Posts by Oroborus21

91

Brooke's night at the Memorial!

by ButtLight in

jw
friends

im posting for brooke, cause she is in the middle of a bet, and cant post till may 3rd.

and we know how determined she can be.

she wont loose.

Oroborus21

Is it just me or does Brooke look just a bit like a man? don't know her story. Is she transgender? curious - Ed

31

Britney's baby suffers a fractured scull - taken to hospital 6 days later.

by Elsewhere in

jw
friends

sorry if this offends, but the only thing that comes to mind is: you can take the girl out of the trailer park but you can't take the trailer park out of the girl.. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=16934293%26method=full%26siteid=94762%26headline=exclusive--britney-tot-cracks-his-skull-name_page.html 12 april 2006exclusive: britney tot cracks his skullexclusive singer and hubby quizzed over baby's injuryby ryan parry, us correspondent.

britney spears and her husband are being quizzed after their baby son suffered a suspected fractured skull.

six-month-old sean smashed his head falling to the ground from his high chair.

Oroborus21

Elsewhere:

The question is not whether Stereotypes have a kernel of truth or observation contained within them, for they often do, but rather the question is are we willing to be above using them and also are we careful when we do use them that they are appropriate.

Sometimes for humor and less often in anger they may be appropriate, but most of the time it is not appropriate to stereotype.

This is what I found on Britney's childhood which seems to indicate that she didn't have anything like what fits the trailer-park stereotype:
Born on December 2, 1981, Britney Jean Spears was destined for stardom. “Even as a little baby, Britney was a real darling…she was always being noticed.” Says Lynne Spears, Britney’s Mom. Lynne has even said that Britney was dancing around at the early age of two. In fact, Britney’s parents believed in her abilities so much that Lynne would drive two hours everyday just so Britney could attend gymnastics classes. Although gymnastics was a fun pastime for Britney--the uneven bars and floor exercise were her favorites--she found that she wasn’t nearly as strong as the other girls and although she practiced over three hours a day, the moves didn’t come near as easy to her. Giving up on gymnastics was a total loss, however, as Britney soon found out that it had developed her skills as a dancer. Changing her goals, the future queen of pop performed at her first talent show at the early age of six. By the time she was nine, she was already traveling around to different dance competitions performing in the jazz lyrical dancing category. Gymnastics and dancing at an early age wasn’t the only preparation she did for her future career--Lynne has said that Britney could be found singing all the time. The song “What Child is This” was her first key to stardom--she sang it at her kindergarten graduation. It wasn’t until later that Lynne realized that Britney could have a future in singing, when Britney was bouncing around on the trampoline. On top of Britney’s singing and dancing as a young child, she also competed in beauty pageants. At five she won first place in the Kentwood Dairy Festival; at seven, she was awarded silver first-prize for Miss Talent USA. And that’s not all--the Spears’ home is filled with other trophies Britney has collected over the years.

The Mickey Mouse Club was Britney’s first real taste of success, but initially she wasn’t allowed on the show because of her age. The producer of the show knew talent when he saw it, though, and set Britney up with an agent in New York. Britney spent three summers at the Professional Performing Arts School Center and appeared in a number of off-Broadway productions. Her first real lead was in a comedy called Ruthless. In 1992, Britney left Ruthless and landed a spot on Star Search. She won the first round, but was beaten by another contestant in the second. This setback didn’t deter Miss Spears, who knew in her heart that she was destined for greater things. Finally, Britney returned to audition for the MMC again; except this time she was offered a job! Along with Justin Timberlake, JC Chasez, Christina Aguilera, and Kari Russell, Britney rapped, sang, and danced through over 110 skits on the show. After two years, in 1994, MMC was canceled, leaving Britney to wonder what was next.

Britney tried the “normal” kid thing for awhile, but by age fifteen she couldn’t stand being out of the spotlight anymore. She started out by recording several songs on a homemade demo and then returned to the person who had helped her out before: Entertainment Lawyer Larry Rudolph. Rudolph immediately set Britney up with Jive Records. After listening to her tape, Jeff Fenster, senior vice president of artists and recording for Jive Records, said, “she was intriguing, so we had her come in and audition for us in person.” What did she audition to? “Jesus Loves Me” and “I Have Nothing” by Whitney Houston. After her performance, everyone in the room was amazed and Britney was immediately offered a recording contract.

