Posts by Rapunzel

76

Worship The Lord

by real one in

jw
friends

praise him all the days of your life!

he is worthy.

holy,holy,holy is he.. god our savior showed us how good and kind he is.

Real One - You so cavalierly dismiss Greek and Roman myth as a "mess." Your attittude is haughty and disdainful indeed. One of the points that I was trying to make is that, in the future, people will consider our Christian myths to be a "mess." I can give you a few examples right now that show that the New Testament is a sefl-contradicting "mess."

The Gospel of Mark states that Jesus was crucified the day after the Passover meal was eaten (Mark 14:12; 15;25). However, in the gospel of John, it says that Jesus died the day before the Passover meal was eaten (John:19:14). Well, I ask you: On which day did Jesus die, the day before or the day after the Passover meal was eaten?

In his gospel account of Jesus's birth, Luke indicates that Joseph and Mary returned to Nazareth just over a month after they had come to Bethlehem to perform the rites of purification (Luke 2:39). However, in his gospel account, Matthew indicates that Joseph and Mary instead fled to Egypt (Matthew 2: 19-22). Again, I ask: Which is it? Did Joseph and Mary return to Nazareth, or did they flee to Egypt?

In Galatians 1:16-17, Paul says that, after his conversion on the road to Damascus, he did not go to Jerusalem to visit those who were apostles before him. However, in Acts 9:26, it says that this was the first thing that Paul did after leaving Damascus.

And why, in fourth chater of Mark, is Jesus quoted as saying that the mustard seed is "the smallest of all seeds on earth," when everyone knows perfectly well that it is by no means the smallest seed on earth?

I mention these points because of the view of that evangelicals hold of the Bible. They view it as the inerrant word of God, containing no mistakes. For evangelicals, the Bible is inspired completely and in its very words, i.e. verbal, plenary inspiration. However, in fact, the New Testament contains thousands of errors; indeed, the number of errors in the New Testament is greater than the number of words.

33

Statements that will get you d'f...

by cognac in

jw
friends

i don't believe (fill in the blank).... the borg isn't the fds.... the jws are a cult.... the jws are apostates.... anything else?.

.

Rapunzel

1.) I think that the suposed "two-witnesses" rule in the case of paedophiles is bull****. I mean what pervert would be stupid enough to commit such an evil act in the presence of a third-party observer?!?! No one is that stupid.

2.) I think that it might not be such a good idea to follow the orders of the faithful and discrete slave in medical matters. After all, there was a time in the past when organ transplants were considered as "cannabalism", but now they are viewed as permissible. And the society used to teach that getting vaccines could actually cause a person to contract a disease. So maybe it's not a good idea to heed the Socety's prohibition on blood. Maybe it's not a good idea to take the dietary taboos of a Bronze-Age tribe of semitic nomads, and apply these same taboos to twenty-first century medical science. It would only be after some 2,500 years these scriptures were written that scientists would develop the procedure of blood transfusion. And besides, doesn't Mosaic law itself state the saving of a life "trumps" all other concerns, the saving of a human life has precedence over all other laws.

76

Worship The Lord

by real one in

jw
friends

praise him all the days of your life!

he is worthy.

holy,holy,holy is he.. god our savior showed us how good and kind he is.

Rapunzel

Real One: You write that "God is a wonderful God and a just God." You obviously have not read the Old Testament scriptures at all because, if you had read them, you would have noticed that is precisely a horrendous lack of justice that taints the Old Testament god; or at least it taints the depiction of God in the Old Testament.

One of the best descriptions of this god that I have read is that of Richard Dawkins in his book, The God Delusion. Dawkins writes: "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindicative, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

It would be worthwhile to note that Dawkins uses the expression "character in all fiction" because that is, in essence, exactly what it is a question of - fiction. Human beings are creatures who, throughout time, have sat around and told stories to each other. As humans, practically everything we "know," believe and experience consists entirely of stories and narratives. As humans, our "psychic reality" - everything that we think - is constituted by narratives - by stories. Words constitute our reality - our "truths."

