Peart, for his drumming and his lyrics. My favorite atheist.
http://www.digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/best_drummers.html
--
Mark
i was listening to zep's dazed and confused today and the rocking middle section of that song never ceases to amaze me - john bonham was from a different planet, was completely insane, or both.
nothing i've ever heard in any other song quite compares to that.. honorable mentions:.
neil peart on the songs tom sawyer and subdivisions.
Peart, for his drumming and his lyrics. My favorite atheist.
http://www.digitaldreamdoor.com/pages/best_drummers.html
--
Mark
for me it is blondie, alanf, farkel, seattlenice guy, and dogpatch others have contibuted to me learning but these guys have helped most
Several articles written by AlanF some time ago were the most intriguing anti-WTS material I've ever read. He just makes the most sense to me and on all of his viewpoints (JW-specific or not).
For the pro-JW side of discussions, I've always enjoyed Mark Sornson's posts on Usenet.
Some posters, like the one who calls him/herself Prominent Bethelite, I've never cared for (again on Usenet, but maybe the names are familiar).
--
Mark
because the watchtower says they are but so far, i haven't seen any tangible evidence from any jehovah's witness i've ever met even when i was a jehovah's witness.
does anyone have solid proof the jw's are doing the things jesus did such as feeding the poor, nursing the sick (baptist, methodist, catholic, presbyterian hospitals are everywhere and are supported in part by donations from christian groups), providing spiritual refreshment to the soul, etc.?.
maybe i'm just not looking in the right places to see any evidence supporting the wtbts's claims that they are christians and following in jesus' footsteps.
Feed the poor? Well, I guess we also have to give credit to Al Capone and the Colombian drug lords.
The JWs are Christian-like IMO in that they are part of a doomsday cult, just like early Christianity. I'm sure there are other similarities.
--
Mark
i'm having a conversation with a couple of people in my office as i type this.
i'm asking the question "why did god allow satan to kill job's family?
" i told them that to say he did it to prove job's faithfullness and that he got even more in return for his faithfulness is not a good enough answer.
To quote myself from an earlier thread...
"...what kind of loving being would give an innocent infant a fatal disease (2 Samuel 12:15), allow an entire family to be murdered on a wager (Job), and ruthlessly drown what I guess would be more than 99% of mankind (Genesis 7:17-24)?"
Makes you wonder.
--
Mark
i'd say that the biggest advantage of being a jw is that you learn the bible.
growing up a jw (never baptized), i had many friends (mostly catholic) who didn't even know where most books of the bible were even located.
jws really do learn and study the bible and this knowledge becomes very helpful once you start looking at the bible more objectively and not with wts binders.
Well, the point of my thread wasn't to defend JWs but how many people do you know believe what they believe because they read the Bible and formulate their own beliefs? Come on, people! We believe what our religion teaches us to believe and to many (if not most) it's usually just basic stuff anyway! People are usually born into a religion and stick with those beliefs, if they even KNOW what all their church teaches. Of course some do and some even disagree with their Church (not being JWs they have that freedom).
The people I know trust that their Church teaches them correctly and have no interest in investigating further. Hmm...like JWs, I suppose.
I realize this may not apply to many of you though, I mean you people are spending time on a religious message board for Christ's sake!
--
Mark
i'd say that the biggest advantage of being a jw is that you learn the bible.
growing up a jw (never baptized), i had many friends (mostly catholic) who didn't even know where most books of the bible were even located.
jws really do learn and study the bible and this knowledge becomes very helpful once you start looking at the bible more objectively and not with wts binders.
Brooke, I wasn't trying to be a butt-much but I had no clue what you were talking about (kinda vague). Now I do.
P.S. I'm sure I just need to figure out what I'm doing, but I've never had the troubles on other message boards that I'm having on this one (i.e. formatting, text size, where did it just put me?, etc.). Heck, I guess I still prefer the simplicity of Usenet newsgroups using Outlook Express.
--
Mark
i'd say that the biggest advantage of being a jw is that you learn the bible.
growing up a jw (never baptized), i had many friends (mostly catholic) who didn't even know where most books of the bible were even located.
jws really do learn and study the bible and this knowledge becomes very helpful once you start looking at the bible more objectively and not with wts binders.
Deputy Dog, most people aren't students of the Bible and my example was to show that words have been added (or removed) from the Bible over biases.
