Posts by GinnyTosken

8

The walls of Jericho, where?

by uncle_onion in

jw
friends

i am reading a book recomended by ginny tosken.. in it, it states that there were no walls around the city of jericho.

i seem to remember someone posting last week about this which contradicts the above.. uo

GinnyTosken

Here is a quote from The Bible Unearthed under the heading, “Did the Trumpets Really Blast?”:

In the midst of the euphoria—almost at the very moment when it seemed that the battle of the conquest was won for Joshua—some troubling contradictions emerged. Even as the world press was reporting that Joshua’s conquest had been confirmed, many of the most important pieces of the archaeological puzzle simply did not fit.
Jericho was among the most important. As we have noted, the cities of Canaan were unfortified and there were no walls that could have come tumbling down. In the case of Jericho, there was no trace of a settlement of any kind in the thirteenth century B.C.E., and the earlier Late Bronze settlement, dating to the fourteenth century B.C.E., was small and poor, almost insignificant, and unfortified. There was also no sign of a destruction. . . .

I did a search on the net to find details about the archaeological findings in Jericho. I found the following at this site:
http://www.prometheus.demon.co.uk/04/04herzog.htm

The first work on the site was done by Captain Charles Warren of the British Royal Engineers who were surveying Palestine in 1867. He sank a shaft into the tell but failed to find to discover anything of archaeological significance and abandoned any further work. It was not until 1930 that the first a major expedition, lasting six years, was undertaken by Liverpool University under the direction of Professor John Garstang, one of the most distinguished archaeologists of the day. Garstang created headlines around the world when he claimed to have unearthed the fabled tumbling walls of Joshua.
It was twenty years later that Kenyon, between 1952 and 1956, disproved Garstang's claim. Under the auspices of the British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem and supported by the Department of Antiquities of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan she undertook a major excavation and re-evaluation of the site using new techniques of soil removal and classification. Among her many findings were that the walls that Garstang had identified as Late Bronze Age and dated to 1600-1400 BCE were in fact much earlier and belonged to the Early Bronze Age which she dated as ending in 2100 BCE. Thus the evidence was at least 500 years too early for it to have been destroyed by Joshua.

I found an article by Ze’ev Herzog about Jericho, mentioned at the site above, on the Biblical Archaeology site:
http://www.bib-arch.org/editors_page/jericho1.html

Ginny

17

How hard is it to kill a Fortune 500 company?

by newguy in

jw
friends

it seems to be the dream of many here to put the wt corperation out of business.

well, i hate to throw a bucket of cold water called reality on your dreams, but it is not likely to happen anytime soon.. the wt society has annual reveune of about $2.5 billion.

that figure was from recent disclosures they had to file as a not-for-profit company.

Your style reminds me of someone I met in chat here last night, a guy named Lurkernomore. Surely you can't be the same person. He claimed to have a degree from an Ivy League college, and you have misspelled "corporation."

Corporations are entitities designed to act legally as one individual. In thinking about them, it helps me to consider how I would treat a person who behaved as the corporation does.

I would not kill a person who told me lies and tried to control me with coercive and manipulative tactics. I would not continue a relationship with this person. I would warn others who were considering a relationship with this person. I would also encourage the person to get psychological therapy.

People have been writing to the WTS for years, trying to help it see the error of its ways. It does not appear to listen. Meanwhile it does harm to itself and others. If it were a person, it could be committed. As a corporation, the best we can hope for is that it will be legally straitjacketed to prevent further harm.

Please do a search on the net for "grassroots efforts." I didn't find one with an intent to kill. Grassroots efforts usually promote change.

If the WTS were killed, that would not solve the problem anyway. There are many organizations and causes that persuade in a coercive and manipulative way; the WTS is only one of many. A much better focus, in my opinion, is helping people to educate themselves in critical thinking skills. They will then be prepared to protect themselves from these dangers wherever they encounter them.

