"Brown noser"? Really? I suppose that a [good?] number of them are indeed sycophants and toadies. But others are what the root meaning suggests - mere pawns in "game," the dimensions of which elude them.
Rapunzel
JoinedPosts by Rapunzel
-
21
Why ARE They Called 'Pioneers'?
by Rapunzel ini was reading another thread about the witnesses so-called "pioneer school," and there occured to me the question as to why these people are called pioneers.
i may be wrong on this [and may someone please correct me if this is indeed the case], but to my knowledge, the word pioneer does not appear in any manuscript of the bible.
in any case, because my curiosity was piqued, i looked up the etymology, the "true root" meaning of the word.
-
-
-
21
Why ARE They Called 'Pioneers'?
by Rapunzel ini was reading another thread about the witnesses so-called "pioneer school," and there occured to me the question as to why these people are called pioneers.
i may be wrong on this [and may someone please correct me if this is indeed the case], but to my knowledge, the word pioneer does not appear in any manuscript of the bible.
in any case, because my curiosity was piqued, i looked up the etymology, the "true root" meaning of the word.
-
-
Rapunzel
I was reading another thread about the witnesses so-called "pioneer school," and there occured to me the question as to why these people are called pioneers. I may be wrong on this [and may someone please correct me if this is indeed the case], but to my knowledge, the word pioneer does not appear in any manuscript of the Bible. In any case, because my curiosity was piqued, I looked up the etymology, the "true root" meaning of the word. As I suspected, it is Latin, and designates a "foot soldier," The basic Latin root word is ped, meaning "foot" - which provides the basis of the English words "pedal" and "pedastal."
It was interesting [and enlightening] to read that, etymologically speaking, the word pioneer is related both to word peon and to the word pawn. It's true. All three words - pioneer; pawn; and peon - derive from the same source. In their "root meaning," a pioneer; a pawn; and a peon are basically the same thing. An interesting idea.
-
44
Do you believe in Ghosts?
by Thechickennest injust curious.....what is your feelings post witness about the super natural?
-
-
Rapunzel
Sirona, you write that "quantum physics teaches us that 'time' is illusory anyway." Could you please provide one single reference to support this claim? To my knowledge, quantum physics - or quantum mechanics - teaches us no such thing. As I know, classical Newtonian physics proposes the view that space [in its three dimensions of height, width, and length] is distinct from time. As I know, quantum physics proposes that there exists a space-time continuum, with time being an aspect of space - its fourth dimension so to speak. Thus, as I understand it, it is the distinction - the dichotomy between time and space - that is illusory. However, I should add that this is true only at the quantum, or sub-atomic, level. At any "higher" level, Newtonian physics are just fine. In no way does the theory of quantum mechanics supercede or replace Newtonian physics.
You also write that humans are beings who have consciously willed to incarnate and assume material existence in a physical body. Would you kindly be able to provide proof of that conjecture?
It is decidedly not my intention to offend you or hurt your feelings because it is my impression that you are a nice person. I have to admit, though, that your hypothesis that anyone would consciously choose to enter our absurd and blasted human condition, our so-called "veil of tears," is indeed a rather odd one. I don't recall anyone ever asking me if I wanted to be born. As I recall, I had precious little say in the matter. Moreover, let me add that, if I had only known then what I know now, then my answer would have been a definitive and categorical - "No way!"
I remember reading how a philosopher [I think it was Seneca] who said that the best fate that a person could hope for was to never have been born. The second best fate is to die while still an infant. Harsh words? Yes, they do seem harsh, especially at first. But if a person is honest [especially with her(his)self], then there is a good chance that these words will resonate and sound true. In my mind, oblivion is preferable to suffering. Better to never have born than suffer existence.
-
43
The Bible Dinosaur
by Devilsnok inanyone remember the picture of the dinosaur that used to be on the inside cover of the green bible?
has anyone got a scan / picture of it please?.
matt.
-
-
Rapunzel
Under the "funky beliefs" category mentioned by Fadeout, I would like to add one. I remember the guy with whom I studied the little blue truth book saying how the bible story of Jonah and the whale was literally true. According to this man [who had, as I remember, a "white-collar" job in a bank and a college degree], the story of Jonah being swallowed by a whale, and remaining in its belly for three days, was literally true. Furthermore, this guy claimed, there existed proof - in the form of "scientific records" - of other people experiencing the same thing, or something similar.
-
12
Blondie's Comments You Will Not Hear at the 06-29-08 WT Study (WORTHWHILE)
by blondie incomments you will not hear at the 06-29-08 wt study (april 15, 2008, pages 21-25)(life worthwhile).
review comments will be in red.
wt material from today's wt will be in black.
