The witness who converted me into the religion didn`t know the difference between Astronomy and Astrology and I still converted ?
what fool am I ?
You were only fooled once, so the shame is on them.
i dont know why i'd want to argue over something like this.
i've been aware of this theory for years.
as interesting as it is - it's still bullshit.. for future reference, i believe the bible to be a collection of fantasy, myth, real locations and crazy ramblings of psychedelic bloke stuck on patmos.. my reply:.
The witness who converted me into the religion didn`t know the difference between Astronomy and Astrology and I still converted ?
what fool am I ?
You were only fooled once, so the shame is on them.
when i was a jw and still living with my parents i remember the way my father held what could almost be described as contempt for archeologists, paleontologists, and other scientists who dared to try explain what happened in past.
he justified this attidtude with the argument that these people don’t have enough evidence to make such claims with any certainty.
however, i see now that his viewpoint was more likely a defense mechanism to protect his presupposed conclusion that everything described in the bible actually happened.
I hate to be that guy, but 'ad hoc' is technically two words.
i dont know why i'd want to argue over something like this.
i've been aware of this theory for years.
as interesting as it is - it's still bullshit.. for future reference, i believe the bible to be a collection of fantasy, myth, real locations and crazy ramblings of psychedelic bloke stuck on patmos.. my reply:.
I'm still struggling to see what the real point is, if the bible has elements of astrology woven into it, where is the controversy? I get that it may be interesting, but you're presenting it as if it's more significant. I concede that you admitted it was all bullshit in the opening post, but I still don't get why it matters beyond simple curiosity, nor why one should go to great lengths to decipher it.
i dont know why i'd want to argue over something like this.
i've been aware of this theory for years.
as interesting as it is - it's still bullshit.. for future reference, i believe the bible to be a collection of fantasy, myth, real locations and crazy ramblings of psychedelic bloke stuck on patmos.. my reply:.
I should point out that my vested interest in this is minimal. I'm not a christian, I don't believe in god, and I think the bible is 99% made up. I don't buy the astrological interpretation because it invokes too much planning and attention to detail in a book that was very evidently an ad hoc cobbled-together anthology of mostly unrelated fantasies.
Whether Jesus existed or not is of little consequence to me ultimately, though I suspect there was someone whom he was loosely based upon, simply because it would have made no sense to invent the fictional and completely unrealistic Bethlehem census story when it would have been far easier narratively to have his parents live there from the get-go, unless there was already a guy who was known (or at least strongly believed) to have lived somewhere else. Whether that place was Nazareth or the general Galilee area is of little consequence really. For whatever reason, the writers clearly believed that Jesus had lived somewhere other than Bethlehem and went to great pains to have him be born there so as to fulfil OT prophecy.
Whether or not the character was based on a person or not however, the astrological connection is fanciful pattern-seeking that borders on sophistry. The writers of the bible were just not clever enough for that, and biblical allegories tended to be either vague or otherwise based on more fantastical numerology such as the coded language of the apocalyptic texts, rather than the stars.
Also, what would be the point? Who would the astrological symbolism have been aimed at? Very few people would have been able to decode it, if they'd even known they had to in the first place, and what would they have gained anyway? Why cloak esoteric astrology with no real message in such vague imagery? It would just be pointless.
i dont know why i'd want to argue over something like this.
i've been aware of this theory for years.
as interesting as it is - it's still bullshit.. for future reference, i believe the bible to be a collection of fantasy, myth, real locations and crazy ramblings of psychedelic bloke stuck on patmos.. my reply:.
Fred you are guessing about some of these matters, Jesus could not have been born in Nazareth since it only began as a place about a century after he died. The Bible makes a linguistic conflation of the word nazarite (Jewish mad monk syndrome) and Nazareth (place founded after Jesus died).
Just because it wasn't called Nazareth at the time, it doesn't mean he didn't live in the settlement that would later be called Nazareth; the area has been inhabited for thousands of years. Where he was from is irrelevant however, the point is that there was probably someone with a name similar to Jesus living in the ancient middle east whose life the stories are based on, but without any of the supernatural stuff.