Ginny

103

The "Ransom Sacrifice" short version.

by Norm in

jw
friends

in the christian part of the world not many of us have escaped the much hyped and published sacrifice christ supposedly made when the romans executed him.. i myself was going around for years parroting this strange concept without giving it much thought.

thinking and faith some times do not mix very well.. anyway, apparently god made a royal blunder when he created the first humans and they plunged mankind into death and despair first crack out of the box, while god stood by and watched helplessly.

then we are told that god for this reason, in his infinite wisdom took mankind for ransom for thousands of years.

GinnyTosken

Mike,

I read your post several times. Evidently I went astray in assuming that you believed sin was inherited from Adam. Now that you explain that you believe we are sinful because God made us that way, the whole premise behind a ransom sacrifice makes even less sense to me.

Mankind has always been sinful. The Bible tells us that, "All unrighteousness is sin." (1 John 5:17) Because God created us free to do both right and wrong, and because God cannot do wrong we are less righteous than God. Because we are and because "All unrighteousness is sin," we are all now and have always been "sinful." But since God made us that way, He gladly overlooks our "sinful" nature and our "sinful" acts and He fully accepts us just as we are. To gain His full acceptance and His full forgiveness all we have to do is believe in our hearts that He now offers it to us by means of Christ's sacrificial death.

I can only sigh and say that your explanation sounds like sheer doubletalk.

God created us as sinners.

Because he created us as sinners, he overlooks our sinful nature and behavior and fully accepts us as we are.

Yet somehow we must be forgiven for a nature God himself has given us in order to get God’s full acceptance (which I thought we had just one sentence ago).

Somehow the death of Jesus makes God able to forgive and accept a nature he created.

I wanted to understand how you thought about many Biblical issues. While I don’t agree with your conclusions, I have enjoyed our discussion and appreciate your openness.

Ginny

103

The "Ransom Sacrifice" short version.

by Norm in

jw
friends

in the christian part of the world not many of us have escaped the much hyped and published sacrifice christ supposedly made when the romans executed him.. i myself was going around for years parroting this strange concept without giving it much thought.

thinking and faith some times do not mix very well.. anyway, apparently god made a royal blunder when he created the first humans and they plunged mankind into death and despair first crack out of the box, while god stood by and watched helplessly.

then we are told that god for this reason, in his infinite wisdom took mankind for ransom for thousands of years.

GinnyTosken

Mike,

Thank you for the book recommendations. I will check them out. I am eager to read their explanations of these Bible difficulties. I will report back after I’ve looked
them over.

You scoff at this idea. Maybe you do so because you don't understand the message of Christianity. Or maybe you just consider it foolishness. . . . I will here explain it to you.

Perhaps you didn’t mean it so, but you came across as very condescending. Were you ever one of Jehovah’s Witnesses? I have been taught this ransom sacrifice idea since age 6, complete with illustrations of Adam on one side of a scale and Jesus on the other.

I commented as I did because it seems to me that the whole idea of sacrifice demeans God. We humans are encouraged to forgive our debtors; God requires that the debt owed him be paid before he can forgive. If you reason that God paid the debt himself, you reduce God to an anal-retentive accountant, transferring balances from one account to another, while his son suffers in the process.

Why didn’t he just straighten out the whole matter with Adam and Eve? Then the price was only two human lives. Was any human being ever capable of satisfying God’s extremely high standards, or have humans always been sinful?

God is often compared to a loving father. Any human father today who would have his son nailed to a stake or cross for whatever reason would be considered a child abuser. If you believe that this son was a part of God himself, then it is as though God temporarily cut off his own right arm to satisfy his own requirements. In any other context besides a Christian one, the whole idea of a ransom would be considered insane. Yet, it has been held up as demonstrating God’s perfect justice, his great mercy, and his amazing love.

