Posts by Etude

56

Is the Jehovahs Witnesses organization really a cult?

by Etude in

im sure the question has been brought up before on this board and i imagine that for many of us the answer is patent.

however, i recently saw a documentary on pbs regarding the mormons and it stated categorically that the church of jesus christ of latter day saints is not a cult.

given that it has its own set of strangeness and history of revision as has the wtbts, could it also (the jw) be considered a main stream, although minor religion?.

Etude

Black Sheep:

I'm well aware of the "issues". At no time did I minimize the impact of what these people do. That is not an excuse for ignoring or having a lack of understanding how others view them. No, I'm not "one of those people who like to categorize everyone into nice little boxes". But, I'll be damned if I'm going to ignore that other people do, especially with regard to a dangerous organization like the WTBTS. It can make a difference. You can ignore that and bury your head in the sand. I'll just keep questioning to make sure I'm not missing something.

Etude.

47

Leaving Jehovah's Witnesses is a Negative, Depressing Thing To Do, but....

by AllTimeJeff in

over the years since i left jehovahs witnesses, one of the more fascinating things to observe, and really to me, the most important, is what to do after you leave.. to be sure, no one leaves because of a positive experience.

and therein lies the issues with leaving.

basically, people leave in three general ways: 1. they, like myself, resign or leave due to a disagreement.

Etude

Leave, get disfellowshipped or fade away: Well, I guess I experience a triple whammy because I went through all three stages:

First I had the disagreements --They dealt with my expectation of what I considered Christian and right and theocratic. That started at Bethel and I couldn’t take it anymore and left there. Going back to the congregation left me very disappointed. I had already started questioning the organizational arrangements and how the elders arbitrated over things. I experienced a sort of boredom which later turned into an annoyance at hearing the same crappy tidbits of fourth-grade wisdom coming from the platform. Needing something to fill my void (even though I was barely still attending the meetings), I started going to college. That was very exciting but it further alienated me from everyone else, including my family. You could say that I was starting to “fade”, but that was not the biggest shove in that direction that I experienced. It wasn’t a complete and final exit, but I was essentially on my own.

By then, depression had set in. This was partly due to my nature and partly due to the guilt I experienced for leaving what I had come to accepted as true. I not only felt the loss of fellowship and the camaraderie I experienced at Bethel, but I couldn’t really talk to anyone in the congregation or my family about my curricular activities at college. Studying in a higher-learning institution was still frowned upon. Making friends in the “world” was not easy. I was a bit ashamed of my religious past and I had not completely gone over to the “other side”. You could say I was pretty screwed existing in a social and spiritual limbo.

Fading away -- Eventually, I left my home in the East and headed to the West Coast. With new surroundings, I expected a change. The change was worse, I didn’t know anyone, even though I manage to look up a local congregation and make acquaintances. That’s when I really started to fade. I found myself alone not willing to share my past with anyone, not being able to communicate with my Witness family and being in a new unfamiliar place with little money for entertainment. I had been so desperate that I decided to risk my venture alone without much help from anyone. Even though I eventually had stopped associating with the new congregation (it was easy because I barely knew anyone), I still had the guilt and kept telling myself that I would return to it someday.

After giving myself permission to “wander off”, I started to associate with some co-workers. That inevitably led to parties and some other stuff that I don’t regret but would rather not do again. With that came the women, the booze and some experimentation with certain other substances – I didn’t go sex-crazy or became a drunk or a drug addict. So, I feel lucky I came out of that OK. I credit my upbringing for having instilled in me some moral controls and to some serious evaluation on my part to keep me honest and not go off the deep end. I was still thinking that I would always go back to the JWs. I met a guy at a bar who turned out to be an ex. JW (we were both trying to pick up a lady). We felt kindred for being in the same situation. After some conversations in which I admitted to him that I would someday return, he emphatically stated that he would not. He said it in a way that revealed his hurt and disappointment. He apparently had some run-ins with the elders, especially with a few that had an unfair favoritism for someone else and antagonism for him. I didn't understand what he felt until much later.

