Posts by hillary

12

Retraining our WT-controlled minds - THE GAME 2

by Lady Lee in

i thought this might be a good way to help many of us to see the absurdity of some of the wts/jw rules "principles" .

women can't wear pants to meetings or service or i've heard even to go clean the hall.. what scriptures would the elders use to get a jw to conform.

you don't need to quote whatt he scripture and i certainly have no desire to do that but if you have the quotes handy feel free to post them.. the rule principle.

hillary_step

rapunzel.

1 Corinthians 11:14 does seem to prohibit men against wearing their hair long. Of course, one could ask: How long is (too) long? Throughout history, various groups of people have defined themelves in reaction against other - usually dominant - groups of people. So, perhaps the Roman men of that era tended to wear their hair long.

The Roman style for men was for short hair, cropped at the neck. The Corinthinian style was for transvestites of the hour, which were plentiful, to wear their hair like the woman of the day, long and 'up', hence Pauls repulsion. Paul was a bit of a self-righteous twit anyway, so do not worry too much about it. As it is, I am counting down the moments until our resident Messianic transvestite JCanon appears, dressed of course in a stunning two-piece with matching platinum wig, to give a more accurate explanation of his Scripture.

The safe thing to do in the C1st was to tell the 'elders' that you were a Nazirite born out of your time.

HS

32

Jah VERY Merciful -delaying the end

by stillajwexelder in

it struck me like a thunderbolt at 4.00 am this morning while tossing and turning in bed.

i used to say "isnt jehovah wonderful -he is being especially merciful by delaying the end so more people can come in the truth and be saved" the wtbts representatives have said the same.. problem here is that earths population grows about 20,000 per day (reference needed here) .

not even close to that come into the truth.

hillary_step

Yes, an ideal time to have bought Armaggedon would have been during the Middle Ages, when life was so outrageous. Imagine how much less work for the Angels to do if they slaughtered just the unfaithful who survived the Black Death. They could have done all their work in one weekend and still had time for a most heavenly barbacue.

Perhaps God likes killing people though. The more there are the merrier. My uncle, who was in the Treblinka Concentration Camp, once told me of two Ukranian guards who would practice their death strangle-grips on prisoners and take bets of who was the speediest at snapping the neck of the hapless prisoners who lined up terrified, awaiting their turn. I listened in depressed disbelief, until it dawned on me that 'Gods People' had done far worse than this and the God of the Bible patted their pointed little heads for doing so.

Then I just became cynical. ;)

HS

75

The "Historical Jesus" and Christian Faith

by Narkissos in

jw
friends

in the wake of lovelylil's recent threads on the "historical jesus," a side question.. let's assume, for the sake of the discussion, that the four canonical gospels are not historical accounts of jesus' life, but a much later elaboration of christian faith in narrative form -- there are many reasons for such a proposal, but i'm not going into them right now -- let's just assume.. what do you think would be better or worse to find out in the historical field, from the perspective of christian faith:.

1. that there was no "historical jesus" at all, and that the gospels are essentially a religious myth made (hi)story, "the word made flesh" so to say;.

2. that there was a "historical jesus" completely different from the christian saviour -- for example, a galilean apocalyptic prophet and political zealot, trying to cleanse the nation and the temple from both the roman occupation and ritual disorders, with no interest at all in starting a new universal (i.e.

hillary_step

XJW,

You miss my point. I never said that the atrocities committed by atheists were committed because they were atheists, but rather that the atrocities committed by these atheists were the logical extension of their beliefs, or lack thereof. Therefore no examples are neccessary.

On the contrary. How so?

HS

75

The "Historical Jesus" and Christian Faith

by Narkissos in

jw
friends

in the wake of lovelylil's recent threads on the "historical jesus," a side question.. let's assume, for the sake of the discussion, that the four canonical gospels are not historical accounts of jesus' life, but a much later elaboration of christian faith in narrative form -- there are many reasons for such a proposal, but i'm not going into them right now -- let's just assume.. what do you think would be better or worse to find out in the historical field, from the perspective of christian faith:.

1. that there was no "historical jesus" at all, and that the gospels are essentially a religious myth made (hi)story, "the word made flesh" so to say;.

2. that there was a "historical jesus" completely different from the christian saviour -- for example, a galilean apocalyptic prophet and political zealot, trying to cleanse the nation and the temple from both the roman occupation and ritual disorders, with no interest at all in starting a new universal (i.e.

hillary_step

narkissos,

Though the shock of having to seriously consider 1) might throw the believer into trying to prove 2), eventually both viewpoints will be embraced into some sort of new theology.
Again, this can be read in either negative or positive light. I understand one can shrug at such theological flexibility from an intellectual standpoint, but inasmuch as it implies both a living (experiential?) faith and the courage to face potential unpleasant facts and change interpretations, I prefer it to knee-jerk apologetics which betrays a lack of such faith and courage (and additionally hijacks the faith of all "true believers" into false dilemmas -- in the style of 1 Corinthians 15 again, if you don't believe this way your belief is worthless).

Yes, I could not agree more and this is perhaps one of the more positive aspects of being a 'non-believer'; one is not invested emotionally in having to reconcile the improbable with the impossible.

One of the things that imo seems to seperate the fundamentalist from the more reasoned believer is that one has more insecurity in their ideals than the other. I have no issue with a faith that is based on belief, in fact when it produces good, as it often does in society, I envy the surety and purpose that it imbues in its adherents. Good for them! After all most of life, religious or otherwise, is a bit of a ridiculous fantasy anyway, why not use our fantasies to help others and help ourselves to stay as sane as possible.

