Posts by logansrun

245

Are most people just plain stupid?

by logansrun in

what an audacious question!

" wow, bradley -- how could you stoop to such levels?

do you consider most people as simple sleepwalkers through life not paying much attention to reason, logic, science, history and a desire to understand?

logansrun

Cat man (brummie),

addmittingly your posts are flamin miserable sometimes

What the hell does that mean?

245

Are most people just plain stupid?

by logansrun in

what an audacious question!

" wow, bradley -- how could you stoop to such levels?

do you consider most people as simple sleepwalkers through life not paying much attention to reason, logic, science, history and a desire to understand?

logansrun

Stacey,

But the choices you list don't necessarily make them fools or stupid.

Care to elaborate on that?

Brummie,

You really don't like me do you?

B.

245

Are most people just plain stupid?

by logansrun in

what an audacious question!

" wow, bradley -- how could you stoop to such levels?

do you consider most people as simple sleepwalkers through life not paying much attention to reason, logic, science, history and a desire to understand?

logansrun

What an audacious question! " Wow, Bradley -- How could you stoop to such levels? "

But, I want to know. Do you consider most people as simple sleepwalkers through life not paying much attention to reason, logic, science, history and a desire to understand? I find ignorance all around me it seems -- astrology, new-age beliefs, creationism, militant nationalism, irrational views of self and others. I don't believe this is some innate or genetic quality about people, mind you, just the way their life has played out and the choices they have made.

So, are most people fools?

Bradley *ducks from objects thrown at head*

20

Awake on taxes asleep on chronology.

by shotgun in

if you have a copy of the december awake magazine dealing with taxes note the first page of the article.. the wt uses two quotes to show taxes have been a concern for thousands of years.. the first quote is from a babylonian artifact dated to 2300 bce.

the problem that presents is that only 69 years previous the world had been destroyed by a global flood according to wt chronology.

which means that in a mere 69 years noah and his three sons have produced a nation with sufficient infrastructure to require taxation.

logansrun

I love it! haha....those blundering morons.

B.

23

What JW Words or Expressions Do You Still Use?

by minimus in

jw
friends

.

logansrun

Nothing. I tried to divorce myself from their innane lingo even before I left. For instance, I would call it the "organization" -- never "the truth."

May Jehovah be with the spirit you show,

Bradley

15

The Last Samari

by Sassy in

they are starting a special preview in select cities to the latest tom cruise movie called the last samari.

really looking forward to going tonight.

we bought tickets to see it yesterday when we went and saw timeline (michael crichton film) which was ok. i had read the book and found it moved better than the movie did.

logansrun

konichiwa,

I saw Rast Samuraii rast night. Very, very gooood.

Bradrey

63

Pictures of yourself.

by ihatescreennames in

jw
friends

a picture thread!.

time to come out of the closet.

i'm a bit of a voyeurist.

logansrun

What the hell, is that picture from your pioneerin' days? Ties at a food court, I love it.

B.

16

An example of inconsistency in Watchtower literalism....ABSTAIN FROM BLOOD

by logansrun in

jw
friends

the practice of blood-transfusion refusel by jws has been a topic long discussed among even the public.

i don't feel i have much of anything new to add to the arguments against such an extreme policy, but i will give "my take" on it.

when asked to defend their position on blood, jws will most often quote acts 15:20, 29 where the words "abstain from...blood" are used.

logansrun

TD,

Am I understanding you correctly if I were to say that if the JWs literally apply the command to 'abstain from blood' they would need to not even touch blood or have anything whatsoever to do with it -- that is the object, blood, would be taboo?

rocketman,

Good point about the "spiritual body." Yes, it does seem Paul preached dualism.

Bradley

16

An example of inconsistency in Watchtower literalism....ABSTAIN FROM BLOOD

by logansrun in

jw
friends

the practice of blood-transfusion refusel by jws has been a topic long discussed among even the public.

i don't feel i have much of anything new to add to the arguments against such an extreme policy, but i will give "my take" on it.

when asked to defend their position on blood, jws will most often quote acts 15:20, 29 where the words "abstain from...blood" are used.

logansrun

The practice of blood-transfusion refusel by JWs has been a topic long discussed among even the public. I don't feel I have much of anything new to add to the arguments against such an extreme policy, but I will give "my take" on it.

