hi everyone, i just read esmerelda's post, i can see where she's coming from, being a new member, myself.. i understand, though, that people have already made friends and have their own little community, and that's fine.. i don't mind at all, i just hope that i can get people's attention by saying something that hasn't been said before...... i'm struggling though......... bye bye.
chris
Waiting,
Now that these guys know what a versatile woman you are--both a diesel darlin' and a motorcycle mama--they are sorely disappointed. They are drowning their woes in Krispy Kremes and coffee.
The Harley rider just looked up from his empty coffee cup with a faint glimmer of hope in his eyes--maybe you have some equally talented sisters? Shall I tell him about the red house over yonder?
Ginny de Bergerac
interspersed amidst the text of the five gospels are short cameo essays about topics related to subject matter at hand.
one that caught my eye is called hard sayings softened:.
hard sayings are frequently softened in the process of transmission to adapt them to the conditions of daily living.. luke 6:30a give to everyone who begs from you.
Thanks, Six.
Do you think we can persuade Simon to add a "Goddess" designation so I will have something to shoot for between now and the elusive Empress status?
Ginny
hi everyone, i just read esmerelda's post, i can see where she's coming from, being a new member, myself.. i understand, though, that people have already made friends and have their own little community, and that's fine.. i don't mind at all, i just hope that i can get people's attention by saying something that hasn't been said before...... i'm struggling though......... bye bye.
chris
Waiting,
A truck driver who wandered in and is sitting near me asked me to tell you that he thinks you're real cute. He likes a woman with spunk, he says. "I don't know nothin' about no emperor stuff," he continues, "but that woman can be the sugar in my coffee anytime."
He says he'll bring you a whole truckload of donuts on Sunday if you think you might like to go for a long haul with him. What do you say?
Wait a minute--a Harley rider is tugging on my sleeve. What? Oh. He says you look more like a motorcycle mama than a diesel darlin' to him.
What shall I tell these admirers? To kiss your grits?
Ginny
interspersed amidst the text of the five gospels are short cameo essays about topics related to subject matter at hand.
one that caught my eye is called hard sayings softened:.
hard sayings are frequently softened in the process of transmission to adapt them to the conditions of daily living.. luke 6:30a give to everyone who begs from you.
The intent of this post wasn't to solely bash JWs. I don't know of any Christian religion that condemns either charging interest or paying it. This puzzles me.
One of the primary rules of the researchers in the Jesus Seminar is "Beware of finding a Jesus entirely congenial to you." It is very easy for those who claim to follow Jesus to pick out the sayings of Jesus they like and gloss over those that are more difficult.
I'd just like to see some consistency, especially from those "Christians" who use the Bible as a weapon to condemn others. In my JW days, it was repeated over and over that we must follow the example of the first century Christians. That was supposed to be true Christianity, before the apostasy set in. Other fundamentalist religions still harp on this, using Paul's words to condemn homosexuality and as proof that women should be in submission. Yet here something Jesus himself said about interest is generally ignored as not practical for this day and age.
The WTS's excuses for ignoring this are flimsy. In any other matter, they would look for a principle in the Mosaic law and would then check to see if that principle was applied by the first Christians. The matter of interest is clear cut. Under the law, Israelites were commanded not to charge interest to other Israelites. Jesus said not to charge interest.
The WTS excuses themselves based on Jesus' mentioning bankers and interest in a parable. Jesus also said, "No one can enter a powerful man's house to steal his belongings unless he first ties him up. Only then does he loot his house." (Mark 3:27) Using the WTS's reasoning, does Jesus' mention of this imply that stealing and looting are proper?
Ginny
hi everyone, i just read esmerelda's post, i can see where she's coming from, being a new member, myself.. i understand, though, that people have already made friends and have their own little community, and that's fine.. i don't mind at all, i just hope that i can get people's attention by saying something that hasn't been said before...... i'm struggling though......... bye bye.
chris
Waiting Empress,
If you've finished setting up the extra tables and comforting the Smothers Brothers wannabes, could I get a little service over here? I'd like some coffee with cream. And while you're up, could you also bring me an ashtray?
Ginny, inspecting her spoon and wondering if next she'll have to address the clerk at Burger King as "your royal highness"
interspersed amidst the text of the five gospels are short cameo essays about topics related to subject matter at hand.
one that caught my eye is called hard sayings softened:.
hard sayings are frequently softened in the process of transmission to adapt them to the conditions of daily living.. luke 6:30a give to everyone who begs from you.
