it's been a while since i posted here- i frequently lurk, but have been busy with work, life, and not letting the fact that i was a jw for so long linger over my life and become overcome with "what if's?
yesterday we got a phone call from my mother in law who is a jw.
she was distraught because she still has my husband (her son) who is no longer a jw as her medical and legal poa.
I agree that top be legally binding the document does not require the signatures of elders.
That appears to be a control thing on the part of the organization. Tell your mother-in-law to let her attorney do the work. Any DPA he/she produces would have your mother-in-laws wishes in mind a lot more than any one-size-fits-all form which puts the interests of the Witness organization ahead of its members.
Forscher
i'll never forget the assembly in madison, wi.
where some poor sap had to tell everyone that he had become addicted to porno on the net, but through much prayerful contemplation and after confessing to the elders he was able to come to "grips" with it.. good luck to that guy with ever getting a fine sister to marry him.. poor guy.
i really felt sorry for him.
For me the most memorable moment was,
1978 at the Superdome in New Orleans, LA. It was the last of the years the regular "international assemblies" were held. I was thinking of applying to Bethel. I bumped into this old brother I knew from my district back home and he talked me out of it. He recommended that I go to college instead. When I objected on the grounds of current WTBTS policies on higher education. "Brother," he told me, "the Society sends people to college when it suits their purposes, and just who do you think really pays for their education?" "If they don't mind spending the money they get from our contributions on sending people all the way through law or engineering school, why shouldn't you go to college yourself and reap the benefits of such an education."
Well, I didn't take his advise right away, but I did eventually go. That wasn't the only thing he told me that day, he did tell me what Bethel life was really like. And the ex-bethelites here have confirmed what he told me those thirty years ago. In some ways it was probably the most profitable assembly I ever went to, even if I wasn't really quite ready for the seeds that old brother planted back then.
There are other stories. After all I did attend assemblies for thirty years and worked in about every department in some capacity, except administration and accounting which pretty much require holding a position as elder or ministerial servant to work in. But that one is the most memorable.
Forscher
the recent post about "the passion of the christ" has gotten me thinkingabout violence in film in general, and i would very much like a fewperspectives on something... last year, after finally shedding the reflexive guilt that was instilledin me (by my wt steeping) towards violent stories, i finally saw a few iconic films, including a few from quentin tarantino.
(including reservoir dogs) now tarantino is know for his unflinching depiction of stylized violence.
(exactly the sort of thing that is specifically condemned by the wt) some film makers have this knack for making cruelty, death, and violence a odd spectacle of dark beauty.
I never did see Kill Bill or its sequel.
I have a brother, who is no JW nor Christian for that matter, who often gets to many of those films before I do. He warned me that Kill Bill's graphic portrayal of certain aspects of sword work, etc. just detracted too much from the MA aspect and wasn't worth the trouble of watching. Sp I didn't waste the money.
Forscher
http://ffrf.org/quiz/bquiz.php.
we found this quiz after reading the book parenting beyond belief and sweetpea and i decided to take the challenge - afterall how difficult can 50 bible questions be for us born and brought up as jw's?.
our results were enlightening to say the least - we both scored 28/50 - not exactly brilliant although apparently above average.. take the quiz and post your results and comments..
32 of 50
30 - 39: Congratulations! Better informed than most Americans
Some were actually a bit more subjective than they'd like you to believe. For instance, they took one version of the ten commandments over another (I think the most recent version by just about any measure). And they used the ersatz excuse for not using Jehovah (incorrect pronunciation of the tetragramaton despite its clear use at Psalm 83:18 in the KJV)).
Forscher
the recent post about "the passion of the christ" has gotten me thinkingabout violence in film in general, and i would very much like a fewperspectives on something... last year, after finally shedding the reflexive guilt that was instilledin me (by my wt steeping) towards violent stories, i finally saw a few iconic films, including a few from quentin tarantino.
(including reservoir dogs) now tarantino is know for his unflinching depiction of stylized violence.
