LOL! That's some funny stuff, Terry.
Adam
Posts by adamah
-
5Religious beards of Ministry
by Terry in.
.
spurgeon remains highly influential among christians of different denominations, among whom he is known as the "prince of preachers"..
-
-
-
11
Choices...
by Sammy Jenkis inquick little moment of reflection i experienced today:.
i had a buddy back in high school whose younger brother was an acquaintance of mine, we weren't ever really friends but the times we interacted he was alright.. for all intents and purposes we'll call this guy "smitty.".
smitty was an all star jw, super zealous on service, mr. go-to for anything spiritual, completely a johnny-on-the-spot in his congregation, and honestly a person i saw a lot of potential in for the future with the "truth" and life in general.. after i graduated high school i lost touch with his brother and about 3 years later heard a story on the news where his name popped up.
-
-
adamah
Yup, thanks for sharing, Sammy.
If someone engages in bad actions while still a member, it's excused by the others by saying, "well, they really DIDN'T believe".
If after they leave, it's excused by saying, "that's what happens when you turn your back on God."
Rationalization is an air-tight and impenetrable defense mechanism that only gives the illusion of being protected from harm, but the problem is that while it protects one's beliefs from all external challenges, it also keeps someone trapped BEHIND a wall they themselves created.
Adam
-
64
2 she-bears kill 42 children
by confusedandalone inwe all remember this passage vividly: from there elisha went up to bethel.
while he was on his way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him.
"go up baldhead," they shouted, "go up baldhead!
-
-
adamah
42= 6x6 +6 brooklyn is interested in numbers. beancounters.
MORE EVIDENCE!
666? That's the Sign of the Devil!
Holy Simoly!
Still not sure why the account mentioned "2 she bears" but much more proof of a prophecy being fulfilled, and I'm going to have to admit they were RIGHT!
Adamah
-
64
2 she-bears kill 42 children
by confusedandalone inwe all remember this passage vividly: from there elisha went up to bethel.
while he was on his way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him.
"go up baldhead," they shouted, "go up baldhead!
-
-
adamah
noah shoveling manure for 9 month for all mammal species for 9 month while water covered mount everest while the pyramids were being build.
That one's easy: nephilim (who were living before and AFTER the flood) wore deep-sea diving masks and build the pyramids WHILE the Flood was occurring.
The Bible gives you subtle clues, and contains ABSOLUTELY no contradictions, unless you're not really reflecting on it!
PS I just realized that the '42 children' may be a prophecy pointing to atheist author Douglas Adam's famous saying, "the answer to everything is 42". He was a false prophet, being the prototype of foolish mortal men who think their own haughty mockery is greater than the wisdom of God!
Adam
-
64
2 she-bears kill 42 children
by confusedandalone inwe all remember this passage vividly: from there elisha went up to bethel.
while he was on his way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him.
"go up baldhead," they shouted, "go up baldhead!
-
-
adamah
Prologos said:
How many of the brooklyn 8 are balding?
Wow, now THAT'S scary. Prologos may be on to something BIG here.
I mean, what are the odds that the GB just happened to fulfill the Biblical prophecy by following in the footsteps of the "other" faithful slave, the prophet Elisha, even right down to emulating his male-pattern baldness!?!
Evil apostates are OBVIOUSLY the '42 taunting children' in the prophecy, and thus will be eaten by 'two bears'.
So much symbology here: what could be the significance of the number "42", and what is the hidden meaning of the mysterious "two bears" that will consume apostates?
Just to be on the safe side, nobody taunt the GB for their baldness (at least, not until this is figured out; can someone write a letter to the GB, asking them about this matter?)
Shirley said-
It's a Biblical warning that even children must be politically correct at all times. The children should have said "folliclely challenged" instead of the more offensive term "bald".
Nice try changing the plain-face reading of the passage, you evil scripture-twister, you!
Only those who are AUTHORIZED by God to interpret the Bible are allowed to do that kind of thing!
Adam
-
36
BOE Letter: Re: Safety precautions when attending spiritual programs
by pixel ini know atlatis will bring this letter to the forum.
i just wanted to paste it here and bold the most hilarious, weird thing fro the letter.
the bold part that i added made me lol.. .
-
-
adamah
Tech49 said-
It is just sickening. The level and quality of anything remotely educational and mentally stimulating and invigorating is GONE.