Please understand that I am only expressing my honest opinion, something I often had to squelch as a JW. So many things in the Bible made no sense to me, and many stories seemed so unfair—God’s preferring Abel’s sacrifice to Cain’s, Rachel’s helping to deceive Isaac, Abraham’s treatment of Hagar. I know that what I say may seem blasphemous to some. I always trust that if there is a heavenly father, he will understand my need to question.

Meanwhile, I couldn’t help noticing your post about numerology. I thought you might be interested in the snippet below from an issue of Junior Skeptic. The complete article can be found at:

http://www.skeptic.com/jr9-07.html

The complete article also mentions pyramidology, Jehovah's Witnesses, and pi.

Ginny

The Number Game

The custom of manipulating numbers to discover hidden meanings is called Numerology. It is so easy to come up with startling coincidences that "hidden" numerical relationships should not be used to prove the existence of helpful space aliens or unknown advanced civilizations. Finding these relationships is really a game of "Pick and Choose."

Mathematician Martin Gardner demonstrated how easy it is to find a pattern within a bunch of unrelated numbers. He analyzed the Washington Monument to see if he could "discover" the property of fiveness to it:

Its height is 555 feet and five inches. The base is 55 feet square, and the windows are set at 500 feet from the base. If the base is multiplied by sixty (or five times the number of months in a year) it gives 3,300, which is the exact weight of the capstone in pounds. Also, the word 'Washington' has exactly ten letters (two times five). And if the weight of the capstone is multiplied by the base, the result is 181,500--a fairly close approximation of the speed of light in miles per second.

He then joked "it should take an average mathematician about 55 minutes to discover the above 'truths.'"

You can find amazing "coincidences" by measuring your own home. On my first try I discovered that the length of my house times 10,000 is the same as the distance to the sun divided by the number of days in a year! I started out by dividing the distance to the sun by the days in a year just because it sounded like an impressive (but actually meaningless) astronomical fact. I instantly saw that it more or less matched the length of one side of my house, give or take a few zeros. So, I added the (times 10,000" to get a match!

103

The "Ransom Sacrifice" short version.

by Norm in

jw
friends

in the christian part of the world not many of us have escaped the much hyped and published sacrifice christ supposedly made when the romans executed him.. i myself was going around for years parroting this strange concept without giving it much thought.

thinking and faith some times do not mix very well.. anyway, apparently god made a royal blunder when he created the first humans and they plunged mankind into death and despair first crack out of the box, while god stood by and watched helplessly.

then we are told that god for this reason, in his infinite wisdom took mankind for ransom for thousands of years.

GinnyTosken

Mike,

Please forgive my lag in replying. I work three 12-hour days, Friday through Sunday, and am away from home and computer during these working weekends. However, it doesn’t appear that you’ve been pining away from loneliness without me.

I did not say that all people who have common sense, who pray for God's help in understanding the Bible and do their best to put aside all of their preconceived notions while reading it would end up understanding all portions of scripture in the same way.

Where did I say that you said this? I thought I simply asked some questions. Given the number of people who have tried prayerfully and sincerely to understand the Bible, why is there not more consensus as to its message? If God is trying to communicate a clear message, I’d think that over time that message would become apparent.

So far as what you should do when you run across an apparent Bible contradiction, I would advise that you study the text in question and try to resolve the matter on your own. I believe that nearly all such Bible difficulties can be resolved with a little study by someone possessing the "common sense" I spoke of, provided that the person possessing that "common sense" actually wants to find an answer to their question and is not just trying to find apparent contradictions in the scriptures for the purpose of criticizing the Bible.

I am willing to overlook the little niggling contradictions. What bothers me most is that I cannot piece the three synoptic gospels together in a cohesive whole. I thought I was very familiar with Jesus’ life story as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It wasn’t until after I left that I attempted to familiarize myself with his story directly from the sources. There are all sorts of difficulties. At what time did Jesus die? What were his last words? Who first saw him after his resurrection and when and where? From where did Jesus ascend into heaven? What did Judas do with the thirty pieces of silver? How did Judas die? Those are just a few of the problems that leap to mind.

