bluesapphire

Joined

• started 83 topics
• posted 2,331 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by bluesapphire

• 
  36

  Christopher Hitchens Interviewed by Unitarian Minister Marilyn Sewell

  by leavingwt in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  embedded video, transcript and mp3 available at link below.. .

  christopher hitchens interviewed by unitarian minister marilyn sewell maryiln sewell: the religion you cite in your book is generally the fundamentalist faith of various kinds.

  im a liberal christian, and i dont take the stories from the scripture literally.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bluesapphire

  He is missing the point. Jews don't take the OT literally, does that mean they are not really Jews?

  Hitchens is trying to lump all "Christians" together into a mold he defines. The Bible has been taken by 30,000 plus Christian sects and interpreted differently by most. So, it might be convenient to lump all Christians into one group but it's not factually correct to do so.

  Some Christians believe in a literal Adam and Eve, others DO NOT.

  Some believe in a literal Noah/Flood, others DO NOT.

  Some believe in a literal Jesus, others DO NOT.

  No reason for Hitchens to be dogmatic on what is and what is NOT Christian!

  That's like some Fundies saying JWs are not Christian because they don't believe in the Trinity. STUPID.
• 
  25

  A Thought on DFing: Shafting the Hounders

  by Farkel in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  the wts has repeatedly stated that one of the main reasons for disfellowshiping is to "keep the congregation clean.

  " another reason is to shame the offender into toeing the wt party line, although they don't quite put it that way.. on the other hand, there are numerous examples of elder hounders hunting down and dfing people who have totally and voluntarily extricated themselves from the "congregation" and its members for years.

  obviously, they aren't bothering the congregation(s) or active dubs at all, and obviously they aren't interested into being "shamed" in order to get back in.. one can only conclude that the motives of the elder hounders are vindictive.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bluesapphire

  We have been inactive for 11 years. We even moved 40 miles away from where our cards are kept. Regardless, we have an elder who comes by about 6 times a year to try to get my husband back. (not me ... they don't want me.)

  When he was over last he asked me if I attended another church. I wouldn't answer the question. He then told me that since it's obvious I'm never coming back I should write a letter of disassociation. I told him I wouldn't do that. He told me that as long as he doesn't hear of my talking to other witnesses or potential witnesses against the organization he would not take measures. I take this as a threat. But I've always known that the very second any elder or CO came after me I would threaten to sue them personally (not the organization) THEM!
• 
  113

  Should I walk away from my "underwater" home?

  by The Berean in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  millions are now facing the dilemma of making house payments on a property that is not worth what is being paid.

  .

  after originally promising to repay the bank, is there a "moral" obligation to continue in a dwelling, even at a loss ... or is it best to exercise the "legal" right of foreclosure and pay the consequences ?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bluesapphire

  There is money to be made for them either way. Whether or not you pay they win.

  Don't you all see that? They win. It is all business to them. Busniess. It is not ethics. It is not morals. It is M-O-N-E-Y.

  If you held individual stock in those banks, you would want them to be making as much money as possible so you could be making as much money as possible. It is business. It is money

  Okay, so according you you, only the consumer needs to have "ethics" and "morals" and not make a decision to walk away based solely as business? Like you said, the banks win anyway because they get to keep the homes. According to you banks don't need to have ethics or morals but consumers do!
• 
  113

  Should I walk away from my "underwater" home?

  by The Berean in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  millions are now facing the dilemma of making house payments on a property that is not worth what is being paid.

  .

  after originally promising to repay the bank, is there a "moral" obligation to continue in a dwelling, even at a loss ... or is it best to exercise the "legal" right of foreclosure and pay the consequences ?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bluesapphire

  PS, not everyone bought their home without documentation. My loan was a prime loan. Good credit score, full documentation. And I'm upside down. I'm not walking away but others in my situation are. Because through the fault of the financial disaster caused by the banks, their homes are now under water.
• 
  113

  Should I walk away from my "underwater" home?

  by The Berean in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  millions are now facing the dilemma of making house payments on a property that is not worth what is being paid.

