I visited the link provided. I see that they have utterly trashy, tabloid websites in Sweden also. It seems to be a world-wide scourge. What a pity. What a waste. I thought Swedes were more intelligent. I see that not everyone in Sweden is like Ingmar Bergman. Still, my impression of Swedes was always that they were quite intelligent and well-educated. It was a shock to see such a trashy website in the Swedish language.
Rapunzel
JoinedPosts by Rapunzel
-
25
Big brother winner returns to JW
by InquiryMan ina former big brother winner in sweden returns to jw.
excerpt from article:
_ i have always been a believer.
-
-
-
63
You know, I've yet to meet a JW who can explain this
by Lady Zombie ini know that has probably been covered ad infinitum on jwd.
so...... if jehovah is omnipotent, then there is nothing he can't do and nothing he doesn't know.. and, according to jws (as well as most other religions), god is love.
therefore he had to have known, even before creating all of creation, what would happen.
-
-
Rapunzel
In my opinion, the whole concept of [man's] "free will" is one huge red herring; it's irrelevant to the central issue of theodicy.
The truth is, God's lovely "creation" is, and always has been, a hideously violent and chaotic bloodbath. To use a metaphor, contemplating "creation" is like watching an eternal horror film. Just think of the chaotic violence and suffering that transpired before humans came on the scene. I'm not a member of P.E.T.A., but it is universally accepted knowledge that virtually all animals suffer. In their natural state, they endure horrifically violent and fear-filled lives. And yet, would any reasonable person assert that animals have, or have ever had, any capacity that even approaches "free will"?
It can be argued that there is one thing that animals have that makes their existence more tolerable than that of humans; animals posses a wonderful lack of awareness in regard to their finitude or mortality. Simply stated, animals are unaware that they will die, while humans possess self-awareness and are fully cognizant of their own mortality. I believe that it is precisely this awareness - and only this awareness - which is at the foundation of all religion. There is no other compelling basis for religion. Fear of death is the very raisond'etre of all religion. Because animals are not aware of their own mortality, they have no religion. If they did possess such an awareness, then they would also concoct and fabricate religious systems, just as humans have done so.
I view "creation" as being more chaos than cosmos. There is far more disorder in the so-called "orderly" creation than many people are willing to concede. On planet Earth, life "feeds on" life; on nearly all levels, organisms depend on the death of other organisms for life. This a universal "rule" that was established preceding - and utterly independent of - the arrival of humans on the scene. That is why I reiterate that the whole idea of "free will" is totally irrelevant to theodicy. Basically, "creation" was hopelessly and irredeemably flawed even in "pre-lapsarian" days, even before humans suffered their "fall." Creation was full of violence, bloodshed, and suffering long before humans walked the Earth.
-
-
-
Rapunzel
Dear Badboy and CoCo - With my cheeks reddened by embarassment bordering on shame, I am forced to admit that I was wrong in regard to the verb boggle; it can indeed be used in an intransitive mode. So I hereby sincerly apologize to Badboy and I sincerely thank CoCo for pointing out the error of my ways. Mea culpa! Mea culpa! Mea culpa!
Alors, CoCo, je vois que vous parlez francais! I see you speak French. I happy to meet another francophone on this board. I should point out that the verb penser can be followed by one of two prepositions; it can be followed by either a or de. In both cases - penser a or penser de - the French verb can be translated as "to think of" or "to think about." But the two French verbs have entirely different usages. Penser a means "to think of" [or about] in the sense of having something or someone in mind or on one's mind. Penser de means "to think of" [or about] in the sense of having an opinion about something or someone. So, it should be: Qu'en pensez-vous. En is an adverbial pronoun used in conjunction with de; y is an adverbial pronoun used in conjunction with a.
-
63
You know, I've yet to meet a JW who can explain this
by Lady Zombie ini know that has probably been covered ad infinitum on jwd.
so...... if jehovah is omnipotent, then there is nothing he can't do and nothing he doesn't know.. and, according to jws (as well as most other religions), god is love.
therefore he had to have known, even before creating all of creation, what would happen.
-
-
Rapunzel
The question can become even more complicated still if a person accepts even the possibility of a plurality of worlds, that is to say, if you accept the idea that there might possibly be intelligent life on other planets in the universe.
