Tralon - I just noticed that you have put up the exact same posting twice, in approximately a quarter-hour interval. What gives?
Rapunzel
JoinedPosts by Rapunzel
-
33
Why Jehovah Witnesses teach a more biblical faith
by tralon insurprizeingly, i am not a jw but an observer and in partial agreement with the jehovah witnesses on many issues.
i have been to many churches in my 30 years and have studied many church beliefs, church history and the bible as well.
so why do i believe the jehovah witnesses are the one true faith of jehovah god?.
-
-
-
33
Why Jehovah Witnesses teach a more biblical faith
by tralon insurprizeingly, i am not a jw but an observer and in partial agreement with the jehovah witnesses on many issues.
i have been to many churches in my 30 years and have studied many church beliefs, church history and the bible as well.
so why do i believe the jehovah witnesses are the one true faith of jehovah god?.
-
-
Rapunzel
Tralon - It's Athanasius, with two s's. And by the way, is Tartaroo related, by any chance, to Captain Kangaroo?
-
9
Jesus and Satan--Any Common Ground?
by WTWizard inthe watchtower society has repeatedly said that jesus and satan have nothing in common.
but, look at their basic actions and see for yourself.. satan was setting the first human pair free.
free from what?
-
-
Rapunzel
Hi, Alpaca - Sorry for the delay in responding. As Narkissos has kindly pointed out, the idea of an archeology of knowledge has been described by the French philosopher, Michel Foucault in a book that he wrote with the same title. Foucault also wrote about the topic of insanity and how "insanity" has been perceived and conceptualized throughout the various time periods. Foucault also wrote a multi-volume [I believe it was three volumes] study of human sexuality. Like Derrida and Lacan, Foucault is usually classified as a "post-structuralist" thinker. I suppose that Foucault could be called a "post-structuralist" historian/sociologist. As I remember, Foucault also published a study of the prison system. Of course, Foucault's works were originally publised in French. However, most of writings are available in English.
To answer your other question, yes, I have indeed read Armstrong's book. I found it very interesting. If you do read Foucault, you may find him more difficult to approach than Armstrong. I emphasize the word may because it is totally possible that you will prefer Foucault [if you read him]. It is all a question of personal tastes and inclinations. I found his study of insanity especially interesting, but that's just my tastes.
In any case, I would recommend that you read Foucault, if you can avail yourself of the opportunity. You might also pick up a "companion" [I think that Cambridge publishes an explanatory volume about Foucault] to Foucault. These companion tomes serve well to elucidate his more arcane theories.
-
5
Book Recommend
by stillajwexelder inmisquoting jesus: the story behind who changed the bible and why (plus).
by bart d. ehrman (feb 6, 2007) .
this is good- i got a cheap copy on amazon.
-
-
Rapunzel
This an excellent, highly readable, book. In it Ehrman considers the question of theodicy - the question of why there is so much evil and suffering in the word, a world supposedy created by an all-powerful and all-benevolent God. In God'sProblem, Ehrman analyzes the various "answers" provided in the scriptures - both Hebrew and Christian writings. He shows how the Bible contains different and conflicting responses to the issue of theodicy. I bought this book in a bookstore several months ago and read it. It remains on my bedside table. I highly recommend it.
-
49
Coming to a KH near you...the generation/new light WT
by Mickey mouse innext weekend congregations around the world will be studying the wt article on the new definition of a "generation".. i would think there will be an epidemic of cognitive dissonance.
this must be the first time there has been a change of doctrine on a singular topic twice in 13 years.
for those still in like me, use the opportunity to get your partner thinking..
-
-
Rapunzel
Awakened at G. - Thank you very much for posting the "ever-brightening-light" verse, along with its accompanying context.
It is plain to see that the Witnesses have been woefully duped.
First of all, the book of Proverbs, like the book of Ecclesiastes, was written within the genre of Wisdom literature. Unlike prophetic literature [i.e. the books of Isaiah; Ezekiel; Jeremiah; etc.], Wisdom literature does not even claim to get its insights into life from some sort of divine revelation, but rather from a deep, contemplative understanding of the world and how the world works. The book of Proverbs is based on knowledge acquired over the span of many generations of thinkers and sages. The book of Proverbs does not even pretend to concern itself with prophecy or eschatology. It does not even claim to have anything to do with foretelling future events. The book of Proverbs deals with the question of how to live morally; its emphasis is on ethics, and not at all on teleology.
Using poetic and metaphorical language, the passage in question sets up an antithesis, a dichotomy:
righteous people on bright, and ever brightening, path/ wicked people on gloomy, and ever darkening, path
Using poetic speech, this passage counterposes two diametrically opposed moral conditions [or states of being] in general. I really do not see this passage as concerning itself with scriptural knowledge or exegesis. Its focus is very broad and generalized.
It's ironic to think that it is with the wicked ones in this passage that the Watchtower can be associated. When one considers how the Witnesses have stumbled around in the gloom of their own delusions and failed prophecies, one realizes that they can be classified as belonging in the right-hand side of the dichotomy that I described above.
