U.S. Code 18 Sec. 1725: Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits any mailable matter such as statements of accounts, circulars, sale bills, or other like matter, on which no postage has been paid, in any letter box established, approved, or accepted by the Postal Service for the receipt or delivery of mail matter on any mail route with intent to avoid payment of lawful postage thereon, shall for each such offense be fined under this title. The penalty is still $300, according to the USPS, for each offense. Maybe a letter to the congregational elders citing the law and the KM above? Euripides
euripides
JoinedPosts by euripides
-
12
I Received the New Magazines in My Mail...
by lonelysheep in[first...there are about 3 or 4 kh's in my city.
over the summer, they moved people into their proper congregations based on territory.
although i'd never gone to the closest hall, this is where the magazines came from per the return address.].
-
-
-
11
Who besides WTS believes in 607?
by ezekiel3 inthis is a genuine question on my part.
i understand the arguments for 587 vs 607 regarding the destruction of jerusalem.
what i want to know is, are there any organizations (religious or other) besides jws that believe 607?
-
-
euripides
Ezekiel--
The nitty gritty of the rationale for 607 is hairsplitting and logical gymnastics of the highest order with a good dose of suspension of disbelief. It is a classic case of the FDS quoting historians when it suits their argument and ignoring them when there is simply no evidence to support their view. When reality-checks threaten to disrupt the continuum of fantasy (I mean really--7 times multiplied by 360 days per lunar year with a day for a year each demands three separate unrelated interpretive mechanisms!!) the mind of the JW has a choice, to reel or retreat. The first forces questioning, deeper investigation, the seed of doubt, and the only there thing to combat it is the usual mind-control devices--the FDS knows what's best as the Voice of Jehovah; your doubts and questioning are Satanic; pray for further insight because you don't get it; wait on Jah or FDS; talk to the elders; etc etc etc. (http://www.607v587.com/ is an example of one JW whose mind reeled and pursued it vigorously, with disappointing but predictable results.) Retreat into the comfortable bosom of congregational good graces, warmth and acceptance while these questions go unanswered can seem easier, but there's a psychic price to pay. So many JWs today (a lost generation indeed) still cling desparately onto the significance of 1914, for so long as that date remains pivotal then given the method of arrival at that date 607 won't change.
Oddly, I once read that it was proposed by a member of the GB (was it in Crisis of Conscience?) that 1957 should become the new date for the beginning of the "last days" because of Sputnik!! So look for further tweaking of this doctrine sometime soon.
-
11
Who besides WTS believes in 607?
by ezekiel3 inthis is a genuine question on my part.
i understand the arguments for 587 vs 607 regarding the destruction of jerusalem.
what i want to know is, are there any organizations (religious or other) besides jws that believe 607?
-
-
euripides
Check out http://www.geocities.com/osarsif/607b.htm and this will give you a history of the doctrine. Odd indeed. Of course, not one single reputable contemporary scholar says that Jerusalem fell before 587/586 BCE. That's because when you read the history you'll see the full story.
Euripides
-
22
i was wondering....
by myvalk inwhy are there so many intelligent people in the truth, if its clearly hogwash?
-
-
euripides
There's a mass brain drain going on, and the best ones end up here!
Honestly, on this list you probably have a better diversity of people, even though I suppose technically we (of those no longer in) are the "outcasts of the outcast." Now we know what it feels like to be Jesus, huh?
Euripides
-
4
1st Cent Christian POP
by IP_SEC inim sure there is a thread dealing with this but for some reason i cant search.
mods see the error below.. witnesses claim the 144,000 started to be filled at pentacost 33 a.d. every christian was of that number.
i'm looking for estimates on the size of the christian population between 33 and 100 a.d. i have to believe taking in to consideration the mass baptisms recorded by lukus that there had to be more than 144,000 anointed christians in the 1st century.
-
-
euripides
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/83437/1.ashx
fairly recent discussion actually. Try the Google search through j-w.com next time.
Euripides
-
10
Is Ritual a Deep Human Need??
by frankiespeakin init seem all primative cultures have rituals,,boy have to go thru "rights of passage" in some cultures even today.
what do you think do these rituals that stretch way back in our history do they serve a purpose and fill some type of psychological human need??
or should a person just turn their backs on all of it?
-
-
euripides
teasing your man when you want it bad
Yikes. Erm, ritual? I recommend two readings, first Sacred and the Profane by Mircea Eliade, and an essay by Frits Staal, entitled, "The Meaninglessness of Ritual." Unfortunately I don't think its on the net. Here is a good essay which discusses Staal's groundbreaking essay: http://www.evertype.com/misc/ritual.html
Then there's Ritual de lo Habitual by Jane's Addiction...
