Jump to content

Guest Nicole

Piñatas

Topic Summary

Created

Last Reply

Replies

Views

Guest Nicole -
TrueTomHarley -
65
3079

Top Posters


Recommended Posts

Guest Nicole

Why are JW's not allowed to use piñatas at parties? 

250px-PIÑATA.jpg

Share this post


Link to post

Guest Nicole

Thanks for your response, I read that article but I still have that same question. Interestingly someone asked Awake a similar question. Can anyone explain it clearer? 

    Hello guest!

Piñatas I read with interest the article “The Piñata—An Ancient Tradition.” (September 22, 2003) It left me with some questions. The ties to false religion are well-documented. But the article seemed to take the position that as long as it doesn’t bother someone’s conscience, it is OK. What about birthdays and holidays such as Christmas?

S. W., United States

“Awake!” responds: Christians refrain from any celebrations or customs that continue to involve false religious beliefs or activities that violate Bible principles. For example, the Bible definitely puts birthday celebrations in a bad light. (Genesis 40:20; Matthew 14:6-10) However, if it is very obvious that a custom has no current false religious significance and involves no violation of Bible principles, each Christian must make a personal decision as to whether he will follow such a custom.

Share this post


Link to post

Taken from the article:

"A main concern is, not what the practice meant hundreds of years ago, but how it is viewed today in your area. "

 

Really?!?

Then why are birthdays bad again? oh yeah, the beheading thing right? Both instances in the Bible given in the articles speak of someone being beheaded, so they MUST be bad. Well then Mothers should NOT be giving their children naps!!!!!!! The practice of taking naps in the afternoon is tied with beheading as well!          see below

How utterly ridiculous it is to deny a child the fun surrounding their birthday. Its ONE day of the year. Don't give me that BS "we can celebrate a child any day of the year, not just one day" That is a lame excuse to force conformity. Is that why "turkey day" is a day around thanksgiving? OR "present day" is near Christmas?  or a costume party in early November is ok?                                                                                       

2 Samuel 4:5-7

"5 And the sons of Rimmon the Beerothite, Rechab and Baanah, went, and came about the heat of the day to the house of Ishbosheth, who lay on a bed at noon.

6 And they came thither into the midst of the house, as though they would have fetched wheat; and they smote him under the fifth rib: and Rechab and Baanah his brother escaped.

7 For when they came into the house, he lay on his bed in his bedchamber, and they smote him, and slew him, and beheaded him, and took his head, and gat them away through the plain all night."

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

to deny a child the fun surrounding their birthday

Typical half-baked argument. The so-called "birthday fun", no matter how twee, is imposed upon children by adults.

Children would not attach any significance to birthdays, if they even remembered them, without this practice being continually reinforced by doting adults often under the influence of commercial and media propoganda.

To say that children are then "denied fun" is like a drug dealer complaining that prohibition is denying his clients fun from using a substance he has addicted them to for his own personal gain.

Try another tack on this please!

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Typical half-baked argument. The so-called "birthday fun", no matter how twee, is imposed upon children by adults.

Children would not attach any significance to birthdays, if they even remembered them, without this practice being continually reinforced by doting adults often under the influence of commercial and media propoganda.

To say that children are then "denied fun" is like a drug dealer complaining that prohibition is denying his clients fun from using a substance he has addicted them to for his own personal gain.

Try another tack on this please!

So instead of taking my comment as a whole, you choose the easiest portion to argue against.

Try addressing the notion that the society sees birthdays as a practice that God dislikes based upon the two instances given in the Bible to support their claim and the point which I have also addressed. So drawing from the society's line of reasoning, naps must also displease God. Is that a true statement? Does God dislike naps? Why? Why not? Using the same logic I would have to think that the society does believe that God dislikes naps....and cats too, but we won't go there just yet. 

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

you choose the easiest portion to argue against

If it falls down here, there is little point in arguing on any other basis. No need to sledgehammer this little nut.

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

So instead of taking my comment as a whole, you choose the easiest portion to argue against.

Who doesn't?

Besides, you know full well that beheading is no more than an auxiliary point, nowhere presented as the main reason. These days (thankfully) it recedes even more as a factor when the subject is discussed.

(just in case you are on to something, though, I haven't taken a nap since I read your words)

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

If it falls down here, there is little point in arguing on any other basis. No need to sledgehammer this little nut.

I disagree, Its more so because defending the syllogism fallacy used to support the control of people for harmless practices  is impossible, so one must take a diversion as to avoid the obvious. 

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Who doesn't?

Besides, you know full well that beheading is no more than an auxiliary point, nowhere presented as the main reason. These days (thankfully) it recedes even more as a factor when the subject is discussed.