-
-
Rapunzel
I'm not so sure that there is much [or any] proof that "Solomon" wrote the book of Ecclesiastes. In any case, whoever the author, the book of Ecclesiastes is one of the very few bible books to present a position that even remotely approaches what could called an "existential/existentialist" point of view. As such, this book may well be useful in formulating ieas when a person ponders the "meaning" of life, or when he/she is searching for meaning in life. It seems that Ecclesiastes is one of the few bible books to retain any relevancy for modern people. It is one of the few bible books that is at all suitable when pondering what ultimate meaning human existence might have. Ecclesiastes is one of the least dogmatic and doctrinaire books of the bible. Ironically, I find myself to be in agreement with Watchtower society in their using Ecclesiastes in this context, even though it is a question of an "Old Testament" book.
I don't know why the society does not print out the scripts of the bible dramas at conventions. That's a good question that never occured tome. However, it is doubtful that a person could attribute any sinister motivation to this neglect/oversigt. After all, these dramas are public events staged in public stadia. These dramas are viewed by many, many thousands of people.
As for their inventing non-biblical personages, I had been thinking about this very issue recently. I'm not sure, but maybe they view it as "poetic" or "artistic" license or freedom. It's hard to know what their exact motivation was. By the way, I thinkthat the gist of the drama - the idea behind it - is complete nonsense.
-
18
When did apostasy set in?
by My Struggle ini know that dubs think that apostasy set in quickly in the early church, but i am not certain how early the think that it set in.
do they think that it was in the apostolic fathers, directly after them, legalization of christianity, etc.
?
-
-
Rapunzel
The Levant [the Middle East] was always a "hotbead" of competing religions and sects. There were literally scores, if not hundreds, of sects within Judaism alone. There were always many competing groups and factions. From early days, the ancient trade routes brought in a plethora of doctrines and beliefs. It is extremely naive to long for a return to "pure Christianity" or "original Christianity," for the simple reason that no such thing ever existed. What we now call "Palastine" was the great "cauldron" into which many doctrines and creeds - Judaic and "pagan" - flowed. To even speak of "original Christianity" betrays a lack of awareness of both religion and history.
It's really ironic how people nowadays bemoan the fact that the "original unity" of Christianity has been lost. It's nonsense to think this. In fact, despite all of the schisms and splits that have occurred within Christianity over the last 1500 years or so, there is now probably even more unity, conformity, and standardization of thought and doctrine within Christendom than there existed within the first two centuries of Christianity. There was more diversity, more heterodoxy, within Christianity during its first two centuries than any period since. This is due to the fact there were great efforts made during the third, fourth, and fifth centuries to ensure homogeneity and conformity in doctrine.
Christianity arose in a time and place marked by extreme doctrinal diversity. It maintained this heterodoxy and diversity well into its third century. There was a never any one "pure" Christinty. Such a thing has never been lost for the simple reason that it never existed to begin with.
-
5
Status of Women In The Pentateuch
by Rapunzel ini have a few questions in regard to a couple of bible passages that i have recently read.
i was hoping that someone may kindly elucidate a few issues.. in romans7:7, paul quotes the decalogue, specifically exodus 20:17, which reads - "you shall not covet your's neighbor's house.
in fact, how is a woman rendered unclean at all simply for having given birth?
-
-
Rapunzel
Narkissos - As for the idea that homophobia will, in the not-too-distant-future, join other outrages against decency such as slavery and witch-burnings, all that I have to say is - Qu'il soit ainsi, alors!
In regard to the other point you make, I definitely think that people use [or rather, misuse/abuse] the Bible to justify and rationalize their own extant beliefs and prejudices. They pervert [if I'm not mistaken, the verb pervert derives from the Latin the Latin prefix per + the verb vertire, which means "to turn"] the scriptures to fit their prejudices and biases.
I find it indeed interesting that the Bible seems not to mention lesbianism anywhere. With all its proscriptions, injunctions, commanments - all of its thou-shalt-nots - it seems that the writers/redactors of the Bible were not even able to imagine a situation in which a woman might feel erotic attraction toward another female. The Bible must contain literally thousands of laws, both compelling people to do certain things while forbidding them to do other things, and yet the Bible never once mentions lesbianism. For me this is absolute proof positive that the Bible is a book by men, and essentially for men.
In regard to the word, homosexuality, I seem to remember that - as a word - it entered the English language at a very late date. I don't remember exactly what point in history, but it seems to me that it was after the Renaissance, perhaps in the 17th or 18th century.
