Posts by Forscher

22

College problems for daughter

by Stopthem in

i need electronic copies of anything in the watchtower or anything else speaking against college and higher education, preferably from the october 15 2005 wt and onward.

my bright, intelligent 17-year-old daughter just informed me that she's decided against going to college because of all the garbage her kingdumb hall has told her.

her mother started up going to jw about 4 years ago, and i guess i wasn't watching what they were doing to my daughter closely enough (but then, they don't want you to).

Forscher

As far as I am concerned you can print me out and give it to her:

More than thirty years ago I was in a position much like hers. I had quite a talent for foreign languages, in fact such a talent that my high school counselor and one of my language teachers went quite a bit out of their way to identify the best linguistic schools in the country and get together the resources for me to go. They were that impressed. What is more, they'd gone out of their way to find the financial resources to pay for such a world class education (I was in a single parent home which lived in poverty).

But I let the elders talk me out of going. And I've regretted that move for most of my life since. For most of my working life I've had to put up with low-paying jobs, which made it very difficult to support a family. Just to make ends meet required me to work myself to the point of breaking my health, so I am living on a form of disability benefits as I write this. As my counselors thought, such a talent became such a waste.

I would say to your daughter that she needs to look to her own needs first. The Watchtower Bible and Tract society isn't going to put food on her table or a roof over her head. Only a marketable skill will. And she won't get that from the organization, no matter how they brag about the "superiority" of the education at their ministry school. despite all of their assertions otherwise, there is plenty of time to "do more in Jehovah's service" if that is what she really wants to do. A college education in the right field will make it easier for her to support herself, even on a part time basis if she decides to enter the full time ministry. After all, the organization will not pay her a salary, and she will have to be prepared to support herself if she does pursue that path. Added to that, even if she decides to marry and have a family, more and more woman, including women in the organization, find it necessary to work since the entry of women in the job market since the sixties has effectively eroded the earning power of any potential mate (Marx actually has a reasonable explanation for that in his economic theories).

So the best thing for her to do is to go to college while she is still young and unencumbered with responsibilities and pursue a course of study which will enable her to contribute to her own support and upkeep. One good one is nursing (RN) where there is currently a shortage of nurses and the projections are that the shortage will only increase. RNs can write their own ticket, whether they full or part time. And I've found that Witnesses aren't as down on pursuing that course of study as they are on college in general.

Forscher

36

Wish me well on my Greek exam

by truthsearcher in

jw
friends

as some of you know, i have been taking koine greek classes.

it is very challenging but i am starting to understand the language (which is a pretty cool thing).

i am writing an exam on monday, so you can think of me sweating it out!

Forscher

The best to you on your exam!

I learned my Greek through self study starting with Greek; A Programed Primer by John R. Werner back in the 1980s. Where I lived courses in the language weren't available within several hundred miles. So I did it the best way I could. Werner's volumes exposes the student to a larger cross section of ancient Greek than just Koine (there were even some translation execises taken from examples of the Spartan dialect which have managed to survive down the ages). I enjoyed it.

Forscher

10

Remember when it was Russia who tortured and held people w/o charges not US

by UnConfused in

and not only torture and holding people without charges.

listening in on phone calls.

checking out the library books people take out.

Forscher

If I were an American, jesus, if I were a citizen of civilisation, I would be looking at the executive orders that have been made by George W. Bush.
Americans no longer have the ancient right to Habeus Corpus (to know why you are being arrested/detained/tortured)
Bush can declare martial law for anything that he alone considers worthy.
The power has been stripped from the American judicial and legislative systems, put into executive offices, and people who are appointed, not elected.
For Vulcan's sake, all the moves have been made. One more "terrrrrrrr attack" and goodbye to "business as usual".
I often think if I ever want to go into the states or not, I'm afraid I'd never be allowed back out!

I do hate to admit it, but there are some valid points there. Where Bush should've been rolling back government power, as he promised during his election campaign, he has expanded government power even further, something you Canadians should be a bit familiar with in your own land. In doing that Bush joined the long and hallowed tradition of expanding government power started by FDR and carried on by virtually every president since. Even sadder still is that fact that while the opposition will complain about that expansion while out of power, they never to meaningfully scale back that expansion when they get into power.

If Hillary comes to power, it'll be interesting to see what happens. After all, we are talking about the folks who saw nothing wrong with using the IRS as their own private little gestapo to attack their political opponents, nor killing dozens of kids in the name of Government power at Waco, Texas.

Forscher

10

Remember when it was Russia who tortured and held people w/o charges not US

by UnConfused in

and not only torture and holding people without charges.

listening in on phone calls.

checking out the library books people take out.

Forscher

My understanding is that Russia still does.

Forscher

11

About a Coptic Manuscript on Jn 1:1

by poki in

what do you think about the version of john 1:1, accordig to a sahidic coptic manuscript:.

transliteration:.

