Posts by BackseatDevil

10

Leviticus 20:27 ....Why does it say to stone a medium or spiritist?

by opusdei1972 in

a man or woman who is a medium or spiritist among you must be put to death.

you are to stone them; their blood will be on their own heads.

(leviticus 20:27).

BackseatDevil

While under “enemy” rule (be it Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, or Persia) the same events would come to pass on repeat. Assimilation into each nation's rule would take place as the Israelites were pretty much a perpetually conquered people. In this, SOMETIMES idols, gods, and other forms of worship would make their way into the Hebrew life. It was actually pretty normal and it went something like this:

“Oh, you want us to acknowledge _____? Fine, whatever... I've go things to do.”

And the Israelite went about their business because after a while they were used to it. With it came greetings and salutations (apparently) as noted by a letter written written from Jerusalem to the Jewish colony in Egypt called Elephantine, the Jewish priests wrote blessings to the Assyrian god as that was their ruler and... by law they probably had to do that.

Realize that none of the time they were captured provinces (at the time of the bible's writing) were they made to abolish their native form of worship. On the contrary it was customary at the time during peaceful conquests for the conquering nation to pay some acknowledgment to the god of their new captive area. Jewish people still worshiped their god YHWH, but they also believed OTHER gods and spirits existed. So they had a belief in many gods and spirits... but only worshiped one god (YHWH). They also believed that angels had certain domain over certain natural things (like land and air) and they could inhabit things like statues and people. This concept would be a problem later when (maybe) Paul wrote in Colossian 2:18 not to worship angels.

So there was an influence of worship from other nations and their gods and spirits... and there was a possibility of individual Jews to take concepts of angels too far. If you had a different version of the bible, it would imply more of a spirit IN her or her being “familiar” with the spirit. This is more along the lines of the concept being discussed and this is where stoning would occur. It's not necessarily a spirit medium – it's just “spirit medium” is the easiest way to translate that.

It's basically saying if you fraternize with other spirits and one gets into you... you die. And fraternizing with other spirits was not only pretty easy, belief in the dangers of other gods was a very real fear.

Although there is no real evidence that the Israelites followed this law to it's strictest sense at the time... LOL.

129

Does consciousness end with the death of the body

by givemejustalittlemoretime in

apparently, the carvakas in anceint hinduism were materialists and skeptics, arguing that consciousness ends with the death of the body and that therefore we should take pleasure in this life while we possess it and practice compassion toward others.

they also argued that direct observation is the only certain way to know anything, and thus the existence of supernatural forces and realities cannot be established and must be rejected.

BackseatDevil

Why not just answer the question with "yes" and move on with life and then later, when you die, if the answer is "no," it will be like.... SURPRISE!

And you would have learned something new.

17

I know this is never going to happen ....however , what if ...?

by smiddy in

jw
friends

can you imagine what this world would be like today , with 7 billion people , if their were never , ever a religous concept in anybodys mind ?.

wouldnt this world be such a better place to be in if it was devoid of all religion ?.

if religion never existed from the time man/woman first walked the earth until now how do you see , pros or cons , how humakind would fare today.. as i said in my o.p.

BackseatDevil

You need to remember that there are basic human traits and behaviors that are inherent to who we are as beings in our evolution that exist with or without religion, but where religion exists (currently) as the outlet for such. An example is that people who are easily roweled into a frenzy will still be easily roweled into a frenzy just over something else.

I would think over time the only major difference between the world now and a world without religion is that people would be generally more tolerant (because civility deems it so), and there would be more pressure to display personal accountability and responsibility. I think one of the true definitions of religion is to blame everything on the DIVINE, in which case people grow up, live, have children, and teach this life where one can dodge accountability if GOD is there for the good times and SATAN is there for the bad times.

Of course, politically it would be easier, but I think there would still be the head to head battles of state since the elimination of religion doesn't equal the elimination of conflict.

I suppose the entire feel of it wouldn't be that dissimilar to Amsterdam.

48

Today's "gay-bashing" and other embarrassing content public talk!

by stuckinarut2 in

oh wow..... the public talk today is certainly embarrassing for witnesses!.

started (completely left field too...seemed to come out of nowhere) with condemning homosexuality, and anyone who even tolerates it.

if you like tv shows or movies with gay characters, you are "just as bad" (eg modern family tv show).

BackseatDevil

One thought about Romans - Paul wrote that to the house church(es) in Rome that he did not start nor had he visited. Everything he was writing was based off word of mouth or letters. So his admonition had to do with keeping the separate from the Gods and Goddesses around them... and sometime, people would evoke the spirit of whatever in their passion and lust. It's very similar to the way Christians evoke the holy spirit that “directs” them to do this or that. So Paul was using strong language (as he wanted to make an impression since he wanted to visit the city), but he also didn't know who he was writing to.

