this is the first time that i ever refused to go the memorial.
usually i make excuses or fall back on the 'maybe'.
in fact, i have never stated an opinion that differs with anything that a jw at my door says.
So its been nearly a month and no one has come back to talk with me. Do you think that what I said made them label me as someone who has been talking to *apostates* or something? I hope not. If I can't talk to them, then it kind of defeats the purpose of learning how to talk to them. I don't think its been this long since someone has come to my door in quite some time.
Tammy
would you need worship...think about it, you're god what would you need of worship...you made life isn't that enough, did you make it to grovel upon the earth seeking your approval ready to spite it at any infraction to demand of it total loyality or destroy it at your whim because it didn't meet to your approval...why would you create it in the first place why would you need it....
I think God does want our worship - but -I think his idea of worship is that we love one another and do good to one another.
He seemed to care more that we are right with one another, than that we go into a temple and worship in that manner. (Matthew 5: 23-24 - If you are offering your gift at the alter and remember that your brother has something against you... first go and be reconciled to your brother then come and offer your gift.)
And the laws He gave us were for our good, not for some need to be worshipped. (Mark 2:27 - The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.)
Also Psalm 40:6 describes His idea of 'fasting.'
Tammy
another newbie thought ... i believe i saw another recent post mention a similar thought ... it is about the candor of those eaking the lead of jehovah's wintesses, namely, the governing body.. i have been bothered by this for some time now.
our publications point out one of the reasons we trust the bible's accuracy is the candor of its writers ... (yes, our publications, it is the natural was for me to speak at this time).. if only.
i really don't think i would have gotten to the point i am at if the organization was candor about mistakes.
I find this candor issue ironic. When I began my bible study, my teacher said to me that the WT had made mistakes, but unlike others, they will admit and correct their mistakes. That they are constantly working to learn from these mistakes (which come from a lack of understanding) and to find the truth.
I thought that candor was extremely refreshing. Because of course everyone makes mistakes. Admitting them and learning from them... well, I could get behind that. I could trust that.
Of course, she never mentioned 1975, or all the times before 1914, or the organ transplants being forbidden and then not, or the back and forth on Sodom and Gomorrah.
I don't think she deliberately deceived me. I wonder if she knew all of this, or if she had just swept it under the carpet, so to speak.
Tammy
i commented elsewhere that some believe john the baptist might have been the author of the book of revelation.
i thought i should start a new thread on this subject, since the subject might be of interest to others.. over the centuries, several names have been put forward as the author but, as i wrote, some only think the firebrand baptist might have been the author, but no one really knows.. i have provided a scan from a book that discusses what we know of the author as well as canvassing possible candidates.. the pages are available at:.
http://www.jwstudies.com/who_wrote_revelation.pdf.
I don't know how it could be John the Baptist, since messages were to be sent to the churches, and John the Baptist was beheaded before these were formed.
Tammy
religion does as it is told.
science questions, tests, proves and moves forward.. .
religion gives its answers without listening to your questions.. .
Question - do you appreciate the difference between faith and organized religion?
Perhaps I worded that wrong. I didn't mean to strike a defense chord. I was only wondering if you considered faith and organized religion to be the same thing.
How would I possibly make them specific?
Sorry. Not sure I know what you mean. Are you asking me how I would have worded the statements to make them more specific?
The best way to refute something you feel is incorrect is by giving a counter-example. Would you care to?
Okay.
The following is taken from the Unitarian Universalist website. Its one of the few that I looked up to prove that not all religions believe the statements you made. The bolding is mine, and directly contradicts these following statements that you had listed:
-Religion does as it is told. It follows.
-Religion gives its answers without listening to your questions.
-Religion seeks to reinforce its dogma
-Religion disdains progress (I'm not actually sure which religions you think disdain progress other than those like the amish)
-Religion makes humanity unworthy and corrupt.
-Religion burns witches, skins scholars, tortures thinkers, burns books and channels God
-Religion is the child of elitists stoning children, dominating women, forcing submission walking lockstep, closing minds.
-Religion the Dark Ages
And here are their beliefs.
The beliefs of Unitarian Universalists are diverse: About one in four identifies themselves to be Christian. Many do not believe in, or question, the existence of a "God" deity or deities. They often describe themselves as agnostics, atheists, humanists, free thinkers... Some maintain other religious traditions from around the world: Buddhism, Hinduism, Neopaganism, Judaism etc.
Unitarianism features a lack of dogma, a belief in the inherent goodness of people, and the obligation for each member to seek out and develop his or her own system of beliefs and ethics. You are encouraged to explore your own intuition and personal leanings.
Universalism is a religious movement which promotes the concept that every person will go to heaven after death. This contrasts with the traditional Christian belief that one's natural destination is eternal torment in hell and only those who are 'saved' will go to heaven. Unitarians and Universalists co-exist happily though their views may differ.
Unitarian Universalism is a liberal religion born of the Jewish and Christian traditions. We keep our minds open to the religious questions people have struggled with in all times and places.
