Posts by JanH

42

A Bible contradiction?

by uncle_onion in

jw
friends

another book i am reading called "the jesus mysteries" makes this claim:.

"according to matthew, jesus is born in the reign of herod, who tries to have him killed as a baby to prevent him becoming king of the jews.

herod who died in 4bce.........luke makes a similar point of having his jesus born 10 years later at the time of the census of 6ce.".

JanH

bigboi,

In your rendition of that account if you're being technical, then yes Jesus was wrong in that he didn't quote the scripture verbatim.

Being "technical" is not the problem. Of course it is a paraphrase. That is fine. But Jesus is actually wrong in all details, even the major facts that made this story relevant for Jesus' discussion with the Scribes in the first place. That includes numbers, places, names and events.

Of course, you know that, since you made no detailed attampt to rebut my quite detailed analysis of the text. You just handwave and make some comments that demonstrate you haven't even bothered to look up this text.

But he did paraphase it quite nicly and took in to account what anyone who reads the text could naturally infer.

That is false. I cannot imagine you can say that if you've read the account. The below indicates you haven't even bothered to look it up. I guess you just "know" that the Bible cannot be wrong, eh?

For instance though David was alone when he approached the Priest it's obvious that he was seeking to procure some sustenance for others whom he would meet later as he indicated.

No, it is not "obvious." It is not even true! Did you bother to look up 1 Samuel before posting?

David had just said goodbye to Jonathan for the last time. Of course nobody was with him when he escaped. He needed supplies, and went to the priests to get bread and a weapon. He went to Gat, where he had to play crazy to escape. He was obviously alone here. Then he escaped to live in some caves. Only there (22:1) did he meet others, who actually were family members. They came, it says, because they had heard he were hiding there. So they had not accompanied him to Nob.

Otherwise why would he ask for five loaves of bread?

What a nonsensical argument. He was running from the king, and needed as much supplies as he could get for a long, dangerous journey. And do you know the sizes of these breads? Remember these breads were unleavened. We're hardly talking major meals.

Also the priest to indicated that althought they were not present that David was in fact with others because he gave the bread under the stipulation that the men had not slept with any women.

Now you're really out to lunch. The priest "indicated" it because David had just told him that this was the case. Read verse 2. In verse 4, we see that the priest Ahimelech makes a reference to the same men David had just claimed would join him. The point is that David lied to Ahimelech, but the priest did believe him (which got him killed later).

It is interesting to note that Jesus' point in making a reference to this story builds upon his own sloppy memory. Jesus' point was that people could even enter the Holy if there was an emergency. That is false! David did not enter it. The breads were no longer on display.

But thank you for demonstrating what I said earlier: Christians often make all sorts of ridiculous attempts to reconcile black with white to make excuses for even the most obvious Bible errors. In so doing, they demonstrate not only lack of logical skills, but a sloppy knowledge about the Bible itself. Lastly, such examples of excusogetics (sic) demonstrates gross intellectual dishonesty.

- Jan
--
Faith, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel. [Ambrose Bierce, The Devil´s Dictionary, 1911]

24

What is an apostate?

by esther in

jw
friends

the meaning of 'apostasy' given in my dictionary is "abandonment of religious faith, vows, principles or party".

i used to think that only cults considered leaving their religion to be apostasy, but according to my dictionary, as quoted above,everyone who changes their religion is technically an apostate.

so were those of us who changed from other religions to become jws apostates then?

JanH

JanG:

In Greek it literally means "leaving the teachings of the apostles"

Not even close.

- Jan
--
Faith, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel. [Ambrose Bierce, The Devil´s Dictionary, 1911]

7

Independent Thinking - Prohibited?

by dutyfree in

jw
friends

there are many people who claim that jws are brainwashed... i am not going to disagree with that statement!.

i have read somewhere that jws are specifically instructed not to think independently and/or logically, as that is satan's way of getting to you!.

when i told this to someone recently she said she was an independent thinker and had never heard that - unfortunately i cannot remember where i heard or read it - i think it was on a website.