  .

  after originally promising to repay the bank, is there a "moral" obligation to continue in a dwelling, even at a loss ... or is it best to exercise the "legal" right of foreclosure and pay the consequences ?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bluesapphire

  Banks are businesses. They have every right, in a capitalist society, which last time I checked, we still are, to make money.

  Auto manufacturers are businesses. They have every right, in a capitalist society ... to make money by selling defective products. Unsuspecting consumers have no beef with them if they bought the car willingly. No one forced them....
• 
  113

  Should I walk away from my "underwater" home?

  by The Berean in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  millions are now facing the dilemma of making house payments on a property that is not worth what is being paid.

  .

  after originally promising to repay the bank, is there a "moral" obligation to continue in a dwelling, even at a loss ... or is it best to exercise the "legal" right of foreclosure and pay the consequences ?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bluesapphire

  VIII, you don't know shit about me and ASSume too much.

  First of all, I am not walking away from my home as I said in an earlier post. I don't regret buying my home and I will make money when I sell my home sometime in the future. I never took a 2nd on my home or a home equity loan. It just dropped in value because my neighbors DID and defaulted.

  Second of all, for many homeowners, it was a BUSINESS decision as well. So what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Ethics apply all the way around and you may not want to face the fact that many banks preyed upon consumers.
• 
  113

  Should I walk away from my "underwater" home?

  by The Berean in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  millions are now facing the dilemma of making house payments on a property that is not worth what is being paid.

  .

  after originally promising to repay the bank, is there a "moral" obligation to continue in a dwelling, even at a loss ... or is it best to exercise the "legal" right of foreclosure and pay the consequences ?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bluesapphire

  The thing is that banks have not acted "ethically" toward the consumer. Now that the coin is flipping, they are getting back what they have dished out. It's a consequence.

  The consumer is suffering consequences but the banks have not had to. They got bailed out. So they are fighting, kicking and screaming. What they really ought to "ethically" do is take part of the loss on the homes that are under water. Then people would be less inclined to walk away.
• 
  113

  Should I walk away from my "underwater" home?

  by The Berean in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  millions are now facing the dilemma of making house payments on a property that is not worth what is being paid.

  .

  after originally promising to repay the bank, is there a "moral" obligation to continue in a dwelling, even at a loss ... or is it best to exercise the "legal" right of foreclosure and pay the consequences ?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bluesapphire

  Furthermore, unless people start walking away, banks will not be inclined to help out homeowners. They should be willing to reduce principal balances. After all, we bailed them out, why can't they bail us out?

  I modified my loan. They reduced $500 from my monthly payment and tacked it onto the end so I'm even more under water. I live in a pretty affluent area so I'm not too concerned since they are building multi million dollar homes in my area, I'm sure mine will go back up as it already is.

  BUT, I would have no problem walking away otherwise and the bank would have no problem taking my home.
• 
  113

  Should I walk away from my "underwater" home?

  by The Berean in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  millions are now facing the dilemma of making house payments on a property that is not worth what is being paid.

  .

  after originally promising to repay the bank, is there a "moral" obligation to continue in a dwelling, even at a loss ... or is it best to exercise the "legal" right of foreclosure and pay the consequences ?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bluesapphire

  Elsewhere is correct. The contract on a mortgage says that IF you do not pay, they will take your home back. That is the agreement. If you walk away, they get your house, they get to sell your house and they get to collect on that sale. The fact that they might lose as well as you has no moral significance. It is business not morals.
• 
  21

  What books were contained in the septuiagant?

  by ssn587 in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  don't know if i spelled that correctly, but am wondering just what books were contained in it.

  and if memory, or lack there of, serves me wasn't there a hebrew and a greek one???

  any help given will be greatly appreciated and thanks in advance..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bluesapphire

  I think the bottom line is that there were so many sects in Christianity and the most powerful one won, got rid of anything it didn't like from the other sects and that's what was handed down as the Tradition of the Bible. Down the line it was challenged, a few books were thrown out and now in the US, we have *mostly* what was originally approved. MOSTLY