Posts by glenster

2

Jeff Weis Has Started A Petitiion on Change.org.

by Scott77 in

i'm a catholic and i take my kids to church every sunday.

church is supposed to be a safe place.

but bishop robert finn, who is the head of my diocese (that's a regional group of churches), made our church unsafe for my children when he covered up a child sex abuse scandal.. last month, father shawn ratigan -- who was a priest in a church near mine -- plead guilty in u.s. federal court to producing and possessing child pornography.

glenster

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/07/bishop-finn-guilty-child-abuse-reporting_n_1864360.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Finn_%28bishop%29

199

I Want Proof Jesus Even Existed

by Farkel in

don't bother me with the josephus addendum.

i've already seen that debunked.. i am quite aware of the fact that the only evidence of jesus comes from his own followers who didn't even bother to write down his life for decades after jesus "died.

" don't know about you, but if i saw all that shit, i would have gone home and written three books about it that same day!.

glenster

People sure like to back and forth on this.
https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2012/07/27/the-did-jesus-exist-controversy-encore/

8

The Black Mesa mod has finally been released

by glenster in

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jq-6mhgye5a.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqnext7mxik.

http://release.blackmesasource.com/.

glenster

"Carmageddon" and the "Carmageddon Splat Pack" are at gog.com for $10 and com-
patible with Windows XP, Vista, and 7.
http://www.gog.com/en/gamecard/carmageddon_max_pack

"System Shock 2" patch by Le Corbeau Sept., 2012
http://pc.gamespy.com/articles/122/1226217p1.html
http://www.pcgamer.com/2012/09/26/thief-and-system-shock-2-patched/

9

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad nears last UN speech: expect a doozy

by glenster in

by howard lafranchi | christian science monitor.

mahmoud ahmadinejad is in the us ahead of his last speech to the.

un as iranian president wednesday, and he's already living up to.

glenster

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKaBayz0r2I

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/world_now/2012/09/iran-arrest.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/26/ahmadinejad-speech-un_n_1916347.html?ir=World

79

What did God accomplish with the flood?

by jam in

the purpose of the flood, because man grieved him to.

his heart, so he started over.

did his plan work?

glenster

"I focus on likely motives of the original authors by looking at what they
wrote, what actually happened"

That's the part of liberal stance and non-believer that overlaps, which I point
out to minimize not maximize any needless head butting over it. The liberal
stance doesn't need to make something of the known of the past different than it
was, rather keeps the basic God concept of a possible God beyond the known cur-
rent with the known without wanting harm over such things.

One thing clear in the known is there wasn't a literal worldwide great flood,
of course.

The author's intention is lost to history. They could have meant it literally,
but it's also possible they may have known they adopted and added to a popular
pre-existing idea to make an expression of faith, and allegorical interpretations
of Gen. are pretty old, too--see the pages at the next links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegorical_interpretation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo#Creation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegorical_interpretations_of_Genesis

Abrahamic faith can be orthodox, conservative, liberal, progressive, and re-
form.

To simplify it to conservative and liberal stances, the conservative defends
perceived integrity of old interpretation of old text, possibly for a literal
flood, whereas both the non-believer and the liberal stance rejects that, as in
this case. There are a variety of ways the liberal stance may do that--take
something allegorically, something represents the thought of people of the time
not what God would think (ANE cosmology, etc.), God used some people he'd only
taken along so far from their cultural commitments, etc. It's not dependent on
a literal rendering of an old text.

"legal elements"

The most important legal point would be that violent crime is bad. The story
involves an allegory of a God that could do what he wants with the cosmos with
impunity with the prerogative, and nobody actually got hurt. Again, it reminds
me a bit of Grand Theft Auto that way with the literalist purview reminding me of
lawyer Jack.

"but merely challenges my... What"

I just broadened the picture of what goes on in Abrahamic faith regarding the
flood, etc., which shows that a disavowal of a set of literalist specifics (the
author must have meant these things and meant them literally, etc.) isn't
exclusive to a rejection of faith, not to challenge your free choice to reject or
embrace one or the partialities you have.

32

Divine name debate - Greg Stafford v Paul Lundquist etc

by yadda yadda 2 in

i'm sure this has been discussed in depth before by the scholarly minded on here.

i'd be interested in seeing any former threads.. what are we to make of greg stafford's theory (and the watchtower society's) that the hellenized philosophy of the early nt copyists caused them to remove the divine name (tetragrammaton or variants of) from the nt writings?

have any scholars offered a rebuttal?.

glenster

The JWs leaders replace Lord with Jehovah in NT verses that quote the OT, but
their obvious motive is to replace Lord with Jehovah, whom they define as the
Father, in certain phrases so the reader won't think Lord could mean Jesus in
them.
http://gtw6437.tripod.com/id22.html

In the page of translation differences at my GTJ Brooklyn site, I give the
links to sites that argue the JWs leaders' preferred translations against the
common ones. They just add possibilities to a case shown stronger for the common
case in other ways, so it doesn't make much difference at the end of the day.

It's like the JWs leaders' dodgy policies on the medical use of blood--where
normal evidence doesn't support the idea, followers are supposed to adhere to the
policy as provided by the chosen spokespeople of a literal 144,000. This chosen
status is defined by the distinctive policies or relatively distinctive policies
taught distinctively.