To continue with Dawkins quote, he writes: "Those of us schooled from infancy in his ways can become desensitized to their horror. A naif blessed with the perspective of innocence has a clearer perception." Although it is almost impossibe to do so completely, I think that we should all, as much as possible, attempt to become naifs blessed with the perspective of innocence. At the least, we should try to view - from a perspective of critical detachment and distance - the narratives that constitute our reality. That is to say that we should learn to critically and objectively analyze what we believe. It is easy to objectively analyze the narratives [we call them "myths'] of people living in previous eras, or in cultures different from our own. However, it is extremely difficult for us to examine our own narratives in that we, quite literally, live within them. Having said that, we would do well to realize that in the future people will read about Chritianity [or Islam,or Judaism] and think to themselves: "How could they have believed that stuff?!?!" The "truths" of one era become the mythology of later eras. People in future generations will view our truths in a way similar to how we presently read Greek and Roman myths.

76

Worship The Lord

by real one in

jw
friends

praise him all the days of your life!

he is worthy.

holy,holy,holy is he.. god our savior showed us how good and kind he is.

Rapunzel

Mrs Smith and LouBelle: Although the expression - "Keep your eyes on the prize" - may well, indeed, have become a cliche among the Witnesses, it actually has a long and venerable history. The expression was a folk song that was popular within the American Civil Rights movement during the 1950's and 1960's. It was written by an American civil rights activist named Alice Wine in 1956, and it became the title of a documentary made in the 1980's. Before Ms. Wine's rendition of it as a folk song, it was a hymn composed many years before World War I. This same basic song has had various "incarnations" in various forms throughout history. For example, it's been known as "Gospel Plow;" "Hold On;" and Keep Your Hands On The Plow," as well as other titles. Moreover, since the civil rights movement, it has been sung by several contemporary musicians such as Bob Dylan and Bruce Springsteen. Like many other songs and hymns, it has its ultimate roots in the Bible, in Paul's letter to the Philippians. Its message of persevering with hope in one's heart in the face of oppostion and adversity is universal and timeless. I suppose that the argument could be made that the Witnesses have somehow cheapened the expression [and its message] by turning it into a mindless, empty cliche. However, I feel that they will never succeed in ruining its idea of hope. And, furthermore, I think that no one should in any way regret using the phrase. In short, the Witnesses have never "owned" this expression; they don't have a monopoly on it. Just as they don't have a monopoly on perseverance or hope. It would never occur to me to equate, or even associate, this expression with the Witnesses.

43

Why do the majorityof JW's look so happy at the hall?

by JH in

jw
friends

each time i go, i see a bunch of happy people, young and old.

some smile more than others, but just about everyone seems happy to be there.. maybe we left because we weren't that happy, rather than finding flaws in the religion.. maybe they look happy because they aren't allowed to look sad..

Rapunzel

I sincerly feel that the majority of Witnesses are quite unhappy and, as for the smiles that one sees on the faces of the people at the hall, these smiles are false. I think that the smiles of most Witness are a pretense, a false pretense. Don't forget - the Witnesses call themselves the "world's happiest people." As a consequence, they are under a lot of pressure to maintain the appearance of being happy. It's all about keeping up appearances.

I have read several threads stating that, in fact, Witnesses have a comparatively high rate of depression. Witnesses have a significantly higher rate of depression in comparison with other religious groups or society in general. I think that many Witesses have prescriptions for anti-depressants. Witnesses also have a higher rate of neurosis.

In fact, Witnesses are continuously under a lot of pressure; and the pressure comes from a lot of sources. It comes from their continually-postponed, ever-delayed expectation of the arrival of the "New System". The pressure comes from the constant urging of the organization to do more, more, more; it's always do more, more, and then more. The pressure also comes from their self-imposed alienation from mainstream society. There is also pressure from within the congregation itself. No one dares to let on or admit that they might be unhappy or dissatisfied with their lot. They know that everyone else is watching them - not watching out for them as in showing sincere concern for their well-being but rather watching them, as in keeping an eye on them. Witnesses know that it would be very unwise of them to admit being depressed. After all, isn't it true that many Witnesses equate depression with demonic attack or Satan's mischief?

