Posts by peacefulpete

30

Friday crucifixion?

by rstrats in

it is my understanding that jws believe that the crucifixion occurred on friday.

however, luke 24:21 would seem to indicate that it couldn't have occurred any later than thursday.

how do you explain the seeming discrepancy?

The Bible says Jesus died on Friday because this was necessary for the motif. Attis and the Phoenix both prechristian myths associated with sun worship were dead for three days only to be revived to life. Sunday was the day this was celebrated by worshipers of sun gods hence it's name. Mithra, Attis and at least a dozen others were crucified upon a cross or tree. Buddah who was viewed as a great light likewise was dead and was raised to life on the third day 500 years before Jesus the "one who dwells in unpproachable light" and "the light of the world". The dozens of elements of the Jesus story that were borrowed from other sun dieties led opponents of Christianity to address Christians as sun worshipers. This was not universally denied as evidenced by the date of Jesus birth having been chosen to be that of at least 5 sun deities. (Dec 25) The halo of course was a solar disc depicted upon sun gods. And the artwork of early Christianity all the way through to the present utilizes sun god imagery. Early Christians saw Jesus as a new expression of eternal truths like light and goodness and these were traditionally couched in mythologial languge of sun worship. So yes Jesus was crucified on Friday just like his predecessors.

Edited by - peacefulpete on 11 February 2003 13:54:59

Edited by - peacefulpete on 11 February 2003 14:26:10

7

Just did an interview with NPR

by Yerusalyim in

i just did an interview for national public radio that they're doing in conjunction with the bbc.

i did it in my capacity as an instructor at the chaplain school.

the gal had an agenda full of hypotheticals.

peacefulpete

Your infatuation with Rush and O'reilly explains your criticism of those who seek a solution to Iraq through peaceful means on your other thread. Get centered man. At least try getting news from newsmen not fanatical right wing, rating greedy entertainers.

Edited by - peacefulpete on 11 February 2003 13:30:7

54

I'm astounded by the UNDER-PATRIOTISM Displayed

by Yerusalyim in

yep,.

it boggles my mind, so many here would rather believe saddam hussein than their own government.

so many here seem certain the bush administration is lying, but trust hussein to tell the truth.

peacefulpete

Peace is patriotic. The dispute that many Americans have with the present determination of the Bush administration is that it does not adaquately explore other options to war. Over the past months all of the standard buttons of propaganda have been pushed. The facts just keep getting in the way for them to work as effectively this time as last. Hussein is a monster and it would be nie to think that almost any ruler could make life better. This is not in dispute here. Our allies are not blind to this truth, nor are they cowards or dupes or sell outs as you would charactorize anyone with the desire to press for change without killing hundredsof thousands of innocent people. The Powell pitch to the U.N. has been exposed as shallow and deliberately misleading. The "terrorist Alqueda cell run chemical munitions plant" shown in a picture as "proof" of the need for immediate militery strikes was a fraud. The very "camp" pictured was visited by the inspectors and found it to be a long abndoned camp used by Iraqi troop for manuvers. Oh ya there was a primitive bakery operating there in one of the few buildings fit for human use. Think about it. If bthis was the best rguements they could come up with they in fact have nothing that would stand up in court. Tape of voices that has by admission been edited...satellite pictures of trucks by buildings... etc. Many in the world are not convinced. Why are you? Is it not possible that your love for your country has been used against you. The U.N s role is essential to restrain militerists long enough to table other options. The U.S. has been forced to allow this seemingly against the will of those in power. Why shuld this be so? I knowthe obvious oil and esire for greater U.S. precence in the iddle east would benefit those making these decisions. I am not able however to say that this is all a grand ruse. I do feel it was immediately seized upon as a grand opportunity. Rumsfeld passionately and aggressively called for a bombing of Iraq morning Sept 12. He did this before any one knew who was responsible for the attack on the 11th. This readiness to move against Iraq must then be unrelated to what happened. He for one has another agenda.

Sadam is presently contained and will be more so if the French, German,Russin, Chinese plan to enlarge the number of inspectors and install peacekeepers is implimented. Lets hope that the objectives can be accomplished through this means first. If not then the militery option must be considered. Even then it is deeply disturbing that preemptive strikes will set U.S. precedent that will no doubt change the face of war forever. The Pentagon plan involves 8,000 missles upon Bagdad( official), Will Hussein be there? It seems almost inconsequetial to the militery. But is is not inconsequential to me or the hundreds of thousnads living there. Peace preferring people are patriotic, in fact we want the word back. It has been stolen by the militery.