Euripides
-
5
How do I find this?
by robhic ini had saved a link: .
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/70075/1.ashx.
but i can't figure out how to use it in a search capacity to find that post or thread.
-
-
-
17
What's up with the biblical story of drunken Noah?
by melmac infrom http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mdrunknoah.html.
dear straight dope:.
genesis 9:20-25 seems to be one of the strangest stories in the bible.
-
-
euripides
Narkissos--I agree there is no historical evidence for the claims of the Deuteronomist, perhaps a better way of phrasing that would be the 'political dominance' of the Canaanites in the period in question, regardless of how this came to be. The Canaanites continue to be a political problem.
A pre-Deuteronomist is anything before the Deuteronomist!
"When Noah awoke from his wine, he knew what his youngest son had done to him." While it might seem a stretch to interpret see and uncover in Hebrew as idiomatically related, I think the case can be made. What is it that Ham had "done?" The verb has changed again from see in Hebrew. My interpretation of an incestuous moment is not novel, rather it was derived from the speculative musings of a scholar publishing in Vetus Testamentum. Temporally speaking, in the context of this edited and compressed version (almost certainly) of a more full blown story, the shorthand becomes as it reads at present. Either way, the text is elliptical, we don't know what was being referred to. However, in the realm of etiological myth, isn't it feasible that it merely represents another polemic against the Canaanites?
Euripides
-
17
What's up with the biblical story of drunken Noah?
by melmac infrom http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mdrunknoah.html.
dear straight dope:.
genesis 9:20-25 seems to be one of the strangest stories in the bible.
-
-
euripides
A couple of months ago I did some extensive research into this peculiar notion of looking on his father's nakedness and this indiscretion. Here are the notes which were the distillation of my research:
Ham becomes the target of an egregious
indiscretion. This is not surprising since Canaan,
taken over by the Israelites in the "J" period,
probably still has pockets of remnant populations of
Canaanites as a thorn in the national side. Given
9:20-27 is a "P" text, however, it is probably a
specific reference to those non-Israelites who
replaced the population of Judah after the forced
evacuation into Exile by the Babylonians. The text
is evasive as to Ham's indiscretion. The phrase
"saw his father's nakedness" in vs. 22 is a veiled
(more specifically, a backward cloaking) reference
to Ham sleeping with Noah's wife, his mother.
[COMPARE Leviticus 18:8 The nakedness of thy father's
wife shalt thou not uncover: it [is] thy father's
nakedness, AND
Leviticus 20:11 And the man that lieth with his
father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness:
both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood
[shall be] upon them.]
Clearly this is a polemic against the Canaanites as bastards born from an incestuous relationship.
Hence, the command that Canaanites be slaves to both
the progeny of Shem and Japheth.Euripides
-
1
New spin on parable of the talents?
by euripides inluke 19:11-28. i received the following message (abbreviated) from a colleague describing a new interpretation of the identity of the 'nobleman' in the parable of the talents (a/k/a parable of the pounds) as wrought by latin american liberation theology:.
"the nobleman gets rich by charging people.
interest.
-
-
euripides
Luke 19:11-28I received the following message (abbreviated) from a colleague describing a new interpretation of the identity of the 'nobleman' in the parable of the talents (a/k/a parable of the pounds) as wrought by Latin American liberation theology:
"The nobleman gets rich by charging people
interest. All through the Middle Ages, charging
interest was considered a sin because one was not
loving one's neighbor as oneself. (sic) In this light, the
nobleman would not be symbolizing God but rather seen
as a "bad guy". Those servants who also charged
interest were playing along with the game and would
also be evil. The final servant recognized the
profiteering for what it was and chose not to
participate in it. In this sense, Christ was
criticizing this system in his final sentence and
lauding those who do not participate in it."While this makes for a creative modern spin, I seriously don't think it's textually justified. My understanding (apart from WT) had been than in the Lucan spin to the Churches, the slaves were the collective Churches (and Churches are people) and their talents might have been various forms of resources. Written from the perspective of the churches vis-a-vis the synagogue communities of 80-90 CE, this was an indictment of those Churches who were not cultivating Jesus worship in the way they were supposed to. Further, the author couches the telling of this parable in Jesus' approach to Jerusalem and his assumption of authority, thus leading the hearer/reader to draw the inference that Jesus is the nobleman, not a 'villain.' I am interested in all of your thoughts and comments, both upon the alternate spin, the traditional one, my understanding, and the WT spin, of course!
Euripides