Shawn10538

Joined

• started 70 topics
• posted 1,259 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Shawn10538

• 
  17

  Hate! Hate! Hate!

  by Number1Anarchist in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swyp2umbuuo.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Shawn10538

  Awesome!
• 
  11

  "He Causes to Become"

  by megs in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  i'm reading the public edition of watchtower for september and it says that "jehovah" means "he causes to become".

  i've never seen this before... is this the jw's definition of the tetragrammaton?

  .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Shawn10538

  I'm amazed if you have never heard it before. Are you sure you were a Witness? I have known that since I was a toddler. It was drilled into me as soon as I could talk. It's been repeated hundreds of times in magazines, books, Insight and talks. Did you skip out on the TMS all the time or something?
• 
  29

  Mr. Flipper's Son's Witness Mom Tells Him- " Your Thinking is From Satan "

  by flipper in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  some of you remember about 9 months ago when my son's fanatic witness mother ( my ex ) tried e-mailing him at college to preach to him of the evils of higher learning.

  he stood up for himself admirably.

  she left him alone - but she's back at it again like a bad dream that just won't quit !

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Shawn10538

  Very cool.
• 
  56

  WHERE WERE YOU 7 YEARS AGO?

  by Mary in

  1. social
  2. current

  guess i'll be the first one to do an (inevitable) thread about 9-11. hard to believe it's been 7 years already.

  i was at work when one of my co-workers came up and told me that a plane had hit the world trade center.

  i thought it was awful, but i figured it was a small single engine plane that maybe lost its way in the fog.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Shawn10538

  Starting college for the first time at the age of 32.
• 
  34

  How were plants created before the Sun?

  by elder-schmelder in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  day 3 of creation .

  gen 1:9-13 .

  9 and god went on to say: let the waters under the heavens be brought together into one place and let the dry land appear.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Shawn10538

  OK, since you went and called me stupid, which is a personal attack at my very core and not the same as calling something I SAID stupid. Plus you called me an ass, well, it just seems that you are seething because of your poor writing. Let me treat you original post as if it were one of my student's papers that I correct, and you will see why a person could be uttery confused about what you write. Mind you, I don't think you are stupid, but I'm surprised if none of your teachers have counseled you on keeping things clear and simple. Writing complicated papers doesn't make you smarter or a better writer. In fact it is usually a sure sign that the writer is trying to purposely be complicated for the sake of being complicated. So here goes:
  
  
  "The Priestly creation narrative really needs to be read without modern cosmological concepts" -
  Due to the fact that the biblical story is what is in question, when you pose these things together, one expects you to say which one you believe is true. Are you saying that the Priestly narrative is true and that modern cosmological concepts are not, as any good Biblical apologist would say? It is important to let the reader know what your personal perspective is when you pose two opposing concepts together like that. There is nothing yet said that would indicate that you prefer modern cosmological concepts to the Biblical story. In fact the way it is worded "The preistly narrative really NEEDS to be read..." it sounds like you are coming to the rescue of the priestly narrative. Why not just say, "the priestly narrative, which of course is complete bull shit, needs to be..." After all, this thead is about whether it is physically POSSIBLE for the Biblical story to be TRUE. We are not talking about the merits of mythology as far as I am aware. So why rescue a creation narrative that is being wronged by misinterpretation when all we care about is whether the story could actually be TRUE? Considering your later explantion of your post, it's obvious that you were simply off topic. Could I be right in that?
  