Being disfellowshipped: Even though I wanted to return, I wasn’t quite ready. I had encountered another ex-Witness that I knew from my days back East and he told me about Ray Franz’s book “Crisis of Conscience”, several months after its publication. It was pretty devastating because I knew Ray (we attended the same congregation for a time and I also saw him while I was living at Brooklyn Bethel) but I had been so out of touch, I had no idea all of that had transpired. It prompted me to write a letter to the Society asking about the military situation with the brothers in Mexico. Even though they replied directly, they sent a copy to the local congregation, which prompted a couple of visits from the elders. It was unfortunate that the elders decided to pay me a visit and found a pack of cigarettes on my coffee table. Yes, I had started that habit again having smoked for a bit before I was baptized. They told me that I had to come back and quit right now, otherwise they wouldn’t accept my desire to be with “Jehovah’s People”. I told them that I’d like to do that but that it wasn’t so easy at this stage of my life. They left and then I got the letter several weeks later. I was DF’d. I was saddened at first, but then turn angrier with the years. By then I had discovered all their lies; that the world wasn’t so bad; that non-Witnesses were not the enemy; that there were good people everywhere. It was a fast and furious education that turned me into a relatively savvy worldly person from a sheltered innocent youth (which was mostly consumed by the WTBTS).

Yes, in many ways my pendulum swung to the other extreme, even to the point of questioning the fundamental belief in God. I then attacked those questions with all the intellectual intensity and honesty I could muster and have come to an unusual but comfortable conclusion. Leaving didn’t turn out to be just an unhappy thing. It was damned-right painful and quite devastating emotionally. My deception cut deep. However, I couldn’t be more fulfilled and secure because of it. I’m married, happy, non-smoking and have experienced many wonderful things. Even though I don’t talk much about it today, in a way I treasure that ugly past because it’s largely responsible for the person I am today. It’s like a guy at Bethel used to say to me: “I wouldn’t take a million dollars in exchange for this experience, but I would give a penny for any more of it.”

Etude.

56

Is the Jehovahs Witnesses organization really a cult?

by Etude in

im sure the question has been brought up before on this board and i imagine that for many of us the answer is patent.

however, i recently saw a documentary on pbs regarding the mormons and it stated categorically that the church of jesus christ of latter day saints is not a cult.

given that it has its own set of strangeness and history of revision as has the wtbts, could it also (the jw) be considered a main stream, although minor religion?.

Etude

The Catholic church IS a cult. Just not as bad as Witnesses, they have a lot less control over the minds of their members.
-Sab

I suppose that if that’s the case, then each and every major Religion is a cult. How do we differentiate them from anything else? Should we say that religions are cults unless all they do is secular or do we examine the current meanings of “cult”? This is what led me to ask the question in the first place, because an authority I had not counted on stated that the Mormon faith is not a cult. There are obvious differences of opinion there.

The WBATS is absolutely a cult as is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. The LDS has best been described as the Scientology of it's day and it really is. LDS and WBATS are brothers

upnorth

To be absolutely fair, some of the comments on the website (PBS Frontline/An American Experience: The Mormons [http://www.pbs.org/mormons/talk/]) pointed to the fact that (although not specifically mentioned), the majority of the commentators and scholars interviewed were Mormons, which tends to bias the presentation. However, the comment as I recall was that Mormons are a main-stream world-wide force to be reckoned with and therefore not a cult. Yes, it exerts a lot of political and financial influence that the WTBTS does not. Nevertheless, the WTBTS holds a similar status of a major American-born religion as far as many scholars and political factions are concerned.

Their methods are identical to those used by groups that are undoubtedly cults.

Wobble

I agree. How about self flagellation or the old Catholic saying: “Give me a child at a tender age and you’ll have a Catholic forever”? How about the abuse and cover-up of molestations in the C.C? All of that is a fact of a major denomination that is not considered a cult, even if I think it’s cultish. And, looking back at its history, can we say that the Catholic Church has exhibited “Intellectual dishonesty, manipulation, coercion, etc. carried out to inhuman lengths to ensure said wacky beliefs are followed at all times without exception”. Definitely yes! But just because you put feathers on a dog, it don’t make it a chicken.

Lastly, let’s keep in mind that modes, attitudes, meanings and definitions change with time. I just don’t want to underestimate the general perception of the WTBTS just because I keep thinking they’re a bunch of fuckwits in their teachings. I'm continually surprised how those bastards snake their way out of doctrinal cages and still manage to keep the majority of the flock in tow. It is possible that they may “adjust” enough to be able to take a more active role in politics and become as influential as the Mormons. I don’t doubt that their effort to be an aggregate to the U.N. (even as an NGO) was just a small step in that direction. Now, there’s a rumor that they’re softening the U.N. position in the congregation (http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/scandals/192009/1/UNITED-NATIONS-CHARTER-read-in-all-congregations-at-beginning-of-SPECIAL-TALK). Watch out.