Interspersed amidst the text of The Five Gospels are short cameo essays about topics related to subject matter at hand. One that caught my eye is called “Hard Sayings Softened”:
Hard sayings are frequently softened in the process of transmission to adapt them to the conditions of daily living.Luke 6:30a Give to everyone who begs from you
Matt 5:42a Give to one who begs from youThe admonition to give something to every beggar who asks is a global injunction. If followed literally, it would leave the agent destitute in a matter of days. Of course, Jesus was not interested in the letter of such injunctions, but in its horizon: for him that kind of indifference to one’s possessions was part of God’s imperial rule. Nevertheless, the Christian community soon began to feel the pinch. . . .
After reading this, I began pondering how Jehovah’s Witnesses insist that some admonition in the New Testament be followed literally (e.g. Acts 15:20 “abstain from blood) yet completely ignore others (e.g. “if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her”). [As a side note, with all the Society’s stress on dress and grooming, I’ve wondered if there were any articles written in the 1920s about the evils of bobbing one’s hair.]
I specifically began wondering about the Society’s charging interest on loans to brothers, especially for the building of Kingdom Halls. Granted, the interest is by no means exorbitant (6% last I heard), yet according to Jesus’ own words in the New World Translation, a Christian should not charge interest: “Continue . . . to lend without interest, not hoping for anything back.” (Luke 6:35)
The Koran states that loans must not collect interest, and Muslims actually follow this directive.
Yet financing mosques and community centers isn't easy because the teachings of the Koran forbid Muslims from accepting or providing interest-bearing loans.
In fact, the $600,000 mosque that opened in Villa Park last year was completely financed through cash donations, said Abdul Hammed Dogar, board member of the Islamic Foundation in Villa Park.from: http://chicagotribune.com/news/metro/chicago/article/0,2669,ART-36189,FF.html
Considering this, I am curious as to why Jehovah’s Witnesses and most Christians do not apply this Biblical injunction.
I looked in Aid to Bible Understanding under “Interest.” The article says:
. . . By contrast God’s law to Israel prohibited making loans on interest to needy fellow Israelites. No one was to profit from another’s financial reverses. (Ex. 22:25; Lev. 25:36, 37; Deut. 23 :19) . . .Whereas upright Israelites obeyed God’s law about making interest-free loans (Ps. 15:5; Ezek. 18:5, 8, 17), lending on interest apparently became common and brought hardships on needy debtors. (Neh. 5:1-11; Isa. 24:2; Ezek. 18:13; 22:12) Jesus Christ, though, upheld God’s law in this regard and gave it an even broader application, saying: “Continue . . . to lend without interest, not hoping for anything back.” (Luke 6:34, 35) It would therefore be improper to withhold assistance from one who because of continued adversity and through no fault of his own might be unable to repay a debt. But when actual need is not involved, there would be no objection to a person’s charging interest on a loan. Jesus himself, by having the wicked slave in one of his illustrations censured for failing to deposit his master’s money with the bankers so as to draw interest, implied that receiving interest from invested capital is proper.—Matt. 25:26, 27; Luke 19: 22, 23.
The Aid books specifies “loans on interest to needy fellow Israelites, but Deut. 23:19 makes no such distinction:
You shall not charge interest on loans to another Israelite, interest on money, interest on provisions, interest on anything that is lent. On loan to a foreigner you may charge interest, but on loans to another Israelite you may not charge interest . . . (RSV)
I don’t quite understand the Society’s stance. I would think brothers building Kingdom Halls would be considered fellow Israelites. These brothers do not want to build a Kingdom Hall as an investment for personal gain, and if they had the money, why would they ask the Society? Does this not constitute a real need? Is a Kingdom Hall considered a luxury?
Does the Society ever offer interest-free loans to the brothers for any reason? I know that they accept loans to themselves interest-free for three years to fund special projects. Why is it that the Society does not follow Jesus’ words about interest nor the example of the first century Christian congregation who “had all things in common” and “sold their possessions and goods and distributed them to all, as any had need”? (Acts 2:44, 45)
Ginny
religious freedom in peril?
european actions alarming, experts tell senate panel.
by lee davidson.
France may this week pass a law some say could jail Sunday School teachers of many sects.
Ah, the ubiquitous “some say.” (Norm wrote a wonderful article about “some” as it appears in Watchtower literature. Perhaps he will post it.) When I see “some say” combined with the poignant image of Sunday School teachers possibly going to jail, I detect an attempt to influence my opinion before I even know the facts.
I decided to look for the French bill in question. I found it at: http://www.multimania.com/tussier/loi6.htm
I also found an article discussing the ambiguities of the term, “mental manipulation”: http://www.multimania.com/tussier/rev0104.htm#28a
My French leaves much to be desired, but here is a rough translation of some parts of the article that interested me.
Ginny
The Ambiguities of the Concept of Mental ManipulationLe Temps, April 28, 2001, by Patricia Briel
Can one be mentally manipulated? . . .
. . . the concept of mental manipulation is far from achieving unanimous acceptance. Some think that it should be part of the judicial arsenal. Others think that it does not exist, and that the individual remains responsible for his acts until the end.