(just in case you are on to something, though, I haven't taken a nap since I read your words)

I'm interested in your point of the beheading being auxiliary. If that is not the major support then what is? Isn't it the beheading that is painting "birthdays" in the Bible in a bad light? 

From the reasoning book:

Definition: The day of one’s birth or the anniversary of that day. In some places the anniversary of one’s birth, especially that of a child, is celebrated with a party and the giving of gifts. Not a Biblical practice.

Do Bible references to birthday celebrations put them in a favorable light? The Bible makes only two references to such celebrations:

Gen. 40:20-22: “Now on the third day it turned out to be Pharaoh’s birthday, and he proceeded to make a feast . . . Accordingly he returned the chief of the cupbearers to his post of cupbearer . . . But the chief of the bakers he hung up.”

Matt. 14:6-10: “When Herod’s birthday was being celebrated the daughter of Herodias danced at it and pleased Herod so much that he promised with an oath to give her whatever she asked. Then she, under her mother’s coaching, said: ‘Give me here upon a platter the head of John the Baptist.’ . . . He sent and had John beheaded in the prison.”

Everything that is in the Bible is there for a reason. (2 Tim. 3:16, 17) Jehovah’s Witnesses take note that God’s Word reports unfavorably about birthday celebrations and so shun these.

Nothing in scripture states that the celebration of a birthday is prohibited. 

Share this post


Link to post

You missed two points from what you read in the reasoning book. 

1. 2 Timothy 3:16,17 was quoted. It emphasizes the fact that what were written in the scriptures was to equip Christians to please Jehovah. 

Quote

17 so that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.

The examples of birthdays in the bible were bad examples and not worthy for Christians to emulate.

Then comes the second reason you decided to miss out. 

2. Secular history. The Jews and early Christians associated birthday with idolatry. Why did you not realize that, Shiwii? The Jews wouldn't celebrate birthdays and when they read pharah's account and Herod's beheading of John they see it as a scriptural confirmation of what they are already aware of. Bad examples. Romans 15:4a comes to mind here:

Quote

4 For all the things that were written beforehand were written for our instruction,

As Christians we copy good examples.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Shiwiii said:

I'm interested in your point of the beheading being auxiliary. If that is not the major support then what is? 

Search for more recent materials explaining birthdays. They play down the beheading references, which were possibly overused.

Share this post


Link to post

Whew!

This subject was discussed at GREAT LENGTH here on the Archive several years ago, but like the "Beard" Issue, seems to resurface like a Japanese Periscope outside Pearl Harbor from time to time.   I wish I knew how to access threads from 5 years or so, ago, but alas and alack, I do not.

The best I can do is post a similar thread I COULD find, talking about how customs and traditions we practice now should be viewed in relationship to past histories.  It has been bouncing around the Internet for at least a decade I know about, and I am afraid its authorship has been lost.  

It DEFINITELY is in the same style and logic used by the Society's Publications. from the time the Magazines had "Questions from Readers", which were actually set-up rhetorical questions, in most cases.

" Is it appropriate for a Christian to own a cat, in light of their past pagan religious affiliation and the medical information that is now coming to light? -J.R., U.S.A.

It would be misleading to answer this question with either a simple ‘Yes’ or a ‘No.’ The Scriptural answer of necessity must be a ‘qualified’ one, and it is easy to see why. Many conscientious ones among Jehovah’s people today have wondered if Christians should own cats in view of their somewhat sordid symbolic history and the many health risks associated therewith. While we would not wish to state an opinion on what must remain a matter of personal preference, what is acceptable to one person may, although unintentionally, stumble another. This can become a life-or-death issue since to move the steps of a brother away from the path of Christ’s ransom sacrifice is tantamount to ‘putting a millstone around the neck and being thrown into the sea.’ -Matt. 18:6. Clearly, in a matter where our eternal salvation is involved, the mature Christian will not pursue a purely selfish course based on his own personal choices, but will adopt a congregational viewpoint as scripturally prescribed.

First, let us consider what most scholars agree is the etymology (word derivation) for the English term ‘cat’. When analyzed with the Latin ‘felis cattus domesticus’, the original Koine Greek is ‘cur.io huma bes-tia’, means ‘a contemporary housecat with all of its beastly identifying characteristics and behavior.’ A faithful servant of Jehovah would quickly notice that the nature of a cat is so marked as being ‘beastly’. The Bible makes clear reference to this condition when describing parts of Satan’s organizations, both past and present. For instance, consider the fearsome ‘beasts’ as described in the book of Daniel or the ‘scarlet colored wild beast’ in Rev. 17:3. The demons entered the swine when rebuked by Jesus showing the potential harm and malevolent spirit control to which a Christian may be potentially exposed. Lest we forget the story of Nebuchadnezzar and the condition of God’s enemy when being humbled by Jehovah, the student of God’s Holy word would ask – is it by accident that the Bible in the book of Daniel describes his experience as a ‘beast’ of the field? Hardly so!