Etude.

56

Is the Jehovahs Witnesses organization really a cult?

by Etude in

im sure the question has been brought up before on this board and i imagine that for many of us the answer is patent.

however, i recently saw a documentary on pbs regarding the mormons and it stated categorically that the church of jesus christ of latter day saints is not a cult.

given that it has its own set of strangeness and history of revision as has the wtbts, could it also (the jw) be considered a main stream, although minor religion?.

Etude

I’m sure the question has been brought up before on this board and I imagine that for many of us the answer is patent. However, I recently saw a documentary on PBS regarding the Mormons and it stated categorically that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is not a cult. Given that it has its own set of strangeness and history of revision as has the WTBTS, could it also (the JW) be considered a “main stream”, although minor religion?

To make a determination, I looked around a bit and found that “cult” carries varying degrees of cargo. Originally it simply meant a system of ritualistic practices (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult). The negative connotation is an affectation of the 20th century. This has led to diverging characterizations between religious studies academics and sociologists. For the former, there is no dark meaning and the practicing group is simply another new religion. For the latter, given the “recent” historical perspective beginning in the 70’s (The Moonies, Jonestown, Heaven’s Gate, etc), the “weirdness” factor is quite relevant in its classification.

However, if weirdness alone is the determining characteristic of a cult, the Catholic Church could be considered a cult, given some of their strange rituals and beliefs. Does tenancy or how long it’s been around factor into how we classify a religious group? It’s obvious that from a political perspective, the JWs are not considered a cult and are accorded the same rights as any other major religion. I don’t think this would have been the case with the Heaven’s Gate people, for example. Nevertheless, some sociologists will identify certain behavior (the negative aspects) with a “cult” label for a group. These are somewhat different from behaviors that characterize secular cults, such as The Flat Earth Society (http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/) (talk about weird!) For religious groups, it’s the damaging effects that stand out, such as: Intolerance to dissent, strict top-down rule without questioning, elite-ism by having a special class or group within, promoting an us-vs-them mentality (in order to isolate), bringing shame to those who stray, obsession with recruiting new members, etc. (http://www.csj.org/infoserv_cult101/checklis.htm). There are other traits, but I particularly mentioned those that I feel are associated with the JWs. In my mind, it’s important to know who or what it is that I fight about. So, I wondered if we have a more informed understanding of what it is to be a cult, maybe we could simply say that some groups have cult-like practices (given the sociological definitions) or that whatever they are and however unacceptable, such and such is the outcome of what they do (as we might well say about the United States Congress). I suppose that some individuals want to ascribe to the JWs and other groups like them the same stigma as they ascribe to use by calling us apostates (a term that carries a lot of negative connotation). I have been one of those. But, does that work and does any of this discussion change anyone’s mind just slightly? I'm curious.

Etude.

17

A question for former Bethelites

by JeffT in

what do the wives of the top guys, particularly the gb, do with themselves?

do they have "jobs" of some sort?

are they like uber-co's wifes (boy, that raises some interesting mental images of nosey busy bodies)?

Etude

BurnTheShips: It shouldn’t surprise you that intelligent people (yes women) would relegate themselves to menial work. Intelligent guys who felt they could do more also relegated themselves to cleaning and sweeping at the factories, taking the chicken shit out of the hen houses at the farm and just doing plain old crappy work. If you look at the efficiency with which Bethel is run, it takes a lot of peons (even bright ones) to make it all happen. Women are no different. Some worked in sensitive and creative positions. Believe me, if a woman was an artist, she would not be housekeeping making up bed sheets with wet dreams but would be in the Art department creating soothing pastoral scenes for the Watchtower. In a way, Bethel was run in my day like any other secular organization.