Now a thought on violence - How the hell does that BIBLE help a person curve their violent behavior? The bible is one of the bloodiest books on the planet. God himself slaughters about 400,000 people not including the first born of all Egypt. Sodom and Gomorrah, and the flood of Noah. His followers killed over 2 million under God's orders. And I think we can all agree that when it comes to violence and the bible, history only shows matters getting worse.

Finally, a thought on human behavior – Violence is a perfectly natural trait. It's what has kept us alive for tens of thousands of years, it is one of the fundamentals of establishing ancient cultures and civility that gave us the life we enjoy today. But as times change the appropriateness of violence no longer becomes necessary as we evolve into more intellectual beings. Altering a natural trait like violence takes several generations to do, and some gene pools are still struggling with it. CURVING a natural tendency is not the same as ABOLISHING that tendency. If someone was to attack your child or you were stuck in a a “fight or flight” situation, that violence can (and in some cases should) pop up in the form of protection.

So if anything sexual is going to be compared to the trait of violence, it would be monogamy, not homosexuality. Monogamy is the CURVING of a natural sexual tendency without ABOLISHING it. Homosexuality is simply a variation of a natural tendency, NOT something that is unnatural (in over 1500 species of animals) and not something that can or should be abolished in oneself.

What is extremely unnatural and NOT found in any other species of animal is homophobia and stunted ignorance in behavior sold to the masses as spiritual “fact.”

22

HAS ANYONE SEEN.......

by DATA-DOG in

a super bat-shit crazy invitation to pioneer in august??

i stumbled upon something the other day, but i have been hesitant to post it.

i am afraid that it could be a local thing and thereby traced back to me.

BackseatDevil

Calls to pioneer are usually local (not always) and usually somewhat random although sometimes it revolves round some event like the Memorial. Just think of it as the JW's spiritually inept version of a "Going out of Business" mattress sale.

152

Something Big is Coming...

by notsurewheretogo in

the annual meeting of the governing body of jehovah's witnesses will be in october 2014.. .. in november 2013, just after the last one they published this now famous statement in the 15th of november 2013 watchtower page 16 paragraph 17 says:.

"at that time, the lifesaving direction that we receive from jehovahs organization may not appear practical from a human standpoint.

all of us must be ready to obey any instructions we may receive, whether these appear sound from a strategic or human standpoint or not.".

BackseatDevil

Something big has been coming for almost 3000 years of our recorded history. I will take my chances.

56

Kicking the "Gay Habit" at the IC

by breakfast of champions in

heard from a reliable source that this was part of friday's program.

they even interviewed a "former gay man" who "kicked the gay habit".. evidently kicking the "gay habit" is difficult, not unlike quitting smoking or avoiding sugary snacks.

the persons who related this to me found the whole thing to be laughable at best, but honestly seemed quite disturbed by it (which is good!

BackseatDevil

QUENDI Beautifully spoken indeed.

I agree.

I have to say something before anyone else does this:

It's an arrogant human tendency (albeit natural) to assume that just because something does not apply to you personally, it should then be deemed a “privilege” universally. If you are not affected, then there is no reason to evolve as a whole just because of a few people's belly-aching.

I hear this a lot with white people using every sort of argument under the sun to justify using the n-word. Because there is not a racial equivalent for white people, it is automatically deemed and “overreaction” if someone responds badly to a personal decision of use because “I took out the -er and substituted and -a” or “I wasn't talking about ALL black people, just the ones that give black people a bad name.”

You know what? It's NOT my word, it's NOT my offense, it's NOT my realm of comfort and for such, as you notice, I avoid the word at all cost. It's not my place to justify ANY use of it as it's not my history's weight. And I don't try to offer plastic sympathy of relateability to something I cannot relate to... although I can understand some as I am gay and have been called the f- word from someone out of anger. But even that doesn't come with centuries of oppression.

Today, people can hide racism in MANY different ways with the nicest smiles and the sweetest baked goods. Different races is natural. It happens in every singly species of animals. Apprehension about race is NOT natural... it only happens in one species of animal... Humans. Homosexuality is natural... it happens in over 1500 species of animals. Apprehension about homosexuality is NOT natural... it only happens in one species of animal... Humans.

Just because someone doesn't “get” why people feel one way or another gives no reason why universal laws and sanctions should be made whether it be church or state. If one person doesn't understand how it feels to love A PERSON, then they should have no say in the matter. Just because you don't feel something doesn't mean it's not felt by others.