  "and in a translation that better represents the Hebrew (e.g. many English translations render the Hebrew words 'rts and shmym as "earth" and "heaven" in some verses and "land" and "sky" in other verses), otherwise it can be interpreted in a manner very different from what the author originally intended. -
  Here you seem to be defending the Biblical narrative. What gave me that idea? It is because you seem to be wanting to make sense of it by clarifying original meanings of words. This is something that apologists do. Critics don't usually care about original nuances of words because it is a waste of time when all you really care about is if the thing is true. If it is not true taken on face value, or if you have to have an advanced degree to understand it, that too is just proof for the critic that the Bible is pure shite. Why in the world would we want to studyt a false book so diligently? Only if we were keen on the merits of mythology. But even if we loved mythology, why in the world would we need to do such close study of the meaning of words, if the thing is just a myth? I think we can really appreciate myths deeply for their merit without spending our lives examining rare definitions of words and learning original languages. It seems like a lot to do over myth. that is behavior one usually sees in Biblical apologists right? Why in the world would a Biblical critic care about a book they know to be a myth? It just doesn't make any sense. So, to prevent misunderstanding, why not just occasionally remind your dear readers that you believe this story to be a myth. saying that it needs to be "read without modern cosmological concepts' just doesn't tell us all you think it should. it really says nothing about your stance. A person who is critical of the Bible usually doesn't try to make sense of a story they know is complete myth. Myths don't need to make sense do they? So why are you trying to construct a story that makes sense? So far you still have not stated that you have any problem whatsoever with the truthfulness or factualness of the priestly story. In fact you are offering definitions of words that seem to lend credibility to the story.
  
  "For example, the summary statement in v. 1 is often misconstrued as referring to a creation of heaven and earth prior to the creation of sky and land on the second and third days." -This also sounds like a defense. If it is all just a misunderstanding then maybe the Bible story is right, right? You still have not given your readers any indication towrds your position. You are speaking as if it is fact in fact.
  
  The creation of light is what sets forth the rhythm of time, the temporal cycles of day and night. - Stated as a matter of fact, not myth.
  
  Earth and heaven are then created in the next two days and then these three frames (day/night, heaven, earth) are populated in the final three days. - Stated as fact. Where do you indicate exactly that you disagree with any part of the Biblical narrative, I am still looking. By the way, I understand now the tense you are writing in. You are telling the story actually to us. But this is an inappropriate style to use when A) You are writing in a forum that is not formal, and B) when you don't indicate that you are writing in "story-telling mode. You switch from a communicative style to storytelling seemlessly, so that I am not even sure where one stopd and the other begins. This is not good for clear writing.
  
  The luminaries are created to populate not only heaven but also the day and night. - Stated as fact by all appearances.
  
  But light itself preexists even the creation of earth and heaven. - Fact
  
  The sun is created to rule the day (v. 18), but day itself is already in existence. - Fact
  
  From the point of view of ancient cosmology, this might reflect the fact that the sun isn't the only source of light during the day. -
  While you say that it is from the point ofview of ancient cosmology, it comes off like a justification and defense of the Biblical truth. This is precisely in fact what some Biblical apologists, most noteworthily the WTBTS of New York. This is straight out of Paradise Lost in fact if I'm not mistaken. No wonder I thought you were trying to defend the truth of the Bible! You still have not made a single statement that you categorically deny the truth of the Bible story. You still are saying all the things I have heard apologists saying.
  
  The blue sky seems to shine with its own light, which brightens when the sun makes its apperance in the morning and it cooperatively darkens when the sun makes its departure in the evening. -
  stated as a fact that you personally believe! No wonder I thought you were crazy!
  
  Even without the sun in the sky, a similar cycle of day and night is presumed to happen in the days preceding the creation of the sun. -
  Not a smidgin of doubt expressed yet. It really still sounds to me like you believe this stuff. Even after I read your other explanation!
  
  So before you go and call people stupid, take a look at your writing ability. You sound like more of a researcher than a writer. That's ok, I know a ton of them and they all think they can write because they know big words. But writing is its own thing. I would send this post back to a high school student with lots of red ink on it. You may have a lot of facts in your head, nothing wrong with that, but improving how you relate those facts might help you professionally. When a teacher can't understand what you mean, then that is proof positive you have a problem. Rule number one in writing: NEVER EVER BLAME THE READER FOR NOT UNDERSTANDING WHAT YOU WRITE. If you failed to communicate to your readers, then... YOU failed, not the reader, no matter how stupid he is. Learn this and you will become a better writer. And of course I know you are already saying to yourself, "Well, other people understood me..." If that makes you feel like a better writerm then cool, go with it. Don't take anything I say seriously.
• 
  34

  How were plants created before the Sun?

  by elder-schmelder in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  day 3 of creation .

  gen 1:9-13 .