56

"There Is A God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind"

by Open mind in

author's name is anthony flew.. this book was sitting right next to "the god delusion" at the library, so in fairness to my username, i checked it out.

haven't read anything but the cover flaps so far.

anybody else read this yet?.

Rapunzel

Dear Open Mind: I find your choice of an adjective - notorious - in describing Flew to be very odd and highly questionable. Some synonyms for "notorious" are ill-famed; infamous; having abad reputation. This choice of descriptive is odd because Flew is, in fact, a very famous philosopher with an excellent reputation. He is a world-renowned scholar. There is absolutely nothing notorious about Flew. It makes me wonder if you consider Flew to be notorious because he was formerly an atheist. Do you consider all atheists to be "notorious"? Could anyone holding such an opinion consider himself or herself open-minded?

I know Flew solely by his scholarly reputation which is, as I said, excellent. I have not had the chance to read his book yet. And while I may not agree with his position, I am sure that he came to his conclusion based on sincerity and good faith. I'm sure that a lot of honest inquiry has led him to believe what he has come to believe. Throughout the centuries, very many extremely intelligent people have grappled with the question of the existence or the non-existence of God. And these numerous people have come to different conclusions. As far as I am concerned, each and every one of them has come to a conclusion that is true for them. I believe that this is the case for every person alive; everyone must come to a conclusion that is true for them. And I think that that each person who approaches the question honestly and in good faith will arrive at an answer that is true for him or herself. The fact that differnent people come to different conclusions need not matter because everyone follows their own path in their questioning.

It's interesting to see how very intelligent people can change and evolve over time in their opinion. For example, it's interesting to compare Anthony Flew with Bart Ehrman. Both men are extremely intelligent and erudite; both have published numerous books and are famous in the academic world. Each man - Flew and Ehrman - started at opposite "poles" on the issue, and continued on to the other position that each had previously held. In other words, Flew went from being an atheist to believing in God, while Bart Ehrman went from being an evangelical Christian, who studied at Moody Bible College, to being an atheist. Ehrman came to his conclusion due the question of theodicy - that is to say that he could not reconcile the idea of an all-powerful and benevolent God with the fact that there is so much suffering and evil in the world. Ehrman was very familiar with all of the traditional explanations for the existence of evil in the world, but he also rejected all of these explanations. He rejected the idea that an omnipotent and benevolent God could allow for evil and suffering to exist in the world. Either God cannot control evil - in which case God cannot be considered all-powerful - or else God is not all-Good in that God allows people to suffer. This is an ancient question with which even people living in the pre-Christian era had to deal. I recommend that someone go to the New York Times website and then use that site's "search" function. In the search box, key in "Stanley Fish." Fish is a scholar who reviews books by Ehrman, Flew, Dawkins, Hawking and others.

6

Your local minister .....................

by TheOldHippie in

(chester dailylocal.com, usa ).

greist must never be released from the state hospital .

every year around this time richard greist, who was found not guilty by reason of insanity in 1980 for the death of his wife, janice, and attacks on his family, pushes for more freedom.. and every year, greist, a resident at norristown state hospital, is denied.. were all about rights, fairness and treating people the correct way.. however, heres our position on greist: richard greist is where he belongs and never should be released from the state hospital ever.. why?.

Rapunzel

I did another Google search and typed in "Richard Greist murder." I found an article which is located a few spots down on the Google list. The article stated that "since the slayings, Greist has become a Jehovah's Witness." In my mind, that implies that Greist was not a Witness when he slew his family members, but became a Witness after committing the atrocity. The article in question also stated something else which shocked me - his present wife, whom he married in 2004, is in fact his third wife. In the interrum between the slayings and his third marriage, he was briefly married to another woman who killed herself after one year of marriage to Greist. The article that I read featured very bizarre testimony on the part of his surviving daughter. She described him as having "fiery orange and swirling green eyes," the most evil thing she has ever seen. The article also said that Greist still harbors misogynist attitudes toward the women in his life.