For instance, let's take the apparent contradiction you have run across. Most people who have read the four gospels know that Jesus Christ's bold claims for himself, along with his authoritative style of teachings, made him a very polarizing personality. People either loved Jesus or they hated him. It was not long after Jesus began his ministry that people divided into two camps. People quickly became either supporters of Jesus Christ or opposers of Jesus Christ. Thus if people were not with Jesus they were against him. And if people were not against Jesus and his disciples they were for Jesus and his disciples.

Again, this is black or white thinking. Life would be very tidy if people actually behaved like this. I find it hard to believe that all of the people who knew Jesus fell into either a love or hate category, that there weren’t a group of people who weren’t quite sure, who were undecided. I looked over the accounts again, to see if the response was either love or hate. I wonder about a few people. For example, what about Pilate? He appears to have believed that Jesus was innocent. He handed Jesus over to be crucified not because he hated the man, but because he wanted to prevent a riot and please the crowds. He was not against Jesus, but he wasn’t really for him, either.

What about Peter, who denied Jesus three times? He surely loved Jesus, but at that moment wasn’t for him.

If you forgive Peter for what he did, what about Judas? Was he only a momentary pawn of Satan? Mark 27:3 says that Judas repented and said, “I have sinned by betraying innocent blood.” Was Judas for Jesus or against him? Did he love him or hate him?

When I first got on the Net I had many E-mail conversations with Bible critics. They would usually first present me with two or three so-called "Bible contradictions." They would tell me that if I could help them resolve those few "contradictions" then they might be able to seriously consider what the Bible has to say about Jesus Christ. But after I clearly showed them that the "Bible contradictions" they had presented me were really not contradictions at all they only threw more of such "contradictions" at me. And so it went. . . . Lately I have limited myself to discussing only one supposed "Bible contradiction" per post or E-mail.

I see that I did not read the fine print of your discussion contract.

You don’t directly accuse me of anything in this paragraph, but your words subtly imply that I might perhaps be like these other Bible critics with whom you’ve had discussions. I am not looking for help in resolving contradictions, nor am I playing games with you. I have questioned you because I would like to understand how you make sense of these things. When I discovered that Jehovah’s Witnesses had lied about many things and did not have a corner on the market of Bible interpretation, I did not dump the Bible and Christianity. I still believed in loving your neighbor as yourself, in being kind and unselfish, and in a future reward. I was sure the Bible could be understood apart from Jehovah’s Witnesses and worked toward that end for many years.

I could not ignore the lessons I’d learned from wrestling with my Jehovah’s Witness beliefs. I had trusted the Governing Body implicitly. I had to learn to ask, “From where do they get their authority to speak for God? How do I know that what they say is true?” Christianity is intimately tied to the Bible. How do we know that what it says is true? Do these writers speak for God? While I still respect these writers for sharing their experience in searching for God and their understanding of him, I do not believe they speak for God. I do not believe that God behaved in the way they portray him or for the motivations they attribute to him, especially in the Hebrew Scriptures. This was underscored when I realized how very many inconsistencies and errors there are in the Bible.

He does. "For God has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins." (Col. 1:13,14)

Yes, God forgives, as long as there is shedding of blood. (Heb. 9:22) How very big of him!

Sadly, it seems that for many people discussing the Bible with Christians is only a game. Quite often it seems the only real object of the game is to have fun poking and jabbing Christians. A similar but much more deadly version of this game was often played in ancient Rome.

To me, this is the most interesting part of your reply. When you responded initially to Norm’s post, you saw this discussion as an opportunity to share the good news of Jesus Christ. Now you imply that you feel you’ve been thrown to the lions. It’s very odd since, first of all, you are here by choice. If your beliefs are a personal matter and you choose not to discuss them publicly, I’m sure everyone on this board would respect your wishes. Secondly, if supposed Bible contradictions are as innocuous as you say, then these questions should be mere mosquitoes to be swatted, not anything as frightening or dangerous as lions.