I suppose that if you look at the work that takes place behind the scenes there as secularly as running a hotel, one would be surprised if people didn’t struggle to get better jobs. While that’s practically what it was, it was wrapped up in a spiritual blanket in order to make it easier to give yourself up as a sacrifice. Still, you had bosses, supervisors and workers. What you did depended on how you showed your talent; whether you had “worldly” credentials (a degree in something went a long way); and yes, whether somebody liked you. Fairness and spirituality, although strongly touted, didn’t always help to get your foot in the door get a better job. And as in any other job, some “sisters” didn’t like or get along with each other. Yet others got choice jobs due to reputation or connections. Some were very unhappy because they wanted more for their lives than just being there because their husbands had “important” work to do. Some had affairs right in Bethel. This is not any different from the rest of the world or even a TV show.

Etude.

76

WOW!!! Just found out from someone who went to the one day assembly....

by Lady Liberty in

hello friends... just found out that at the recent one day assembly they are now really discouraging people from getting married!!!!!

they will lose young ones like crazy if they start telling them that they cannot get married...what are these sexually frusterated young people to do??

you cannot masterbate, you cannot have sex outside of marriage (not that i would encourage it either, but...), now you cannot even get married?????

Etude

A lot of you have it right: This is not new. When I joined the Bethel headquarters in 1974 under Knorr's reign, it was "understood" (meaning it was said but not written anywhere) that we were to remain single, forever if possible, but especially during our 4-year commitment. Remaining in Bethel after that period meant that you had to retain your "single" status or leave. Knorr specifically mentioned this in his address to our in-coming bethelite group. I didn't understand why he was so vehement on this topic when he himself was married. Perhaps his admiration of "Freddy" Franz influenced him in deciding that there's some sort of piety, sacrifice or gain (in the sense the Freddy had come to be the top biblical scholar there at the time) by virtue of being single. If you decided to get married, you had to leave Bethel service. Of course, there were always exceptions if they really needed your talent. But, if you left the service before the 4 years were up, you were less than acceptable because you would not have any privileges when you got back to your old congregation. I guess that was because they felt you broke your promise to God (meaning the Organization). What a crock of you-know-what!

Personally, having been around Knorr I got the impression early on that he was the product of his generation (as opposed to new thinking brought on by his bible understanding) and was rife with all the prejudices that came with the "Leave it to Beaver" attitudes that peaked in the 50's. That the Organization is doing the same thing now is reflective of a similar environment where an older generation that was influenced by its times is trying to dictate its views to a new generation. Aren't we seeing a backlash today in general, especially in conservative religious circles, that is convincing teens to take celibacy vows (ex., the Jonas Brothers and others)? There are significant indications that celibacy doesn't work for teens and that's why other groups advocate for condoms in schools to prevent pregnancies and the spread of disease. But teens will go on screwing like rabbits. Who can contain that dam? If I knew what I know now back in the 60’s, I would have done my best to get all the booty I could (since sex the 60’s was a somewhat safer). I know there are consequences to everything, but at least it would have saved me from being a part of the JWs in the first place.

I don’t think that this “new” message is necessarily strategic for them. I don’t think they’ve really thought it out as much as they’re reacting with the mindset that to “scare” you into submission (however subtly) usually works. In that sense the “new” message is a tactical move and a method on which the WTBTS has always relied on. Yes, they’re losing people and they need to create a sense of urgency to keep what they have and recruit new people, especially in third world countries.

Etude.

20

The Final Truth?

by Mistah MOJO in

"the final truth is that there is no final truth.

" this statement was contained in a recent email from a close friend who is an existentialist, and by extension a nihilist.

how many here would agree with this?

Etude

Ade:

I beg to disagree. If I had originated your comment, I would have said instead: “What everyone thinks is the Truth lies within their own free will and conscience.” Thinking or believing that something is Truth does not make it so.

If I was convinced that drinking some potion would give me powers or the capability of living forever, but it turned out to be poison, regardless of my conviction, I would die or at least be very, very sick. Why should we treat any other matter that we consider Truth any differently? However, you’re absolutely right in stating that the conviction people have about what truth is, is the basis upon which they act. That’s why the world is so f'ed up right now. Not only do they think they’re right, but they’ll do anything to make you think you should think just like they do. Unless mankind reasons its way out this mess and identifies the problems that really need addressing, starting with differences of ideas, what it will require is some sort of ultimate arbitrator. Some people think that arbitrator is God. Others think that due to circumstances of nature and our own precariousness for annihilation, we will be forced arbitrate among ourselves.