In the last few years, some European countries such as France, Belgium, and Italy, judging that the legislation in force had become insufficient to fight against cults, began to consider the introduction of an offense of mental manipulation. The French bill About-Picard, adopted in June 2000 by the National Assembly, thus envisages the creation of an offense of mental manipulation, defined as follows: ". . . within a group which pursues activities having as their goal or as their effect to create or to exploit the psychological or psychic dependence of persons who take part in these activities, to exert strong and repeated pressure on a member, or to use some suitable technique to deteriorate one’s judgment in order to lead one, against one’s will or not, to an act or an abstention which is gravely harmful to the individual."
. . .
In Geneva, the Department of Justice and Police and Transport thinks of the creation of a definite offense in a similar way. For the lawyer François Bellanger, president of a group of Genevan experts who considered the question, "Mental manipulation is a reality. But it is true that the subject is an extremely difficult one to regulate. It is necessary to distinguish between daily mental manipulation, because we all are manipulated to varying degrees (by publicity, for example), and criminal manipulation. For the latter to take place, one needs a repeated and systematic physical and psychic action on others with the intention of weakening one’s capacity for judgment or placing a person in a state of dependence.”
. . .
According to Roland Campiche, director of the Observatory of Religions at the University of Lausanne, "A cult does not exist without the approval of its disciples," by which he means that a cult does not exist without free and voluntary adherence. The sociologist denies the existence of mental manipulation: "The American experts who studied this concept concluded that it lacked substance, and that the individual remained capable of understanding while he was engaged in a cult. That said, one cannot disregard the exploitation by the cults of a momentary weakness of a person. But beyond that, individual responsibility is still involved. We live in a society where individual responsibility is strongly valued and displayed. So why would people not also be responsible [for their actions] in the field of religion?"
Daniele Hervieu-Leger, sociologist of Religion at the School of Higher Studies in Social Sciences in Paris, is of the same opinion: "From a legal point of view, the offense of mental manipulation incriminates practices for which it is impossible to determine at what time they take effect. In this debate, one too often forgets, when one speaks about the victims, that they are individuals who made a choice. Initially it is believing subjects who act."
In a recent book, the sociologist protests against the theory of manipulation, which "postulates that the individual who chooses to enter a cult exerts, in fact, no autonomous will."
Jean-Luc Barbier points out that certain cults mislead followers by not clarifying their intentions from the very start. "A person does not freely choose to be swindled, or advance that end. Sometimes when I read that the victims to some extent were looking for what they got, that makes me furious. That’s the same as affirming that girls who wear miniskirts and who are raped were looking for that as well."
While he does not deny the responsibility of the individual who enters a cult, he does, on the other hand, judge that that this is small compared to that of society, which does not provide enough information about the danger of cults. Rather than the creation of an offense of mental manipulation, he would rather see an increased effort at prevention.
[Edited to correct those nefarious quote tags.]
[Edited again to change "sect" to "cult," in accordance with popular current usage in France, according to the following site.]
In fact, the derogatory word in French is not 'culte' (the literal translation of 'cult') but 'secte'. The latter word may literally be translated as 'sect' but rather plays the same role as the English word 'cult'. In fact, the French word 'secte' has today two very different meanings. Books from sociologists of late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries are still republished, where the word 'secte' is used, without any derogatory meaning, simply to identify small denominations or groups that are not (or not yet) regarded as part of the mainline by the majority churches. On the other hand, for the general public 'secte' is rather used, in the sense of the 1996 parliamentary commission, to identify a dangerous religious (or, rather, 'pseudo-religious') movement using mind control techniques. As the noted historian and sociologist Emile Poulat accurately remarked about the Pentecostal Evangelical Church of Besançon, that this church 'may be a "secte" in the sense of Weber [an early German sociologist of religion]; it is certainly not a "secte" in the popular and parliamentary sense of the term.' Yet, Evangelical and Pentecostal Churches are easily labelled as 'sects' in the popular sense of the term, that is 'cult' in contemporary English.
From: http://www.iskcon.com/ICJ/5_2/5_2liberty.htm
there is a great tendency among the supposed mature jws to look down on others.
my mother was/is one of those types and was a master of saying one thing while meaning the exact opposite.
the wise knew what she meant.. for instance, we had the co stay with us on one occasion which gave my mother plenty of time to pretend we were much better jws than we really were.
Thinker's Wife,
Is your mom's name by any chance Cleopatra, Queen of Denial? ;)
Ginny
hi everyone, i don't wanna dwell on bad memories, but i just wanna share one of my worst memories from school.. my brother was in the year above me, we had just finished lunch, everyone knew that we were jw's (not going to assemblies, nativity plays,birthday parties, seen in the field service....) we both walked onto the school field together to the whole school already on the field, stood in a line, clapping and shouting "jehovahs witness!!