Some Christians seem to forget that “giving a witness” means not only giving testimony, but also being cross-examined.

Ginny

103

The "Ransom Sacrifice" short version.

by Norm in

jw
friends

in the christian part of the world not many of us have escaped the much hyped and published sacrifice christ supposedly made when the romans executed him.. i myself was going around for years parroting this strange concept without giving it much thought.

thinking and faith some times do not mix very well.. anyway, apparently god made a royal blunder when he created the first humans and they plunged mankind into death and despair first crack out of the box, while god stood by and watched helplessly.

then we are told that god for this reason, in his infinite wisdom took mankind for ransom for thousands of years.

GinnyTosken

Mike,

I'm curious. How many people possessing a fair amount of common sense do you believe have carefully read the Bible, along with its context, while also praying for God's help in understanding it? How many of these same people have done their best to put aside all of their preconceived notions and prejudices while doing their reading? Given the many people who have tried, why do you think there is so little consensus about how the Bible should be interpreted? Wouldn't God lead them to see things in the same way? Or do you believe that interpreting the Bible is a very personal matter, between oneself and God?

I am curious, too, about what one does when Jesus's words appear to contradict themselves. For example, at Matthew 12:30 he says, "Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters." At Mark 9:40 he says "Whoever is not against us is for us."

As for being a child of God, that is a comforting idea. I find it difficult to reconcile this idea of being a loved child of God's with chapter 9 in Romans that describes us as lumps of clay with which God can do what he will, sometimes determining before we are born, before we have done anything good or bad, whether he will show us mercy or harden our hearts. This is not a healthy father-child relationship as we understand it today, but appears to hark back to the days when children were property and a "righteous" man like Lot could offer his daughters to an angry mob to be raped. Considering the original topic of this post and what God is said to have required of his firstborn son, I suppose I should not be surprised.

Jesus asks us to forgive others, to overlook their transgressions, to turn the other cheek. Why could not God do the same?

Ginny

5

Sexual Ethics in the Bible

by GinnyTosken in

jw
friends

i have been reading why christianity must change or die by john shelby spong.

i found his discussion of sexual ethics and the ten commandments both interesting and funny and thought i'd share.

this comes from a chapter called "a new basis for ethics in a new age":.

GinnyTosken

Trevor,

Your comment reminds me of something Lewis Grizzard said. (He's been married and divorced about three times, I think.) He said he didn't think he'd get married again--he'd just find a woman he didn't like and buy her a house.

Ginny

5

Sexual Ethics in the Bible

by GinnyTosken in

jw
friends

i have been reading why christianity must change or die by john shelby spong.

i found his discussion of sexual ethics and the ten commandments both interesting and funny and thought i'd share.

this comes from a chapter called "a new basis for ethics in a new age":.

GinnyTosken

Lisa,
I very much like John Shelby Spong's work. I had read two other of his books before this one and always wondered how he managed to remain a Christian while facing the difficult truths about the Bible, such as that the synoptic Gospels clearly conflict with each other. I like his reminder in this book that our conceptions of God as influenced by the Bible are not the same as the force in the universe many call God. It kind of reminded me of Norma Desmond in the movie Sunset Boulevard: "I'm still big--it's just the pictures that got small."

I especially liked this paragraph in the chapter "On Saying the Christian Creed with Honesty":

Many of us can continue to be believers only if we are able to be honest believers. We want to be people of faith, not people drugged on the narcotic of religion. We are not able to endure the mental lobotomy that one suspects is the fate of those who project themselves as the unquestioning religious citizens of our age. We do not want to be among those who fear that if we think about what we say about God, either our minds will close down or our faith will explode. We are not drawn to those increasingly defensive religious answers of our generation. Nor are we willing to pretend that these ancient words still have power and meaning for us if they do not. We wonder if it is still possible to be a believer and a citizen of our century at the same time.

