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: Please tell me where I can do the research to find the answers to my questions. Kindly indicate to me which authors and which publications to consult. Could please give me some specific book titles? How about the books that you have consulted? What do your sources have to say about these particular biblical passages? It says in the Bible that a Christian should always be ready to offer a defense of what he or she believes. You, on the other hand, evade and side-step the issue - if you even respond at all. I find that especially petty cowardly. You post your rants and diatribes with the obvious goal of "baiting" people. After people respond and try to engage you in dialogue, you then "run away" and ignore their points. This is most disrespectful.

The reason why I posted the examples of those three Bible passages is that I have been unsuccessful in locating any sources that could explain the internal contradictions involved. I was hoping that you could help, and again I ask you to supply at least some sources so that I can consult them myself.

You write that just because I do not understand the contradictions that I note does not make what I say true. That may be true, but my failing to understand the listed contradictions does not make what I say false either. I can see no logical connection between my failure to understand the scriptures in question, and the veracity of my point.

33

How C.S. Lewis helped me to see Christianity for the joke that it is

by nvrgnbk in

jw
friends

i read mere christianity.. .

.

Rapunzel

Clueless: C.S. [Clive Staples] Lewis was an Irish author known for has publications in medieval literature, literary criticism, and Christian apologetics - his written defenses of Christianity. Lewis was a friend of J.R.R. Tolkein; both men were on the faculty of Oxford University. Lewis was the author of The Screwtape Letters and The Chronicle of Narnia, among many other publications. Lewis was baptized a Christian but later fell away as an adolescent. Under the influence of Tolkein, Lewis re-converted back to Christianity and wrote defenses of the religion. Lewis was also author of The Four Loves, a book that was assigned to me to read as a graduate student.

25

Bob Marley & the Wailers - Your Favorite Songs and Albums from Him ?

by flipper in

jw
friends

ah yes, music fans , the " king of reggae " as he was so aptly called.

my wife and i really like him a lot.

so what are your favorite songs from him ?

Rapunzel

Two of my favorite tracks are "Three Little Birds" and "The Heathen."

25

Bob Marley & the Wailers - Your Favorite Songs and Albums from Him ?

by flipper in

jw
friends

ah yes, music fans , the " king of reggae " as he was so aptly called.

my wife and i really like him a lot.

so what are your favorite songs from him ?

Rapunzel

Ah, so you like reggae, mom? I like reggae too. I and I ready to struggle against the Babylonian tyrannts! The time will soon come for Babylon to fall, mon! You can sell I some ganja?

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 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.