I have thought about this and speculated what the world would look like if a great scientific discovery were to happen, a great equalizer, one that would change everything. For example, imagine that a way was discovered to derive energy from a cheap source; let’s say it was something like, just to hearken back to the old holy grail of science, Cold Fusion. Or, let's say that an amazingly elegant way was found to derive direct energy (something simple, like heat) from water or dirt, yielding only Hydrogen and Oxygen or some other natural element. Now, imagine that everyone in the world was able to use a simple method for producing modest but unlimited amounts of energy for their own consumption. What would happen is that social structures as we know them would start to disappear. Suddenly, centralization in the form of cities would become less meaningful because you can practically live anywhere and have sufficient energy to run your home, drive machinery to extract water from the ground for your own consumption and to irrigate your own food that you grow. Since communications abound at this time, you would have the energy to “reach out and touch someone”. You could even have your own personally sustained transportation mode to visit other people from your remote and secluded location. Now, think about those people living in substandard conditions in third world countries taking advantage of this. They wouldn’t practice deforestation, they wouldn’t starve and they wouldn’t be dependent on those who control the power and resources of the world. That’s pretty drastic if only that one thing happened.

On the other hand, if God steps in and kicks some ass, protect those who want to be at peace, and get rid off those that don’t agree with him, the same thing will be accomplished. But there’s where Truth comes in. Just like Adam, we would have to cede do someone else regarding what is right and wrong, what the real Truth is that we should follow. One thing’s for sure, that Truth can’t possibly be whatever each individual thinks it is.

Etude.

20

The Final Truth?

by Mistah MOJO in

"the final truth is that there is no final truth.

" this statement was contained in a recent email from a close friend who is an existentialist, and by extension a nihilist.

how many here would agree with this?

Etude

Mistah Mojo:

Absolutely, my no means throw in the towel. If I were to do that, I’d “hang it up”, permanently, if you know what I mean. What would be the point in going on? No, I must keep searching. Sorry for trying to be flip before while giving you a kernel of my personal journey.

I was trying to take the scientific approach. It seems to work best because it’s one of the best things that can offer a proven and verifiable method to reach conclusions. Of course, it doesn’t always lead to answers. That’s why I said that I’m content with accepting “I don’t know.” as an answer.

The Chinese characters in the picture are a real equation. Years ago, I read Brian Green’s “The Elegant Universe”, which deals with T.O.E. (the Theory of Everything). Recently, a “Nova” video series with the same name was re-broadcast on PBS. That’s how I got the snapshot. While science has not provided the “ultimate” answers to the burning philosophical questions that plague us, it never fails to titillate us as it inches further and closer to some end. That’s why I’m encouraged that we didn’t stop with the answers Newton and Einstein gave us, and we won’t stop with the answers Super String Theory will provide. Ultimately, what we want is continuing satisfaction of some sort of intellectual, spiritual and emotional nature.

What we want is to satisfy our curiosity and to fill whatever void exists in us. There are many ways to do that. I just try to exercise caution so that in the pursuit of satisfying answers, “my own Truth”, I don’t delude myself into some sort of unrealistic panacea. That’s exactly what happened to me when I joined the JWs. I became so certain of everything for a while, I would entertain very little else. Alas, my nature won out. Since then, I had to, in some orderly way question my beliefs on a regular basis. Like Descartes, I have to accept my reality, even though I fundamentally know that I can’t prove it logically with 100% certainty. Yes, it’s like walking a tight-rope.

That’s why, if you’re speaking strictly about Truth (not a belief), something verifiable which fits in the scheme of the Universe as we know it, then it has to apply to everyone and not just be your “own” personal truth. That is not like saying that you happen to like the color red whereas other people like colors other than red. While it is true that you may happen to prefer red as a color (a personal Truth), the fundamental truth lies in the fact that we all seem to agree what red is as a color, unless one happens to be color-blind. That is indisputable. As a concept, that truth transcends language, time, regionalism and even genetic defects because we can now tell if someone is color deficient. So, there are levels or intensities of Truth, just like there are “intensities” or orders or magnitude (a mathematical term) in a quantity such as Infinity (at least 3 that I’m aware of).