As for the leading question, I think it is similar to asking, "Would you rather be stupid and believe in religion which does not promote free thought, or would you rather be smart and choose science which does?"
No rational person is going to choose number one in the biased way that it is worded. Obviously, at least one religion promote free thinking and the power of thought.
Tammy
i always have a hard time saying entrepreneur.. are there any words or phrases that get you tongue tied?.
Melancholy
I had never heard this word spoken out loud. I had only ever read it in books, and so in my head I pronounced it 'mel-ank-oly'. One day I was trying to tell my sister that I felt 'mel-ank-oly'. She frowned, and I repeated a couple of times... until she burst out laughing and corrected me. To compound my embarrassment, my sister is a teenage know-it-all (I speak with great love and affection here) and half my age!
Tammy
acts 15:29 says to "keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from flood and from things strangled and from fornication".. a study the relevant mosaic laws indicates that blood was to be poured out, and not eaten, when an animal was killed.
if the animal had already died, then it was okay to eat the unbled meat of the animal if you went through the ceremonial cleansing.
thus blood only needs to be poured out when a life was purposefully taken.. however, one could counterargue that since abstaining from "blood" and "things strangled" are listed as seperate items, the "blood" prohibition covers more than just the eating of improperly bled meat.. some have suggested that abstaining from "blood" means to abstain from bloodshed, but i haven't seen any strong arguments/reasoning to support this.. any thoughts on why this distinction is made?
Clearly, Jesus demonstrated the over-riding principle was the precious saving of life even if it meant superficially breaking the Law!
If this applies to Sabbath breaking to bring about healing and preserving of life:
WHY WOULDN'T IT APPLY TO BLOOD as well?
Whether "Blood" prohibition refers to eating the blood of animals or the transfusing of blood in a transfusion (arguably) the same principle demonstrated by Jesus would apply.
LIFE is more precious than law.
I read something almost identical to this from a rabbi. He stressed that the importance placed on blood was because blood was the life of a person. So it was life that was important, and JW's had gotten it backward by placing their blood doctrine above life.
Tammy
i am really on the fence on this issue right now and would love some opinions.. i find that i dont sit down and read the bible for long periods since becoming inactive, but on the other hand, individual scriptures mean much more to me now.. i will sit down and look up some favorite passages from time to time and feel like its the first time i really "got it" - without the jw goggles on.
i love matthew chapter 23, since i think it describes to a tee the situation in jw congregations.
i think if jesus returned today, he would blast the elders and "leaders" of the borg in a similar fashion (along with most religious leaders) .matthew 24 is actually more interesting to me now, simply because my whole life was waiting for the 1914 generation to end sometime during the reagan era!
I continued to look to the bible for truth. Alas it made no sense to me. -and- In answer to the original question, the WT did not kill my appreciation for the bible - it did that all on its own!
Gladiator - I'm sorry.
We all see different things based on our experiences and outlooks. I look to the bible for what was written and taught, and of course to read about Christ (whose teachings and example are truths to me). I take great comfort in the love that I find to be the message of the bible. If I read the OT without the NT, that message might get lost, but the NT balances it... at least for me. But my faith also calls on me to look at life, at science, and at the world around me for truth.
On the up side, hypnotherapy must serve you very well against opponents in the coliseum.
religion does as it is told.
science questions, tests, proves and moves forward.. .
religion gives its answers without listening to your questions.. .
Question - do you appreciate the difference between faith and organized religion? Faith might be found in organized religion, but organized religion is not faith.
Regardless of what you think on that matter, these feel like blanket statements; very generalized. Not all religions teach the things stated above, and the question at the end seems extremely leading. Superstition is defined as an irrational belief in something... but many people of faith consider their faith to be rational... albeit, not scientifically proven.
Tammy
im in the middle of polishing up the manuscript for my novel, armageddons disciples.
im rearranging a few things, not easy in a 450 page manuscript.
my daughter, who is my usual sounding board for this project, is busy choreographing a musical, so im going to bounce it off you guys.
Hi Jeff.
Its hard to comment on the content out of context, but it reads very well. I don't see any newbie mistakes, so I'm assuming you're not a newbie writer. Every action as an emotional purpose behind it, and you convey the feelings and character of each person in the scene clearly.
However, I imagine you are hoping for some constructive criticism, so here goes:
Another piece of Disciple nonsense. Although The Word always spoke of the moral superiority of the Disciples, it acted as if a man and woman left alone for three minutes would immediately have sex. The door needed to stay open.
This is the only part I found slightly confusing. It seems a little ambiguous on whether the pov of this *disciple nonsense* is Packard's or the Word's. If Packard thinks this rule is nonsense, then why does he end it with 'The door needed to stay open.'? Perhaps an explanation of something like 'but in the interest of (whatever), the door needed to stay open.
I could be misunderstanding because I don't have the context of the rest of the story.
Great emotion and visuals!
Tammy