(exactly the sort of thing that is specifically condemned by the wt) some film makers have this knack for making cruelty, death, and violence a odd spectacle of dark beauty.
It is more like watching violence portrayed is thrilling, a subtle difference Satanus, but a difference all the same.
Like you, I often enjoy a technically good MA portrayal, largely out of appreciation for the expertise of the Choreographers involved in putting it together. That is because of my life-long interest in and past training in the martial arts. The Passion of Christ had quite a different effect on me. about the only people it could "turn on" are sadists who get-off on the graphic display of torture. We all know it was modeled on the old German passion plays and what they were all about. The effect it had on me was a new appreciation of what the Romans did to their victims of that especially humiliating and agonizing form of execution, and what Jesus went through in his last hours. Oh, I knew the gory details transmitted to use by history about crucification, but nothing has quite the impact of seeing it so graphically depicted. And that despite the minor differences between the depiction and the real practice.
The impact was such, that nobody said a word or moved from there seats for a few minutes after the film ended in the theater I attended. If you ever really want a new appreciation of the brutality inherent in public execution methods predating our modern era, I highly recommend watching it. but be warned, it is not easy to watch!
Forscher
in columbus ohio it is not against thye law for a woman to sunbathe topless in a city park.
recently, a firefighter walked by a woman who was sunbathing topless and they began talking.
she playfully put her foot on his body and then asked him if he would show her his penis.
Yes, I see what you mean. ;)
HS
Sorry, the rules don't permit me to provide a similar view of a fat, middle-aged female chest in answer Hill, but I imagine both you and our readers can find one without trouble if they would like ;)
Forscher
the recent post about "the passion of the christ" has gotten me thinkingabout violence in film in general, and i would very much like a fewperspectives on something... last year, after finally shedding the reflexive guilt that was instilledin me (by my wt steeping) towards violent stories, i finally saw a few iconic films, including a few from quentin tarantino.
(including reservoir dogs) now tarantino is know for his unflinching depiction of stylized violence.
(exactly the sort of thing that is specifically condemned by the wt) some film makers have this knack for making cruelty, death, and violence a odd spectacle of dark beauty.
Yes, artist need to put off shackles imposed by culture, and state. Just think how borring life would be if they all remained shackled that way. Art is a human in born trait driven no doubt but the other human trait to ask questions and look for answers, and explore the world deeper and deeper. Heck if we didn't do this we would never have invented fire and the wheel(true artist the hunter/gatherers who discovered these things).
I would respectfully ask how promoting the lowest depravity in human behavior accomplishes the aims you claim to look towards?
I say the future existance of our species rests on those who break free of regemented thinking and give themselve more room by dropping boundaries. I'm tired of all this government censorship, it hurts our species.
I might agree with your contention if said persons actually were breaking free from "regimented thinking." However, they aren't. They are conforming to and promoting a new regimented way of thinking founded in the concept that man is nothing more than just another animal and the precept that the "philosophy of a cur dog," as Eugene Burdick or Harvey Wheeler put it in their novel Fail Safe in 1962, is liberating and enlightened.
Forscher
in columbus ohio it is not against thye law for a woman to sunbathe topless in a city park.
recently, a firefighter walked by a woman who was sunbathing topless and they began talking.
she playfully put her foot on his body and then asked him if he would show her his penis.
In answer to the one who asked why a woman can be topless in a public park,
It goes back to equal treatment of the sexes. For many years now it has been legal for men to go topless in public while women are not allowed. In New York some time back feminist activist to the government to court over that one on the grounds that it was unconstitutional discriminatory to permit men to go topless and require women to cover up. It went all the way to the New York State Supreme Court.......where the feminists won.