As for the Witness doctrine on the annointed and "this generation," it is tripe, wrapped in bilge, wrapped in nonsense, wrapped in bullshit. In regard to the "doctrine" of the annointed, how can they even calculate the number of remaining annointed when there exists no way of determining who is annointed!!! How can you calculate a quantity that is so nebulous?! According to Witness doctrine, people "profess" to be annointed. Anyone can "profess" to be anything that they imagine themselves to be. However, as I see it, there is no way to quantify the number of people who all-so-subjectively profess to be members of a certain group. Perhaps the term subjective is the crucial one here. In order to quantify something, there must be at least one objective criterion, although two or more objective criteria would be better. But if there exists not one single objective criterion, then quantification becomes an exercise in utter futility.
-
-
-
Rapunzel
In a way, yes, it does make sense because - when they talk to their pets - they may actually get a response back. After all, their pets are real.
-
49
Coming to a KH near you...the generation/new light WT
by Mickey mouse innext weekend congregations around the world will be studying the wt article on the new definition of a "generation".. i would think there will be an epidemic of cognitive dissonance.
this must be the first time there has been a change of doctrine on a singular topic twice in 13 years.
for those still in like me, use the opportunity to get your partner thinking..
-
-
Rapunzel
In regard to the Witnesses' notion of "new light," isn't it true that they have distorted the very scriptural passage itself? I mean, does the bible passage that they so constantly evoke really speak of new light? Doesn't it, in fact, speak of a light that gets brighter and brighter? Not to nit-pick here, but are not the two ideas - that of new light, and of an old light which constantly grows brighter - rather different? Moreover, does the passage in question even have to do with doctrine or doctrinal changes? Could someone please cite the passage to which the Witnesses allude when they speak of "new light?" And could somebody please quote a few surrounding verses - both before and after? I would be interested in reading the surrounding context of the verse in question. Thank you.
-
7
Philosophy and the blues.
by Blueblades inwhen one is suffering from "the blues" one is said to be sad and gloomy; depressed or depressing.
can a study of philosophy bring on the blues?
here is what i found.. metaphilosophy: the philosophy of philosophy.
-
-
Rapunzel
Yeah, Narkissos, when I think of metaphysics, I think of the lyrics of that old song by the Eagles, Hotel California [I don't know if it was popular in France, or if you have heard of the song/group] - "They stick it with their steely knives, but they still can't kill the beast." Moreover, just like the Hotel California, you can check out of Wittgenstein's "prison-house of language" any time you'd like, but you can never leave.
-
9
Jesus and Satan--Any Common Ground?
by WTWizard inthe watchtower society has repeatedly said that jesus and satan have nothing in common.
but, look at their basic actions and see for yourself.. satan was setting the first human pair free.
free from what?
-
-
Rapunzel
Which "Satan" are you talking about? The concept, or idea, of Satan underwent a significant evolution in Jewish, and subsequently Christian, thought. For example, whoever the "author" of the Genesis account was, he decidedly did not conceive of the Edenic snake as being anything approaching what we now conceive of as "Satan." The characters of "Satan" and "Jesus" both evolved over time. To take up the character of "Satan" once again, it is possible to trace its development throughout time. The period of Babylonian exile was a crucial point in time. It was then that the Jews were introduced to Manichean, cosmic dualism. To a great extent, the character of "Satan" was "born" there.
As for the character of Jesus, he too evolves and changes. These two concepts were never static; they were in constant flux. They remain in flux. Just as there is a physical science called "archeology," there is also an archeology of knowledge. This archeology of knowledge involves locating conceptual epistemes and tracing their diachronic development.
-
12
Quotable Quotes - Henry Ford (fluff)
by MsMcDucket inhenry ford was an american industrialist and pioneer of the assembly-line production method.
he was the founder of the ford motor co. one of many achievements of henry ford was the introduction of the model t car!
below are words of wisdom in the form of inspirational quotes and motivational quotes by henry ford:.
-
-
Rapunzel
Yes, the film - "Birth of a Nation - is still studied for its techincal brilliance. Considered from a purely technical perspective, it ranks with "Citizen Kane" as an achievement in innovation.
This introduces a problem that has long plagued ethicists: How to distinguish between technically brilliant achievements/artistic oeuvres, and the morally deranged people who produced these achievements and artistic works? Can someone appreciate "art for art's sake" [here, I understand the term art in its very broadest sense, in the sense of a produced artifact] in good conscious, while being totally aware of moral depravity of the person(s) who produced this art? To take only a few examples:
1.) Wagner produced some of the most beautiful and technically brilliant opere ever composed. On the other hand, he was an infamous anti-semite. As I know, any performances of his opere were banned in the state of Israel.
2.) The famous American poet, Ezra Pound - most famous as author of the Cantos - was a rabid anti-semite and fascist sympathizer. In fact, during World War Two, he lived in Italy and made many radio broadcasts praising Mussolini and attacking "Jewish bankers." At the end of the war, he was captured and imprisoned by the Americans. He was charged with treason, for which he faced execution. When the Americans caught him, they put him in a cage outside in a courtyard. Eventually, he was declared insane and put in a psychiatric hospital.
3.) Ty Cobb, the "Georgia Peach" - was a wizard on the baseball diamond, but a hateful racist. Does he deserve a place in the "Hall of Fame." Or should he be banished to the "Hall of Shame"?
Should these people be excused simply because they lived in an era when racism and anti-semitism were "in the air," and integral to society in general? Do they get a reprieve on this account?