56

Rutherford's love letter to Hitler

by irondork in

has anyone ever thought to send a copy of rutherford's letter to hitler & declaration of facts to the holocaust museum in washington, d.c.?

they have and entire section dedicated to the jehovah's witness in that museum.

i would hate for tourists to visit the museum and not get the whole story.. i would also assume there are jw displays at other holocaust museums around the world.

glenster

"The Golden Age," various issues 1930-1934
http://archive.org/details/1930-1934TheGoldenAgeMagazine

"The Golden Age," 1935
The Gentile Front seems to be bad propaganda. It maintains the so-called
"Protocols of Zion" are of Jewish origin, despite the fact that this has been
proved false wher-ever the courts have looked into it. Nothing could be more
devilishly narrow-minded, more fiendish, more contemptible, than the so-called
"New Germany" to which The Gentile Front looks up and upon which The Golden Age
looks down with loathing inexpressible. The Jews are money lovers, granted; but
they are not pig-headed wild beasts.
http://archive.org/stream/1935TheGoldenAgeMagazine/1935_goldenAge_djvu.txt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion

Maybe this says it: it's like Rutherford is the president of Chick-fil-A and
Hitler is the president of Iran.

56

Rutherford's love letter to Hitler

by irondork in

has anyone ever thought to send a copy of rutherford's letter to hitler & declaration of facts to the holocaust museum in washington, d.c.?

they have and entire section dedicated to the jehovah's witness in that museum.

i would hate for tourists to visit the museum and not get the whole story.. i would also assume there are jw displays at other holocaust museums around the world.

glenster

^ Thanks!

krejames--research it more. If this "stumbling" is new to you, there's a lot
more to go through.

The JWs followers probably treated Jews or Nazis like they did anyone else when
they knock on their doors, friendly about the idea you might see their way as the
one. Most Jews are likely unfamiliar with the history of literature by the JWs
leaders, though, which is where accusations of insincerity and harm are justi-
fied. Jews would be mistaken if imagining the Declaration of Facts as an un-
characteristicly insincere effort to try to placate Hitler in extreme circum-
stances.

I'd recommend any expose investigation focus on the leaders misuse of research
material, forced points, mischaracterizations of others, etc., in feigning ex-
clusiveness in creating distinctive doctrines meant to back up their claim of
being the chosen spokespeople for a literal 144,000, which doesn't come naturally
or honestly. This is most notable if anyone is hurt or killed abiding by those
rules as in restricting medical options for themselves or their children or harsh
shunning rules. That's my main concern.

Many have been hurt or killed following similarly bad advice on how to handle
intolerant political leaders, such as in Malawi and including this old example
from Rutherford's leadership regarding Hitler. When Hitler didn't buy Ruther-
ford's effort at bonding, Rutherford threatened Hitler that unarmed JWs would
spread the word against him and God would bring him down. Shortly afterward, JWs
starting going to concentraton camps, and hundreds never left....

There are no shortage of writings by Rutherford indicating he continued
Russell's Zionism a bit but then joined C. Woodworth in antisemitic propaganda.
He then wrote occasional brief phrases of sympathy for the plight of the Jews and
knocked Hitler (if also continuing conspiracy claims about Catholics and Popes
and the Satanic evils of national powers, including the Allies, and preventing
followers from fighting Hitler). This sympathy ended with new JWs leaders and
knocking the establishment of Isreal, etc.

If you don't know whose editorials to believe, you can sift through a lot of
the JWs leaders' quotes in the timeline at the next two links and see for your-
self.
http://glenster1.webs.com/gtjbrooklyn6.htm
http://glenster1.webs.com/gtjbrooklyn6a.htm

56

Rutherford's love letter to Hitler

by irondork in

has anyone ever thought to send a copy of rutherford's letter to hitler & declaration of facts to the holocaust museum in washington, d.c.?

they have and entire section dedicated to the jehovah's witness in that museum.

i would hate for tourists to visit the museum and not get the whole story.. i would also assume there are jw displays at other holocaust museums around the world.

glenster

I figure it either means she's good at sniffing out the facts or he's a dog for
her sniffable parts. Owoo. Dunno.

79

What did God accomplish with the flood?

by jam in

the purpose of the flood, because man grieved him to.

his heart, so he started over.

did his plan work?

glenster

"That's the REFUGE of apologetists,"etc.

A simplification of a couple possible directions of interpretation in Abrahamic
religion:

Conservative

Proof claimed of God so religion as law of the land, defense of old interpreta-
tion of old texts, restriction of rights and punishment for women and LGBT
people, etc.

Liberal

Faith in a possible God beyond the known things so separation of church and
state, defense of the basic God concept (if there is a God, it wouldn't honor Him
to misinform or cause needless harm in His name), civil rights for women and LGBT
people, etc.

I don't want to put a crimp in your interpretation or criticism lifestyle, but
whatever you do, the latter isn't a defense or refuge for the former.

If you go Abrahamic, I'd recommend liberal as more credible. If the choice
must be made between honoring an old text writer or God, and the point of faith
in God is to honor God, I'd recommend liberal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_fundamentalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_christianity

Conservative interpretation is the type fundamentalists use, also often used
by non-believers in a similar purview as THE interpretation to criticize. Ob-
viously, there's overlapping in how liberal believers and non-believers would
criticize the conservative rendering.

These aren't strict guidelines. I recently read of orthodox Jews deciding to
interpret Lev.18 as just for priests, which I thought was impressive for ortho-
dox. Islam, mostly orthodox, has the most catching up to do regarding staying up
to speed with the known things God is possible beyond.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcGfuEZ9dSo&feature=my_favorites&list=FLGDjZWvH8V0zca0Xu_46qkQ