Yeah, as a kid I remember how the Society put out ambitious works like 'Aid to Bible Understanding', which actually attempted to offer a semblance of help in trying to untangle the use of symbology and cultural context presented in the OT/NT. As Armageddon failed to materialize, the WT has focused on targeting those with less education, increased their reliance on purely emotional appeals (have you seen the prodigal son video, with the histrionic JW mother!?), since their prior efforts towards intellectualism only encouraged rational thinking in members that only helped them to clearly see the evidence of the WT's manipulation and scripture-twisting.
You've got to wonder if the old-school JWs perceive the 'dummying down' in the literature, or just think they're actually getting smarter?
Adamah
-
25
The Governing Bodys irrational fear of the Apostate Boogeyman
by Londo111 inhttp://freeminds2.org/the-theocratic-life-and-times-of-theodore-jaracz/.
i was reading the above article by barbara anderson and was struck that, rather than knowing better, the governing body actually believes in this shadowy organization of former members who are out to attack them.
[jaracz] said that the governing body had been preparing for much longer than anybody could guess for an attack by apostates.
-
-
adamah
Yeah, it's the classic 'in-group' vs 'out-group' game, which, if you read the article you'd see actually IS biblically-based, eg with Psalms declaring how eg David hates those who are said to be the enemies of God.
Never-mind that Jesus commanded the opposite paradoxical approach ("love your enemy"); the contradictory advise only allows a smorgasborg of options from which believers feel entitled to choose. JWs claim to be the living embodiment of the children of Israel one minute, then followers of Jesus the next.
That's why posters might ask themselves if they're not actually HELPING the GB (and facilitating others staying in the Borg) by offering evidence that seemingly fulfills the GBs claim of ALL apostates being mentally-diseased bitter individuals who act as agents of Satan, filled with hate. How are you harming them by living up to their expectations? Seems that is allowing them to STILL control you vs plotting your own course.
If you give people enough room, they'll soon reveal their TRUE natures; that goes for JWs GB (spouting THEIR intense HATE) and so-called "apostates" (some of whom ARE paradoxically following the example of Jesus even more than the JW's GB, operating out of concern for those members who are trapped in the borg who they don't even know, and likely never will meet).
Even though I personally don't believe Jesus was a divine being, etc, it doesn't mean I've thrown out ALL of his wisdom, and cannot recogize the fundamental truths in what he said, where Jesus was ALL ABOUT explaining how compelling people to act driven by love is healthier and more effective than trying to motive people to act out of fear (it's the classic 'carrot vs stick' situation, where one single blow from the stick undermines all the carrots that were offered).
Vidiot said-
From that, I've came to the conclusion that authoritarian personalities - particularly those in leadership positions - don't experience cognitive dissonance the way the rest of us do.
There's a spectrum of personalities on the GB, and Ray Franz' book 'Crisis of Conscience' touches on the various personality types who served on the GB, from those who were actually trying to do "God's Will" to those who were more aware of the sense of control and power they exerted.
It's safe to conclude they're ALL dedicated "company men", having many more decades of 'managment experience' in the organization that most; hence they are no strangers to playing the games of navigating the power structure of the organization, and are more invested into it's perpetuation. It's not so much about personal wealth, but moreso about the rewards of feeding the same ego needs of a typical JW: wanting to please God, and telling themselves they are KEY players in the events described in the Bible, the living fulfillment of Jesus' words about the FDS.
However, they're all trapped from implementing chance due to the implementation of an organizational structure that guarantees diffusion of resposbility, where if they don't personally feel like they're feeling "holy spirit", they cannot voice their personal doubts, and will alleviate guilt for feeling like a poseur by telling themselves, "well, the other brothers seem filled with spirit, so I'll just go along with the group".
Adam
-
11
Embarrassing J.w 'historical' article ... Cringe....
by snare&racket inwhat would an article look like if written by cult leaders promoting igorant beliefs, drowning under the weight of real evidence....?
enjoy!
(link below).
-
-
adamah
S&R, I dunno if you've ever seen the publication WT wrote on evolution a few years ago (can't remember it's name), but they actually admitted in the footnotes that the authorities they cited to question evolution ACTUALLY BELIEVE in evolution! So while it's a step in the right direction of intellectual honesty, it seems they're banking on the reader not bothering to read the footnotes, and/or not putting 'two and two' together to see the blatent dishonesty of using a scientist's words to reach a conclusion they wouldn't agree with....