6

Your local minister .....................

by TheOldHippie in

(chester dailylocal.com, usa ).

greist must never be released from the state hospital .

every year around this time richard greist, who was found not guilty by reason of insanity in 1980 for the death of his wife, janice, and attacks on his family, pushes for more freedom.. and every year, greist, a resident at norristown state hospital, is denied.. were all about rights, fairness and treating people the correct way.. however, heres our position on greist: richard greist is where he belongs and never should be released from the state hospital ever.. why?.

Rapunzel

Hi, jk666: Your question is an excellent one, and it induced me to do a Google search keying in the words "Richard Greist murder." I was shocked to read that Greist remarried in 2004. He married a woman from New Zealand whom he first met on the Internet.She is also a Witness, and says that they could not have done it without Jehovah's help. She also says that Greist is suffering from dyslexia and that she has a "soft spot" for people with learning disabilities. She left her home and life in New Zealand to marry Greist. When she visited him, he actually told her: You're not leaving here without wearing my ring on your finger." Those words are enough to make you feel all warm and tingly inside, don't they?

In regard to your thoughtful question, the article that I read does not explicitly say that Greist was a witness at the time of the psychotic episode during which he slaughtered his family members. The article does say that he believed himself to be Jesus Christ incarnate. The article also states that Greist believed that his family members were possessed and that Greist felt he was removing the evil that resided within them. Greist also felt that they would be reunited after the resurrection. As we all know, Witnesses firmly believe in the resurrection; it's one of their main beliefs. But, to be totally objective, as far as I could tell, the article that I read did not state that Greist was a Witness at the time when he committed the murders. Of course, Witnesses are not the only ones to believe in a bodily resurrection. And it goes without saying that Greist's delusions and psychosis cannot be ascribed to his belief in a resurrection; he would be psychotic even without such a belief. Besides being psychotic, he's also sociopathic. He's manipulative, controlling and very dangerous.

I understand why you ask if Greist was a Witness at the time of the murders, or if he converted to the religion later. If I have time, I will do further research to try to find out. As I said, I just googled the words - "Richard Greist murder," and I found a lot of stuff. One question that I have is why the Witnesses even allow him in their hall for association. Wouldn't it be safer for everyone if the Witnesses visited him in prison?

8

Nice Bunch Of Guys!

by Outaservice in

jw
friends

subject: watchtower board of directors 1950's.

knorrs board photo.

board of directors of the watch tower bible and tract society of pennsylvania.

Rapunzel

I wouldn't want to meet that gang in a well-lit alley, or anywhere else, for that matter. Dios mio! They look like a group of stone-cold killers!

31

Has the Org gone witch-hunting those who are gone, but not Dfd?

by cyber-sista in

hey it's been awhile since i've left--almost 5 years now!

i haven't visited this site for quite a while now.

i was never dfd, but i have little contact with anything to do with jws.

Rapunzel

I am outraged to read about the conduct of the congregaitonal elders in this matter; and I second the opinion of those who stated that the elders' conduct was reprehensible and that it borders on the illegal. No, correct that. What they did was illegal!! Where I live, it might come under the category of "home invasion." They abused their authority to essentially to coerce the couple into letting them into the house. Who the hell are they to "demand" entry into the house and the young man's room!!!! They have no grounds to "demand" anything of the sort. They are not the police; and even the police are subject to the laws of civil [and civilized] society - i.e.they need a warrant to conduct a search. And speaking of the police, if I had been in the place of either one of the parents, I would have have summoned the cops quicker that shit through a sick calf. If fact, I don't understand why they did not call the police. Had I been in their place, I would have felt abused and violated. I recommend that they still give the police a call. Hell,it sounds to me that they have grounds for a lawsuit. It seems to me that they might have some legal recourse, given the psychological effect of their conduct on the elderly man. Hospitalization is a serious consequence.