JanH

Joined

• started 67 topics
• posted 1,771 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by JanH

• 
  9

  ??

  by somebody in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i was in the live chat today and was chatting with achristian ( tell your wife i'll dye my hair blonde, if it keeps you out of the doghouse[8>] ),logical, and a few others about the subject of worshipping jesus.

  my nwt is the 1961 version and still has the word "worship" in hebrews 1:6. i decided to do a search on my cd to see if i could figure out what year it was that it was revised and the word worship taken out an replaced.

  i figured i'd share with you all a "sarcastic" answer the wbts gave in the question from readers section of a watchtower.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  JanH

  NL2,

  : Now can you please explain the 'logic' behind these two JW views??

  If you only had the Holy Spirit you would understand it.

  In lieu of that, you can try spirits :-)

  - Jan
• 
  140

  NEW RELIGION! NEED INPUT!

  by TR in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  this is sort of a take-off of the "what should the wt do" thread.. i need to get together a board of directors and elect a president and officers.

  we need to figure out a doctrine, a manifesto, and a set of disciplinary rules.

  we need to figure out a way to fund our new movement.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  JanH

  plh,
  

  as for for sexual morality--as long as no one is being hurt, i don't really care what you do in your bed. JUST HAVE FUN

  
  No, no, no. You've got it all wrong.

  You can't get meek followers who will fill your coffins with booty, eh, contributions if you don't have guilt. You need the rank & file to have as much sex as they want, and then feel guilty about it afterwards and make amends. (For the top brass: hey, they are always above the law anyway)

  Think about all the religions ever invented by men. Where are all those who didn't have laws against sex? Gone. Sexual repression is a cornerstone of religion and ideaology.

  - Jan
• 
  9

  ??

  by somebody in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i was in the live chat today and was chatting with achristian ( tell your wife i'll dye my hair blonde, if it keeps you out of the doghouse[8>] ),logical, and a few others about the subject of worshipping jesus.

  my nwt is the 1961 version and still has the word "worship" in hebrews 1:6. i decided to do a search on my cd to see if i could figure out what year it was that it was revised and the word worship taken out an replaced.

  i figured i'd share with you all a "sarcastic" answer the wbts gave in the question from readers section of a watchtower.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  JanH

  Somebody,

  You obviously have a hard time understanding JW Logic(tm).

  Let me explain it to you.

  When all angels fall down and "do obeisance" to Jesus, that is not worship. However, when a child salutes the flag or recites the pledge of allegiance, that is worship.

  Clear as ink, isn't it?

  - Jan

  Edited by - JanH on 20 March 2001 20:20:32
• 
  52

  Neanderthals and the Bible?

  by uncle_onion in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i am doing some research on neanderthals.

  we know that this species existed and by very recent dna test we can tell that they are definitely not human.has any one done anything on this subject or the accuracy of carbon dating?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  JanH

  I think you have to take genesis seriously, but not literally.

  What exactly do you mean, Jelly? If it is symbolic, what do you think it symbolizes? What great truth exactly is it explaining in metaphorical language, if that is what you mean?

  And the view that the genesis account took place over a long period of time is not a new one. Thomas Acquanis (sp?) is the first one I know of that purposed the idea.

  I think it came from Jewish thinkers quite a bit earlier, but I'm not sure.

  It was common, for example in the 19th century, to argue that Genesis 1 descrived evolution in poetic terms. Thomas Huxley in particular gave that idea a hard time. There is no indication whatsoever that whoever wrote that text had any specific knowledge about the origin of life or anything else.

  Jan H I would like to know what you mean by 'depends on what you mean by wrong'.

  
  If you take it that Genesis has any meaningful information on the origin of life, then it's wrong. If you allow great timespans, etc, it's still wrong. The order of events, for example, is meaningless.

  I dont believe Genesis is wrong, I think people are but not genesis. I believe genesis is mostly a metaphor, it exist to explain where we come from and how we got seperated from the creator.

  
  But what does it tell about this?

  Indeed, Genesis itself tells about a God who lied to humans, and a snake telling the truth. It tells about a human race awakening to sexual desire, and getting cursed for it: the men with hard work, the women with painful childbirths, and the snake by losing its legs.

  It may be a good myth and good poetry, but you have to look elsewhere for truth.

  - Jan
• 
  52

  Neanderthals and the Bible?

  by uncle_onion in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i am doing some research on neanderthals.

  we know that this species existed and by very recent dna test we can tell that they are definitely not human.has any one done anything on this subject or the accuracy of carbon dating?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  JanH

  : Creation occured through evolution, and man sprang from previous manlike animals. I dont think my view means the bible is wrong because I do think a creator (and possibly angels) started and directed the process.

  Depends what you mean by "wrong" doesn't it?

  It is interesting that the more you know about the origins of humanity and life generally, the less seriously and literally you have to take the Genesis creation account(s).

  Most people fail to recognize that the objective of this Genesis text was theological, not about natural science. The Hebrew author was in a religious debate, most probably with Babylonians, who believed something like the polytheistic Enuma Elish creation myth. The author of Genesis chapter 1 wrote an answer to such myths. Not only were polytheistic references replaced with the one supreme God, but its author insisted that what other cultures regarded as gods -- sun, moon, various animals -- were indeed created by this One Supreme God.