  9 and god went on to say: let the waters under the heavens be brought together into one place and let the dry land appear.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Shawn10538

  Yes, has the question of "how does day exist without the sun been answered?" Light has to shine on something to look like light. Light has to have a source. period. What is the source of light if the sun doesn't exist?
  
  Day just doesn't exist. It is only day on one side of the planet. It is not day all around the globe at once. So day isn't something that can just be. It does not exist in space. It does not exist without the sun, period. It is exclusively a matter pof perspective. A person standing under the sun is in day. A person standing on the other side of the globe at the same time is not experiencing day.
  
  I don't know why exactly, but I am always frustrated with Leolaia's comments. They seem so educated on one hand, but I think where I have a problem is not with her factualness, but with her lack of position, claim and conclusion.
  
  Take this thread for example. What is she saying? That the Bible is consistent with science? It seems so to me, because she seems to be offering an explanation of how it can be interpreted in a scientifically sound way. But she doesn't come out and just take a position on the matter. Without a clear position, the reader is confused, as I am sure many reading her stuff are. Is she an apologist of the Bible? I have thought so on many occasions but been told that she is not, by her own admission. Then why does she offer explanations that seem to lend to what other Biblical apologists are saying? Has she accepted Jesus Christ as her personal lord and savior? That would tell us a lot. But I don't know, it's very cryptic with her.
  
  in the post above she leaves us hanging wondering how the hell do we get day without a sun. To leave something like that hanging in the wind, one tends to take that as her offering it as a conclusion. But it's not much of a conclusion. Conclusion is what she is lacking, and part of why reading her stuff just frustrates me. Maybe I'm just too dumb to understand it. apparently my BA has done nothing for me.
  
  Certainly this CRAZY statement, I mean absolutely absurd notion, definitely needs some more explanation to make her not sound like a total lunatic:
  
  "But light itself preexists even the creation of earth and heaven. "
  LMAO!
  "The sun is created to rule the day (v. 18), but day itself is already in existence."
  [Oh god, tell me she is just joking! Surely no adult thinks this!]
  
  From the point of view of ancient cosmology, this might reflect the fact that the sun isn't the only source of light during the day. The blue sky seems to shine with its own light, which brightens when the sun makes its apperance in the morning and it cooperatively darkens when the sun makes its departure in the evening. Even without the sun in the sky, a similar cycle of day and night is presumed to happen in the days preceding the creation of the sun."
  
  There's just so much wrong with it both logically, scientifically etc, that I just don't want to touch it. But for starters, who in heck ever said that light preceded light sources? Light isn't this thng that just floats around in space from nothing, (unless you are saying light is everything and everything is light in which case I would agree.) But light is only seen when it shines on something. Other than that we have no evidence of its existence, (except for in the form of heat, which again is really heading into new age speculative ethereal territory, not stuff anybody knows about at this point in history.)
  
  Now, recently there is talk of "dark light" light of such low frequency that it can not be seen by human eyes. But that is getting awful new agy as well, not that I deny the "dark light theory" it's just that no one really knows much about it, it just isn't well established science yet. So, uness you are some kind of quirky light scientist by day, astronomer cosmologist or whatever, I think you are out of your realm of expertise.
  