If a person does accept such a possibility, then a person might wonder if the "Adam and Eve/garden of Eden" scenario played itself out. Did God and Satan go around to various planets and play their little game? Was it like a card game - "Let's see who can win the best out of 10" [or the best out of 10,000,000,000,000. After all, there are potentially an infinite number of planets in an infinite universe, and it seems that both God and Satan have a lot of time on their hands]?
It all boils down to the issue of theodicy. It was a German philosopher named Leibniz who first coined the term theodicy, based on the Greek theos [God] and dike [justice]. Although it was Leibniz who first coined the term, the notion or idea was raised by "pagan" [pre-Christian] philosophers such as Epicurus who posed his famous tetralemmaof religion to show that the hypothesis of a creator God is not plausible:
1.) Either God wanted to eliminate evil and could not, which means God is impotent. However, this cannot be the case for God.
2.) Or else, God could eliminate evil, and did not want to, which means God is evil. However, this is [supposedly] foreign to God's nature.
3.) Or else, God neither could eliminate evil nor wanted to, which means that God is both evil and impotent. In which case God is not God
4.) Or else God both wanted to eliminate evil and could eliminate evil, which is the only hypothesis that truly corresponds to God. However, in this case, the question is, where does evil come from and why does God not eliminate it?
Leibniz summed the main issue up in two questions - "If God exists, whence evil? If God does not exist, whence good?
All of this presupposes a personal, creator God. There are great religious traditions that presuppose no such thing. If that is the case, the problem of theodicy becomes a moot point entirely.
-
-
-
Rapunzel
Maybe the next big scandal will come about from a major change in doctrine [or rather, in their process of indoctrination]. I imagine that there could be lawsuits if the Witness organization changes its policy on blood transfusions, if they make it totally a matter of personal choice, for example. As I know, the Witness policy in regard to transfusions is already different in Bulgaria. What if that knowledge were to become widespread? I wonder how the organization is now able to explain the discreprency. Why should it be a question of living, or not living, in Bulgaria? What if [God forbid] a tourist visiting the U.S, from Bulgaria were to find him/herself in the position of requiring a blood transfusion? Is the Witness position going to be: "It's too bad, you should have stayed in Bulgaria, you could have had a transfusion if you had stayed there. But, since you are now in the U.S., you can't have one."?
The organization could also face a scandal if they change the "144,000 - as - a - literal - number" doctrine.
Then again, they have offered at least two definitions of the word "generation" in the past fifteen years or so. Perhaps the rank and file are now used to doctrinal changes.
-
-
-
Rapunzel
As they say in Oz, no worries, mate. I'm just joking.
As per your query, I have absolutely no idea what the future holds in store in regard to the "dirty laundry" of the Watchtower organization. I should think that scandals which have already come to light are so numerous that it is hard to "digest" and process them. There recently seems to have been an unceasing, relentless litany of scandals. Heaven only knows which ones are to follow.
-
-
-
Rapunzel
My Freudian imago really boogies to the musical beat?
-
-
-
Rapunzel
Ugh, don't you mean to say that "it boggles the imagination"? In my mind, the verb "boggle" is a transitive one, and thus requires a direct object. Or, do you mean to say that the immigration officials may well be baffled?
-
18
JW's are the least tolerant and least open minded of all religions!
by Gill inhttp://www.cultnews.com/.
i hope this link works!.
but jws are the least open minded and least tolerant of all religions!
-
-
Rapunzel
"The level of intensity fluctuates according to time and place, but it can be stated as a truth that religion does not, and in the long run cannot, be content with its own marvelous claims and sublime assurance. It must seek to interfere with the lives of nonbelievers, or heretics, or adherents of other faiths. It may speak about the bliss of the next world, but it wants power in this one. This is only to be expected. It is, after all, wholly man-made. And it does not have the confidence in its own preachings even to allow coexistence between different faiths." - Christopher Hitchens, god is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, page 17
-
-
-
Rapunzel
In my view, asking me if I enjoyed field service would be tantamount to asking me if I enjoy proctological exams or root canal work. In fact, if I had my "druthers," I would probably opt for root canal. As for choosing a proctological exam over field service...well...I'd have to think that one over a bit. It's a mighty hard choice to make. Talk about choosing the lesser of two evils.