push for preaching doom in service.. like the last chance to get people in before the end.. .
has anyone else heard this?.
i assume either his brother who is a dub or his mother have passed this on to him, in order to scare him to come back quick before everyone dies.. .
-
-
Terry
Oh, it is probably going to be dressed up in some NEW LIGHT.