Posts by Hellrider

26

The Atheist's Book of Bible Stories - new - The Demon of Saskatchewan

by RunningMan in

well, i have once again put finger to keyboard and produced another article.

i have to say that i have never had as much fun with a subject as with this one.

you can really see the goofyness of religion under the demon microscope.

Hellrider

The Smurf got up and ran from the hall. Some reports had the Smurf exclaiming, “I’ve had enough of this shit” on the way down the aisle – truth from the mouth of plush toys. I’ve had the same urge myself. Perhaps, I’m demonized.

A ha ha ha! OMG, that`s so funny! I must have had some smurf in me too, I think.

You want another one? I guess it`s not a JW-legend, but it was a story in the congo we attended. This one sister had an unbeliving husband. Not only that, but he had travelled a lot too, and had a collection of african masks in his house, which were, obviously, demon posessed. The sisters were shocked that the sister in question had not been able to persuade her husband to have them thrown out. The demon masks were believed to be the reasons for the following incident. One day, the sister had come home from the grocery store, and placed the groceries on the kitchen table. All of a sudden, an egg popped out of the egg carton, and cracked on the kitchen table. It then started frying, right there on the table.

I mean, it`s ok to save on the electricity, but self-frying eggs, that`s where I draw the line. And so, this demon story spread like a forest fire in the congo. I believe she eventually managed to talk her husband into getting rid of the african masks.

58

Diary of an Unborn Child - switch your rational mind off for ten minutes.

by nicolaou in

this article from awake!

in may 1980 is an example of the worst sort of emotional argument.

i'm just going to post it, barf, and then comment later.. *** g80 5/22 p. 16 ***.

Hellrider

I am surprised at how many JWs, once they are deprogrammed, take the exact opposite stance in all matters of values, morals and ethics. Once they aren`t dubs anymore, they just view everything that has to do with morals and ethics as metaphysical garbage.

WTF? Could you cite your sources? The "exact opposite" assumes that the "exact opposite" is wrong. Are you implying that the JW stance on issues is correct? You may want to re-word your thoughts. There is a lot of grey area here. Give us credit for being able to THINK issues through and taking a stance, no matter if it is the 'exact opposite.'

Did I imply that this was something I had "data" on, or that this is an issue in which data-collection or "sources" is necessary? Obviously, the first sentence in that quote was an expression of my impressions on this situation. And when you write: "The exact opposite assumes that the exact opposite is wrong"...could you please explain the logic in that? I never said that all of the JWs views on morals and ethics are right. In fact,my view is that most of their ethical and moral values are wrong, which is something that should be evident to anyone that has ever read my posts. My claim in that post was that ex-dubs very often dismiss morals and ethics as important, period. Or that they almost automatically assume the opposite view (of the dub-view) in matters of ethics and moral. And I am perfectly aware that there is a lot of grey area here. In my post, I wrote: "I don`t even believe in God, but I still believe in ethics: Something is right, and something is wrong. And then there are all these things that are somewhere inbetween. I believe abortion is one of those things "inbetween". "

But on the other hand, the featus has rights to. It`s not just a "germ" or a "burger", it is the "seed of life", a tiny creature with enormous potential.
Do you feel the same way about every sperm as well

Of course not. Tell me, why is it that when someone express a politically un-correct view, everyone automaticall assumes that they are an abominable, right-wing,nutcase evangelist christian? I`m not sure where that "ever spern is sacred"-thing came from, but I assume it is some kind of right-wing, religious slogan. Well anyway, those people have misunderstood completely, and I would prefer not to have that label put on me. I`m an agnostic, thank you. Frankly, using a comment like that: "Do you feel the same way about every sperm cell as well", is an insult to my intelligence, but more importantly, it is an insult to the intelligence of the person who wrote it in the first place.

Now, how do I turn of this yellow crap, argh!!!

58

Diary of an Unborn Child - switch your rational mind off for ten minutes.

by nicolaou in

this article from awake!

in may 1980 is an example of the worst sort of emotional argument.

i'm just going to post it, barf, and then comment later.. *** g80 5/22 p. 16 ***.