Shortly after, Jive went to work on Britney’s first album. The eleven tracks on her freshmen album were recorded all over the world: from Sweden at Max Martin’s studio to New Jersey, where she worked with Eric Foster White. After the production on her CD was finished, Jive set forth on promoting their newest artist. Months before her album came out Britney’s name was on teenager’s lips everywhere. She even embarked on a mini-tour throughout malls in the US to promote her yet-to-be released CD. Britney then landed the coveted spot as *N Sync’s opening act on their 1998 tour. But, that was only the edge of the iceberg for Britney.

In late December 1998, Jive Records released Britney’s first single “…Baby One More Time” and by January, it was a number-one hit. Britney’s album debuted at number one shortly thereafter, paving the road for one of the world’s biggest stars. Unfortunately, in February 1999, Britney’s luck took a turn for the worst. While filming the video for her second single, “Sometimes,” Britney tore cartilage in her left knee and was forced take a brief break to have surgery. After she was done recuperating, Jive immediately set her up with her own headlining tour sponsored by Tommy Hilfiger.

From then on, Britney’s career has been a roller coaster ride.
---------
Legolas: Believe it or not most parents don't rush into the emergency room with every fall or tumble that a child takes (though I have one friend that does.) And it is not true that a doctor called to the home would automatically prescribe an x-ray if his physical examination did not reveal any outward signs of physical injury and if the baby was not showing any signs of neurological injury or abnormality. Most likely in the absence of such evidence, he would caution the parents to monitor and observe the child closely for the next few days and tell them to take the child into the doctor or the emergency room if there is anything unusual observed.

According to what has been reported, the parents grew concerned because the baby seemed to be sleeping longer than he did normally (a situation that I don't think would have caused concern in many people or experienced parents) and so their taking him in for further examination was actually quite cautious on their part.

-----
One doesn't have to be a fan of Britney Spears, and personally I am not a fan - but neither do I loathe her, to be fair-minded about something like this.

-Eduardo

PS: I got the agency incorrect in my previous posting I thought it was DSS but evidently it was DFCP or whatever. no biggie.

24

PLEASE HELP ME!

by UNCLEAR in

my husband and i for the first time had an honest discussion regarding jw doctrines, he believes in the flawlessness of the society, so he is not easy to talk to.

he did agree however that if 607 is not correct that the society has it all wrong.

well to say the least that was an interesting turn of events.

Oroborus21

Howdy Unclear:

I don't think the approach regarding DATE/End-time Prophecy will be convincing. The fact is that the Society/Russell/Rutherford/Franz/JWs et al. have never actually specified a day, month or year and definitely said the end would occur then - in the manner of say the Millerites - just as your husband states.

Barbour-Russell/Bible Students & Rutherford/JWs, being one branch of Millerite-style Second Adventism, it was and is inevitable that there were statements of expectation, statements of hope and sometimes statements of irrational exuberence made as the foundation of the theology is an expectation of the Second Coming (Advent) of Christ Jesus. But having learned the lesson of the Great Disappointment, definite date-setting has been carefully avoided.

All of the quotations provided by others or which may be found, are very careful circumlocutions that avoid specific date setting while attempting to maximize enthusiasm. They have allowed the faithful to reach their own conclusions based upon the statements of the leadership, without the leadership having to take responsibility for those statements or being pinned down to particulars.

For example, the reference in the Awake! magazine's "statement of purpose" that used to appear inside the magazine prior to the Generation Doctrine change to the "Creator's promise of a peaceful and secure new world before the generation that saw the events of 1914 passes away" is understood to imply that the end would come during that generation's lifetime. Yet, there was never any specific date and time adopted.

Likewise, it is well known that the view of Russel and the Bible Students was that (skipping the previous years also speculated about) that 1914 would be the end of the Gentile Times and system of things and the beginning of the Millennial Rule - and that its meaning was essentially flipped by Rutherford with the publication of the Birth of a Nation article.

The problem again is that quotation after quotation, no matter how suggestive it may be or even reflective of what the author(s) and the faithful actually believed at the time, can be dismissed today as nothing more than human speculation since they were careful not to be definite about a day & year. Even Russell's famous annoucement to the Bethel family that the Gentile Times had ended did not specify the consequences of such.

So JWs will always have an out with regards to these quotations and the evidence that you may provide, no matter how unreasonable the explanation.

The bottom line is that the statements/quotations regarding End-Time predictions are statements of religious belief which are explainable (especially when operating under the New Light Principle as JWs do) and also difficult to challenge on a factual basis.