-
33
Modern Bibles - Atonement - Part VI
by Perry inatonement over the years since leaving the wt, i have found the doctrine of the atonement to be one of the major litmus tests for determining christianity and apostate christianity.
the roman catholic church has transsubstantiation and the sacraments for salvation (among other things) and the wt simply rejects christ each year formally at the memorial.
the wt spin on the ransom negates the need for an actual exchange to take place with our savior.
-
-
Rapunzel
In a court of law, all parties are required "to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." Half-truths [or partial truths] are always misleading and can sometimes be even more pernicious than outright and blatant lies. In the context of the present discussion, I just want to say that if someone wants to portray a certain segment of society - the homosexual community for example - then he/she had better depict it in its entire complexity and diversity. To selectively pick a tiny sub-segment as representative is to defame and slur the general community at large.
There really is no such thing as "gay culture;" it far more accurate to speak of "gay cultures" in the plural. Homosexuals are an extremely diverse group, just as diverse as heterosexuals. The only thing which unites them is an erotic attraction to members of their own gender, and that's all. This erotic attraction is biological, not cultural. It's not a trait that is "learned." It is a trait that is innate. It is absolutely impossible to change one's orientation. I consider the question - What causes homosexuality? - to be at once a "loaded" question and a naive one at that. After all, how often does one ask: "What causes heterosexuality?" Can anyone honestly say that this question is often asked? When people inquire as to the "cause" of homosexuality, their question often carries an unspoken implication. They often pose the question as if there were some pathology or abnormality associated with homosexuality. In fact, while homosexuals do not comprise a numerical or statistical norm, there is nothing abnormal about them. Homosexuality is found in every country and society worldwide. Moreover, homosexuality is found in many species other than homo sapiens [humanity].
To return to my original point of telling [or portraying] the whole truth, I just want to mention the infamous "Willie Horton case" that occurred about two decades ago in the United States. In this infamous case, certain people shamelessly manipulated the case of Willie Horton to smear African-Americans. The case is now infamous and constitutes a classic example of "race baiting" and fear-mongering. No one with half a brain needs to be reminded that African-American culture is extremely diversified and complex, as is any culture. To post a few pictures portraying a very small sub-segment of a culture as representative of that culture is nothing but a smear and, effectively, a lie. While a few gays do engage in what can be called "fringe" activites, and while a few gays do profess fringe beliefs, there are many more gays who are just as outraged by these things as certain heterosexuals. As I have stated, there are many gays who are quite conservative as to cultural, political, and religious ideas.
In this respect, many gays closely resemble evangelical Christians. Just as it is the case with gays, I recognize that evangelicals are a diverse lot. They are not all semi-illiterate, uncivilized, Bible-thumping, inbred rednecks frothing at the mouths and screaming racist and antisemitic epithets. They are not all hypocritical ignoramuses. Just as it is the case with gays, evangelical Christians can be found on all socio-economical levels. There are both rich and poor evangelicals. Evangelcals are of all races and ethnic groups. There are even gay evangelicals. There is a growing awareness among evangelicals about environmental issues such as pollution and global warming. There is growing concern about solving the problems of poverty and world hunger. Perhaps evangelical are begininning to realize that their Leader had absolutely nothing to say about homosexuality. For Jesus, it was decidedly a "non-issue." I believe that there is an expanding diversity of thought among evangelicals. Perhaps they will gradually renounce their millenial and eschatological pipe-dream of the coming Kingdom. Perhaps they will learn to live in the present and for the present.
And they all can participate in democracy. Many modern, Western democracies are secular republics. As such, they don't take orders from mount Sinai, mount Zion, mount Ararat, or any other mountain. They don't accept the command[ment]s of some Bearded Thunderer with a large penis [envy?], circumcised or uncircumcised. Because democracies are secular societies, it is hard to imagine such a thing as "blasphemy." This means that people have the right to say what they want about God in the public sphere. I admit that the "religious dildos" display is utterly tasteless. However, such tasteless displays have to be permitted in democratic society. At least people can take comfort in one idea, which is that because - due to the very fact that - such unpopular expression is protected by law, then the law will also protect the expression of other ideas.
Most importantly, I believe that, in a democratic and secular republic, the primary goal should be to broaden the scope of democracy so as to include as many people as possible. Everyone - all groups - should be extended full rights and privileges. This should be an ever-expanding ideal within a republic.
-
5
Status of Women In The Pentateuch
by Rapunzel ini have a few questions in regard to a couple of bible passages that i have recently read.
i was hoping that someone may kindly elucidate a few issues.. in romans7:7, paul quotes the decalogue, specifically exodus 20:17, which reads - "you shall not covet your's neighbor's house.
in fact, how is a woman rendered unclean at all simply for having given birth?