For what it's worth:
Luke 22:50-51 New International Version (NIV)
50 And one of them struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear.
51 But Jesus answered, “No more of this!” And he touched the man’s ear and healed him.
That's what I was referring to.
a lot of people are confused over the teaching of the trinity, some doubt it, some outright deny it, where some can't get their head around it.
the bible supports it through scriptural evidence.
this video explains from the whiteboard the difference between the god of the watchtower to the god in the bible.
Most people on this site (myself included) don't believe in god, so this video is effectively pointless, you might as well post a video proving that Harry Potter is gay.
when i was a jw and still living with my parents i remember the way my father held what could almost be described as contempt for archeologists, paleontologists, and other scientists who dared to try explain what happened in past.
he justified this attidtude with the argument that these people don’t have enough evidence to make such claims with any certainty.
however, i see now that his viewpoint was more likely a defense mechanism to protect his presupposed conclusion that everything described in the bible actually happened.
The problem is that you're using facts to argue against faith, and it's like trying to use a mathematical formula to argue against dancing, it's not going to rub with those who believe. I've come to accept that those who leave will do so of their own accord, not because of what others say.
i have not seen jehovah’s witnesses in my neighborhood for several years now.
it appears that the cart witnessing has taken over.
congregations are being consolidated and witnesses are being forced to travel a greater distance than before.the burdens/privileges of elders seem to be ever increasing!.
According to google trends, most of the interest in jw.org is coming from Africa, not surprising.
i dont know why i'd want to argue over something like this.
i've been aware of this theory for years.
as interesting as it is - it's still bullshit.. for future reference, i believe the bible to be a collection of fantasy, myth, real locations and crazy ramblings of psychedelic bloke stuck on patmos.. my reply:.
The bible contains elements of astrology here and there, or at least an ancient precursor to what we would now call astrology, but the idea that the life of Jesus was an entirely astrological allegory is pure fantasy. Jesus was probably real, just a Jew from Nazareth (not Bethlehem) with some unorthodox views who had a small following, but only became truly famous a few decades after his death, much like Van Gogh, but without the talent. Unlike Van Gogh's story however, there were probably no incidents involving ears in Jesus's case, regardless of what the bible says.
my sister texted me last night with an invitation to watch our dad give his first ever public talk.
i don't live particularly near to my family, but i'm not too far from them to make the journey, and i am on good terms with them, having never been baptised and so not disfellowshipped; they don't shun me and likely wouldn't even if i were disfellowshipped, it's not in their character.. i haven't been inside a kingdom hall since 2006, and i would like to keep it that way; i only intend to step inside one again in the event of a family wedding or funeral service.
i don't want to be rude to my sister, ignoring the text isn't an option, so i need a diplomatic way of declining her invitation.. i've considered saying that i'm busy, but this leaves things open for her to ask again in the future, and i'd rather she got the message that i'm not interested, without me having to say so in an explicit way.. any suggestions from those who have been in a similar situation?.
"they don't shun me and likely wouldn't even if I were disfellowshipped, it's not in their character."- I hope that is true but I can't say I haven't heard that before only to have that dashed later and the person becomes one of the shunned.
It is always possible and I would never rule it out from happening, but they've had 12 years to shun me and are yet to do so. And they know me, they know how important impressions are to me; if they were to shun me they would lose me forever, it would be a 'bad witness' on their part, they wouldn't risk that.
They'll keep talking to me because that's the only way they'll ever get me to return. It won't work, but for me it doesn't matter, they think my eternal life hinges on me returning, and I know that we are all headed for the grave in the end, regardless of where we throw our spiritual hats.
If my conscience allows then perhaps when my parents are on their deathbeds, I may feign a re-conversion, just so they can pass away happy; a little white lie so that they can bow it out with some inner peace. I know this is of questionable ethicality, and if it feels wrong at the time then I won't do it. I could always just pull out the 'Jehovah can read hearts' line.
Each is responsible for his own path.
That's the crux of it. Each family is different, and for some families it may make more sense to go, although there is always the risk of raised expectations and further invitations. For my family it doesn't seem to be so important, if it were important to my dad that I attend, then he would have asked by now.
I replied to the text, and this was the pertinent part, I think this was the best way to do it. I hope it was.
Thanks for the offer but I don't think I'll be able to get down there next Sunday. I appreciate the invitation though. I hope the talk goes well for dad.