Hellrider

AnewMe, thank you.

Anyway: I am surprised at how many JWs, once they are deprogrammed, take the exact opposite stance in all matters of values, morals and ethics. Once they aren`t dubs anymore, they just view everything that has to do with morals and ethics as metaphysical garbage. Personally, I don`t even believe in God, but I still believe in ethics: Something is right, and something is wrong. And then there are all these things that are somewhere inbetween. I believe abortion is one of those things "inbetween". Of course, it is the womans body, and she has rights. But on the other hand, the featus has rights to. It`s not just a "germ" or a "burger", it is the "seed of life", a tiny creature with enormous potential. It has "value in itself", in my opinion. The problem with ethical considerations, is that sometimes, individuals that both has ethical rights, crash. This is the case in all pregnancy-situations, in which the featus is unwanted. In my opinion, if the pregnancy is a result of rape or incest, or if there is a serious illness in the featus, or in the mother, of course, the mothers rights have to be emphasised more than the featus. In other cases, I think abortion is disgusting. (And yeah yeah, I know I`m a guy, and many "pro-choicers" see this issue as an issue only women has the right to have an opinion on. But I have been in this kind of situation myself, so I believe I have a right to speak, despite the fact that I have a penis).

Abortion is, and always was, a question for ethical consideration. It`s not that easy, regardless of a pre-dubs new-found atheist views/freedom. It`s not necessary to "throw the baby out with the water", so to speak.

58

Diary of an Unborn Child - switch your rational mind off for ten minutes.

by nicolaou in

this article from awake!

in may 1980 is an example of the worst sort of emotional argument.

i'm just going to post it, barf, and then comment later.. *** g80 5/22 p. 16 ***.

Hellrider

I don`t what to steer up some heavy abortion-discussion here, but this:

RunningMan:
With a few modifications, you could write it from the point of view of a cow being made into McDonalds burgers. MMM. Or, a potato being made into fries.
Or a germ settling in to make you really really sick.

...in this context, makes me feel sick. A featus is not a burger, and it`s not a "germ settling in to make you really sick". If that`s a persons view of a featus, they should immediately go and get sterilized.

58

Diary of an Unborn Child - switch your rational mind off for ten minutes.

by nicolaou in

this article from awake!

in may 1980 is an example of the worst sort of emotional argument.

i'm just going to post it, barf, and then comment later.. *** g80 5/22 p. 16 ***.

Hellrider

I agree, that was stupid, because it tries to make the reader believe that the featus can think.

But I am personally against abortion.

49

A GREAT BIG "THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" - PLUS UPDATE

by Dansk in

jw
friends

dear all,.

i thought i'd best make a new thread rather than add my message to the vigil thread, for example, as it might not otherwise get noticed.. yesterday afternoon i was allowed home from the hospital - but only until wednesday morning!

as many of you will know, i have been in christie cancer hospital in manchester, england, ready to undergo a stem cell transplant (in my case, stem cells taken from my blood to be returned later).

Hellrider

Get well soon! 3 weeks, and you`ll be feeling better. Hang in there.

15

Commatology 101

by Caveat in

commatology 101. the wt argues that the expression on luke 23:43 should be rendered: "truly i tell you today, you will be with me in paradise.".

a great deal has been placed on this commas placement since the traditional understanding of this verse is in direct contraposition with the watchtower teachings.. since commas are not included in the original language, our understanding of this passage is conditioned to our beliefs and the subsequent implications that may arise from its interpretation.. by arguing that the correct rendering is "truly i tell you today," the wt implies that jesus used this phrase regularly and was a rutinary saying of jesus since otherwise it makes no sense adding 'today' on this particular occasion.

since similar phrases are found all over the gospels we can verify the its usage by jesus and hopefully be able to have a pattern that help us into resolving the dilemma.. in the wts comprehensive concordance we can track the usage of the expression truly i tell you', truly i say to you and others that basically have the same structure.. jesus is quoted in the gospels 80 + times, according to the new world translation, with expressions following the same formula.. here is a list of the places in the gospels where jesus is quoted using the phrase or one of its variations: (you can verify them by using your comprehensive concordance book or look them up in your personal copy on the nwt, all are encouraged to add or substract as they do their own personal research).