JanH

Whatever one can accuse religionists for, thinking isn't their most common pasttime. JWs are only a particularly extreme example of a group that not only encourages, but requires, deliberate non-thought.

"Fight Against Independent Thinking
... Yet there are some who point out that the organization has had to make adjustments before, and so they argue: "This shows that we have to make up our own mind on what to believe." This is independent thinking. Why is it so dangerous? Such thinking is an evidence of pride." (WT 1/15 1983, p. 27; emphasis added)

How do you do "dependent thinking"? Isn't that a contradiction in terms?

The funny thing is what the WTS elsewhere has said about "independent thinking":

"Man possesses a mind and a heart, not controlled automatically by instinct, but capable of independent thinking and reasoning, making plans and decisions, exercising a free will, building up strong desires and motivation. That is why you are capable of exercising the fine qualities of love and loyalty, of devotion and integrity. That is why you are also capable of understanding what God has revealed in his Word respecting his will and purpose, and how you can find achievement and contentment in bringing your own life into complete harmony therewith." (WT 3/15 1972 p. 170; emphasis added)

Logically, then, JWs who follow the advice of the 1983 WT (many, if judged by certain loyalists!) are incapable of "love and loyalty, of devotion and integrity". They are also unable to understand the Bible, and to bring their life in harmony with God's will. Didn't we just know it?

What quality motivates the JWs to refuse to use their brains? The WT again answers:

"Fear has a great hold on the people. People are afraid of what their neighbors, their friends, relatives and clergy might think if they were even so much as to read the Bible on their own. For centuries the clergy have dominated their lives, told them what they can read, what they should believe and do. To ask a sound religious question is a demonstration of lack of faith in God and the church, according to the clergy. As a result, the Irish people do very little independent thinking. They are victims of the clergy and fear; but freedom is in sight." (WT 8/1 1958 p. 460; emphasis added)

Yes, indeed, freedom from superstitious fear is in sight. It's called independent thinking.

- Jan
--
Faith, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel. [Ambrose Bierce, The Devil´s Dictionary, 1911]

42

A Bible contradiction?

by uncle_onion in

jw
friends

another book i am reading called "the jesus mysteries" makes this claim:.

"according to matthew, jesus is born in the reign of herod, who tries to have him killed as a baby to prevent him becoming king of the jews.

herod who died in 4bce.........luke makes a similar point of having his jesus born 10 years later at the time of the census of 6ce.".

JanH

Very interesting but some of those contradictions can be explained ie

And how can you explain those?

I see Christians sometimes make claims that it can be "explained" but are more reluctant to actually try to post that explanation. Like the utterly ludicruous idea that the differing geneaologies for Jesus can be "explained" by saying one of them is for Mary.

- Jan
--
Faith, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel. [Ambrose Bierce, The Devil´s Dictionary, 1911]

14

JWs and odd health practices

by Seeker in

jw
friends

i noted a long thread earlier that dealt with the frequency with which jws will accept medical practices that are far out of the mainstream.

kinesiology, and herbs, and the like were all mentioned, and there was much discussion about whether these things should be taken seriously or not.

i do not want to get into such a discussion, but wanted to talk about why i think jws are so frequently involved in such health pursuits.. someone mentioned that jws are trained to be suspicious of the medical establishment, and that's right.

JanH

Good topic, Seeker.

I think there are a number of reasons for this. It might appear to be a strange thing, since the WTS officially seems to hail scientific medicine and discourage alternative treatments. This is especially apparent in Awake!

First, I'll list two pretty obvious reasons: 1) JWs actually did have a time when the WTS encouraged quackery and even denied the "germ theory of disease", in the days of the crackpot Woodworth as "Golden Age" editor. Rutherford was no less a quack; and 2) the blood ban and the controversies surrounding it has caused the JW community to be generally negative to medical professionals.