The usual argument, which prevailed for many years, was that women's bare breasts were somehow more titillating for men to view than male's chests were for women. Thus it was reasoned that the display of bare female breasts in public should be forbidden because they aroused men inappropriately, and were thus obscene. Anticipating that argument, the feminists' lawyers provided a scientific study before the courts which documented that the arousal of women's libido by the sight bare mens' breasts was just as profound as the sight of bare womens' breasts was for men. that, of course, placed the courts in the unenviable position of either banning the the exposure of all breasts, regardless of sex , or permitting the exposure of womens' breasts in public as well as mens'. They opted for the latter with the proviso that women thus exposing themselves had to do so in a fashion which could not be considered lascivious (i.e. swing them around in a fashpin calculated to arouse the passion of onlookers, like strippers as stripper often do, etc.).
Any ladies care to comment on the veracity, or lack thereof, of the study's conclusions?
Forscher
"manufacturing consent" explores the the propaganda model of the corporate owned news media:.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5631882395226827730&q=chomsky&total=2145&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=8 .
I haven't read Chomsky, but,
To the folks who called him a "Marxist hack," You might want to do your research. He describes himself as a "libertarian anarchist," the intellectual opposite of Marxists in the Anarchist movement. So while he may agree with some of the basic premises of socialists in general, including Communism, he disagrees with their authoritarian approach being the cure for society's ills. In practice, that would mean a limited governmental interference (regulation) in an essentially capitalist economy on the same grounds that I do (neither big business nor the government can be trusted to do the right thing for the consumer). So I am not going to jump on the Chomsky bashing bandwagen.
What little I see regarding his foreign policy views appears to be closer to the views of the founding fathers than either the neo-cons or the progressives as far as I can tell, if a little naive as to the cure, much like Ron Paul. In that, he may well be closer to the libertarian view than anything else. If my read is wrong, I'd be happy for correction on that score from anybody who can write an informed analysis of them. Maybe I'll find the time for further research. All in all, I don't see anything which moves me to discount the man, though I find some of his linguistical assumptions as I've seen them presented perhaps a little off-base (that we are genetically wired with a grammatical structure). Maybe Leo or somebody can point me to better sources online for that one.
His association with Ward Churchill doesn't endear to me at all. But I guess nobody's perfect. Best wishes to all!
Forscher
apart rom job 6;6., has there been other ridiculious ranslations?
There probably is but as someone who has studied ancient Greek I want to offer the opinion that the NWT of the NT is actually quite good in general. Probably the biggest legitimate gripe is the inserting of "Jehovah" where there is no evidence for it. Also a few doctrinally influenced passages could be enumerated, but you could say the same thing about other translations as well.
Methinks your comment illustrates the obvious Herr error of tremendous magnetude (meaning of your moniker down here in the Southeast US). Freddy Franz was clever enough to make sure that his renderings were plausible enough alternative for the most part. That is why some can argue with some authority for many of his more controversial renderings. I do give the man credit for that. He also did the same thing for the OT as well. I will point out that Barbara Anderson gave us the key to understanding how a fellow with no documented formal education in Hebrew could pull that one off. Sadly, though, most didn't notice it in the post she wrote.
As for my nomination for the "rediculous translations in the NWT." First and foremost Franz's coining of the phrase "torture Stake" to render the word stauros.Dr. Jason BeDuhn is quoted making a point I've agreed with for years:
On "torture stake," again, I think that the NWT is a bit heavy handed in trying to make a point. Certainly "stake" would be sufficient, and more desirable. The JW's are trying to shock Christians away from their devotion to the cross. It is, after all, an instrument of execution. They are right that STAUROS does not necessarily mean the cross form as Christianity has thought of it. It can be just a plain stake in the ground to which someone is nailed. But I think "torture" is too much and misses the point: it is meant to be a form of execution and not torture.
I have to agree with him that the sensible thing to do was to render it as simply "stake," or "post" if he wanted to avoid using the word cross and cover his reasons for doing so in the appendix. Instead he chose to use an ambiguous phrase which could just as well mean a whipping post or a stake at which one is burned alive. But then, I suspect the man was creating a new entry into the rather bizarre vocabulary of Witness buzzwords.
But then, there might be an obscure justification for it after all. I do recall that folks discussing his use of the word "impale" for rendering stauro in another topic did find such an equally obscure justification for that one. So anything is possible.
Forscher