I remember reading about this once in a Catholic Encyclopedia, how it was the Church's decision to remove the text and I applaud them for that. They seem to have wanted to correct an error. But how could such a blatant error ever be made in the first place? And more importantly, how did it slip through the cracks for so long (how many centuries?).
If I understand it correctly, Protestant Bibles were translated from Catholic sources which include the erroneous text thus the damage has been done (if it doesn't belong). My point is that the Word of God (if there is such a thing) was both altered and went unchecked and I can't help but wonder what other "slipups" (maybe more subtle ones) haven't been discovered yet?
I come down pretty hard on the RCC about this although they ultimately seemed to have done the right thing, because I believe the erroneous text was inserted at a time when the lay person would have been tortured and executed by the Church for merely possessing a copy of the Bible. They were the sole keepers of the Word at the time and didn't keep it pure. Not good.
i'd say that the biggest advantage of being a jw is that you learn the bible.
growing up a jw (never baptized), i had many friends (mostly catholic) who didn't even know where most books of the bible were even located.
jws really do learn and study the bible and this knowledge becomes very helpful once you start looking at the bible more objectively and not with wts binders.
You can get to be a great liar to the point you believe the lie! aka Great Salesman!
Which lie? That God exists? That God is love? Or something JW specific?
--
Mark
i'd say that the biggest advantage of being a jw is that you learn the bible.
growing up a jw (never baptized), i had many friends (mostly catholic) who didn't even know where most books of the bible were even located.
jws really do learn and study the bible and this knowledge becomes very helpful once you start looking at the bible more objectively and not with wts binders.
Another advantage is that you cannot blame God for not warning you about what is to befall mankind. I?ve come to the conclusion that since we humans are incapable of seeing things from Gods perspective we fail to appreciate the justice in what he does
Trying the quoting thing.
I believe too many humans are incapable of coming to grips that this really might be all there is. I have problems with it myself.
I see no reason why I should believe the Bible was written by anyone but mere mortal men. God's so-called justice might have seemed like justice to the Bible writers of that time as they had no problem inventing stories that we today find (or should find) repulsive. "We humans can't understand the mind of God" is just an excuse for not being able to rationally explain the irrational conduct of God as man portrays him in ancient text, IMHO.
I see early Christianity as a doomsday cult, which eventually morphed into the Roman Church (the first and main Christian religion and holders of the oldest manuscripts). Anyone watch the History Channel today on the origin of the Papacy? Holy crap was this institution Evil! And all other churches branched out from this abomination???
I guess it doesn't matter if I don't believe that the Bible is inspired from some higher being. I do believe that all of you claiming to really know your Bible would disagree how to interpret it, but I guess that goes without saying. I've always been a big fan of Alan F's posts BTW, if that tells you anything about me.
--
Mark
i'd say that the biggest advantage of being a jw is that you learn the bible.
growing up a jw (never baptized), i had many friends (mostly catholic) who didn't even know where most books of the bible were even located.
jws really do learn and study the bible and this knowledge becomes very helpful once you start looking at the bible more objectively and not with wts binders.
Deputy Dog, what Bible isn't slanted to one belief or another?
I had a Catholic friend once tell me that the NWT was altered to fit JW beliefs. He didn't know what scripture(s) (I assumed John 1:1), so I later found two official (Papal Stamped) RCC Bibles that had different text...
(Similar to this example at 1 John 5: 6-8)
http://bible.com/bible_read.html
- Douay-Rheims Bible (Catholic)
=======================
6 This is he that came by water and blood, Jesus Christ: not by water only
but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit which testifieth that Christ is
the truth.
7 And there are Three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word,
and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one.
8 And there are three that give testimony on earth: the spirit, and the
water and the blood. And these three are one.
- New American Bible (Catholic)
=======================
6 This is the one who came through water and blood, 2 Jesus Christ, not by
water alone, but by water and blood. The Spirit is the one that testifies,
and the Spirit is truth.
7 So there are three that testify,
8 the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and the three are of one accord.
=======================
Note that I'm not trying to make any kind of Trinity argument here, just showing that words are sometimes added (or removed, however you want to look at it). IIR, the current position of the RCC is that this particular Trinity text (verse 7) should not be there, but the KJV has decided to leave it in anyway.