Damn, I am glad I don't live in a place with property value like that. I have a three bedroom, two bath house with a two car garage in a nice neighborhood and it doesn't cost me half of what a studio apartment goes for.
JonathanH
JoinedPosts by JonathanH
-
4
10 Days After Closing, 161 Columbia Heights Returns To Market As Rental
by leavingwt inan update on a recently sold wt property in brooklyn heights.. .
the watchtower residential property at 161 columbia heights that closed march 20 after a $3 million sale to investment and management firm sugar hill capital partners, is back on the market less than two weeks later as a rental.
according to curbed, after a quick renovation, the newly named five-story walk-up 161 heights offers one bedrooms starting at $2,995 a month; one studio for $1,995 a month; and one 2br, asking $4,100.
-
-
-
68
Was A Cancer Cure Quietly Eliminated?
by metatron inhttp://www.rexresearch.com/mebendazole/mebendazole.htm.
do a google on this and the subject gets interesting.
the science and research was there, in hand, and it was quietly discontinued.. metatron.
-
-
JonathanH
There is no "cure" for cancer. Cancer is not a thing, it is a classification of a cellular disorder. Saying "we have a cure for cancer" is like saying "we have a cure for virus." Really? Which virus? Or just "virus"? There are countless kinds of cancer and just as many causes. When biologists and doctors do research, they don't try to "cure cancer" (that is just a good line to give the public), rather they are trying to find ways to successfully treat specific kinds of cancer in specific areas of the body that don't kill the person they are treating.
So, sure. Yeah, we found a "cure" for virus, and a "cure" for cancer and a "cure" for death too. But big pharma just covered them all up. Don't let people tell you that all conspiracy theorists are conservative nut jobs. There exist liberal conspiracy theories too, and this is one of them.
-
100
CRAZINESS!!! I'M BEING 'MARKED' FOR GOING TO COLLEGE!!!
by MsGrowingGirl20 inohmygosh!!!
one of my friends who is a ms told me today that the elders have 'marked' me because i'm a reg.pioneer and i've decided to go to college next semester???!
he said he can't tell me anymore but to be careful---what the hell does 'mark' mean?
-
-
JonathanH
"Marked" means that they aren't taking action against you, but that you are considered questionable association that should be kept away from those that may be swayed by your actions into doing what you do. Depending on how seriously they view it, they may give a "marking talk" as the next local needs where they speak out against what you are doing, without naming you by name. You will probably also be strongly councelled privately.
College encourages critical thinking and considering mulitple viewpoints outside of your own, it also teaches how to give respect to views that clash with your own, and teaches you to challenge your own ideas, as well as how to properly do research. There is no greater threat to autocratic rulership than open minds and eyes. They fear college because you will learn how they are manipulating you. They are reacting against that.
-
32
So, what do you think of that, "pink slime" ground beef filler, now?
by moshe ini guess those cheap mcdonalds dollar menu burgers are just chock full that meaty goodnes.. .
-
-
JonathanH
Is there some story I am missing here?
-
80
Weird Pic in Awake - Jesus Looks Very Pleased About Something.
by cofty ina new member of the jws forum has posted this scan of a picture in the french edition the april 2011 awake.. i have never believed the subversive wt artist stories but this one is funny.. .
.
-
-
JonathanH
At first I didn't see it, then I was all like LOLZ, and now it's all I can see.
-
39
"Awake" 1973 says Witnesses should not play CHESS it's EVIL!!!
by Witness 007 inawake 73 march 22 p.12 "the spirit of competition between players can lead to unplesant circumstances...in some homes tensions linger long past checkmate...chess has been a game of war since it originated...the games conection to war is obvious....a play substitue for the art of war...there is a danger of stirring uo competition with one another even developing hostility with one another something the bible warns against....what effect does playing chess have on one?
is it a wholesome effect?
....there are questions regarding it that each one who plays chess should consider.".