2

Russel's Organization?

by peacefulpete in

i'm sure quotes like the one beow have been posted here before but to me it was new.

the wtbs has change dramaticaly from it's inception.

it has become a power in the lives of jws that was never intended by it's founder charles russel.

peacefulpete

I'm sure quotes like the one beow have been posted here before but to me it was new. The WTBS has change dramaticaly from it's inception. It has become a power in the lives of JWs that was never intended by it's founder Charles Russel. Mind you I do not share Russel's view of the world but it is enlightening to see how he viewed the idea of an "organization" of Bible teachers.

"Beware of "organization." It is wholly un-necessary. The Bible will be the only rules you need. Do not
seek to bind other consciences, and do not permit others to bind yours. Believe and obey so far as you
can understand God's word today, and so continue to growing in grace and knowledge day by day."
Zion's Watch Tower, 1895, p. 216

Perhaps he was more insightful than I otherwise recognized him being.

23

making sense of report

by peacefulpete in

help....i have heard that the u.s. report in the jan 1 wt showed a 3% increase!

the past 15 years or so never saw growth more than 1%.

dis they change the way these figures are compiled resulting in exagerated numbers?

peacefulpete

Although the baptizing of kids does account for the great magority of new baptisms it really has nothing to do with why the report showed a 3% increase in the U.S. The number of bapised was typical. In fact if you take the total number of publishers and divide that by the nuber of baptisms each year it can be seen that a slowing own of baptising is occuring. In 1998 the ratio of publishers to baptised was 18.6 to 1. In other words it took the work of 18 publishers to baptise 1 person. In 2001 that ratio had risen to 23.3 to one. It took 23 publishers to make 1 batised person. I do not have the newest grand totals to compare with this years but I imagine it is about the same. Things are slowing down. As to kids getting baptised, because so many kids were baptised back in the 50s and 60s and had left without getting DFd that in the early 70s it was allowed that persons could get REBAPTISED if the first one didn't take. Strange but true. The baptisms around here average about 15 years old. I know of 2 that were 10 years old baptised in the last few years. I got baptised at 16 and then only because it was impressed upon me by the C.O. that a boy was considered respnsible to God at 14 in Isreal, so what was my problem. In fact my "dedication" took place in the washroom 5 minutes before taking the plunge because in the baptism talk the speaker said I needed to do this before getting wet for it to count. I was under social pressure but didn't reocognize others were making my decisions for me.

108

Why is the Bible wrong?

by StinkyPantz in

this primarily goes out to other agnostics and athiests.

this week i got into two interesting conversations that i will admit that i was ill prepared for.

one was with a jw friend of mine who wanted to know why i thought jw's were wrong.

peacefulpete

I commend you for even looking this material up whatever your motives are. It will I'm afraid take more than 2 days to be even slightly knowledgable on this vast subject. It took me nearly two years of study reading around 20 books on this and related subjects to get a feel for this material. It required me to rethink more than the simple facts of history but to learn to stop thinking like a fundementalist and more like a researcher. Your comment that said you only read "some" of the web site but yet felt able to draw a conclusion says to me that you are not seeking knowledge as much as ammo.
But back to the subject. Anyone can tell you for instance that the Roman theology was deeply indebted to the Greeks. How do we know this? Is it not due to the similarity of their gods? And the stories while different in purpose share imagery and elements. This similarity coupled with the known contact between these two cultures leads an objective man to conclude that the religion of the Romans drew from the older Greek mythology for ideas. The similarities of Jesus story elements with that of Buddah, Krishna and other legends such as Dionysus are equally obvious. Again the purpose or setting of some of the motifs may differ, and the specifics of the worship may differ just as this is so between the Roman and Greek gods, but the legendary elements in the story betray what sources influenced the writers. No the Jesus story was not a simple zerox of one legend. It was an amalgum of a dozen or so popular myths woven around political and religious realities. Continue your research if truth is what you are after. Your questions beg answer and a humble man will realize that he will not get these answers from simple reflection upon the few facts that you now know. Such a subject merits more than 2 days. I was unable to open the link you provided but I have read the work of other Christian apologists on this topic. I suggest you read the arguements first before reading the rebuttals as often in any controvery a spin is put on the opponent's thoughts that never was intended by the person. Or often strawman arguements are used to cloud the issues. It is as you know my contention that this is the case when dealing with Christian origins. Being aware of this and yet saying you wish to understand our position it would be only logical for you to read the books that shaped our thinking.. Invest a few bucks in books as these are much more conducive to study than web surfing in my opinion. And I do not mean books by Baptist theologians. Go to the works of people who have a view counter to yours as this will aquaint you with the the facts from a foreign perspective. This is what learning involves doing. Then after doing that read the Christian apologetical works to see if in fact they have legitimate points or are missing the point. I will not spoon feed you. You will if sincere take the effort to do the work yourself.