  So let's just stick with known mainstream science, and it says, light is only visible when it hits something. In space it essentially does not exist, and if it does, we don't know it. DAY DOES NOT EXIST IN SPACE, ONLY ON PLANETS AND OTHER LARGE OBJECTS. Day is perspective bound. In other words, it really does not exist as a thing, it exists only from a perspective. There is really no such thing as DAY. It doesn't have a personality, habits, a routine or anything. It appears to appear when the sun shines on atmosphere. It is the effect of light on atmosphere and other objects.
  
  I don't think there is any actual evidence that any ancient people ever thought that the sky is a source of light itself. It has never "seemed" to me to light up in all my years of looking at it. I have never met a person who ever said the sky looks like it lights up all on its own. Saying the "sky lit up in brilliant colors" is just a figure of speech. No one really ever thought the sky lit up literally. So if you can't provide an actual document of the Bible writers actually saying that they think what you are saying they thought, it is just wild speculation on your part, and it is wreckless scholarship to try to sound authoritative when you are really just speculating wildly.
  
  So Leo, what is your conclusion? Does the biblical creation story fit with science or not? What is your opinion? Why not share it and be really really clear about it? If you don't know, say you don't know. It's like reading an essay without a claim. What is your caim? If you don't have one... I'm just going to leave this hanging with no conclusion.
• 
  33

  My Draft DA Letter - What do you think?

  by daniel-p in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  dear family and friends,.

  this is one of the hardest things ive ever written.

  please forgive me for the brevity, but its essential for the clarity that this most emotional topic deserves.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Shawn10538

  I was just wondering what a text message DA letter would look like, if you used all the latest tweenie bop slang and abreviations.
  
  Something like this maybe?
  
  Dear Bros,
  
  idk if I can go out with u at night anymore. I guess we're not goin 2b BFFs anymore. My mom has put the lock down on me and I got 2 BBsit my little bro on 2sday and thursday nights. And sunday, my braces need tightening... every sunday for the rest of my life. Service is totally boooring, so thats out 2. Ihope this doesn't make you 2 :( LOL!
  
  (((((((((Hugs))))))))) by4now!
• 
  34

  Tennis Players----Who Are Your Favorites?

  by minimus in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i used to love jimmy connors and john mcenroe.

  roger federer is unbelievable!!

  and i'm a big serena williams fan.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Shawn10538

  The one and only reason I became interested in tennis and even began playing was Monica Seles. That awkward grip of hers. She was like a bumble bee, technically speaking she should not have been as good as she was. Short arm reach etc. Somehow she made it work. That grunt! I have never been so entertained by any other player in my life. Tennis will likely never be as fun to watch without her, even after all her records are broken by the Williams sisters. She fought harder than anyone up to that date. She won by sheer might. She was the first woman power player. A male player I liked a lot was (first name?) Martin. I loved his style. He was great at last round come backs, another very entertaining player.
• 
  46

  So are my JW friends really my friends - or not?

  by BonaFide in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i am being investigated judicially, although weeks are going by without the elders saying anything to me about it.

  i still comment and give my talks.. anyway, some of my friends are getting word about me being investigated, some in my family too.

  a couple i used to preach with every week no longer call me and bug me to join them.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Shawn10538

  And WT,org is unabshedly positive. So now, answer my question.
• 
  46

  So are my JW friends really my friends - or not?

  by BonaFide in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i am being investigated judicially, although weeks are going by without the elders saying anything to me about it.

  i still comment and give my talks.. anyway, some of my friends are getting word about me being investigated, some in my family too.

  a couple i used to preach with every week no longer call me and bug me to join them.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Shawn10538

  Renaia,
  In all sincerity, is there anything that the Watchtower organization could do that you wouldn't rush to defend? Seriously. Starting with mass muder of every single Witness, down to small personal offences, where do you draw the line and say, "Now THAT was just TOO bad. Now they have really gone and done it!"
  
  I really wonder exactly what would do the job for you. What is SO bad that not even the staunchest JW apologist could defend it?
  
  Lord knows that JWs jump on Catholics every time they sneeze. Yet the GB can do no wrong.
  
  Shawn