-
-
JonathanH
There was also an article on Pac man promoting greed and gluttony when that was the in thing. How anybody can take that organization seriously is beyond me. But I guess I did it too for a time.
-
41
Christians don't "warn" people of god's judgement, they "threaten" people with god's judgement.
by JonathanH ini was reading an article recently where a street preacher is on trial for yelling at gay people that they will burn in hell.
he's arguing for freedom of speech.
whether or not that is within his rights is not really my concern here.
-
-
JonathanH
A couple of points.
1) Searril, you said vinny could incite his buddy to do violence, and you cannot. That is irrelevant. Simply add a sentence to the beginning of my example where Vinny's buddy says "Hey vinny, look at those queers over there. I really dislike queers. I mean, they need to just not exist." and the problem is fixed. Vinny isn't inciting anything, he is merely condoning the views of his sociopathic friend. If the language offends, just make Vinny more polite and give him a cheery british accent. His message remains the same. "You need to change, or my friend is going to harm you, and I am happy about that."
2) The lovey "we are all sinners" line also doesn't make a difference. If you believe that there will be some form of judgment, and that non-christians, and those that do not have any interest in abiding by an arbitrary list of rules (or in christian language, people "willfully sinning") will be judged against and there will be negative consequences for that judgment, and you condone this, then any warning given is a warning under the second definition.
This can only be reconciled in the mind in one of three ways.
a)Fuzzy reasoning. Simply claim that whatever god does is right, and you don't know what will happen, but it will be right. This is a cop out used so that no critical evaluation of the set of beliefs is necessary.
b) Redefine christianity so broadly that it becomes a form of deism+ambiguously important Jesus. In this way one can say that god isn't going to punish hindu's just because they are polytheistic demon worshippers, or Muslims and Jews for rejecting christ. Because they are trying, and some of them are good people. But that essentially is just the "all paths lead to god" approach with a condoscending addition of "but my path is still way better than yours." It is also closely related to solution (a), except it goes far enough to realize mass slaughter is wrong, but doesn't want to spend much more time trying to figure out how far back the line needs to be pushed so that god doesn't look like a sociopath.
or c) Just up and disagree with the god of the bible. Realize that something like homosexuality isn't an abomination, and that coercion by violence is never ok, even if (and especially if) you are the grand pubah of the universe.
-
41
Christians don't "warn" people of god's judgement, they "threaten" people with god's judgement.
by JonathanH ini was reading an article recently where a street preacher is on trial for yelling at gay people that they will burn in hell.
he's arguing for freedom of speech.
whether or not that is within his rights is not really my concern here.
-
-
JonathanH
It doesn't matter if a christian has the power to wipe gays off the planet, Searril. It matters that they condone that course of action. You can say it's simply not possible to threaten some one if you aren't the one following up on that threat, but that is utterly absurd.
Imagine a gay couple is sitting at a table at a resteraunt and a guy approaches them and says (in a bad italian mafia accent, or at least that is how it sounds in my head, we'll call him Vinny)
Vinny says, "Hey, just to, uh, let you guys know. My buddy over here has a real problem with faggots. They make him go all, like, crazy and he gets real, ya know, stabby, when he sees gay people doin' all this faggoty shit that you got goin on over here."
To which one of the gay persons respond
"are you threatening us?"
"Whoa, whoa, hey, whoa, I didn't threaten anybody, did anybody here me threaten anyone? Whoa, you got me all wrong here pal. I'm not gonna hurt ya, I'm just doin' you the kindness of lettin' you know ahead of time that you need to cut out this queer junk you got goin on over here, or things are gonna get real ugly on account of my friend over there who has a real problem with this gay shit. I mean it's your choice, maybe you think your pants would look better with a few splashes of blood red on them, I don't know, that might be your taste, but personally if it were me, I would like my blood on the inside of my body. Don't shoot the messenger, I'm just lettin you know what is about to happen here if you don't cut it out with the queer shit, your move pal."
