Posts by Farkel

: There is something seriously wrong with this picture. These elders and the loving pioneer sister yelling out "slut" and "whore" to the victim, have really lost all sensibility and reasoning.

"Totally braindead" - see above.

And some folks think I (and others) are going overboard when we use that expression? I think we're being way too kind.

Farkel

15

The History of Everything and Stuff

by Big Jim in

jw
friends

the history of everything and stuff.

(contrary to jw opinion, jehovah doth have a great sense of humor.

after all, he made us, didn't he?

It was I who wrote that piece about four years ago. Every word in that piece is mine, not yours. I find it rather disingenuous of you to appear to take credit for it by not at least mentioning the fact that YOU DIDN'T WRITE IT.

Farkel

94

Meet Silentlambs In Person!

by silentlambs in

i am going to be at a trial in ritzville, washington.

the town is about an hour southwest from spokane, wa.

i will be there on august 14th, which will be on a tuesday.

Farkel

SilentLambs,

I add my voice of support to the other posters. I do have one question about this statement, though:

:finally at the age of 19 related these sex crimes a peace officer who also happened to be one of JWs.

Since when can a JW be a peace officer? I've been out a long time, but I was always under the impression that JWs could never serve in any job that required them to carry a gun. Of course we all know that the scriptures plainly forbid any job that involves carrying a gun!

What kind of peace officer was she talking about, and has the society become lax on this former clear-cut restriction on dub employment?

Hell they tell you what to read, what to watch, what to say, what to think, what to wear, what music to listen to, who to marry, how to marry, when to marry, how to divorce and how to have sex so they might as well tell you what kind of jobs you can have. It wouldn't matter to a dub. They've been beaten down so far, what's another restriction on their non-lives, anyway?

Some day you and I will meet, Bill. I'm certain of it. Tell Erica my heart and best wishes are with her, ok?

Farkel

41

back to basics

by cnn77 in

jw
friends

as soeone raised in the truth my whole life i am struggling with a basic doctrinal issue.

the issue has to do with universal sovreignty and the ransom sacrifice.

let me try to illustrate by way of analogy:.

Farkel

cnn77,

I see that AlanF has already commented on the subject of the ransom. In order for the ransom theory to work, the concept of "original sin" must also work, so we must deal with that issue first.

In September, 2000 I wrote "Original Sin For Dummies" based upon an essay of AlanF's. Here it is again. I will see if I can dig up the follow-up on the ransom doctrine itself. But remember, the ransom doctrine means nothing without the original sin doctrine.

Original Sin For Dummies

Here's a hackneyed summary of some of A.F.s key points from his Essay on "God's Justice --Sin, Imperfection, and the Ransom Sacrifice."

The Bible expects us to take as a given that sin (and thus misery, wickedness and death) came to all of us from one man. (Romans 5:12) Thus, according to the Bible, sin is "inherited." How do we inherit stuff? By means of genes, fellow dum*ies. Therefore, man's genes somehow became screwed up from the time of Adam's sin forward.

So, who actually screwed up man's genes? While Adam did the sinning, it would have to be God who altered his genes. There is no other explanation. He either did it directly, or indirectly by having Adam made with some sort of "mechanism" that would automatically screw up Adam's genes as soon as he sinned. If the latter is true, then Adam's body had a designed-in "booby trap" from the very beginning, waiting to trigger the moment Adam sinned. Since there can be no other conclusions, is was GOD who is DIRECTLY reponsible for mankind's inherited sinfullness and all its effects. God himself screwed up the genes and the screwed up genes are what gives us "inherited" sinfullness.

Of course, the standard argument Christians use is that "Adam had free will. He didn't HAVE to disobey God and therefore sin. It was his OWN FAULT." Fine and dandy, but why did hundreds of generations of children have to suffer as a result? Remember, it's the GENES, dummy, and God changed them. God could have easily waited to mess up the genes of the first couple until AFTER they had children. Then he could have messed up that couple's genes and let them die, while letting their children be perfect, and able to be tested on a par with the test Adam and Eve had to take. But he didn't do that? Why didn't he do that? Where is the righteousness and fairness in the way it was handled?

"The soul that is sinning--it itself will die. A son himself will bear nothing because of the error of the father, and a father himself will bear nothing because of the error of the son. Upon his own self the very righteousness of the righteous one will come to be, and upon his own self the very wickedness of a wicked one will come to be." - Ezekiel 18:20

This verse seems reasonable enough, except it is an OUTRIGHT LIE and what God did to Adam and Eve which was passed along to the rest of us, proves it is a lie.

If God did not want us to ever disobey Him, he could have easily made us incapable of doing so. "Oh, but then we wouldn't have 'free will,'" some will say. Would you hear anyone complain if God said, "I'm gonna give you all the free will in the world, with one exception. In order to insure that you live in perfect health for ever and ever, I'm going to make you in incapable of disobeying my commands. But take heart, my commands are always perfect and just and ALWAYS in your best interests." Do you think someone would raise their hand and say, "But God I OBJECT! I WANT to be able to screw up and disobey your perfect and just commands which are always in my best interests, and then be made miserable, and then get sick and die and rot? I WANT the opportunity to have my wife be miserable when she's bearing children and I WANT to work by the sweat of my brow and have weeds grow all over the place." I don't think so. Anyway, if such a jerk did make such a demand, I'm sure God could have easily made an exception in that case. After all, he wants us to be HAPPY, doesn't he?

