however you define the geographic midwest.
the only do of consequence i had was illingworth.
also f bartell.
However you define the geographic Midwest
The only DO of consequence I had was Illingworth. Also F Bartell
CO's in order I was around
T Bland
D Hunter
P Koehler
R Findlay
.... and the last CO who was around when I resigned. I'll remember his name, but I can't right now. He'd be thrilled I am sure... I even interviewed him and his wife at the CA... DAMN! I can't remember his name....
as jon stewart put it: fox news really scared about what might happen, oblivious to what allready has.. .
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoid=216561&title=fox-news-fear-imbalance.
.
Right wingers are marginilizing themselves more and more each day.
this is along the same lines as the hell post and is also a serious question.. how do you view sin?
especially those of you are are christians?
for example, if i do something that i know is wrong but make the choice to do it anyway is that an "unpardonable sin" (ref.
3. In some parts of later Judaism and especially Christianity this development ironically (some would say providentially) comes full circle, with the new notion that moral sin (sin in the prophetic sense) can be "solved" through sacrifice (in a further development of the priestly sense).
Thanks Narkissos. It is the ritual sacrifice that has led to control. The ritual is the antidote to sin, according to the priestly class. (todays religious leaders) Sacrifice of you, your thoughts, needs and desires will lead to an approved state from the deity.
The problem from a pragmatic point of view (that at times seems offensive to Christians) is the source of the ritual. While it is represented as being divine, there is no evidence that this is true. The source from a scholarly point of view is 100% man made.
That is why sin as a concept is troubling. When you look at where it originates and how it has filtered into our cultures today, the cause and effect ratio isn't as it is represented. (i.e. taking care of your sinfulness through the priestly formula will result in you becoming a better, more spiritual person) The ritual continues to be mis-used as an excuse to continue to sin, since sinners have the ritual to fall back on. (I can sin, because I believe in the ritual and I am forgiven....) Certainly that is circular reasoning.
Such an approach doesn't result in people becoming more enlightened. Their good behavior and morality must come from within. Theists will tell you that good behavior AND a righteous standing must come from outside. Even if you do good work, if you have a bad thought that isn't manifest in action, that is still sin, and you still need a sacrifice. At least that is what the priests say.
Others would say that application of an enlightened "civil law" is more important then ceremonial "religious law".
Is the purpose of sacrifice for sins to make you a better person or to reinforce the authority of those who administer the sacrifice? Sin has as a caveat in most religions the need of a holy, righteous human intermediary. Sin has always been good business for them.
the subject of sin is one that is at the core of judeo/christian thought.
jw's and ex jw's alike deal with many levels of guilt that is associated with believing that certain actions and thoughts are "sinful" or offensive to god.. jw's define sin as "a missing of the mark...... god himself sets the mark..... missing that mark is sin.
sin is anything not in harmony with god's personality, standards, ways and will.
Jeff, your thread started me thinking of the 3 positions from which society negotiates order and peaceful community life. Extreme social control can result from all 3 but it doesn't necessarily have to be so in our day
1. That man is inherently corrupt and therefore sinful being inclined towards sin from birth. This seems as you said to be the religious traditional judeao/chritian way). This has and can lead to religious control/overcontrol.
2. That the human mind is a tabula rasa, a blank slate. Now this has has also lead to experiments that came to be seen as extreme social control. For example highly disciplined school systems and communities that emphasized the exclusion of religion. This also came to be seen as repressive and unhealthy
3. that humans are neither inherently sinful or "a blank slate " at birth. This position has also led to totalitarianism.
I'm not trying to be negative but just to highlight the problem of finding a way in which humans can negotiate successfully with one another in highly diverse society.
Not at all. I think its fascinating. Sin has always been a major means of control. The emphasis of the individual and the empowerment of the individual this century has actually had a very predictable effect, the lessening of religions power and control.
To empower the individual is to de-emphasize the role of organized religion. The idea that YOU can figure things out for yourself, including your own definitions of spirituality and/or god works against the current of power.
In my own journey, I have read up a small bit on Buddhism. Which as many know, doesn't nec have a god to worship. Its all about self enlightenment and finding the "middle path". How would one learn about this in the USA for example, 100 years ago?