Adam
-
11
Embarrassing J.w 'historical' article ... Cringe....
by snare&racket inwhat would an article look like if written by cult leaders promoting igorant beliefs, drowning under the weight of real evidence....?
enjoy!
(link below).
-
-
adamah
Gotta love this one:
Still, is it not hard to believe that a national leader would order the cold-blooded murder of infants? Scholar George Rawlinson reminds us: “Infanticide . . . has prevailed widely at different times and places, and been regarded as a trivial matter.” Indeed, one need not look far to find equally chilling examples of mass murder in modern times. The Bible account may be disturbing, but it is all too credible.
No, it's not really all THAT HARD to believe, esp. since the Bible provides equally-chilling examples of infanticide with a God who orders the cold-blooded murder of infants (and Pharoah was considered the living embodiment of an Egyptian God):
1st Samuel 15:3 (KJV)
3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
Does THAT kind of Biblical evidence support the credibility of the account, too?
Adam
PS Ah, there's nothing like WT's continued long-standing practice of quoting someone as an authority on a topic, when the authority COMPLETELY DISAGREES with the conclusion the article is attempting to make, AKA cherry-picking.
WT says-
In his book Exploring Exodus, Nahum M. Sarna observes that while there are some similarities, the story of Moses’ birth departs from “The Legend of Sargon” in “many significant respects.” Claims that the Bible account was derived from a pagan legend thus ring hollow.
From Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nahum_M._Sarna
Sarna's approach to study of the Bible appears to be founded on the following question: What was the purpose of the Biblical narrative for the people in whose benefit it was composed? Thus, the question of why the Torah presents a particular account in a particular fashion is to be answered by considering the purpose which the narrative is set to achieve. Thus, for Sarna, the prospect of judging the "scientific" merits of the account of Creation is misguided, and literalismespecially is to be utterly rejected if an honest interaction with the texts is to be achieved (Sarna 1966, p. xxiii). With reference to his Understanding Genesis, he writes:
If it rejects the literalist approach to Scripture, it is solely because that approach cannot stand the test of critical scholarly examination. Literalism involves a fundamental misconception of the mental processes of biblical man and ignorance of his modes of self expression. It thus misrepresents the purport of the narrative, obscures the meaningful and enduring in it and destroys its relevancy. At the same time, literalism must of necessity become the victim of hopeless inconsistency. By what quirk of faith or logic has the science of astronomy finally merited indifference or even sympathy on the part of our fundamentalists, whereas the biological, geological and anthropological sciences still encounter hostility? A century after Darwin, some people still reject his theories as heresy, or else find it necessary to attempt some tortuous "reconciliation" between Scripture and evolution. Yet the heliocentric theories of Copernicus and Galileo effectuate no comparable stimulation of the sympathetic system. Phrases like the "rising" or "setting" of the sun occur scores of times in the Bible and were certainly meant and understood literally, in accordance with the prevailing cosmologies, until but a few hundred years ago. Today, no one would dream of citing these biblical phrases to discredit the science of astronomy. A metaphorical interpretation in these instances no longer causes an excessive secretion of adrenalin.
Further, Sarna strenuously argues that the opening chapters of Genesis must not be interpreted as a treatise on science. Approaching the Biblical narrative in this fashion only results in "tortuous reconciliations" that sacrifice both intellectual honesty and the true meaning of the Biblical passages. Thus, the "scientific" interpretation of Genesis is seen by Sarna as the worst of two worlds (Sarna 1966, p. 3):
Adam
-
64
2 she-bears kill 42 children
by confusedandalone inwe all remember this passage vividly: from there elisha went up to bethel.
while he was on his way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him.
"go up baldhead," they shouted, "go up baldhead!
-
-
adamah
Where are the defenders of a literal interpretation of this Biblical account? eg if I were to suggest, "Well, that's obviously a tall-tale, since there's NO POSSIBLE WAY that 2 bears could eat 42 children", you'd almost expect someone to chime in defending how it WOULD be possible, just like they do for the Flood account.
No one's going to suggest the bears must've taken only Hors d'oeuvre-sized bites of each child, as if only sampling them? No takers?
(sound of cricket chirps)
Adam