Adam and Eve were total dorks. Here they were absolutely perfect with every thing handed to them on a silver platter, and they had the most dorky little test to pass: don't eat fruit from only ONE tree. Tests to determine an eternity of blissful living don't get much simpler than that, folks. And they blew it.

But what about US? We're born with "inherited" sinful tendences and all sorts of other problems and infirmities, so what does God in his infinite mercy do to mitigate matters for us since we had NOTHING TO DO WITH OUR CONDITION? He gives us TONS of tests that are infinitely harder to pass than the ones the first two dorks had to pass! He gives us birth defects, vision problems, rotting teeth, poor hearts, livers, kidneys and general human misery. And what's he going to do if we don't pass these tons of tests? He's going to KILL us, that's what.

Why didn't God just forgive Adam and Eve or maybe give them a nasty case of diarrhea for a few weeks as punishment? The standard explanation is "oh, no, he couldn't do that! God's justice is PERFECT, and he would look like a liar if he did that?" Want my answer to that one? If God is so smart, why did he open his yapper in the first place and state he would kill Adam and Eve if they ate a piece of fruit? Why didn't he think to himself, "You know, there is a distinct possibility that this couple could end up being a couple of dorks and eat of that fruit. Maybe I should anticipate that and use a little restraint on my punishments until they wise up." NO! He didn't think that way! He had to jump in there and announce the worst conceivable punishment possible. Then, to save face he had to screw us all up for the mess that he could have easily prevented in the first place.

Why didn't God just kill Adam and Eve and be done with it? The standard explanation is, "Well then we wouldn't be here today, would we?" SO WHAT? We wouldn't know the difference that we wouldn't be here, so it wouldn't be any skin off of our backs. I had no problem with non-existence before I existed. Did you?

If God would have killed Adam and Eve and made another couple, perhaps the other couple would have passed the tests, and everything would be just fine today. God may even have had to do this several times until he had himself a couple who wised up. If God would have shown some home movies of what happened to the couples before them, I think eventually a couple would have got a clue about what not to do. Did he do that? NO!

God screwed up things for everyone, when he could have easily not done so. As a result of his own screw-up he had to wipe out the entire planet save for Noah and family and allow and personally do a whole bunch more killing over the generations.

But he came up with a plan to get himself and all of us out of the mess he got us into in the first place: he would kill his son.

But that's the subject of another story...

Farkel

16

Any good times?

by tattoogrl333 in

jw
friends

just wondering if there were any positives to being a jw.

i have read most of the posts and see that a lot of people were jw for years and years and was thinking that not all that time could things have been bad?

oh and somewhere in gen. it is supposed to state that we are living in the 7th day now????

Farkel

: Just wondering if there were any positives to being a JW

Dubs like to get drunk a lot.

Farkel

32

Message From Faithful And Discreet Slave

by silentlambs in

i recieved a phone call last night from a brother who i was able to verify was of the anointed.

he stated he represented a large group of anointed from within the organization and they wanted to send me a letter.

the anointed remnant.

Farkel

I lean with the skeptics, SilentLambs. The letter is very good. It's authorship is questionable.

Amazing,

: It would be interesting if about 95% of the 8,500 Anointed wold sign such a letter

Three fourths of them must be senile by now and most of the other one fourth are young nutballs. Some "slave," eh?

Farkel

9

How Not To Be DA'd

by Defender in

jw
friends

many of us, who have found the real truth about the truth and have stopped attending meetings and have made known some of our views to close jw friends and family, are trying to live discreet lives hoping that we never encounter that dreadful moment when the mobile spanish inquisition suddenly knocks on our door.. it is an extremely emotional and heart wrenching situation and many would find it hard to deal with, myself included.

being prepared would certainly help.

being resolved to uphold our consciences is admirable.

Farkel

Maximus,

: the "glorious ones" of Bible prophecy. You know, the scripture first applied to angels, then to FDS, and now to elders? Or has there been a change, Farkel?

Yes there has. That scripture now has its direct fulfillment in ME. You'll see an adjustment to this new view in the Watchtower very soon. Of course, as with the fulfillment of most JW doctrine, that announcement will be invisible.

Farkel

31

No Moral Absolutes?

by Rex B13 in

jw
friends

hi gang,.

those who claim that morality is subjective have painted themselves into a corner.

how about this, kent, big jim, seeker, a.f., j.h., troglodyte trilobyte, hippo the dippo, lisa baby, mulan, ldh, boynenko, et al?.

Farkel

: 1) I was just wondering how anyone who believes that morality is subjective can actually take a stand against pedophilia?

Even if a child is not hurt emotionally or physically by an act (if that is indeed possible) with a pedophile, most societies find such conduct so hideous that the child cannot help but be influenced by it in a horribly negative way, once the child finds out how his/her society feels about it.

There have been other cultures where it was considered the father's duty to "train" his daughters in the ways of sex. I've seen no studies on what kind of damage could have been done to a child where such things are totally acceptable and even encourged in a society. It would be fascinating to see some research on that matter.

I agree with the notion that there are no or maybe only a few moral absolutes. There are just too many possible situations in life for a moral absolute to be universally applied, IMHO.

It's not really the "morals" that bother me, Rex. What bothers me are those who try to shove THEIR morals down my throat. Since we're both ex-dubs, I'm sure you can understand why I feel that way.

Farkel