You would have to travel and get the real scoop. Obviously, the churches, if they were to bring up Buddhism at all, would present it in a negative light. (remember the book "Mankinds Search for God"? A great borgbot foray to dissuade from looking deeper at other theistic systems)
But the world has shrunk exponentially in the last 20 years thanks to the internet. (Thanks Al Gore!!) The western worlds democratic philosophy of self determinism has led to people wanting to develop a world view that fits what they see, not what their religion of birth sees. Now, each person has the means to learn about other cultures, world views, and religious philosophy. One doesn't have to rely solely on a prejudiced source anymore to get information.
We wouldn't expect religions to take kindly to this, and they haven't. Since the culture wars of the 60's till now, they have tried to paint the USA as inherently Christian by design of the founding fathers (not true) and that our "way of life" is threatened by those who are different. (Gay and lesbians, non nuclear (i.e. married) families with children...) then instead of trying to understand the dynamics, different is defined as "sinful".
History teaches that any time change happens in cultures, that change is deemed "sinful" by those who pine for the older days....
2. That the human mind is a tabula rasa, a blank slate. Now this has has also lead to experiments that came to be seen as extreme social control. For example highly disciplined school systems and communities that emphasized the exclusion of religion. This also came to be seen as repressive and unhealthy
I think it a logical development that a "blank slate" view of the mind will evolve to an understanding that there is a "spiritual" aspect to each person. Instead of demonizing this, schools and communities will merely educate about all of them, allowing the individual to make up their own mind. The extreme example of information control will be relaxed.....
i believe in god but no longer accept the wt's views.
i still find the idea of the trinity hard to accept, however, probably because of my jw upbringing.
a coworker's child died and i attended the church memorial.
As you may be aware, I do not believe in the Trinity or the Christian god. However, if that is the road you are travelling, definitely ask around with trinitarians.
Once you see that churches do not teach nor understand the trinity the way JW's try to frame it, it might open up some doors for you.
My point is, don't rule anything out because of your JW indoctrination. the GB has lied and misrepresented the trinity too.
dear all,.
i know this has been covered,but my pioneer sister said in a letter to me about what convinces her dubs have the truth,re the worldwide preaching of hope of life on a paradise earth, "who else does that?".
now i know other religions teach a kingdom on earth,but she will say they don't preach that worldwide.. could you give me some ammo.
My first response would be even if that were true, it doesn't in of itself prove anything. Being different is different then being right.
This has been the JW marketing M.O since Rutherford. Their basic rule of thumb has been to assume that anything in traditional religion is wrong before they even get started.
Thus the formula is basically: Traditional Christian Teaching = JW must take the exact opposite tack.
That's why they get so excited to point out that they are "the only ones who teach _________"
Remember, to take the premise of those who teach that people will live on paradise earth forever is to assume that there is only one of two ways to view the earth theistically. (disclosure, I don't believe any of it, but I am aware that these theories exist)
I think a great way to respond would be for her to look for the phrase "paradise earth" in the NWT. It doesn't exist.
i wonder if the governing body (gb) knows the trouble the whole thing started..... to be sure, when the gb put into effect that all congregations of jehovah's witnesses were to have a body of elders that is in existence today, their goal was to meet their own ends.
under a sub heading "gearing up for explosive growth" in their history book "jehovah's witnesses - proclaimers of god's kingdom" they stated..... ***.
jehovahs servants were determined to continue to yield to divine direction.
By two boobs, I of course meant the CO and DO....
when i left the witnesses in 1992 after ten years in the orgainzation, i got as far away from the teachings and mindest as i could.
however some, like my former brother-in-law, also left, but are intent on finding ways to reform the society from within since he believes in the society as being of god, but that it has become misguided and is slowly drifting to "christendom" status.
one of the things he cites as evidence is the wtbts become aligned with the united nations.
A shakeup. It could happen. Is it doctrinal (their teachings?) or organizational (their hierarchy?)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gc8an6tibm4&feature=channel.
PrayerMax 5000!! LMAO!!!
this is along the same lines as the hell post and is also a serious question.. how do you view sin?
especially those of you are are christians?
for example, if i do something that i know is wrong but make the choice to do it anyway is that an "unpardonable sin" (ref.
desib77
Pat Condell has a lot to say. Whether or not you agree with this, I found it thought provoking and relevant to your thoughts.