That’s why I agree and disagree with jwfacts. I agree that the Buddhist approach is beneficial because it does not try to exclude ideas that may even be opposed but could potentially lead to an ultimate truth. However, due to that very nature, it does have to live with paradoxical and contradictory ideas, which somehow it seems to do well. I disagree with jwfacts precisely because Science as a discipline operates the opposite way: It does not like contradictions and must explain paradoxes. Above all, it offers a verifiable METHOD for eliminating those contradictions, which can be reproduced by anyone else at any other time. Granted that the tool is limited and it doesn’t always eliminate the contradiction. That’s when the true scientist defers from forcing an explanation that is not supported by observation. But nevertheless, he or she doesn’t stop looking. Consequently, I never even entertained the idea that the purpose of Science is to “offers Final truth”. At its simplest, it leads to conclusions based on verifiable observations or provable concepts. When the method is flawed, it yields bad conclusions. If the observable facts or concepts are limited, it fails to yield an accurate picture.

Although Newton’s mathematical and cosmological “truths” about the make up of the universe are not quite valid, his methods of calculations and mathematical constructs are still used in every major work of physics and mathematical science almost 300 years later. So, the fact that conclusions change doesn’t mean that all of what was discovered is no longer true. What happens is that (at least in the exact Sciences) adjustments are made with the current tools we have. We do that because the questions keep getting more and more complicated. When we (mankind) were satisfied with defining the world as composed of 4 elements (earth, water, air, fire), truth was evident because everything we could think of could be reduced to one of more of those elements. Then the question came up about what each of those things is “really” made of, and so on.

What I hope is that when we reach the bottom of that pile of questions and realize some profound and fundamental truth about the universe, our questions may change to one of meaning and purpose. Heck, we constantly do that now. It just seems that we’re too intellectually immature at this time to grok it -- he says, while being jaded by his non-scientific pessimistic opinion). That’s the way we were when the concept of “zero” came along. It took generations for societies to incorporate that idea. Then along came negative numbers, then imaginary (complex) numbers. A few generations from now, imaginary numbers will be incorporated in the elementary school curriculum. I don’t think it likely that they will be eliminated as something that used to be true.

Since you don’t particularly seek truth in religion or philosophy, what kind of truth do you seek? I know labels can confuse things. That’s why I said: “I ceased to differentiate between religion, life, the law of gravity or what have you.” Truth is truth and what little factoid we find is only a piece of a greater truth. How big is the ultimate truth? Hopefully, infinitely big. For I fear that the day we know everything and have all the answers, life is going to get pretty boring. That's why I agree with PaulMarshal's comments and realize that we need to pay attention to ourselves as a "complete being". Do you realize that some of the greatest abstract discoveries in Science have happened while the person was, not particularly thinking about the scientific problem at hand, but in an almost out-of-body state of mind that some people describe as "higher state of consciousness"? Yep. Intuitiveness can be a source of truth. That's one of the first things I learned in my college Logic class. True Science is not pragmatic at the cost of beauty or emotions. It is pragmatic in addition to all that we are. I see beauty in the Universe as I try to understand it. I understand the mathematics of frequencies and the mechanics of a piano keyboard action. But that does not detract in the least, rather, enhances the emotional experience and beauty that I enjoy when play Liszt’s Consolation #3 in Db, for example. Yes, I would feel very much at home “sitting on some rocks in a little natural bay” on some coast along with PaulMarshal or anyone that is willing to entertain the meaning of life as well as its splendor. I as much as I would enjoy that, it would only be enhanced by the analytical (perhaps scientific) outlook I have achieved while trying to seek truth, and above all meaning and purpose.

Etude.

20

The Final Truth?

by Mistah MOJO in

"the final truth is that there is no final truth.

" this statement was contained in a recent email from a close friend who is an existentialist, and by extension a nihilist.

how many here would agree with this?

Etude

Mistah MOJO:

OK. Here it is. The answer to everything is “496”. That’s it. It’s a not empirically verifiable through experimentation, but is via Mathematics. When convincing physical proof arrives, it will be elegant, which means it will be powerful, enlightening and simple. That is the answer to the equation worked out by Michael Green and John Schwartz when they finally solved the anomalies in the String Theory equations:
Well, even though what I’m saying is true, I know it doesn’t relieve your dilemma. However, due to the fact that this is the way things go in Science, we may have to accept that the “real Truth” may be unattainable, although we get closer and closer every day. That doesn’t mean we can’t reach some level of satisfaction. If we had been content with all the answers Isaac Newton provided us, formidable as they were, everyone, including Einstein, would never had looked further to come up with a different picture of the Universe. Now, String Theorists are looking from the point where Einstein and Quantum Mechanics left off or failed to answer troubling questions: What is the Universe really made of and how does it work? How do we come up with a unified theory that explains everything (TOE or M-theory)?