  Remember that all creation myths were political statements. The babylonain myths placed Marduk, the Babylonian chief god, on the top of the food chain, superiour to other nations' gods. The Hebrew author made a myth that not only placed Yahweh (interestingly, he avoided that name) on the top, but made only vague references to even acknowledge the existence of secondary gods ("let us make").

  - Jan
• 
  4

  BMJ debate nearing conclusion

  by Lee Elder in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i believe the bmj debate on the blood issue is nearing an.

  end.

  what will probably be my last post was added to the.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  JanH

  Good job LE,

  Furuli is an excellent example of a stuffed shirt with no substance, as his messages on this topic amply demonstrates.

  He loves sitting at the top of the tables with "worldly wisdom", but he loves even more to be seen as a big shot inside the JW community. Among Norwegian JWs he enjoys immense respect, and they often point to him as an example of an educated person who still believes JW doctrines.

  As they say, in the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king.

  Anong JWs, it is rather the truth that in the land of the blind, the man with the only walking stick is king, even when it is broken.

  - Jan
• 
  24

  Hi Prisca. I am Norm, and I am new here

  by Norm in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  hi, prisca,.

  i am norm, and i am new here.. .

  this post is primarily for those folk on this board, who post .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  JanH

  Hi TW,

  You wrote to Norm:
  

  "On another thread you were mentioning why you still believed the WT Org. was the truth."

  LOL. No, that was Normie, a totally different person.

  Thank heavens :)

  - Jan
• 
  56

  Why I Think Its The Truth!

  by normie67 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  this is normie thoughts on the threads about the truth..... i have huge doubts about a lot of things about the org.

  i have been a jw for 20 yrs and still active(family reasons).

  but nobody but nobody has refuted to my mind, the fact nobody does the evangelizing work jesus did.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  JanH

  Normie,

  You seem pretty occupied with the way JWs interpret these specific scriptures. When JWs read Mt 28:19,20 or Mt 24:14, they get a mental image of some people in suits & dresses knocking on doors with magazines in hand.

  So, since this is (almost) unique to JWs, a JW will reinforce his belief that JWs are the only ones fulfilling these words. But these texts don't say anything about house-to-house evangelizing. In fact, we actually know thet Jesus prohibited this superficial form of preaching; he said 'Do not go from house to house.' (Lk 10:5-7)

  If we assume, for sake of argument, that Jesus actually said "go out and make disciples of all the nations", we see that Jesus were discussing the objective, not the method. Christians should not go through the motions of knocking on doors or whatever, but do what it took to convert people. And JW-style "cold calls" to a hostile audience is clearly counter-productive; sects that do not use this controversial method currently increase faster (pentecostalites, SDA, others).

  Unlike what some JWs seem to think, religions almost exclusively spread through social networks. The typical convert is a family member or a friend of somebody already in the sect. You no doubt know this from experience. Not one in a thousand cold door-calls are successfull, while an eager JW can often convert his or (typically) her family and a few friends in a few years. Sociologists Stark and Bainbridge directly observed the "Moonies" when they first came to the U.S., and observed no cold conversions whatsoever. JW statistics demonstrate that the same, more or less, applies to them.

  Seeing, as we do, that Christianity started with a handful of people around 50 AD and ended up overtaking the Roman empire and later the whole of Europe, America and sizeable portions of all other continents, it's hard to escape the conclusion that this evangelization work succeeded beyond any reasonable expectations.

  When you assert that JWs are the only one evangelizing, you have in your head the picture of a typical JW going around knocking on doors. But nowehere does Jesus ask anybody to do this; quite the contrary.

  Of course, a member of a mainstream Christian religion will conclude that the western world has been evangelized; all their neighbours are Christian or at least know as much about that religion as can be imagined. JWs only go door to door in these countries because they take the secterian position that all other Christian sects and denominations are "false Christians." If you remove this belief, the whole idea of going door-to-door in Christian neighbourhoods is absurd.

  - Jan
• 
  23

  Just doin' what I'm told

  by COMF in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  unk says i have to come up here and say hi and get hugged by y'all.

  hi.. now, don't crowd around all at once, i'll hafta hurt somebody.

  comf

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  JanH

  Hi COMF.

  Seems the whole old guard is over here now. Seeker just posted, using his old handle :-)

  - Jan
• 
  15

  Three reasons why we believe The Jehovah's Witness

  by Enchanter in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  three reasons why we believe the jehovah's witnesses have the truth.. 1. we will live forever in paradise and watch everything die over and over.. 2. because we don't trust our familymembers or friends who were very close to us, are apostates now.

  but the governing body, who we don't know at all, trust our lives to and do everything they say.. 3. governing body can't find willing women to have oral sex with.

  so nobody can.. enchanter

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  JanH

  Logical:
  : The Jehovah's Witness believe three inportant things, that certainly point toward them as being modern day Israel

  What you're essentially doing is making the best possible case for Judaism being the "right religion".

  When I read Paul's letters, it is clear that he made a case for distinguishing the Christians from the Jews, and even from the Judaist groups within early Christianity. What you are doing is the opposite: arguing that the "true christians" must be as close to pre-Christian Judaism or even Israelitic religion (which wasn't monotheistic, btw) as possible.

  - Jan