Posts by Midget-Sasquatch

28

Just a thought-Has anyone ever wondered?

by redhotchilipepper in

jw
friends

maybe if there is a god, that maybe he doesn't want us to know who he is?

maybe he only wants to know us through prayer.

maybe the bible is a hoax?

Midget-Sasquatch

Since learning the point of the "telephone" game in grade school, I always thought that the surest way for "god" to give us any message was personally. Never getting one personally was a saddening thought as a child, but as I grew up it was more of a melancholy one. Maybe there simply isn't anyone on the other line. Then the silence wouldn't still be nagging me.

Then again, maybe we've externalized this classical creator "god" and expect a message from the outside and that's all wrong. Maybe, if we're open to it, we can get a personal experiential sense of the divine (whatever its nature) through the thoughts/emotions that motivate us to help one another, and the reciprocal joy that comes from it.

39

Does being a JW damage some children mentally?

by Gill in

jw
friends

Midget-Sasquatch

I'd say that it has done an awful lot of damage to a few people I've known. One of them is miserable and attempted suicide twice because he can't deal with his homosexuality. Another person has no positive self image whatsoever (makes me look cocky in comparison) because she's never been "spiritual" enough. I really empathize with her because, I too have always felt bad about myself because I couldn't really sincerely believe anything being said by the JWs. The deficiency must be in me. Not to mention how they stunt a person's critical thinking skills.

55

The "bodily reserrection of Christ"doctrine and John 2:19-22

by booker-t in

i have been examing this doctrine for a very long time and i must admit it makes no sense at all.

when i talk to born-again christians about this doctrine the first place they always run to in the bible is john 2:19-22. the verse simple states: destroy this temple and in three days i will raise it up.

the jews thought he was talking about the temple building.

Midget-Sasquatch

Nark

Its so true. In all spheres of human knowledge, there's always been a succesive boom in understanding when someone questioned the accepted view and thought along a different path. I have alot of catching up to do (and I'll have to forget about what I read in Friedman's book Who Wrote the Bible? --- Thats where I first was introduced to the JEPD explanation). There are some great posters with a variety of stengths on this board and I'm glad I found JWD.

LT

Sorry for the confusion. When I wrote my questions, I also wondered if they offered any historically valid insights. If those opinions were plainly out of step with whats known about early christian history, then they could be easily refuted or "blown out of the water". My mistake was referring to myself instead of the ideas. I know you'd never make a personal attack LT, and what I was also trying to say was that you'd probably hold off from saying the ideas were totally bogus out of courtesy.

Does the reformed view opt for a purely symbolic meaning to the eucharist? I'm not attracted to the insistence of the RC church on a real presence in the eucharist. If there's anything positive about growing up in a religiously divided home is that I've learned not to have a dogmatic frame of mind.

55

The "bodily reserrection of Christ"doctrine and John 2:19-22

by booker-t in

i have been examing this doctrine for a very long time and i must admit it makes no sense at all.

when i talk to born-again christians about this doctrine the first place they always run to in the bible is john 2:19-22. the verse simple states: destroy this temple and in three days i will raise it up.

the jews thought he was talking about the temple building.

Midget-Sasquatch

Thank you very much for those additional links Nark...I've got to read them as soon as I get the time and am surprised that so much of the mainstream continued on just on repetition. The later dating would nicely explain why there are no direct secular references for Jesus. (or even for Paul then?)

LT

You're too kind a soul to completely blow me out of the water it would seem. I'm just trying to explore beyond the JW and RC views I grew up with ,so if I'm getting "lost" feel free to "yell" out.

Leolaia

Maybe I'm making a very tenuous superficial link with the views on the transubstantiation and how it may have contributed to bringing together the opposing views on Jesus resurrection. I realize that they were/are two distinct aspects of belief, and maybe they never did affect each others development. I'll let your vaster knowledge of history weigh in on this, and your academic bent for accuracy to take precedence.

55

The "bodily reserrection of Christ"doctrine and John 2:19-22

by booker-t in

i have been examing this doctrine for a very long time and i must admit it makes no sense at all.

when i talk to born-again christians about this doctrine the first place they always run to in the bible is john 2:19-22. the verse simple states: destroy this temple and in three days i will raise it up.

the jews thought he was talking about the temple building.

Midget-Sasquatch

LT

If I understand you properly, you lean more towards Paul's idea of Jesus' angelification? In any case, I find that view appealing, and wonder why some people back then felt the necessity for a corporeal resurrection? Was it just because they were keeping in line with the idea of resurrection back then (rejoining the soul to an actual body)? Or was it also an element they needed to keep somehow if they were to fuse the jewish ideas of sacrifices for sins with the pagan mysteries (consuming the actual body of their god)?