I don’t doubt that when we get some physical verification, we (I’m speaking for mankind as a whole) will also have to deal with the idea of a source, the metaphysical questions of how it all came about – what or who caused everything. From there, we should be able to derive a personal answer or Truth. Its validity should be determined by how it fits with the rest of what surrounds us. Thinking in scientific terms, I’m perfectly happy to say: “I don’t know”, and accept that as an answer when the evidence does not allow me to conclude anything further. That does not mean that I will stop asking or searching. In addition, we must recognize, as Science is proving now, that we have a “spiritual” center in our brains and that it needs to be satisfied. In light of that, I ceased to differentiate between religion, life, the law of gravity or what have you. As far as I’m concerned everything I do or think is merely a part of the greater whole that is my existence. Why should it be separated and compartmentalized? A good “religion”, if we are to have one, should not pit itself against any other “Truth”, especially those in Science. The term “religion” has lost meaning to me. Belief is more appropriate, but more along the same terms as my belief in the force of Gravity or the power of X-rays.

There was a mathematician (I’m not sure of his discipline but he was a famous thinker) who proposed the following: If you come home late one night after spending a merry time at the local pub having consumed a few brews, after staggering a bit and searching for your keys at your front door, you realize that you’ve lost them. Where would you look for them? C’mon. Guess. The answer is: Under the any lamp post along the way to your house from the pub. The reason is that if you looked where there was no light, your chances of seeing your front-door key would reduce 0. Scientifically, that makes sense. So, it’s easy to see how Descartes could only come up with one major conclusion after his dissertation on the right way of thinking, the famous “Gogito ergo sum”: “I think, therefore I exist.” Meaning, he wasn’t sure about the existence of anything or anyone else. That didn’t stop him from accepting the very reality he experienced yet could not prove and enjoy what turned out to be a very brief life.

I’ve thought long and hard about this issue. However, that’s not significant because I would have to live a very long time to make my efforts in this matter yield an all-satisfying conclusion. Just remember a few simple rules:

Truth is universal. It doesn’t make sense to have the laws of physics (or belief or religion) that work for us in this neck of the Universe not work for the rest of the Universe. If that appears to be the case, then we need to modify our conclusions about what we had determined was true in the first place.
Truth should be spoken of in the present tense. Never say: “It was true…” No. It IS true that Napoleon Bonaparte WAS the Emperor of France.
If something that was considered true has been proven to no longer be true, then it was never true in the first place. Don’t argue with people who question a currently accepted truth on the basis that something which was accepted as true no longer is.
Logic (the discipline of Logic) is the best tool for making conclusions, or not, about what you encounter. Your conclusion will be correct if your premises are true. Ah, there’s the rub! That’s why we must question everything and not accept anything too readily. Skepticism works for me!

If all else fails, be glib and facile and assume that the answer to everything, the Truth, is: “forty-two”. That’s the answer that the intergalactic supermegacomputer named Deep Thought came up with after seven-and-a-half million years of computation.

"Forty-two!" yelled Loonquawl. "Is that all you've got to show for seven and a half million years' work?" "I checked it very thoroughly," said the computer, "and that quite definitely is the answer. I think the problem, to be quite honest with you, is that you've never actually known what the question is." From “Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.”

Might as well. Hell, the earth is going to blow up anyway. Etude.

23

IS JEHOVAH A PERVERT?

by jayhawk1 in

sometimes i wonder how something made it into the bible in the first place.... genesis 38, the story of judah and his daughter-in-law tamar.

background judah's firstborn son er was bad in jehovah's eyes, so jehovah put him to death.

genesis 38:6. so judah being the good father that he was gave tamar to his second son to have sex with and have children in the name of the fallen er... we pick up reading in genesis 38:9.

