Robert_V_Frazier

Joined

• started 23 topics
• posted 160 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Robert_V_Frazier

• 
  15

  Simpsons, "Thank God It's Doomsday"

  by Fatfreek in

  1. social
  2. humour

  check out my favorite family, the simpsons, and its recent episode, "thank god it's doomsday".

  i couldnt help but think that one scene illustrates how the gb arrives at their many date predictions over the years.. homer, at the kitchen table reading studiously: "hmmm.

  marge: "homey, you havent touched your second dinner tonight -- and [noting the kitchen table covered with thick reference books] youre reading books.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Robert_V_Frazier

  heathen sez: "I mean jeeze the way we are going we won't even have clean water to drink in the near future. I don't see anything that great about today but tomorrow looks very interesting." 1. The recipe for boiling water is not likely to ever be forgotten. 2. You need to get outside more. Soon. Go to the beach, visit a national park or even a state park. Get a life. Borrow one if you have to. Robert V Frazier
• 
  15

  Simpsons, "Thank God It's Doomsday"

  by Fatfreek in

  1. social
  2. humour

  check out my favorite family, the simpsons, and its recent episode, "thank god it's doomsday".

  i couldnt help but think that one scene illustrates how the gb arrives at their many date predictions over the years.. homer, at the kitchen table reading studiously: "hmmm.

  marge: "homey, you havent touched your second dinner tonight -- and [noting the kitchen table covered with thick reference books] youre reading books.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Robert_V_Frazier

  The title alone is the heart cry of every gung-ho JW. Robert V Frazier
• 
  17

  Catholics are right if the Trinity is right

  by stillajwexelder in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  if jesus is god then mary is the mother of god so the roman catholics are correct

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Robert_V_Frazier

  "If Jesus was God, than his death upset the scales of justice, but in the other direction. Whereas before man was condemned to death via Adamic sin, the death of God would be an overcompensation as opposed to a ransom of equal exchange." I've never understood what the point of that argument is supposed to be. So God paid more than the full price for sin? So what? He chose to do so. On the other hand, one perfect man for the whole sinful human race is not an equal exchange, either. If the Watchtower were right about their view of the ransom being "corresponding" (that's not in the text, by the way), then Jesus saved Adam and the rest of us are still waiting for a ransom for each of us. Robert V Frazier
• 
  13

  "How is the Kingdom Hall abusive?"

  by Robert_V_Frazier in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  sometimes i get a question that just stuns me.

  this one was from a self-described "ex-jw" who says he was disfellowshipped for some ethical lapse or some such.

  he thinks there's nothing at all wrong with the watchtower society, just something wrong with him.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Robert_V_Frazier

  Sometimes I get a question that just stuns me. This one was from a self-described "ex-JW" who says he was disfellowshipped for some ethical lapse or some such. He thinks there's nothing at all wrong with the Watchtower Society, just something wrong with him. I mentioned that if the testimonies of those who have left or been kicked out of the Society have any truth to them, most Kingdom Halls are abusive churches, and I want nothing to do with any abusive church.
  
  He replied:
  
  "So tell me please, how is the Kingdom Halls abusive? I don't recall ever seeing any form of abuse there."
  
  Here's my answer. Please let me know what else I should add to the list if I follow up later.
  
  "Most Kingdom Halls are abusive, unless you subscribe to the theory that everyone who leaves the Watchtower for any reason is a pathological liar. Personally, I can't buy that hypothesis.
  
  In what ways are they abusive?
  
  They make you read Watchtower publications, for a start -- that's pure torture, even when what you read isn't a lie.
  
  They discourage getting an education, or any career that requires one.
  
  They have a long list of unscriptural prohibitions, which is a sin according to the Bible.
  
  They forbid JW's to read what they call "apostate literature", even when (especially when!) that literature is telling the truth and the Society is lying.
  
  They disfellowship rank-and-file JW's for joining the YMCA (even if it's only to use the only clean swimming pool in town), but they joined the official United Nations booster club for ten years, pledging in writing their support of the UN and its goals once every year for each of those ten years!
  