Nark

Has the dating of Paul's earliest works been recently in question by several scholars? Why I ask is that I'm currently reading a book by Alvar Ellegard, who also is arguing for a 2nd century dating of the Gospels and Paul's writings (he's not suggesting any collusions though). I found that link you posted interesting (to this runt's predisposition to conspiracies anyway ). I'm just wondering if its now becoming an arguable view for later dating.

30

Do you believe Mary was a virgin?

by JustTickledPink in

jw
friends

my catholic friend and i were talking the other night about the virgin mary.

she doesn't even believe that she was a virgin and she doesn't believe in the immaculate conception.

if you think about it logically today, if you had a fiance that went to visit relatives for a few months and then came back pregnant and told you it was god's child, would you believe it?

Midget-Sasquatch

Abbadon

I agree with you....more than likely the goat had copulated.

Editted to add : Forgot to stress in my post that I'm talking about natural parthenogenesis. Its especially seen in alot of the haploid social insects but also in some reptiles. They've managed to induce both frog and rabbit ova into forming an embryo artificially, but never have they managed to do that in humans.

30

Do you believe Mary was a virgin?

by JustTickledPink in

jw
friends

my catholic friend and i were talking the other night about the virgin mary.

she doesn't even believe that she was a virgin and she doesn't believe in the immaculate conception.

if you think about it logically today, if you had a fiance that went to visit relatives for a few months and then came back pregnant and told you it was god's child, would you believe it?

Midget-Sasquatch

Parthenogenesis has never been documented in any mammal as far as I know. It does occur in some reptiles. But in each and every case the offspring is the exact same sex as the mother (very much a clone of it) --- so scratch that as a plausible mechanism for the story. Unless there's some new data I'm unaware of?

11

Screwed up!!!

by pluginbaby in

jw
friends

today: (aloud rumbling nose) .

me: oh my god...is it armageddon(heat beats starts to sweat).

me: oh it's just a plane...phew.

Midget-Sasquatch

Hi Plugin,

First off, I wish you the best in your university studies, and second I think you've done a fine job at keeping yourself from seriously being screwed up by the JWs. You've been free from their behavioural control and ongoing reinforcement for a number of years.

You can get rid of all your fears, by closely considering the Org's teaching of "newlight". The truth is first one thing, but then the complete opposite, but ohh.....wait.....incoming message....yep....yep....its the first thing again. God can't give it to us accurately the first time? Maybe the problem is on the receiving end?

I'd recommend Quotes' excellent site.

If you do reconsider your stand on "anti-jw" lit, then I'd take the advice of so many posters here and read Crisis of Conscience. The book Orwellian World of Jehovah's Witnesses will also give you some insight into how the Org trys to affect a dub's thinking. You can then go about countering those methods and you'll soon be fear free.

30

Do you believe Mary was a virgin?

by JustTickledPink in

jw
friends

my catholic friend and i were talking the other night about the virgin mary.

she doesn't even believe that she was a virgin and she doesn't believe in the immaculate conception.

if you think about it logically today, if you had a fiance that went to visit relatives for a few months and then came back pregnant and told you it was god's child, would you believe it?

Midget-Sasquatch

If she were my fiance, I'd like to see the paternity test results. But I'm figuring the "lady" would have a bit of a hard time trying to get a tissue/blood sample. Like a couple of posters mentioned already, there's a good deal of legend and myths lifted from past cultures in the virgin birth story.

Being less profane for a moment : Assuming there actually was a 1st century girl called Mary who ended up pregnant illegitimately, a book by Bishop Spong gives an interesting take on how society is supposed to treat them and their children and other disenfranchised people. So I wouldn't trsh the whole thing as being without some take home message. I hope this isn't too obvious an attempt to hedge my bets ala Pascal.

55

The "bodily reserrection of Christ"doctrine and John 2:19-22

by booker-t in

i have been examing this doctrine for a very long time and i must admit it makes no sense at all.

when i talk to born-again christians about this doctrine the first place they always run to in the bible is john 2:19-22. the verse simple states: destroy this temple and in three days i will raise it up.

the jews thought he was talking about the temple building.

Midget-Sasquatch

I've been learning so much from these postings!

This may be a useless thought, so don't spare me. Does the doctrine of the Transubstantiation figure in here? Maybe thats Ignatius' and the early church fathers' take on Paul's teachings on Jesus' resurrection and the anti-docetic one? If I'm not mistaken, the doctrine is that the Eucharist is the actual Body and Blood of Christ. Christ is actually the meal and at the same time Christ is also His divine form. Maybe that's one way they sought to somehow bring together both the docetic and anti-docetic views on Christ's resurrection? A way to take Paul's tradition and build up from it? Or have I surpassed even CT Russel for mixed up ideas?