Second, there might be a more complex reason. "Alternative" treatment stories, like religions, propagate through existing social networks. They tell success stories ("I was given up by doctors but trough this fantastic X medicine I was healed.") which are not very unlike religious conversion stories. A religion like JW-dom, secterian in nature, provides a perfect network for such ideas to propagate. I think you'll find the same to be true for other sects.

- Jan
--
Faith, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel. [Ambrose Bierce, The Devil´s Dictionary, 1911]

42

A Bible contradiction?

by uncle_onion in

jw
friends

another book i am reading called "the jesus mysteries" makes this claim:.

"according to matthew, jesus is born in the reign of herod, who tries to have him killed as a baby to prevent him becoming king of the jews.

herod who died in 4bce.........luke makes a similar point of having his jesus born 10 years later at the time of the census of 6ce.".

JanH

I can't resist using this opportunity to post another contradiction in the Bible, a bit less known:

How much did Jesus know about the Bible? Not having a handy edition around, he had to rely on his memory. And how well did Jesus recall an account from the text? Let's see one example:

Mark 2:25, 26 "But he said to them: "Have you never once read

The answer would, as we shall see, be "no, I have never read that."

what David did when he fell in need and got hungry, he and the men with him?

This is wrong. David was alone, as the story in 1 Samuel chapter 21 reveals. Ahimelech was suspicious about this fact, asking "Why is it you are by yourself, and no one is with you?" (v1) David actually lied to the priest, claiming to be on a secret mission for the king, when he in reality was a fugitive on the run. David claimed he would meet the other men later: "And I have made an appointment with the young men for such and such a place." (v2)

How he entered into the house of God

Jesus remembers wrong again. David went to Nob (1 Sam. 21:1), and Ahimelech gave him bread that the priests had earlier removed from the holy table, as verse 6 goes to great pains explaining. What David received, was "the showbread that had been removed from before Jehovah so as to place fresh bread there on the day of its being taken away". Furthermore, the text does not state that David actually ate the bread, although we can probably assume he did.

in the account about Abiathar the chief priest,

Wrong again. It was in the days of Ahimelech the priest (1 Sam. 21:1). Abiathar enters the story in 1 Sam 22:20, as a son of Ahimelech that escapes from the place where Doeg kills Ahimelech and the other priests. 2 Sam 8:17, on the other hand, tells us that Ahimelech was the son of Abiathar. We can understand that Jesus was a bit confused.

and ate the loaves of presentation, which it is not lawful for anybody to eat except the priests, and he gave some also to the men who were with him?""

As we saw above, there was no men with him.

The WTS often makes much of the fact that the New Testament frequently refers to and quotes from Old Testament texts. The fact is, NT writers frequently misquotes, misapplies and are plain wrong about their references. Many NT writers were not very well versed in the Holy Scriptures, and this applies especially to the synoptical gospels, which helps explain blunders as the ones we can see above.

- Jan
--
Faith, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel. [Ambrose Bierce, The Devil´s Dictionary, 1911]

42

A Bible contradiction?

by uncle_onion in

jw
friends

another book i am reading called "the jesus mysteries" makes this claim:.

"according to matthew, jesus is born in the reign of herod, who tries to have him killed as a baby to prevent him becoming king of the jews.

herod who died in 4bce.........luke makes a similar point of having his jesus born 10 years later at the time of the census of 6ce.".

JanH

Right.

Matthew has Jesus being born during the reign of Herod. Josephus tells us that Herod died shortly after an eclipse. This has made it possible to date his death to around 4 BC with a quite high probability. Nobody suggests Herod died later than 1 BC.

Luke, on the other hand, is quite clear that Jesus was born during the census conducted by Cyrenius (Luke 2:1-2). Josephus records that Cyrenius became a governor of Syria when Archelaus was banned, which happened in his 10th year. This happened in the year 6 CE, which is 10 years after the death of Herod. It cannot have been earlier, since we know Syria indeed became a Roman province no sooner than 6 CE, so nobody could have been governor there earlier. This is confirmed by a number of sources.

Apologists have sometimes made attempts to reconcile this problem. For example, they claim that Jesus was born during an earlier census. However, Luke says this was the first census, and Josephus says the same thing. No record of an earlier Roman census of Palestine exists.

