Posts by Earnest

50

What do the British think of Camilla Parker Bowles?

by unbeliever in

jw
friends

i saw on the news this morning that the queen has invited camilla to a westminster abbey service to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the queen's coronation.

from what i heard this is a major deal.

i know 2 people that are from england.

Earnest

Teejay,

Trust me. The Brits are crazy. You will not believe how they behave at a pantomime. Just like a bunch of kids. They have great admiration for anyone who has refined insulting to an artform e.g. Winston Churchill, Bernard Shaw, Oscar Wilde. They just love lampooning their politicians and anyone with royal connections. Why, you can go to Hyde Park [an area for public speakers of all persuasions], get on your soapbox and denounce the aristocracy to your hearts content. But there is (usually) no ill feeling attached. Sometimes its even done with a touch of affection. Of course describing someone as having a face like a horse simply shows they haven't really cultivated the art of insult. A bit like cussing because you don't have the vocabulary to express yourself. System administrators aren't what they used to be.

You should come over here sometime. You'll never be the same again.

Earnest

8

The case of the Englishman and the Stolen Cookies

by Earnest in

this actually did happen to a real person, and the real person was me.

i had gone to catch a train.

this was april 1976, in cambridge, uk.

Earnest

Good grief, Englishman. Don't you read the Peanuts cartoons? Cookies are cookies. Brownies are also cookies. Cookies are whatever you want them to be.

HS, I don't know many families outside Cambridge itself but if you wish to p/m further details I'm sure I can find out for you.

Earnest

8

The case of the Englishman and the Stolen Cookies

by Earnest in

this actually did happen to a real person, and the real person was me.

i had gone to catch a train.

this was april 1976, in cambridge, uk.

Earnest

This actually did happen to a real person, and the real person was me. I had gone to catch a train. This was April 1976, in Cambridge, UK. I was a bit early for the train. I'd gotten the time of the train wrong. I went to get myself a newspaper to do a crossword, and a cup of coffee and a packet of cookies. I went and sat at a table. I want you to picture the scene. It's very important that you get this very clear in your mind. Here's the table, newspaper, cup of coffee, packet of cookies. There's a guy sitting opposite me, perfectly ordinary-looking guy wearing a business suit, carrying a briefcase. It didn't look like he was going to do anything weird. What he did was this: he suddenly leaned across, picked up the packet of cookies, tore it open, took one out, and ate it.

Now this, I have to say, is the sort of thing the British are very bad at dealing with. There's nothing in our background, upbringing, or education that teaches you how to deal with someone who in broad daylight has just stolen your cookies. You know what would happen if this had been South Central Los Angeles. There would have very quickly been gunfire, helicopters coming in, CNN, you know...But in the end, I did what any red-blooded Englishman would do: I ignored it. And I stared at the newspaper, took a sip of coffee, tried to do a clue in the newspaper, couldn't do anythinng, and thought, What am I going to do?

In the end I thought, Nothing for it, I'll just have to go for it, and I tried very hard not to notice the fact that the packet was already mysteriously opened. I took out a cookie for myself. I thought, That settled him. But it hadn't because a moment or two later he did it again. He took another cookie. Having not mentioned it the first time, it was smehow even harder to raise the subject the second time around. "Excuse me, I couldn't help but notice..." I mean, it doesn't really work.

We went through the whole packet like this. When I say the whole packet, I mean there were only about eight cookies, but it felt like a lifetime. He took one, I took one, he took one, I took one. Finally, when we got to the end, he stood up and walked away. Well, we exchanged meaningful looks, then he walked away, and I breathed a sigh of relief and sat back.

A moment or two later the train was coming in, so I tossed back the rest of my coffee, stood up, picked up the newspaper, and underneath the newspaper were my cookies.

Quoted from a speech by Douglas Adams in his book 'The Salmon of Doubt'

8

Fred Franz....List the 'crimes'!

by petespal2002 in

jw
friends

after reading all your interesting thoughts on my other posting regarding fw, i would be fascinated to learn what you all regard to be among his worst 'crimes'.

would it be the 'refinements' on blood, a debate which goes on to the present, his views on transplants, or would you debate the true scholorship of his greek translations?