The fundamentalist is a special creature whose fantasies are actually regressive and could not survive without a varied, and imo very unhealthy depth of emotional dissonace. When I see them grinning like dolts, waving their arms in the air with their eyes closed, I fight the temptation to sell them on ebay as hall-stands.

HS.

75

The "Historical Jesus" and Christian Faith

by Narkissos in

jw
friends

in the wake of lovelylil's recent threads on the "historical jesus," a side question.. let's assume, for the sake of the discussion, that the four canonical gospels are not historical accounts of jesus' life, but a much later elaboration of christian faith in narrative form -- there are many reasons for such a proposal, but i'm not going into them right now -- let's just assume.. what do you think would be better or worse to find out in the historical field, from the perspective of christian faith:.

1. that there was no "historical jesus" at all, and that the gospels are essentially a religious myth made (hi)story, "the word made flesh" so to say;.

2. that there was a "historical jesus" completely different from the christian saviour -- for example, a galilean apocalyptic prophet and political zealot, trying to cleanse the nation and the temple from both the roman occupation and ritual disorders, with no interest at all in starting a new universal (i.e.

hillary_step

Narkissos,

An interesting thread. Were I a believer I would try hard to find a theological compromise in 2). However, as we noted on another thread, the believers faith is like water and can find any level and fill any void it needs to to survive.

Though the shock of having to seriously consider 1) might throw the believer into trying to prove 2), eventually both viewpoints will be embraced into some sort of new theology.

Looked at without dimensions, if a man told us that a voice instructed him to kill his son as a measure of his faith, we would rightly suppose that the person was suffering some sort of schizophrenic delusion. The believer however sees moral and prophetic purpose within this cameo. For this reason 'believers' are imo intellectually untrustworthy as both 1) and 2) would be viewed as a challenge to overcome, rather than a decision to be made.

HS

91

To all Bible believers... and non

by dawg in

jw
friends

my questions to you that believe the bible are this .

ok, so you come on this site and attack the jws, why cant you see that you are the same as the jws when you defend the bible?

after all, arent you defending the already dis proven faith that you believe?

hillary_step

Dawg,

But mixed into all these types of writings is an ancient wisdom that for me cannot be denied and I personally attribute this wisdom to God.

Why do you attribute these things to 'the wisdom of God"?

Lil,

Are the 'pearls of wisdom' of Christ greater than those of of Buddha? If so, why?

I am puzzled as to how divinity is ascribed so easily to sayings that are often clever, sometimes ridiculous, regularly boring and readily inconsistent. On that basis, I too am divine. ;)

HS

91

To all Bible believers... and non

by dawg in

jw
friends

my questions to you that believe the bible are this .

ok, so you come on this site and attack the jws, why cant you see that you are the same as the jws when you defend the bible?

after all, arent you defending the already dis proven faith that you believe?

hillary_step

lovley Lil,

The JW's have a distorted view of Christianity.

So does Christianity. It was born in doctrinal disagreement, it is still in doctrinal disagreement. Christians who criticize JW's do so over doctrine. JW's criticize mainstream Christians over doctrine.

Who does have the 'right' understanding of the Bible Lil?

HS

91

To all Bible believers... and non

by dawg in

jw
friends

my questions to you that believe the bible are this .

ok, so you come on this site and attack the jws, why cant you see that you are the same as the jws when you defend the bible?

after all, arent you defending the already dis proven faith that you believe?

hillary_step

XJW,

WIth all do respect I did not come away with that view. Dawg clearly equates the JW faith with Christianity when he stated:

That is exactly the point of my post!

The bickering by JW's over interpretation is no different from the bickering of mainstream Christianity over interpretation, including the issues ou note in your first post. They are both enjoying the same game.

This is the point that Dawg made and with which I am agreeing..

HS

91

To all Bible believers... and non

by dawg in

jw
friends

my questions to you that believe the bible are this .

ok, so you come on this site and attack the jws, why cant you see that you are the same as the jws when you defend the bible?

after all, arent you defending the already dis proven faith that you believe?

hillary_step

XJW,

I think that your OP may be in error because it appears to me that you are presupposing that the JW faith and New Testament Christianity are the same. In my research they are not similar. They have diametrically oposed views on theology, christology, soteriology, ecclesiology and eschatology (and I am just scratching the surface). However, you are entitled to your own opinion.

I think that Dawg's point is that both JW's, mainstream Christianity et al, rely on interpretation of Biblical texts upon which they base their faith.

As bickering over Biblical interpretations hounds the history of both the JW's and all other Christian religions, this very fact validates the point that Dawg is making.

HS

36

Supernaturalism and reason.

by Narkissos in

jw
friends

reading one more time (on the umpteenth thread about the 70 weeks of daniel, into which i'm not going again) the idea that "anti-supercalifragilnaturalistic bias" ruin the unbelievers' (or misbelievers') exegesis of bible texts, and readily admitting to such... bias, i have one very general and simple question which might be worth its own thread.. here it is:.

once you admit such thing as the "supernatural", .

on what grounds can you assess anything.

hillary_step

Robinson Crusoe,

I will not think anything to be supernatural that does not have an explanation except ,despite my age, I still get an overwhelming sense of wanting to be in a different position than the one I'm in when a female with the best ass of my dreams passes by and I feel things which I cannot explain and want to be in her dimension without ever having a chance!
To me that is supernatural - that something I know will feel better than I have ever felt even though I never felt it yet!

On the contrary, that is the least supernatural thing in human expereince.

HS

hillary_step

Posts by hillary_step