Ginny

103

The "Ransom Sacrifice" short version.

by Norm in

jw
friends

in the christian part of the world not many of us have escaped the much hyped and published sacrifice christ supposedly made when the romans executed him.. i myself was going around for years parroting this strange concept without giving it much thought.

thinking and faith some times do not mix very well.. anyway, apparently god made a royal blunder when he created the first humans and they plunged mankind into death and despair first crack out of the box, while god stood by and watched helplessly.

then we are told that god for this reason, in his infinite wisdom took mankind for ransom for thousands of years.

GinnyTosken

aChristian,

How does one determine which parts of the Bible are personal opinions and biased viewpoints? Are we to filter the Bible yet again through the filter of our own opinions, viewpoints, and perceptions? In what places have the words of God been written down word-for-word?

While I understand what you're saying about inspiration, the Rembrandt analogy falls down. Rembrandt was limited; God is supposed to be omnipotent. He is the owner of the big art store in the sky and can have any materials he wishes. I do not understand why, in a matter so important as communicating his wishes to mankind, he chose to use inferior materials.

You say it's not fair to to criticize a Rembrandt for having colors which are not quite as vibrant as those we see in nature, or for having clearly visible brushstrokes. Perhaps it is not fair to expect old world materials to do what modern ones can, but I do think it is fair to notice and comment on imperfections in the painting, criticizing it if you will, while at the same time understanding why the imperfections are there.

I find it annoying that many Bible believers want to pretend that there are no brushstrokes and that the colors *are* as vibrant as nature. It's like the Emperor's New Clothes. Those who do dare speak up about the inconsistencies and flaws in the Bible are often labeled as wicked, godless people.

I can accept Paul's words as a record of his struggle to make sense of his world. I can accept that he was trying to express how profoundly he was affected by an experience he called Jesus. In this context, his humanity and weaknesses endear him to me. It is only when he is held up as arbiter of God's law for the next 2,000 years that I find him distasteful.

Ginny

103

The "Ransom Sacrifice" short version.

by Norm in

jw
friends

in the christian part of the world not many of us have escaped the much hyped and published sacrifice christ supposedly made when the romans executed him.. i myself was going around for years parroting this strange concept without giving it much thought.

thinking and faith some times do not mix very well.. anyway, apparently god made a royal blunder when he created the first humans and they plunged mankind into death and despair first crack out of the box, while god stood by and watched helplessly.

then we are told that god for this reason, in his infinite wisdom took mankind for ransom for thousands of years.

GinnyTosken

aChristian,

I agree with you--it does not make sense that Paul would try to establish congregations in Crete if he truly thought Cretans were always liars, vicious brutes, and lazy gluttons.

Even if he was exaggerating, even if this letter was meant to be read privately by Titus and Paul was only giving vent to his frustrations with the problems in Crete, his statement seems very prejudiced. If a bishop wrote to a missionary in Hawaii, "Hawaiians are always liars, vicious brutes, lazy gluttons," I would question his fitness for his post. Would you make allowances for an atheist who said, "Christians are always liars, vicious brutes, lazy gluttons"?

After I left the JWs, I received treatment at a center specializing in cognitive behavioral therapy. One common cognitive distortion is all-or-nothing thinking--you see things in black-and-white categories. Another is magnification (catastrophizing) or minimization--you exaggerate the important things (such as your goof-up or someone else's achievement), or you inappropriately shrink things until they appear tiny (your own desirable qualities or other fellow's imperfections).

The writing attributed to Paul seems rife with these sorts of cognitive errors. He quickly categorizes people as either pure or corrupt, believers of truth or detestable, disobedient unbelievers, unfit for any good work--all this mainly because their views on circumcision didn't match his own.

I spoke up about Paul because for years I thought he spoke for God. His words have been treated as law by many Christian churches. Yet, he seems to have been only human, capable of prejudices, frustrations, and faulty thinking, as are we all.

Ginny