Edited by - peacefulpete on 11 February 2003 2:51:49

23

making sense of report

by peacefulpete in

help....i have heard that the u.s. report in the jan 1 wt showed a 3% increase!

the past 15 years or so never saw growth more than 1%.

dis they change the way these figures are compiled resulting in exagerated numbers?

peacefulpete

I know my post was confusing but Idon't get yours at all onacruse. The baptism figures for the last few yearws are way off. The trend tward lower baptism numbers is evidenced by the last few years About 29,000 were baptised in U.S in 2002, 27,000 in 2001, 30,000 in 2000, 32,000 in 1999 and 37,000 in 1998. Thing are slowing not "speeding up".

Edited by - peacefulpete on 11 February 2003 2:12:45

23

making sense of report

by peacefulpete in

help....i have heard that the u.s. report in the jan 1 wt showed a 3% increase!

the past 15 years or so never saw growth more than 1%.

dis they change the way these figures are compiled resulting in exagerated numbers?

peacefulpete

Well it was necessary to amend my numbers again. I'm sorry if I confused anyone. I had switced 2 years around but the actual calculations remain the same. But I do believe that the numbers reveal that ultimately the increase was not do to the number of baptised as much as the number of reinstated and reactivated.

23

making sense of report

by peacefulpete in

help....i have heard that the u.s. report in the jan 1 wt showed a 3% increase!

the past 15 years or so never saw growth more than 1%.

dis they change the way these figures are compiled resulting in exagerated numbers?

peacefulpete

I had to amend my figures a little but the results are the same. If we assume that only 33% of of those who became inactive were DFd or DAd the change is minimal. The number of thoe who return after DF and DA has been suggested to be more like 40% not 90% as I used in my calculations. I was told that this was arrived at by taking those who were DFd at LEAST once and who presently arereinstated. If so then the fact that many DFd people haved been DFd 2 or more times would create the disparity. If however the figure 40% reflected the simple number of new disfellowshippings compared with reinstatements in one given year then it does not consider the widly fluctuatingy number of inactive publishers into account. The 90% number and the two year average time to reinstatement was what I was told and it works when I do the numbers. If it is wrong then the 15 minute provision must have been more successful than I guessed above. Perhaps each congregation averaged 1.5 or 2 old/sick ones who resumed reporting now that they can hand a nurse tract and be considered active. Any way you look at it the 3% are largely not actual new JWs. If you take the average percentage of growth over the past 5 years or so you find that it amounts to about 1%. This is about the percentage of growth in population for the population of the U.S. and therefore there is no growth at all, it is merely holding it's ground through baby making. In fact as compared to previous years a larger portion of the increase is from unbaptised children of JWs, this implies more baby making than previously yet fewer of those children becoming baptised.

Edited by - peacefulpete on 10 February 2003 14:4:24

Edited by - peacefulpete on 10 February 2003 17:3:22

Edited by - peacefulpete on 10 February 2003 17:10:10

Edited by - peacefulpete on 11 February 2003 0:11:55

8

Does the WTBTS release numbers of DF/DA'd?

by RAYZORBLADE in

does anyone know if the wtbts releases the actual number of people disfellowshipped or disassociated in any given year?

not that they'd give the names and their df/da offenses.

i vaguely remember an assembly where some numbers were released regarding the number of persons disfellowshipped for a particular offense, for example:

peacefulpete

The 40% reinstatement figure is misleadingly low. Actually this is calculation of those who had been DFd AT LEAST ONCE and who now were in good standing. The numbers of actual DFd ones returning is closer to 9 out of 10. The fact that about half of DFd people are DFd twice or more creates the different numbers. My calculations on the other thread arrived at 1.3% DFd and DAd in the U.S.