  They insist on shunning those they disfellowship, regardless of why the person was disfellowshipped, though the Bible only commands that extreme action for rare and extreme cases, such as unrepentant false teachers who start divisive sects (as Charles Taze Russell did).
  
  They teach a convoluted and contradictory maze of prohibibitions about blood, such that a JW is allowed to take each and every piece that makes up blood, but not blood as blood, to save his life, though of course there is no command in the Bible that in any way even relates to blood transfusions. (I consider being pressured to die for a false doctrine pretty abusive.)
  
  They have a policy that requires a child who is being raped on a regular basis to produce two eyewitnesses to the act before any action is taken beyond filing a report that is never referred to again, but if the child warns anyone that there is a rapist in the congregation, it's the child who is disfellowshipped, while the rapist is allowed to continue knocking on doors, taking notes of which households have young children in them.
  
  They write in The Watchtower that voting is a "conscience matter" for JW's, but if a JW follows his or her conscience and actually votes, that's grounds for automatic disassociation or disfellowshipment.
  
  JW's are told that they must agree with all doctrines taught by the Society. If any JW disagrees, even if he can prove that the Society's doctine is wrong directly from the Bible, he must stay quiet about it unless and until the Society gets around to changing the doctrine.
  
  The Society changes its doctrines frequently for no other reason than one or two of the handful of old men who vote on those doctrines either change their minds or are pressured into changing their votes. It's abusive to have to abide by doctrines (especially when your life, or that of a family member, may depend on it) that are not based on the Bible, but are based on a handful of old men voting on them, while the ordinary JW has no vote, no chance to express his or her thoughts about how the vote ought to go, no knowledge of when or if the vote is being taken, and no notification of how the vote went after it's over -- unless the vote overturns a standing Watchtower doctrine, in which case the end result of the vote will be published in a Watchtower article, but not the fact that the doctrine was changed by a vote.
  
  Many, many times the Society has lied about when the end of the world would come, giving specific dates and/or deadlines, despite God's clear prohibition against such sinful presumption, then when the false prophecy failed to come to pass, they blamed the JW's to whom they had lied for believing them!
  
  I could go on for a few hundred pages, but that's enough for now."
  
  Robert V Frazier
• 
  35

  Convention Drama, an example of Anachronistic Propaganda

  by VM44 in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  the recent 2005 "godly obedience" convention drama is an example of an anachronism!

  and of propaganda!.

  so why is the dram an example of anachronistic propaganda?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Robert_V_Frazier

  Here you can enjoy some "refreshing" puctures of the "drama":

  Thanks, Norm. Did you notice that nearly all of the people in the audience either looked extremely bored (to the point of looking stoned) or were actually unconscious? Must not have been a very gripping drama! (I did notice three codgers in the front row who looked very attentive. I'm guessing they are CO's or above.)

  Robert V Frazier
• 
  35

  Convention Drama, an example of Anachronistic Propaganda

  by VM44 in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  the recent 2005 "godly obedience" convention drama is an example of an anachronism!

  and of propaganda!.

  so why is the dram an example of anachronistic propaganda?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Robert_V_Frazier

  I poked around a bit with Google, and learned that the title of the "drama" was "Pursue Goals That Honor God". Does anybody know where I can get a transcript? I'd love to have documentation that the Society is trying once again to portray education as a sin (or at least an obstacle).

  Robert V Frazier
• 
  20

  Manure....

  by upside/down in

  1. social
  2. humour

  manure .

  in the 16th and 17th centuries, everything had to be transported by ship and it was also before the invention of commercial fertilizer, so large shipments of manure were common.

  it was shipped dry, because in dry form it weighed a lot less than when wet, but once water (at sea) hit it, it not only became heavier, but the process of fermentation began again, of which a by product is methane gas.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Robert_V_Frazier

  http://www.snopes.com/language/acronyms/shit.asp

  Cute story, but not a syllable of truth in it. Beware of strangers bearing etymologies.