1:1a hn tehoueite nefshoop nci pshaje (in the beginning was the word).

Forscher

Well, it looks like Narc posted the link While I was still composing my post.

Forscher

11

About a Coptic Manuscript on Jn 1:1

by poki in

what do you think about the version of john 1:1, accordig to a sahidic coptic manuscript:.

transliteration:.

1:1a hn tehoueite nefshoop nci pshaje (in the beginning was the word).

Forscher

There was already a discussion on this topic which even Leolaia weighed in on

I cannot readily link you to it. She stated that it would all depend on just exactly how the Coptic used the indefinite article. However, I seem to recall that she admitted to not enough about Coptic at the time to say much about it. Plumley's Introductory Coptic Grammar may be found here. It appears that the indefinite article is used pretty much the same as in English, though it does get used to form adverbs and it gets omitted with serial nouns and certain other constructions, none of which applies to John 1:1c.

Coptic is the only one of the earliest languages the NT appears in which uses the indefinite article Greek, Aramaic, and Latin do not. Therefore the use of it by those so close to the original, who knew the original language far better than we can, is significant. I suspect that the appearance of the indefinite article in that translation, as well as other rather trinitarian unfriendly renderings (Rev 3:14, where the Coptic uses Houeite {first}, rather than arche {begining, origin, etc.}, which was a Greek loan word available to them with the same meanings as the Greek being one example) is one of the reasons why it is marginalized and largely not available as a resource for many people.

Forscher

36

political orientation

by John Doe in

jw
friends

what political flavor are you?

are you secure in your politics?

do you feel a need to bash your opposing ideologies?

Forscher

Do the US parties have widely differing policies? I mean is there a real choice to make between the two? If not, IP may be correct that political parties are there to divide people!

The differences are largely about social policies. The Democrats largely favor changing cultural mores through government imposition, the Republicans resist such change. Otherwise, the differences are not all that wide, both seem to want to expand government power, though at least the Democrats are up-front about that while the Republicans claim to oppose such expansion. The big argument really seems to be about just where that power should be expanded (though if anybody thinks that Hillary and the Democratic party will roll back Bush's patriot act abuses if they are still there if Hillary becomes president, I have a nice Bridge in Brooklyn I can sell you).

I get accused of being both a radical right-wing and a neocon by certain folks around here. But then they don't read my posts all that much, as one of the most egregious of them has admitted. I am a moderate, I just don't favor the radical positions which some around here are so dogmatic about. So I tend to get reviled by them. ;-)

Forscher

30

Frank Zappa on the coming 'Fascist Theocracy'. (1986)

by hillary_step in

jw
friends

apart from the comic value of this interview in which frank zappa presents his views on censorship, i found it interesting that he was mocked for suggesting that the us was set on a course that was leading to a 'fascist theocracy'.

this was recorded in 1986 so the quality is a little ragged, but the spirit shows through!.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hljzexjvj8.

Forscher

This has to be one of the most moronic comments that I have read on this Board for years, and believe me there have been many to choose from.

Once again your reaction is to resort to insulting me Hill? But then you still don't want to face up to the fact you are relying on revisionism, so gratuitous insults are really all you are left with. Let me connect a few dots your modern scholars choose to ignore when pronouncing what is left and what is right.

First, in order to understand Mussolini's own words, since you made such a big deal about them, you have to understand what the terms used meant at the time he wrote them. To that end:

Socialists, referred to Marxists.

Liberals, referred to advocates of the laissez faire, or free market capitalism.

But don't take my word for it. John J Ray Ph.D., a retired social psychologist, so he can speak his mind without fear of reprisal from the left-wing education establishment, writes:

To do so, however, is a considerable trip back in time and one effect of that is that the political terminology of nearly 100 years ago was somewhat different from today. In reading quotations from the early days one must keep in mind that those Mussolini refers to as "Socialists" were in fact Marxists rather than social democrats and those whom Mussolini refers to as "liberals" were advocates of laissez faire and would hence be described as conservatives today...

Then, as now, Marxism is the extreme political right, not to be confused with new liberalism, and laissez faire was on the political right. with that in mind, lets go back over Mussolini's words:

..Fascism [is] the complete opposite of…Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception of history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among the various social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production.... Fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and in heroism; that is to say, in actions influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect. And if the economic conception of history be denied, according to which theory men are no more than puppets, carried to and fro by the waves of chance, while the real directing forces are quite out of their control, it follows that the existence of an unchangeable and unchanging class-war is also denied - the natural progeny of the economic conception of history. And above all Fascism denies that class-war can be the preponderant force in the transformation of society....

But at the same time:

...Fascism trains its guns on the whole block of democratic ideologies, and rejects both their premises and their practical applications and implements. Fascism denies that numbers, as such, can be the determining factor in human society; it denies the right of numbers to govern by means of periodical consultations; it asserts the irremediable and fertile and beneficent inequality of men who cannot be leveled by any such mechanical and extrinsic device as universal suffrage. Democratic regimes may be described as those under which the people are, from time to time, deluded into the belief that they exercise sovereignty, while all the time real sovereignty resides in and is exercised by other and sometimes irresponsible and secret forces.