Etude

Well, I never looked at it that way -- I mean considering that men literally penned the Bible and that they might have shaded the message with their views. Whichever way one looks at it (Divine inspiration or just an account from humans), it might have been important for the readers at that time to know such things, keeping in mind how the lineage to the Messiah did or did not happen. On the other hand, I fail to see the full implication of relating what I suspect was the first homosexual act in history (if that Bible account is meant to signify something more than a juicy tale), when Noah was taken advantage of by Ham during a drunken stupor in his tent. I confronted some elders with this issue one time and pointed out the wording in Genesis 9:20-25: 20 And Noah began to be a husbandman [a man of the soil or farmer], and planted a vineyard:
21 and he drank of the wine, and was drunken. And he was uncovered within his tent.
22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without [outside the tent].
23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father. And their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness.
24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his youngest son had done unto him.
25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; A servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. -- 21st Century King James Version Here’s what I couldn’t understand: It just seems that putting a curse on someone and all their descendants is a wee bit over-the-top for just "looking" at somebody naked and telling others. My guess is that, even then, people wore very little clothing, kids (up to a ripe age) ran around naked and modesty was probably not a big issue. My guess is that Ham saw more than just a naked body. He probably saw the diluvial giggle-stick and maybe did something with it. You'd think that Shem and Japheth would have tripped walking backwards while blocking their vision by a garment to put over Noah. How could they even find him if they couldn't see him to cover him? What makes this account strange for me is the wording: "…Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his youngest son had done unto him." What the heck did he do? Ham saw Noah naked and told his brothers, who covered him up? I don't know. Seeing him naked and telling the others would have been a favor. How did Noah find out what “his youngest son had done unto him”? I bet that sore ass was a dead give-away. On the other hand, Ham couldn't have helped it if Noah was naked and Ham happened to have walked into the tent. How could that be enough to elicit such condemnation? Or, did he just "happen" to walk into the tent? Or instead, after walking in (by accident or not), did he just take advantage of a drunk and horny man? After all, Noah was not that old considering how long he lived. If not, should he have gouged his eyes out because he saw his father naked? For crying out loud! If Witnesses think that was bad -- after all, it would probably be interpreted as a biblical example of what not to do just like birthdays -- they should ban showers and locker rooms at Bethel, where it happens to be my observation, some guys would get naked first after a shift and wait in line for a shower stall while parading their schlongs for everyone else. Believe me, it wasn’t casual. But I didn't see it as perverted either. It's just something guys do, like Latin men grabbing their package constantly or the way other guys spit all the time. Nevertheless, it was hard on the other guys that were not so well endowed or were experiencing "shrinkage" at the moment. Correct me if I'm wrong (maybe somebody can give the biblical reference), but I read somewhere in Isaiah, I think, were God describes the nation of Israel as his "wife" who has run off to spread her legs "under every luxurious [or expansive] tree" with the men of Syria "with members like those of horses". I was shocked then. Now, I must conclude that the men of Syria were well-hung and that women, particularly those used for the biblical analogy, liked guys with above-normal tally-whackers (I'm trying to keep it clean). I remember mentioning this passage to one of my JW sisters when she tried to paint Jehovah as a clean, loving and family-oriented personage. I asked her: "Then why is such language used in the Bible if it's not meant to show reality at its rawest, while God displays anger and derogation at his 'wife'?" I will not ascribe the label of "pervert" to the Supreme Being, just in case He really is there and I experience some Divine retribution manifested by my kielbasa turning into one of those tiny Vienna sausages. I'd have to borrow my wife's tweezers to take a pee. Perverted or not, I fail to grasp the complete intent for such biblical accounts, except that it is obvious, particularly in the Old Testament, that frankness abounds and people had a different way when it came to societal behavior. I can never forget the account of the Levi priest who cut up his wife, who had been repeatedly raped until she died, into twelve pieces and designated one piece to be paraded around each tribe’s homeland. Gee! I wonder who got...never mind. Pretty gruesome, but apparently it was tolerable in those days even if it contained a good measure of shock-value. I guess if one assumes that Ham did more than take a peek at the patriarchal one-eyed snake and that Onan, being Catholic, couldn’t use a condom and failed to give Tamar an orgasm, or that Lot had a “Noah” pulled on him by his daughters (yep, they got him drunk and took turns at him so it was incest too [Gen. 19-30-38]), we have to at least wonder about the purpose of such stories. Funny how the Bible fails to mention if Lot or the daughters went back for seconds. As to whether or not Jehovah is a pervert, I want to keep my Doctor Johnson intact, thank you very much. Etude.