When asked to defend their position on blood, JWs will most often quote Acts 15:20, 29 where the words "abstain from...blood" are used. The JWs will state that this is a very clear pronouncement and that it's a "case-closed" argument. Is it?

I must admit, at first glance their reasoning seems sound. "That's what the Bible says clear and simple" would appear to be the case. But, as with many matters of controversy, the case is not nearly as "black and white" as the JWs would like to think.

Much of the JWs logic rests on their very literal interpretation of "abstain from...blood." Most Christians and Jews, as far as I know, believe that this Biblical statement applies solely to eating blood, not life-saving transfusions. (Some would go further that this injunction only applies to the 1st century Christians living in a Greco-Judaic world).

But the Bible doesn't say "abstain from eating blood" it simply says "abstain from blood." The interpretation that the scriptures really mean digestion of blood hinges on looking at the matter in context both scripturally and logically. And this is what most Christians and Jews do.

"No, no, no" say the JWs. "That's taking liberties with the scriptures." Maybe so. But do the JWs also take such exegetical liberties, perhaps on other matters? Yes they most certainly do. Let me give two examples.

The JWs take a non-literal view of the "days" in the creation account in Genesis. They believe that these "days" actually are thousands of years in length. But, the Bible doesn't say that. It says "days" -- even to go so far as to say that each one had "an evening and a morning." In fact, many Christians scoff at the JWs liberal view of the "days" of Genesis. If a person who was wholly unacquainted with the Bible were to read through Genesis on his own I don't think there is any way that they would be led to believe the "days" are anything but literal 24-hour periods. The clearest, most literal reading of Genesis would force one to conclude this.

But, the JWs interpret it differently. "The Bible doesn't really mean that" is basically what they say. "It really means 'thousands of years.'" So why not say that the Bible doesn't really mean "abstain from all blood" but simply "abstain from eating blood"? The JWs take liberties in one passage yet strict literalism in the other. It would seem that the inertia of organizational tradition accounts for this

Another, even more forceful example is the passage found at Romans 8:14. It says there, quite clearly: "For all who are led by God's spirit, these are God's sons." Further reading in context will show that being one of God's "sons" means a heavenly reward. But, if that is the case, it would clearly appear that whoever is led by God's spirit -- the same spirit which is necessary to have to abstain from the desires of the flesh in verse 13 -- is going to heaven. Of course, the JWs cannot have this. Their exegetical tradition will not tolerate it. So, they must take some interpretive liberalities with this most problematic verse. How do they do that?

Reasoning From The Scriptures page 164 paragraph 3 gives the JW way of getting around this. After citing the scripture in Romans the book states:

"At the time this was written it was true that all who were led by God's spirit were God's sons whose hope was that they would be glorified with Christ. But this has not always been true."

The book then goes on to talk about John the Baptiser not going to heaven as they understand Matthew 11:11 -- itself a debateable interpretation...I will now continue the quotation:

"So, too, after the gathering of the heirs of the heavenly Kingdom there would be others who would serve God...yet not share in heavenly glory."

All right, if you missed it -- and it's easy to miss as the JWs tend to obfuscate this point -- the JWs say that Romans 8:14 does not really mean that all who are led by God's spirit are his "sons." No! That verse only applies to the annointed. So why doesn't the verse say "Everyone at this time who has God's spirit are his sons"? That would eliminate any confusion, right? But even the JWs are not that bold to actually translate this passage like that.

It stands to reason tha the clearest and least obscure way of understanding Romans 8:14 is to believe literally what it says plainly: everyone who has God's spirit is his son and will go to heaven. The JWs must add an interpretive layer onto this verse -- liberalizing it, if you will -- to make it "fit" their theological paradigm.

So, now the point I am trying to make: If the JWs are willing to take interpretive liberalities with the Genesis "days" and Romans 8:14 -- and there are countless other examples -- why not Acts 15:20,29? Is this not an inconsistency in their exegetical pattern? I will let the reader decide.

Bradley

11

Black BUTT Comely?

by SixofNine in

hell ya!

can i get an amen eman?

lol, guess i'm in a harlem state of mind today.

logansrun

All that and a bag ah chips....dogg.

B.