Earnest

Hi Craig,

Thanks for distilling the recent research you've been doing on the Rutherford era. It's quite a damning indictment.

With FF's aid, Rutherford got his stranglehold on the congregations, and with FF's aid Knorr got his stranglehold on the publishers.

Would you care to elaborate further on the stranglehold on publishers ?

Regards,

Earnest

10

Blood and the "Neo-Apologists"

by TZD in

for observers of jws on and off the internet, its no secret that certain jw doctrines are in trouble.

by this i dont mean to imply that these doctrines are subject to any imminent modification or reversal and i dont necessarily even mean to imply that these doctrines are wrong, although in some instances, i believe both to be the case.

what i mean by the phrase in trouble is that the information published by the jw parent organizations and currently available to jws today is completely inadequate even when it comes to responding to a polite level of inquiry from the average intelligent individual.

Earnest

Hi Tom,

Welcome to JWD and thanks for your detailed discussion of some of the issues that bear on taking blood. As a matter of interest to the forum I attach a portion of Rolf Furuli's correspondence which is pertinent to your discussion :

PRINCIPLES ARE ETERNAL - LAWS DO CHANGE
There are very few laws that govern the Christian way of life, but many principles. A principle is a ‘fundamental truth’, and fundamental truths in connection with God never change (Malachi 3:6). Laws are often an application of one or more principles in a restricted situation. This is the reason why three of the laws mentioned in Acts 15:28, ‘to abstain from fornication, things strangled and blood’ are based on the very same principle, namely, ‘God is the source of life’ (Psalm 36:10). For example, in order to give a child the best possible environment for growing up to become a balanced and happy human being, sex between persons is restricted to marriage. For instance, a couple living together without being married, may have a more stable relationship and show more love for one another than some married couples, but they are not willing to take the final step, a legal marriage where they are permanently bound to one another. Thus any children may not have the best possible environment, and the Witnesses therefore view sexual relations inside such a union as fornication.
The different situations of ancient Israel and the Christian congregation may also help us realise the difference between laws and principles. It is obvious that principles will be applied differently (materializing in particular laws) in a society which is restricted to a particular area (Palestine), where the literal temple of God stands, and where the laws of God regulate both the secular and religious life, than among the Christians who are spread around the world, who have no literal temple, and who are bound by the secular laws in their country. However - and this is very important - principles whose application are not affected by the differences between Israel and the Christian society will materialize in exactly the same laws in both societies. For instance, the principle that only the Creator deserves worship is not affected whether the people of God is a nation with literal borders and a temple, or whether they are spread around the globe and worship without the help of anything visible. Some of the laws of Moses, therefore, are binding for Christians, not because they are a part of the Mosaic law, which is abolished, but because they build on principles which are not affected by the situation in which the people of God is.
THE PRINCIPLES ON WHICH THE PROHIBITION AGAINST BLOOD ARE BASED
Connected with the principle ‘God is the source of life’ is another principle, namely, ‘the life of all creatures belongs to God’ (Ezekiel 18:4). Based on these two principles the ‘use’ of life has been and is greatly restricted: 1) life should only be given to others inside marriage, 2) the life of human beings should not be taken (except when it is directly commanded by God), (Genesis 9:6), 3) when animals were slaughterd for food, their life, represented by their blood, should by treated in a way showing that the life is given back to God (Leviticus 17:10-12) [Note that in the days of the tabernacle it was not enough to pour the blood out on the ground, but it should be poured out at the entrance of the tabernacnle (Leviticus 17:3-9). This shows that the pouring out of the blood was a religious act; it indicated that the life was given back to God.] Thus in ancient Israel the blood of humans should not be spilled except when God commanded it, and the spilled blood of humans should not be used for anything at all. Animals could be slaughtered for food, but their blood should not be used. There was, however, one exception: blood was used on the altar because "it is the blood that makes atonement" (Leviticus 17:11). In Israel animals were sacrificed for the sins of the people; in the Christian arrangement Jesus was offered once and for all (Hebrews 10:10).
Blood has represented life in the days of Noah, under the Mosaic law, and in the Christian order. This means that the regulations of the use of blood (based on the mentioned principles) are not affected by the situation of the people of God. This is shown throughout the Bible where the only legitimate use of blood [by the words «use of blood» I mean of course the use of the blood of other creatures and not my own. The arguments of Daniels that I use my own blood and therefore am inconsistent when I say that blood cannot be used, are strange indeed] is on the altar (animal sacrifices in Israel and the sacrifice of Jesus in the Christian order). All other uses are prohibited, not by a long list of prohibitions, but simply by the fact that blood belongs to God and that he has stated that it should be poured out on the ground. So, because God is the source of life and life belongs to God, we are not allowed to give life to others through procreation except inside marriage, we are not allowed to use blood in any way to sustain our life by eating it, and we are not allowed to use blood for any purpose. [While I in principle see no difference between eating and a blood transfusion, my custom is not to use this in conversations regarding blood, because it does not cover all situations. For me, the absolute prohibition of any use of blood is the ultimate reason for refusing to take haima into my body, and this I convey to others.]