In my opinion, since your husband has expressed a willingness to consider the evidence regarding the 607 date, if I were you what I would do is challenge him to find any non-JW source which supports that date for the destruction of Jersusalem. If you can get him to begin to do his own research it will not take very long for him to encounter reference after reference, scholar after scholar, and source after source which universally cite the 587 BC date for the destruction of Jerusalem.

I think that pretty soon your husband would have to start asking why in this matter of fact (as opposed to religious/prophetic belief) are JWs/the Society so obviously deviate from the rest of the world.

In this sense, it is like if the rest of world agreed and believed that the boiling point of water at sea level was 100 degrees Celsius but the Society/JWs insisted that it was only 80 degrees Celsius. Or maybe since we are dealing with historical record, it would be more like if all the world agreed that the American Revolution began in 1776 but the Society insisted that it began in 1732.

The point is that one can argue in matters of faith and not be convinced but arguing in the face of cold facts is much more difficult. Get your husband to research the 607 date and you may be on your way to convincing him that the Society is wrong about a number of things.

-Eduardo

31

Britney's baby suffers a fractured scull - taken to hospital 6 days later.

by Elsewhere in

jw
friends

sorry if this offends, but the only thing that comes to mind is: you can take the girl out of the trailer park but you can't take the trailer park out of the girl.. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=16934293%26method=full%26siteid=94762%26headline=exclusive--britney-tot-cracks-his-skull-name_page.html 12 april 2006exclusive: britney tot cracks his skullexclusive singer and hubby quizzed over baby's injuryby ryan parry, us correspondent.

britney spears and her husband are being quizzed after their baby son suffered a suspected fractured skull.

six-month-old sean smashed his head falling to the ground from his high chair.

Oroborus21

Good for you Sammieswife. It is sad to say that the "trailerpark" stereotype still crops up now and then. Like most stereotypes there are examples of individuals who fit it, but for the most part the use of the trailerpark stereotype is simply the cliche'd linguistic crutch of those who can't express themselves better.

Incidently, was Britney actually raised in a trailerpark? I am not sure that she was. If she wasn't, perhaps some people are displaying their further bias and prejudice against persons from the South.

Anyway, as reported today on Fox and as previously reported on CNN, the facts are essentially thus:

1. While in the care of a NANNY (the parents not being home at the time), the baby fell out of his high chair.

2. The day of this accident, the parents brought in a private doctor to examine the baby. The doctor did not find any problem with the baby.

3. Six days later, after observing and worrying that something might be wrong with the baby, the parents took him to the hospital emergency care where it was determined that in fact there was a skull fracture. The baby was released to the parents care.

4. In California when such injuries are observed in infants brought to the emergency room, the hospital is required to make a report to the Department of Social Services.

5. The DSS is required to make a home visit to investigate and check on the child's welfare. They are routinely accompanied by Sheriff's personnel. The DSS concluded that the parents were not at fault for the injury and acted with due care and the matter was closed.

-----

From all of the above, it seems apparent that with respect to this incident, Britney and Kevin acted appropriately.

In my opinion, this goes to show that sometimes people need to read a little more carefully and perhaps reserve judgment until more information is known instead of popping off with their kneejerk reactions.

-Eduardo

96

Did Jehovah destroy millions with a flood in Noah's day?

by fish in

.

jesus seemed to believe in the story of noah's flood.

i wonder if god really drowned millions of people like the bible says for simply eating and drinking and not taking any note?

Oroborus21

howdy Fish,

welcome to the forum. I am going to take a different approach then the rest of the posters here - one that avoids the actual Flood debate. (Being such an obviously fascinating and important subject you can find a ton of info on the Net regarding that topic.)

My approach concentrates instead on how we should view "references" and allusions by persons in the Bible.

Very simply, when someone, for example Jesus, refers to another person he may be citing (accepted) history, he may be citing legend or recalling myth, he may simply be telling a story with a moral dimension (a parable) or point to it.

So my first question I would like to ask you why you say that "Jesus seems to have believed" in the Noachian flood?

Perhaps you had in mind this passage:

(Matthew 24:36-42) 36 "Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father. 37 For just as the days of Noah were, so the presence of the Son of man will be. 38 For as they were in those days before the flood, eating and drinking, men marrying and women being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark; 39 and they took no note until the flood came and swept them all away, so the presence of the Son of man will be. 40 Then two men will be in the field: one will be taken along and the other be abandoned; 41 two women will be grinding at the hand mill: one will be taken along and the other be abandoned. 42 Keep on the watch, therefore, because YOU do not know on what day YOUR Lord is coming.