  Robert V Frazier
• 
  19

  Flood help in reasoning book.

  by bother_forever in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  when going door to door at a young age, the topic concerning the flood would from time to time arise, when i first encountered this topic with a "knowledgeable" householder i knew i needed fire power and fast.

  it was when opening the "reasoning on the scriptures" book that i knew i would find something to not only amaze the householder with a fact that could not be argued with, but i would re affirm my faith and be happy, etc etc.

  there was nothing, no flood heading, after pointing this out to a few bro&sis that our main weapon in the field seemed to lack some fire power in this subject i was told that it was not a neccessary subject for the society to have it in such a book.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Robert_V_Frazier

  DannyBloem wrote:

  First I want to say that I do not agree with the last poster, that the bible says the flood was not global. COnsider the following:

  note that the bible does not speak about a local flood:

  1) The time the bible says Noah was in the ark

  2) The necessity of Noah to go in the ark the first place

  3) The necessity of birds and animals to go inside the ark

  4) The bible says the water were above the mountains

  5) Gods promise to never to it again would mean nothing for a local flood (and would be untrue)

  6) The bible says all people come from Noah

  So i think that the writer ment what he was saying, the is telling the story of a global flood.

  1) The time spent in the ark does not prove anything about how much area the water covered.

  2) Ditto. If God destroyed all the land as far as the eye could see (and that's all the text says), then Noah had to get in the ark to avoid it, or else leave the region. He could not do the latter, because God told him not to. Peter mentions that Noah was "a preacher of righteousness", and presumably he stuck around to preach.

  3) See above. Not all animals on Earth were represented in the ark. The text does not require anyone to believe that they were.

  4) Not quite. What it actually says is, the water reached as high as the mountains, not that it buried the mountains under water.

  5) God never has killed all the people on Earth with a flood since Noah's time, now has He? He never promised there would never again be a flood anywhere on Earth.

  6) Yes, the Bible does say the Flood was universal -- it killed all the humans on Earth, except those in the ark. It was not global -- it did not cover every square inch of the planet.

  Robert V Frazier
• 
  19

  Flood help in reasoning book.

  by bother_forever in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  when going door to door at a young age, the topic concerning the flood would from time to time arise, when i first encountered this topic with a "knowledgeable" householder i knew i needed fire power and fast.

  it was when opening the "reasoning on the scriptures" book that i knew i would find something to not only amaze the householder with a fact that could not be argued with, but i would re affirm my faith and be happy, etc etc.

  there was nothing, no flood heading, after pointing this out to a few bro&sis that our main weapon in the field seemed to lack some fire power in this subject i was told that it was not a neccessary subject for the society to have it in such a book.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Robert_V_Frazier

  What evidence is there that the flood was not global?

  A better question is, what evidence is there that it was global? The answer to that is, there is none. Not even in the pages of the Bible. Here's a couple of articles that are useful from a Christian, Bible-believing perspective: http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2002issue10/index.shtml#noahs_flood http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/flood.shtml A much more detailed, and sceptical, article on the subject: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html A rather shallow and disappointing response to the information in the talkorigins article: http://www.trueorigin.org/arkdefen.asp And a critique of that response: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/7755/henke/krh-floodnonsense.html The talkorigins article has not been refuted by those who believe the Flood covered every square inch of the planet. I don't think they possibly can, though I would be interested in seeing them attempt to answer all of its points, not just the handful they think they can answer. (They are nearly always wrong in thinking they can answer any of the points raised in that article, though.) My own view is that of Reasons to Belive. The Flood was world-wide (which at that time was essentially synonymous with nation-wide), but it was not planet-wide. It affected the whole world, all of the people that is, but not the whole planet. There is nothing in the text of the Bible to necessarily prove that it was global. Properly defining the terms is necessary to understanding what is written in the Bible about the Flood. Robert V Frazier
• 
  9

  Airliner landing on an SUV

  by observador in

  1. social
  2. humour

  .

  if thought that was impossible, you're gonna be surprised.... http://www.405themovie.com/home.asp.

  .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Robert_V_Frazier

  If thought that was impossible, you're gonna be surprised...

  I know this is the humor forum, but just in case anyone is wondering . . . no, it's not possible. That excellent film was done mostly with computer graphics. What's amazing is that it was just a couple of guys with home computers. Super low budget. Those guys have talent.

  Robert V Frazier