Thus:

Fascism is definitely and absolutely opposed to the doctrines of liberalism, both in the political and the economic sphere.

So if it isn't socialist, and it is opposed to liberalism, where is it? In Doctor Ray's words:

Mussolini started out as a Marxist but eventually devised Fascism as a "third way" (sound familiar?). He saw it as offering a middle way between Marxism and capitalism -- Leftist but not Marxist.

Interesting. In Mussolini's Fascist Manifesto from 1919 we find such items as:

The nationalization of all the arms and explosives factories.
A strong progressive tax on capital that will truly expropriate a portion of all wealth
The seizure of all the possessions of the religious congregations and the abolition of all the bishoprics, which constitute an enormous liability on the Nation and on the privileges of the poor.
The formation of a National Council of experts for labor, for industy, for transportation, for the public health, for communications, etc. Selections to be made from the collective professionals or of tradesmen with legislative powers, and elected directly to a General Commission with ministerial powers.
A minimum wage.
The participation of workers' representatives in the functions of industry commissions.

Gosh Hill, those policies are so left-wing by even today's standards that I have to wonder how you can honestly think that Fascism was a right-wing ideology. I think to believe that Fascism was a right-wing ideology after seeing that would require, in Hillary Clinton's words a "willing suspension of disbelief." But then that is what modern academia wants. I think I'll link to Dr. Ray's insightful essay, it really makes a good case for the modern political left being the real heirs to Fascism.

MODERN LEFTISM AS RECYCLED FASCISM

30

Frank Zappa on the coming 'Fascist Theocracy'. (1986)

by hillary_step in

jw
friends

apart from the comic value of this interview in which frank zappa presents his views on censorship, i found it interesting that he was mocked for suggesting that the us was set on a course that was leading to a 'fascist theocracy'.

this was recorded in 1986 so the quality is a little ragged, but the spirit shows through!.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hljzexjvj8.

Forscher

And I presented evidence, from scholars, to support my contention.

And you brushed it off as "cherry picking the evidence" Hill. As I recall you also used the du jour insult to dismiss my views, "neocon." Great work!

Following that logic, I know nothing about secularism because my father has been one of Jehovah's Witnesses for his whole life. Am I reading you right, Forscher ?

My comments were in regards to how a committed Communist, Hill's father, viewed matters of what constitutes right or left-wing politics since Hill presented it as credible proof that Facism was right-wing. To give Hill's father credit, he would've viewed anything to the right of Communism as right-wing. That doesn't mean, though, that he was objectively correct in his opinion.

Forscher

105

Christianity in a nutshell

by serotonin_wraith in

let's see exactly what people are holding so firmly to, while all the time believing they aren't actually deluded.. section taken from: .

http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,1816,are-the-new-atheists-avoiding-the-real-arguments,edmund-standing-butterfliesandwheelscom.

first, let's take a quick look at the basic biblical narrative:.

Forscher

I think Lovelylil makes a point which should be given a little closer examination.

I think the problem is not Christianity, nor atheism, it consists of institutions centered around world views. Institutions require conformity of some sort or another. when they become dominant political systems they force that conformity on society at large by whatever means it takes. Such is the historical fact behind every atrocity laid at the feet of Christianity.

As others pointed out, Jesus Christ never advocated forcing others to Christian belief, nor killing others in his name. It is a historical fact that those groups which most closely followed his teachings ended up being the persecuted, rather than the persecutors. It was only when Christianity became an institutional religion with dominant political power that the atrocities and wars in the name of Christ came about. Search as one may, one cannot find any justification for wars, torture, and other atrocities in the teachings of Jesus.

As for another point which caught my eye:

The point is that no war is done in the name of atheism. But people do kill because they are Christian. Kashmir (Muslims v. Christians), Sudan (Muslims v. Christians and animists), Nigeria (Muslims v. Christians), Ethiopia and Eritrea (Musilms v. Christians), Indonesia (Muslims v. Timorese Christians) are some modern ones.

You're kidding, right? The examples cited are hardly good examples of Christian belligerence. In Kashmir it is Muslims pitted against Hindis, not Christians. And bye the way, Christians are being victimized by both of those groups, they are hardly in a position to be aggressors. The rest of the examples you provide, serotonin_wraith, are situations where Christians are being attacked and persecuted by radical Muslim majorities. Only in the southern part of Nigeria are they strong enough in numbers to in any way fit the stereotype you are trying to draw. and even there the primary aggressors are Muslims, not Christian. In none of those places are Christians fighting a war to impose Christianity on their neighbors. Those "wars" are being fought in the name of Mohammad, not Jesus Christ.

Forscher