The rest of his letter can be found at http://bmj.com/cgi/eletters/322/7277/37#13067 where he also discusses 'The Christian Law Against Blood' and 'Statistics and the Individual Patient'. The entire correspondence can be accessed at http://bmj.com/cgi/eletters/322/7277/37.

Earnest

47

Fred Franz and high IQ

by petespal2002 in

jw
friends

i recall reading somewhere that in his lifetime fred franz was listed as one of the most intelligent men in the usa.

can anyone think to what i am referring?

Earnest

HS,

Like many self-taught scholars, he was quite brilliant in some ways and amazingly stupid in others, because of the very fact that the body of his work was never challenged, let alone monitored.

I assume that you mean Fred Franz's work as a translator was not challenged or monitored within the WTS. I have no knowledge of that. His translation has often been challenged outside the hallowed halls of Brooklyn and there have been numerous discussions in the Watchtower, usually in the form of QFR, which have explained why a verse or verses have been translated in a certain way.

But I came across a most interesting article in The Christian Century (Vol. 68, No.19, pp.587-589) entitled 'How Bible Translators Work - Behind the Scenes in the Preparation of a New Verion of the New Testament'. It says:

A new version of the New Testament in English was published last year by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (Jehovah's Witnesses). This translation...contained a number of variations from the familiar translations of so striking a nature as to arouse the interest of scholars everywhere. It was reviewed for The Christian Century on November 1 [1950] by Steven T. Byington, himself a noted translator. Later, the New World Bible Translation Committee prepared an extended comment on points raised by Mr. Byington in his review, and at the request of The Christian Century Mr. Byington has written a reply to this comment. The exchange between the committee and Mr. Byington gives such an illuminating glimpse into the way in which translators of the Bible work that we are sure it will prove of great interest to the readers of this paper.

And there follows an "illuminating glimpse" into the scholarly considerations in translating the Bible. Byington also reviewed the translation of the OT (which was divided into four sections) for The Christian Century and commented in Vol.72, p.1146 on the second volume (Samuel to Esther) :

Yet continued experience has brought some changes. The translators have begun putting brackets around these words (not numerous) which they acknowledge not to be Hebrew but to be added for the sake of clearness. They have grown more careful to distinguish sentences where in Hebrew the subject comes before the verb from those where the Hebrew verb precedes the subject...though the committee has bound itself to dance in fetters, practice has taught it to dance more freely therein, and this second volume is more readable and vivid than the first.

So it would seem that some of the criticisms were taken on board. Whether they were internal or from correspondence it is difficult to say.

Earnest

50

What do the British think of Camilla Parker Bowles?

by unbeliever in

jw
friends

i saw on the news this morning that the queen has invited camilla to a westminster abbey service to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the queen's coronation.

from what i heard this is a major deal.

i know 2 people that are from england.