As you may note... I have a low tolerance on people trying to sympathize with a plight they can't imagine... only to shrug it off as nothing... nothing more than a bad habit. Love is love, the gender isn't as important as the emotion. The only people who make gender a focus are those who are put limits on the humankind's capacity to love.

SEX, is a different subject and is step two, but it's pointless to discuss unless one first has a working knowledge of step 1 above.

194

Atheism is a Belief System

by seekchristonly in

is atheism a belief system.

after all the atheist believes there is no god .so if that's the case then an atheist if a person of faith.

they have faith in the fact there is no god.

BackseatDevil

To answer the question set to me, currently there is no scientific evidence that states that people are born with a desire or a need to worship anything or any one. Just because some people want that to be so doesn't mean it exists.

Some people are born with a propensity for gullibility or a non-inquisitive demeanor that can manifest itself into a desire to worship and become satisfied with the answers of faith. But a directional necessity for someone else's concept of god is not present.

And if it were, then ideas such as Santa Clause, the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, witches, wizards, Mother Earth, money (greed), Allah, and the like should not be discounted because all these “beliefs” constitute a fulfillment of that need. Therefore, if someone claims that there is a genetic desire to worship, but NOT a genetic desire to worship Santa Clause... it is evident that someone is trying to give validity to an argument that is personally biased and bigoted.

'You're not hardwired to worship ANY god, you are only hardwired to worship THEIR god.' The "need" is not only real, but it's deity specific. I don't buy that.

Knowledge for me came from PAYING ATTENTION IN LIFE, not from a book. Everyone is so focused on their f**king churches, they forget what it's like to actually learn of one's own accord from social settings. A sigular pinpoint example: As a child, we may have hurt someone at school with our words. The other child hurting made us feel bad... we got in trouble with the teacher. Then fellow students are upset with us and don't socialize with us. Later all is forgiven and we move on learning how NOT to harm others... completely without the knowledge of a church, god, reciting the ten commandments, or the daily text reading every morning. Just because some people pay attention and come to better conclusion than those who spend years praying shouldn't mean we are discounted by the simple mindedness of those who don't get it.

As I mentioned before, the only reason this argument exists is so that those who believe in god can corner themselves in a pocket and excuse away something they do no want to admit is true. That's it. And for such, I personally feel no atheist should further engage in this conversation of those in purposeful denial. I like "white." That's it. There's no real discussion on the matter.

So for my part, this is my last post on the subject.

194

Atheism is a Belief System

by seekchristonly in

is atheism a belief system.

after all the atheist believes there is no god .so if that's the case then an atheist if a person of faith.

they have faith in the fact there is no god.

BackseatDevil

There has been no scientific findings that say humans have a 'default' setting for other people's want.

56

Kicking the "Gay Habit" at the IC

by breakfast of champions in

heard from a reliable source that this was part of friday's program.

they even interviewed a "former gay man" who "kicked the gay habit".. evidently kicking the "gay habit" is difficult, not unlike quitting smoking or avoiding sugary snacks.

the persons who related this to me found the whole thing to be laughable at best, but honestly seemed quite disturbed by it (which is good!

BackseatDevil

This wording could be a take on their age-old belief (and current topic of conversation with Rick Perry) that being gay is like alcoholism or addiction... that it's some sort of craving that one can just curve. I can't help to think that, in this sense, the play “Romeo and Juliet” would be somewhat less tragic except in boredom.

It also negates the words of Paul at 1 Corinthians 7:9. This gets more strange as it plays out... as love is love and passion is passion, regardless of the direction of focus the same wires, chemicals, and hormones are activated in the same exact way. So I'm not sure how you can tell a story like Boaz and Ruth when their love was just a habit able to be kicked if they only tried, or how David's love for Johnathan was more a dead weight of addiction than that of personal benefit... but that is what is being suggested.

Now Rick Perry got in trouble because he is using the world's the number one least effective method of addiction recovery with “addiction is a disease.” In fact there has been no scientific evidence that homosexuality or addiction are diseases. Viewing either as such has lead to more problems than it solves (80% plus failure rate). Perry's problem is that if addiction is a disease, than it would be unjust to arrest someone who was in possession of or buying items to alleviate their “disease.” People shouldn't be jailed, they should be sent to the hospital.

It doesn't seem the JWs take it that far, which is good because there is nothing more depressing having people running about thinking that the are diseased and failures rather than just humans with an addiction. But in the alcoholism comparison comes a cheapening and degrading emotional torture that says Paul's words do not apply to YOU... a homosexual. That the completeness that Adam was granted in the garden does not apply to YOU... a homosexual. The emotions that are deemed understandable and forgivable between David and Bathsheba do not apply to YOU... a homosexual.

All these stories and lessons of great men in the bible with their faults and successes does not apply to do not apply to homosexuals.