Now in this scenario, can we really say that the interloper was "warning" them in the first sense of the word, as a kindness, out of concern for their well being? Or was his "warning" a thinly veiled threat? I mean he wasn't going to hurt anybody. But he did obviously condone the actions of his buddy, he wasn't telling his buddy that his actions or prejudices were wrong. He was telling the gay couple that they were.
The concern isn't whether or not the religiously inclined have the power or intent to wipe everyone off the face of the earth that doesn't agree with their moral views. What matters is whether or not that is their preference. If that is their ultimate preference they are just like the guy in this example. Siearril, you even said "You can take God's judgment as a threat if you want, but that's between you and Him. He has the power. I don't. If you don't like what He says about what you should or shouldn't do then take it up with Him one day when you get your chance." Whoa, whoa, whoa, you didn't threaten anybody. You was just bein' kind enough to let everyone know that if they don't clean up their act, it's gonna get real messy in here, that's all you're sayin'. To us. Not to your god.
At no point is my ultimate preference the mass annihilation of religious people. If I had a preference tree in regards to this issue it would go something like
1. People didn't allow ancient superstition to dictate their ethical views, nor made any attempt to make others feel guilty, ashamed, or ostracized for not adhering to said ancient superstition.
Barring that
2. An open dialogue is held in which ideas compete and none are treated as off limits. Poor ideas are thrown into the rubbish bin of history, strong and beneficial ideas spread through the population through reason and communication.
Barring that
3. Continue to attempt to have an open dialogue in which ideas compete, and none are off limits. Repeat ad naseum.
For me there is no ultimate preference of mass annilation of those that do not hold my beliefs. But every major monotheistic religion ends with that preference. The mass murder of the "wicked", where the "wicked" are defined as all those in opposition to that belief, and opposition to that belief is defined as "not explicitly condoning said belief." That is the inherent immorality of the religious mindset, that ultimately mass judgement/execution/torture is the final preference. As long as that remains true, any claims that their "warnings" are out of love and concern ring hollow. They will never be magnanimous warnings out of compassion, they will be thinly veiled demands of acquiescence.
-
41
Christians don't "warn" people of god's judgement, they "threaten" people with god's judgement.
by JonathanH ini was reading an article recently where a street preacher is on trial for yelling at gay people that they will burn in hell.
he's arguing for freedom of speech.
whether or not that is within his rights is not really my concern here.
-
-
JonathanH
Well that's the point of the second sense, black sheep. The first sense isn't a veiled threat any more than me telling you a serial killer is on the loose is a veiled threat. It becomes a threatening warning when I tell you that the serial killer will kill you if you don't change your behavior, and that you condone the serial killers actions. Those are two very different flavors of warning. The first one is out of a legitimate concern for the individual's wellbeing, the second is a sociopathic demand that comes with a consequence that, while less preferable to acquiescence, is still a condoned and preferable consequence. When one condones the consequence, then they aren't warning out of legitimate concern, they are threatening out of self interest.
-
41
Christians don't "warn" people of god's judgement, they "threaten" people with god's judgement.
by JonathanH ini was reading an article recently where a street preacher is on trial for yelling at gay people that they will burn in hell.
he's arguing for freedom of speech.
whether or not that is within his rights is not really my concern here.
-
-
JonathanH
I was reading an article recently where a street preacher is on trial for yelling at gay people that they will burn in hell. He's arguing for freedom of speech. Whether or not that is within his rights is not really my concern here. Rather it got me thinking. I commonly hear christians say that when they condemn homosexuality to the face of gay people or tell people that they need to get right with Jesus or what have you or else there will be a judgement imposed on them and it will not be good, what they are doing isn't bigotry or prejudice, rather it's a warning. They want to save people's souls, and so they warn them. After considering this man's actions I realized that there is an important semantic distinction to what is meant by "warn." A warning can be to prevent an undesirable outcome, or a warning can be a threat that if there is not a change of course, then there is a preferred negative consequence that will occur.