JWs (and maybe other Christians) understand that Jesus is here indicating a real belief in Noah and historical facts. However, as you an see, there is an alternate understanding and that is arrived at by simply asking why was Jesus referring to Noah in the first place?

Was it to indicate his belief in Noah? No. Was it to prove that Noah existed? No.

In fact Jesus is making a point about urgency and about not being caught up in the affairs of daily life to the extent that we (or rather his audience at the time) fail to appreciate the warning signs of the impending critical times (or destruction). [As the traditional explanation goes.]

But now comes the second question, would his point be just as effective and clear to his audience if the story of Noah were commonly known by his audience? The answer to that question is yes.

The audience understood that Jesus was making the above point about urgency and focus and not saying anything factually about Noah himself.

The example I usually give to people when I am discussing this point is that of the Good Samaritan.

If I tell you or anyone today, that they should help their neighbor like the Good Samaritan, if my audience/receiver knows the story (and they usually do) then they get the point. Now if I am quoted by a newspaper article referring to the Good Samaritan and it is 2000 or so years later after the story was originally told by Jesus is anyone going to believe that this means that I actually believe that there was an actual Good Samaritan as the story was told by Jesus.

I think few would believe that. And what would be the facts? Was there an actual Good Samaritan? Maybe, but most probably not. Jesus seems to have been obviously illustrating a point about who is our neighbor.

And incidently, this same situation can be applied to stories which we know either to be legends or even to known fabrications. "Hey kid, tell the truth like Washington did about chopping down the apple tree," etc.

So the point is this. The Noachian Flood was a very well known story of the Jewish heritage and history. Probably few Jews actually believed that the story was true. But because it was so well-known Jesus could make a reference to it, in order to drive home the point he was making.

However, for us today, looking at this passage and others like it in the bible we must understand that when he or the apostles or anyone, simply reference such stories it does not indicate in any way that they or their audience actually accepted the underlying facts or the truth of what is referenced as fact.

-Eduardo

4

Disloyalty and Disfellowshipping - Why are they viewed differently?

by truthseeker in

jw
friends

a number of people here have either gone through or are going through a judicial committee for apostasy.. some have reported simply fading from the meetings and being ignored, despite them not being disfellowshipped or disassociated.. others have said that a witness ignores them, even when his own kids are df'd.. i can only imagine the pain you go through, but in order to understand this strange phenomenon better, it is necessary to know the difference between disloyalty and disfellowshipping, and why the dubs view it differently.. basically, people get disfellowshipped for messing up, and i'm not talking about apostacy.

dubs in general know that df'd is god's way of reproving them, and that they have a good chance of coming back.. on the other hand, disloyalty is viewed in stark contrast to disfellowshipping.

even if you aren't disfellowshipped, if the dubs have knowledge that you are questioning the "faithful and discreet slave", they see you as a traitor, a potential apostate.. an online dictionary defines a traitor as the following.... 1. one who violates his allegiance and betrays his country;.

Oroborus21

that's a good point, truthseeker. Treason has always been a capital crime while other very serious crimes often receive lesser punishment. - Eduardo

58

O.K. Everyone..Here it is!! Grayson v.s. Insight Book!!!

by Lady Liberty in

here are the scanned copies i promised i would post.

thanks to my wonderful husband, he made it all possible, as he is a computer whiz!

these copies show the out and out deception on the part of the organization.

Oroborus21

Six of Nine, I did not say that academia approves of a misleading insertion. I said that the use of brackets is what is acceptable. What one puts into them may or may not be misleading.

In this case, the insertion of the 624 date, but not the months, is what is misleading since it leads one to conclude that Grayson supports the WT chronology.

Brutus: technically it is not a "misquotation" it is a mischaracterization of the data.

Hellrider: get off your high horse. I am not defending the Society on this matter. I know their Chronology to be incorrect. And incidently, I would not consider the changes which I would desire within the Organization to be "small" but rather revolutionary. And further, is it not so that we would all want such changes to be made? I believe we would all welcome the discontinuation of the disfellowshipping practice, the adoption of a Megan's Law type treatment of sexual criminals if not permanent expulsion for such ones (and other changes with regard to how to handle child molestation issues), the dropping of the Blood Doctrine, 1914 Second Coming doctrine, the FDS doctrine, etc., Why would anyone not want for those things to occur?

Lady Lib: If it is too much trouble do not worry about it. As I said before one can extrapolate by using Jeremiah to arrive at the 587 date, but it would just be nice to see where Grayson actually correlates the destruction to that date in this work.