Earnest

There doesn't seem any doubt that both Camilla and Charles are adulterers but I doubt that of itself makes them whores. In fact there are precious few kings of England that have not been adulterous. Camilla's crime (apart from making the marriage a bit crowded, in Diana's famous phrase) is not adultery but divorce, as the king (or queen) cannot marry a divorcee as they are head of the Church of England. Which is why princess Margaret gave up Peter Townsend and Edward VIII gave up the throne in 1936. At least Camilla is British (unlike Wallis Simpson).

Earnest

79

An epiphany, and prelude to other thoughts

by onacruse in

well, this is being a remarkable couple of weeks for me; one of those moments i'll remember for the rest of my life.

not to be melodramatic, but i think "epiphany" best describes what i'm experiencing.. a little history: i was born and raised a jw, bethel-bound at 8, baptized at 10. always a book-worm, liked to study math, science, and old wts publications (what a combo lol).

when i wasn't vacation pioneering (as it was called then), i spent my summers in my room, frequently reading for 16 hours at a stretch.

Earnest

Proposition 2: Everything we "know" is nothing more than someone else's interpretation.

onacruse, I have been reading this thread with considerable interest but am not quite convinced that our perception of life, the universe and everything is only the reflection of what others think. It seems to me we are more like "dwarfs standing upon the shoulders of giants, and so able to see more and see farther than the ancients" (Bernard of Chartres).

As we have more input from what we read, where we go, who we mix worth...we will probably change our viewpoint on most of what we think we know but our new viewpoint is a combination of everything we have gathered and gleaned from others as well as our own personal stamp on it which must make it uniquely our own. It may appear to others to simply be an adoption of what others think but they don't know how we feel as you pointed out in your first proposition. Am I missing something?

Earnest

12

Need some help on the blood issue

by TemeculaMole in

jw
friends

.

i was having a discussion with my mom about the blood issue.

she asked me a good question which i did not have the answer for.. what was the purpose of the god saying to abstain or dont eat blood?

Earnest

The context of Genesis 9:4 is that the human race was starting over again with Noah and his family and, just as God had informed the first humans what they were expected to do and what they were not allowed, so likewise God was informing this second Adam what was allowed and what was prohibited. There were some new ground rules. A comparison with Genesis 1:29,30 shows a change inasmuch as man was now allowed to kill for food.

But just after saying this he is then told that man's life may not be taken, by man or beast, because he is in the image of God. (vss 5,6). Although God is now allowing man to take the life of any animal for food, man is to know and be constantly reminded that he is touching something, which, because it is life, is in a special manner God's property, and as a sign of this he is to abstain from the blood. It is an acknowledgement that all life, animal and human, belong to God.

Earnest

79

An epiphany, and prelude to other thoughts

by onacruse in

well, this is being a remarkable couple of weeks for me; one of those moments i'll remember for the rest of my life.

not to be melodramatic, but i think "epiphany" best describes what i'm experiencing.. a little history: i was born and raised a jw, bethel-bound at 8, baptized at 10. always a book-worm, liked to study math, science, and old wts publications (what a combo lol).

when i wasn't vacation pioneering (as it was called then), i spent my summers in my room, frequently reading for 16 hours at a stretch.

Earnest

But what is it that happens when we "see" something? Nothing more than the physical stimulation of our retinal nerves by an electromagnetic radiation (the various frequencies of which we are conditioned to label as "color"). Thus, not all people see the same color as we do (e.g. color-blindness), and some people experience a taste instead of a color (a neurological condition called synesthesia).

Synesthesia is actually very common, occurring in about one in two hundred people, and has other effects as well. For instance, another aspect is whenever you hear a particular tone you see a particular colour. And some see colours in numbers. So, 5 is always red, 6 is always green. It's always tinged green. 7 is always indigo, 8 is always yellow. So, to ask what colour a number or a tone is will be meaningless to most, but not all of us. And if we don't agree who is right ?

And, of course, our understanding of things is constrained by our own experience...as Plato explained in his allegory of the cave (http://www.plotinus.com/plato_allegory_of_the_cave.htm)...but perhaps that anticipates your cogitations

Earnest