" at us, it was absolutely dreadful.. kids can be cruel............ anyone else wanna divulge??.
love .
Riz,
Thank you for your kind words. "I felt like I was there," is one of the best compliments I can imagine.
Pathofthorns,
Thanks to you, too, for your praise. I think you are right, that these experiences, even though painful, somehow added up and forced us to take a more honest and critical look at what we believed. When I ask myself what led me to seriously question and delve into JW issues, it was not any one big event, but the accumulation of chance encounters, things I'd read and heard, movies, books, and glimpses into the true nature of some in the congregation.
For example, in 1976 I was in eighth grade and expecting Armageddon any day. My best friend at school, Rachel, not one of Jehovah's Witnesses, asked me, "What will you do if the end doesn't come?" That wasn't even a possibility in my mind. "When will the end come, do you think?" she asked. This system could not last more than a few years at the most, maybe five at the longest. "Well, if the end has not come in fifteen years, will you stop believing?" Fifteen years until the end was an utter impossibility in my mind. A generation could only be 80 years with special mightiness. It was a bet I couldn't lose. "Sure," I answered smugly. She frowned and said, "Well, I just want you to know that I plan to send you a Christmas card in 1991."
I never forgot her words. Ginny, who never thought she'd enjoy the heady teenage pleasure of having a locker in high school, not only survived to graduate, but lived to see 1991. Rachel did not send the Christmas card, but I remembered. I didn't hold to the bargain. I still continued as a JW. Just a little while longer . . .
LovesDubs,
I will have to ask my mother what she remembers. My impression was that her perceptions were selective--she wanted to see what agreed with her beliefs at the time. My mother then was very proud and concerned with appearances. It would have been difficult for her to face that not only had her star child been shamed in front of a classroom of children, but also that her religion had not held up to questioning. Consciously or unconsciously, I think she chose not to see.
Ginny
hi everyone, i don't wanna dwell on bad memories, but i just wanna share one of my worst memories from school.. my brother was in the year above me, we had just finished lunch, everyone knew that we were jw's (not going to assemblies, nativity plays,birthday parties, seen in the field service....) we both walked onto the school field together to the whole school already on the field, stood in a line, clapping and shouting "jehovahs witness!!
" at us, it was absolutely dreadful.. kids can be cruel............ anyone else wanna divulge??.
love .
In fifth grade we were asked to give an oral report about any subject. I immediately saw my opportunity to give a fine witness. I fantasized about a report so compelling that my teacher and classmates would be begging me for books. My experience would appear on the pages of the Watchtower, and I would step up to the microphone to tell my tale at assemblies. I was 10 years old.
I chose as my subject "Did Man Get Here by Evolution or Creation?" You can guess what I chose as my sole source of information.
When the day came, I presented my report--what I thought were unanswerable arguments in favor of creation. When I had finished, my teacher, Mrs. Robinson, asked the class if there were any questions. "What about cavemen?" Eugene Siler asked. I explained that cavemen were just a hoax. There could not have been cavemen. "What about fossils?" Arla Hyatt asked. "Yeah," piped up Lisa Ridge, "how could so many scientists be wrong?" A floodgate of questions had burst open, and I was drowning. One of my classmates was a JW, even though her family was considered spiritually weak. I looked at her, inwardly begging for some help and support. She casually looked away, as though she had never heard of Jehovah's Witnesses before this moment.
After several minutes of what felt like a verbal lynching, Mrs. Robinson stopped the questioning. I left the room and ran down the hall to the restroom, crying. She found me there and tried to comfort me. I knew I had failed miserably. The ideas were right, I was sure; I had failed to give the right answers, failed to defend my faith properly. I thought Jehovah's spirit would guide me to say the correct things in such circumstances. What had gone so horribly wrong?
Mrs. Robinson left me to wash my face and pull myself together in the dim and dank of the basement restroom. It took me quite awhile. When I stepped out into the hall, I saw my mother walking down the hall. She was at school for my younger sister's parent-teacher conference. She came over and said, "I just bumped into Mrs. Robinson. She said you gave your report and were very upset afterwards. She said your classmates asked you questions that were too hard."
I was the star child at the Kingdom Hall. How could I admit I had crumbled before a class of worldly children? "I don't know where Mrs. Robinson got that idea. I'm just fine. The report went well." I acted very chipper, as though I had no cares in the world except heading outside for recess. My mom looked rather triumphant. It would be like a worldly teacher to falsely report what was really a victory of the Truth over science. She walked on down the hall to my sister's class. She had somehow failed to notice my red eyes and flushed face. I walked outside and sat on a swing alone, twisting back and forth, dragging the toe of my shoe in the dust.
Ginny