This is because, the reason that the Society is citing Grayson in the first place is not to support the ascension year of Nebuchadrezzar (no JW really cares about that date), but rather they are citing Grayson and this book several times to imply that this scholar backs their chronologically and by further implication their 607 B.C.E. date for the destruction of Jerusalem.

Thus it would seem most effective to simply show where in this same work, Grayson states that the destruction of Jerusalem occurred in 587 B.C. explicitly. In that way, we can avoid arguing with Witnesses over ascension years etc. and just show them simply that Grayson supports the 587 date and ask them the simple question: "Now did you get that from what the Society indicated in the Insight book also or did their citations lead you to conclude something else?" And in that way, they [Witnesses] can easily understand the deception.

-Eduardo

58

O.K. Everyone..Here it is!! Grayson v.s. Insight Book!!!

by Lady Liberty in

here are the scanned copies i promised i would post.

thanks to my wonderful husband, he made it all possible, as he is a computer whiz!

these copies show the out and out deception on the part of the organization.

Oroborus21

Lady L:

that is the extrapolation that I was talking about. but one problem with it though, is that now you (one) jumps to the bible (Jeremiah) for the explanation of when Jerusalem was destroyed. It would be better to keep the argument either entirely scriptural or entirely scholastic.

I have little doubt that Grayson would support the 587 BC date but I was just wondering whether the book you borrowed specifically listed it. It would be remarkable if it didn't.

Also, when you were reading the book and in comparing it to the Society's chronologically, did you note the first point of deviation in the timeline? I would like to know if when the Society lists the 624/Nebuchadrezzar ascension date, if that is the first point in both narratives (in comparison to Grayson's timeline) were the timelines deviate or if it begins earlier? If so, if you could pinpoint that first discrepancy, it would be great.

-Eduardo

58

O.K. Everyone..Here it is!! Grayson v.s. Insight Book!!!

by Lady Liberty in

here are the scanned copies i promised i would post.

thanks to my wonderful husband, he made it all possible, as he is a computer whiz!

these copies show the out and out deception on the part of the organization.

Oroborus21

Lady Lib:

just to follow-up, could you scan the page where (if) Grayson indicates the Fall of Jerusalem year as 587 B.C.E.

i understand from the preface scanned that Grayson's giving of the 10th year for Nebuchadrezzar puts his ascension year to about 605 B.C.E. while the Society is using the 624 date (erroneously of course) and that one could extrapolate from there to arrive at when Jerusalem was razed (587 B.C.), but it would be better and simpler to indicate where Grayson supports the 587 date explicitly.

thanks,

Eduardo

58

O.K. Everyone..Here it is!! Grayson v.s. Insight Book!!!

by Lady Liberty in

here are the scanned copies i promised i would post.

thanks to my wonderful husband, he made it all possible, as he is a computer whiz!

these copies show the out and out deception on the part of the organization.

Oroborus21

If one looks at the rest of the page from the Insight book (and throughout) you can see that the Society is consistent in inserting "explanatory info" in brackets.

Many JWs are familiar with bracket/parenthetical usage and its meaning, not only from regular schooling, but also from the "Introduction" of the NWT Reference Bible (which many if not most JWs have a copy of in their personal libraries). The paragraph on "brackets" sets forth the Society's usage which is that Single Brackets [ ] enclose words "inserted to complete the sense" and Double Brackets [[ ]] "suggest interpolations (insertions of foreign material) in the original text."

This usage is common and accepted in academia and it is evidently what the Society is doing. Note for example, the bottom bracketed insertions on the same Insight publication page (as can be seen from the scan), also citing Grayson, where the Society inserts Johoiachin and Zedekiah to explain whom Grayson refers to as "kings."

I am stating the above only to indicate that the Society is not inaccurate or outside the bounds of what is accepted in academia in the material in question as far as the usage of brackets.

However, as someone said while the usage may be technically accurate, it is probably deceptive in that it conveys the idea that Grayson supports the Society's chronology.

That seems doubtful, however, what was not provided in this thread were the scan's of where Grayson actually does indicate the 587 B.C.E. Fall of Jerusalem date that is commonly known and accepted. Thus, not having the book in hand, it is only my assumption that Grayson (and his book) support the accurate date, but for all I know maybe he doesn't? So would you please post a scan of just where in the book he does support the 587 date so that it will be more clear that using Grayson as a source of any kind is deceptive. thanks.

-Eduardo