This is not the only contradiction between the birth accounts in Matthew and Luke. Obviously, these were two different traditions, and the stories are wholly different and not possible to harmonize. Attempts by fundamentalists to harmonize the gospels might, however, provide the rest of us with some amusement.

- Jan
--
Faith, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel. [Ambrose Bierce, The Devil´s Dictionary, 1911]

10

I Need Hep With Photo Please

by Francois in

jw
friends

i have placed my photo in yahoo like wasasister tole me to do; and placed the url in the profile.

but it doesn't show up as you can plainly see.

does anyone have a clue why i can't get a clue on how to do this right?.

JanH

The URL is to your yahoo area, not to your photo. An url to a photo generally ends in ".jpg" (sans quotes).

- Jan
--
Faith, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel. [Ambrose Bierce, The Devil´s Dictionary, 1911]

10

Another Crime By A Former JW Running Amok!

by dshields1 in

jw
friends

just another example of the watchtower mind control going haywire on someone who has been disfellowshipped.

if they aren't killing themselves then they are killing others!.

doug.

JanH

True, COMF.

I have, however, two comments. First, JWs have been playing the game for so long, they simply deserve to see the shoe on the other foot, so to say.

Second, and more importantly, this wacko's idea that it will be best for the children if someone killed them now, before Armageddon, actually follows logically from standard JW doctrines. He has just taken it more seriously than the average JW. This is not unusual for psychos. Whether he would still want to kill children even if those doctrines did not exist, we cannot know.

- Jan
--
Faith, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel. [Ambrose Bierce, The Devil´s Dictionary, 1911]

62

The Natural Law fallacy and Homosexuality

by JanH in

jw
friends

there is a fallacy of logic that is so common that few people realize that it is, indeed, a fallacy of logic: the fallacy by appeal to nature.. one argument against homosexuality goes something like this:.

the natural use of the reproductive organs is obviously to make children.

using these organs in a way that cannot produce children is unnatural and thus ethically wrong.. .

JanH

Hi folks,

Thanks for your comments. Even you, Julie *g*

I see most of the participants on this board had no problem seeing what I said.

Jim really understand what I am trying to tell you. I grew up a JW, and like most heterosexual JW men, I had a serious problem with male homosexuality.

Ironically, it was Jim Penton who helped me to understand the issues. He said that he aestethically had a big problem with male homosexuality, but he made it clear that was all it was about. And I agree. It is a question of pure aestehtics, not of morality. And when I realized that, I understood that any "moral" objection to gay men is just nonsense: an excuse for allowing personal prejudices to override your sense of humanity.

It is a worn and overused line, but I have friends who are gay (men and women). I don't have any problems with what they do. What helped me realize the insensitive nature of anti-gay slogans was to ask myself: How would I feel if anyone rejected my love for my woman and said it was "perverted" and "unclean" and then had the nerve to proclaim they "love the sinner but hate the sin." I would consider the whole idea absurd. If someone rejects my sexuality they reject me. If someone hates my sexuality they hate me. And I am quite convinced that gay people feel the same about their partners. So, anyone who is disgusted by gay sexuality indeed rejects persons who are gay and proclaims them to be subhuman and unclean.

I am sure that lots of straight people would object to stuff I do sexually if they knew about it (don't ask!). Possibly even some gay people would object; I don't know. I have just one comment to that: go fuck yourselves. And I essentially hold the same position about the anti-gay sentiments a few dysfunctional people have expressed on this board.

That said, I think we can be proud of most members of this board. Most of us have been JWs, being indoctrinated with hate towards all sorts of allegedly "deviating" behaviour, homosexuality in particular. Yet, all but the most narrow-minded here are open about it. Straigh people may not really "understand" those who have same-sex sexual preferences, but we totally accept it is one of the variations in preferences and taste that makes life varied and interesting.

- Jan
--
Faith, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel. [Ambrose Bierce, The Devil´s Dictionary, 1911]