-
-
Rapunzel
Hi Narkissos - If you say that I have "an excellent sense of historical context," I fear that you may be credting me much more than I deserve. While, in general, I am able to following your very well-written posts, I have nothing which even approaches your knowledge of history and the bible. For example, I was generally aware of what you mention in your first point [ your point number one regarding the wife as property]. As for the Hammurabi Code, I am aware of it [for example, I have read that it provides some vague concept of what we moderns would call "human rights'] but I have never read the original text in its entirety. As for your third point which establishes the dichotomy between "ceremonial" and "moral" sin and transgression, I only know of this through an recent, earlier post of yours in which you engaged in a dialogue on this issue with another poster.
In any case, it is obvious that you read my post very carefully and in its entirety, and I thank you for it. As you may have surmised, there was, in my post, an unstated subtext in the "background" [Is this not always the case? It seems that there is often a "message" in the background]. The "message" in the background of my post was one of anger. Specifically, I was angered by certain homophobic comments that have recently been posted. It seems that people are very fond of citing the injunction at Leviticus 18:22 which says "you will not lie with a male as with a female" [Incidently, it says nothing at all about a woman having sex with another woman as if she were a man. I wonder if lesbianism is ever specifically banned in the Bible]. However, they rarely mention Leviticus 19:27, which forbids clipping one's hair "at the temples" or cutting one's beard. Leviticus 19:28 forbids tatoos. Leviticus 19:25 says that people have to wait five years after planting a fruit tree until they eat from it. Leviticus 19:19 forbids the sowing of a field with two kinds of seed and the weaving of clothing with two different kinds of thread.
It seems that the all of the injunctions in the book of Leviticus, except the one at 18:22, are easily forgotten and/or neglected. I can only wonder why this is so.
-
33
Modern Bibles - Atonement - Part VI
by Perry inatonement over the years since leaving the wt, i have found the doctrine of the atonement to be one of the major litmus tests for determining christianity and apostate christianity.
the roman catholic church has transsubstantiation and the sacraments for salvation (among other things) and the wt simply rejects christ each year formally at the memorial.
the wt spin on the ransom negates the need for an actual exchange to take place with our savior.
-
-
Rapunzel
Jeff - Your point is well taken. As you know, it is crucial that a conversation [a dialogue] flow in both directions, or else it is a rant or tirade.
Perry never answers questions. He is incapable of any thought, never mind original thought. He is full of hate; and I have the sneaking suspicion that his loathing is actually self-loathing. It's interesting to note the photos and websites that he "cuts and pastes." They are from the "lunatic fringe." This is especially true in the way that Perry portrays gays and their "street fairs." For example, he never posts anything about culturally and politically conservative gays. Just as heterosexuals can be found all along the political and cultural spectrum, so it is the case with gays. There are many gays who hold politically conservative views. There are many, many gays who are pious and religiously conservative.
In short, homosexuals [both male and female] are extremely heterogeneous. Perry is very careful and conscious in his "editing." He consciously chooses to portray only a very miniscule segment of gay society - a segment of gay society which is by absolutely no means representative of homosexuals in general. Most gay people are indistinguishable from heterosexual people. They work at the same jobs, and live in the same neighborhoods.
In essence, Perry presents an obscenely limited, and thus distorting, image of gays [He seems obsessed with S and M. He should be reminded that it is not only a very few gays who are into it, there are also straights who do it. S and M is by no means limited to gays]. In consciously and willfully choosing to present such a deceptive and skewed portrait, Perry is a liar and a coward.
I mentioned how I suspected that Perry seems to be suffering from self-loathing. In fact, it would not surprise me if Perry himself were gay. He fits the profile exactly. He seems to have in his possession an inordinate amount of photos taken at "gay street fairs." I wonder as to the source of these photos. How did Perry come to have them? Did Perry himself take the photos? If so, why was Perry at such a street fair to begin with?Or, did one of Perry's friends [or "partners"] take the photos?
Perry fits the classic profile of a self-loathing, hypocritical gay. He obviously neurotic and obsessed with the notions of "guilt" and "sin." He compulsively presents grotesque and misleading charicatures of homosexuals [or as he calls them, "sodomites"]. Perry seems to be an inwardly tormented and conflicted individual. This is evdient in the way he "writes" ["rants is more the word for it].
Although I know it is a true exercise in futility, I would like to tell Perry that help is available in the form of counseling. Perry need not suffer self-loathing. In essence, the viewpoint traditional Judeo-Christianity, in regard to homosexuality, is itself perverse bullshit. As Mark Twain said, the Bible is full of inumerable lies. In our twenty-first century, no one need suffer a sense of guilt or self-loathing simply because they are gay. Gays share in the same human dignity as everyone else.