Hellrider

I'm afraid you're mixing 2 Peter 2:4 (which uses the verb tartaroô) into 1 Peter which has neither hades nor tartaros.

Narkissos, thanks for clearing that up, I didn`t mention it, but it was 2 Peter I was referring to with tartaros. But the story that is referred to, is the same (Jesus` three days in the underworld). Stillajwexelder: Yes, 40 days before his ascension to heaven, but do christians really refer to this day as the ressurection? I always thought that he had been ressurected after three days, and that when he appeared to the apostles, he had been ressurected. I am pretty sure this is accurate, because his appearance to the apostles is viewed as proof of his ressurection, with Thomas even touching him.

15

Commatology 101

by Caveat in

commatology 101. the wt argues that the expression on luke 23:43 should be rendered: "truly i tell you today, you will be with me in paradise.".

a great deal has been placed on this commas placement since the traditional understanding of this verse is in direct contraposition with the watchtower teachings.. since commas are not included in the original language, our understanding of this passage is conditioned to our beliefs and the subsequent implications that may arise from its interpretation.. by arguing that the correct rendering is "truly i tell you today," the wt implies that jesus used this phrase regularly and was a rutinary saying of jesus since otherwise it makes no sense adding 'today' on this particular occasion.

since similar phrases are found all over the gospels we can verify the its usage by jesus and hopefully be able to have a pattern that help us into resolving the dilemma.. in the wts comprehensive concordance we can track the usage of the expression truly i tell you', truly i say to you and others that basically have the same structure.. jesus is quoted in the gospels 80 + times, according to the new world translation, with expressions following the same formula.. here is a list of the places in the gospels where jesus is quoted using the phrase or one of its variations: (you can verify them by using your comprehensive concordance book or look them up in your personal copy on the nwt, all are encouraged to add or substract as they do their own personal research).

Hellrider

The three days in hell-thing is in Peter.

1 Peter

3:18 Because Christ also suffered once for sins,

the just for the unjust,

to bring you to God,

by being put to death in the flesh

but by being made alive in the spirit.

3:19 In it he went and preached to the spirits in prison,

3:20 after they were disobedient long ago when God patiently waited in the days of Noah as an ark was being constructed. In the ark a few, that is eight souls, were delivered through water

It`s also mentioned in Acts 2:31. These verses are not mentioned to often among JWs, but I suspect that this is the reason why they claim that his ressurection was spiritual, not physical. But I don`t see this verse as problematic to christians. Couldn`t Jesus have just stopped by heaven with the dead robber he promised would be in paradise, and then went down to hell? Or maybe the dead robber was with him, by his side, even though this is not mentioned? By the way, the NWT translates "hell" here as "Tar-tar-us", another place from greek mythology than Hades, believing, naively, that this solves the problem of there being a place where the "souls" of the dead are kept. Tartarus was in greek mythology a place where disobedient gods (or in this case, angels) were kept to be punished. It is true that some manuscripts use "Tartarus", but I believe others use "Hades". And Hades was the place where the souls of dead humans were kept. Rather than being an argument for the "soul-doctrine", the three days in Hades is an argument for it. . Anyway, this is part of the story, but not a big part of it. The story of Jesus` death, ressurection and the three days inbetween is not really a coherent story. I guess that`s what makes it difficult.