In the first sense, one gives a warning to prevent an outcome that is undesirable, in the second sense, one threatens when they are informing the recipient that their actions must change or a negative consequence will occur, and that while the change is the immediate preference, the negative consequence is the subsequent preference. For example. I could would warn you that a serial killer is on the loose. I warn you to prevent the outcome that you are murdered. But say I tell you that if you don't stop selling drugs to school kids, then I am going to call the police; that would be a threatening warning under the second definition. My first preference may be that you do not sell drugs to kids, but my preference in light of that not occuring would be for the police to intervene and prevent you from doing it.
Essentially there are branching trees of outcomes and preferences. Say for instance a terrorist straps a bomb onto his chest and walks into a classroom and holds a teacher and a bunch of kids hostage. A law enforcement squad of some sort shows up. Initially they attempt to reason with him in an attempt to get him to come out peacefully. When negotiations fail a sniper puts a bullet between his eyes and the situation is resolved. On a tree of preferences and outcomes I would have:
1: People wouldn't act as violent terrorists.
This does not occur, as some one is acting as a terrorist so we move on to preference two
2. The situation is peacefully resolved and the man can be lawfully detained without the loss of any lives.
but this also does not happen, which leads to preference 3
3.No innocent lives are lost, if that necessitates the loss of a hostile life then it must be done.
this is the last preference, but it is my preference. I feel no qualms, shame, or reservations in admitting that I would prefer the terrorist die to the outcome of innocent people dying. This is to prevent the negative outcome
-1:Terrorist self detonates killing innocent children and a teacher.
If a christian was to "warn" (in the first sense) a gay couple that there will be impending negative judgement for their sinful life style, that would imply that the ultimate outcome is in no way preferable and that would imply that the christian themself is in fact opposed to god's judgment. But that isn't the case. For them the preference tree is
1:Gay people don't exist. Homosexuality is a sin, and an imperfection in the world.
given that 1 obviously did not occur that leads to preference two
2:Gay people repent of their homosexual ways, stop practicing their gay lifestyle and make every attempt to align themselves with scriptural morality.
Given that there is no shortage of gay people who are totally not cool with that, and in fact find that deeply offensive, that leads to preference three.
3:God wipes the unrepentant gays off the face of the planet/has adverse judgement on gays with ambiguous but definitely negative consequences for the gay person/god condemns gay person to an eternity of hellfire, depending on the preffered theology.
Number 3 is the ultimate and final preference for it is viewed as the righteous and moral action for god to take, and must be done to prevent the negative outcome
-1:....? I don't know. Gays go on having fullfilling romantic relationships with members of the same sex contra to biblical morality? I guess. Or some extremely unrealistic socially conservative talking point of healthy family units ceasing to exist, mass aids epidemics, plummeting birth rates as everyone "goes gay" or some such.
The negative consequence isn't particularly relevant, the point is in order for it to be a "warning" in the first sense then outcome number three would have to be under no uncertain circumstances a negative outcome, not a positive one. As long as outcome number three is preferable under the circumstance of outcome one/two failing, then it is a warning intended as a threat.
When JWs go door to door and say they don't want anyone to die in armagedon, that may be technically correct and it may be their first preference on the tree. But if you reject the literature then their ultimate preference is that you die a violent death at god's hands, and the crows feast upon the flesh of millions of sinners after god's great day of wrath. Offering somebody literature isn't a warning, it is a threat.
While I have no qualms with saying that I would prefer the terrorist get shot in the head to the outcome of him killing a bunch of innocent kids, can a christian can look me in the eye and tell me with a straight face that their ultimate preference is mass murder or eternal punishment as a consequence of gay people having happy fulfilling relationships? If so then I find that chilling. Absolutely chilling. If a christian finds that notion disturbing as well, then that leaves them either disagreeing with god's views and actions, or having to take a long hard look at their biblical moral compass.