Angels and demons are referred to as "spirits" in the NT, by the way, and the spirits referred to here, are the angels that rebelled against God to go down to earth and pork all the hot, human chicks back in Noah days (they are referred to as the "Nephilim" in apocryphical books)

15

Commatology 101

by Caveat in

commatology 101. the wt argues that the expression on luke 23:43 should be rendered: "truly i tell you today, you will be with me in paradise.".

a great deal has been placed on this commas placement since the traditional understanding of this verse is in direct contraposition with the watchtower teachings.. since commas are not included in the original language, our understanding of this passage is conditioned to our beliefs and the subsequent implications that may arise from its interpretation.. by arguing that the correct rendering is "truly i tell you today," the wt implies that jesus used this phrase regularly and was a rutinary saying of jesus since otherwise it makes no sense adding 'today' on this particular occasion.

since similar phrases are found all over the gospels we can verify the its usage by jesus and hopefully be able to have a pattern that help us into resolving the dilemma.. in the wts comprehensive concordance we can track the usage of the expression truly i tell you', truly i say to you and others that basically have the same structure.. jesus is quoted in the gospels 80 + times, according to the new world translation, with expressions following the same formula.. here is a list of the places in the gospels where jesus is quoted using the phrase or one of its variations: (you can verify them by using your comprehensive concordance book or look them up in your personal copy on the nwt, all are encouraged to add or substract as they do their own personal research).

Hellrider

And on this one:

Mark 14:30: "Truly I say to you, You today, yes , this night before a cock crows twice, even you will disown me three times". (NWT)

...Jesus uses the "today"-expression on something that is to happen...today. Why is it that "today" in this context means that is is going to happen "today", whereas in Luke, they claim that the meaning is that "I`m telling you this today". It doesn`t make any sense.

I remember a time this was discussed at a meeting, actually. The speaker used an example from our own language, on the importance of "placing the comma right". In my language "not" and "don`t" is the same word...so the example goes like this: A king heard that an old friend of his was to be executed for treason, but he wanted to talk to him first, and possibly pardon him, so he sent a telegram "hang him, not wait til I get there" ("not" and "don`t" is the same word in norwegian). So they hung the guy right away, just because the king put the comma in the wrong place. "So the placement of the comma can mean the difference between life and death", said the speaker, and everybody laughed, hu-hu-hu...duh, because" we", of course, by the wisdom and spiritual food provided by the FDS, knew better than the rest of christendom (literally, this was a matter of life and death...for the rest of christendom, was his point, and it was not missed on the audience)...we even knew where to place the comma.

23

Is Jehovah a God of love?

by SickofLies in

"o you lovers of jehovah, hate what is bad.

"if anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own soul, he cannot be my disciple.

(luke 14:26)

Hellrider

How then could evil posibly arise out of a creator that knows only good? If Satan, who was created perfect, has not tempted Eve, who was created perfect, or if God, who is perfect, had not put the potential of Evil (a concept he apparently knows nothing about) into the garden in the first place, would mankind just end up sinning sooner or later anyway?

These are interesting philosophical questions, and what got me interested in philosophy in the first place. The question I asked myself, was not so much about Adam and Eve, but Satan. How could Lucifer choose evil? Isn`t he (Satan) the source of all evil? Nope, he couldn`t be, because he chose to rebel against God. The angels have to also have been created with free will (although I don`t think the Bible mentions this), because otherwise, Lucifer could not have rebelled against God. The alternative would have to be that God created Lucifer with evil in him, and that would mean that God created evil, and that would not make him a "god of love". So God must have created the angels with free will, and then Lucifer chose evil. This means that evil, evil as an alternative, existed alongside with the existence of God since "the beginning of time". That is, God is not the only "thing" that has existed for all eternity. The concept of evil has existed for all eternity too (if rebellion/disobeyance against God must be interpreted as evil, and I think it has to). It could not have arisen at some "point in time" (that is, after God), because that would mean that God created it (he created everything that is). But what does this mean, then? It means that God is not omnipotent! There is something, a dark side, that exists and has existed alongside God all along, and Lucifer/Satan chose this dark side. I have asked JWs in my family about this. They didn`t know how to answer. I doubt they even understood the question/argument. Well, they`re not very bright, I come from a long line of dumb people.