Clearly, the Bible – by using this kind of terminology – shows beyond any reasonable doubt that the basic nature of cats, while created perfect by God, has become evil or ‘beastlike’ since the fall of Adam six thousand years ago, and more probably, since the Great Flood of Noah’s time (c2350 B.C.E.). This is a development of the condition borne by the ‘Original Serpent’, the ‘Great Dragon’ Lucifer himself. (Gen. 3:1) Indeed, modern studies of classification of cats, while not necessarily being reliable as they may be based on the discredited ‘theory’ of evolution, strongly associate felines with serpents (despite some external differences in physiology and morphology, which confuse those who do not study these matters deeply).

There are numerous reasons why a loyal dedicated servant of God should use his Bible-trained conscience to arrive at a proper understanding of why cats are not advisable as pets or companions for Christians. Consider, then, the following facts:

It was a common practice in ancient Egypt to worship or idolize cats as ‘gods’. Indeed, after death many cats were mummified, venerated and sacrifices were made to them. As Christians we observe not only the Mosaic Law, but also the ‘necessary things,’ identified by the Apostles at Jerusalem, to include the following edict: ‘(1) Abstain from sacrifices to idols’. We are to ‘guard ourselves from idols’ and ‘worship no other gods’. Such feline influence could lead to idolatry and thereby ‘grieve Jehovah’s Spirit’ with tragic consequences. May we never take for granted Jehovah’s wise and generous counsel brought to you by your spiritual brothers in the pages of this magazine!

The Bible does not say that cats were not present at Herod’s birthday party when John the Baptist was beheaded. History shows that cats were most likely present at this tragic party that Jehovah did not approve of. Clearly then, as loyal Christians, why would we even want to associate with animals that are without a doubt of such bad influence, remembering how true are the Bible’s words: ‘Bad associations spoil useful habits’! -1 Cor. 15:33. Some have exposed themselves to possible spiritual contamination in this way. To invite cats in our house is to toy with disaster. Can one deny that the chance exists that the same grave consequences could visit your home that fell upon John? Clearly, God disapproved of this ‘birthday’ party. Should we not then disapprove (without showing any malicious intent, only Godly hatred) of cats the way the scriptures recommend?

Throughout history, particularly in the middle ages and reaching its climax in the Salem Witch trials of the seventeenth century, cats were recognized by the forces of Christendom as familiars and carriers if not direct incarnates of demons. While, in common with most beliefs of the empire of false religion, no evidence has ever been found to support this, the symbolism of cats still remain within the public psyche, and involvement with them reflects poorly on God’s footstools and footstep followers. Many pagan faiths still conclude that black cats bring ill-luck and possess demonic forces, while we have shown that it is, instead, all cats that share these perceived characteristics. Since cats were associated with the devil, could we as faithful and dedicated servants of God therefore contaminate ourselves by exposure to a ‘living symbol’ of satanic incarnation? How would this reflect on God’s name and that of his visible, earthly organization? Would we want to be linked with a symbol of Satan, the ‘god of this beastly system of things’?

The careful student of the Bible will acknowledge that nowhere within it is any species (‘kind’) of cat referred to in favorable terms. In fact, was it not lions of the first century who the Devil used to devour faithful Christians? Jehovah Himself ‘stopped up the mouths of the lions’ (Dan. 6:22) in Daniel’s day. True, the small housecats of today are not quite lions, but being of the same accursed animal family used by God’s enemies on numerous occasions throughout history, would it be wise or prudent to own one? In addition, by owing any type of cat (feline), would we not give an appearance of condoning their evil deeds throughout recorded Bible and secular history? The Bible makes clear that God’s people are ‘no part of this world’ (John 15:19) and that we are ‘not to share in the sins of others’, consume lecithin within nutritive cereal or ‘candy’ bars, or do other things directly banned in Holy Scripture.

The demeanor of a cat is seen by many honest-hearted observers as reflecting some supernatural, unnatural proclivity towards malice or evil. And, it is a well-known fact that cats are impossible to tame, teach or raise in the truth. The cat has a rebellious, independent spirit. While the animal itself may be unaware of this tragic condition, it serves only its true master – Satan, the Devil.

The scriptures clearly indicate that neither Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, faithful Job, the Apostles, Jesus nor any other human bearing God’s favor himself owned a cat. Should we simply assume that this is a mere coincidence? Surely not! This was most likely because they didn’t want to be like the pagan contemporaries of their respective days who showed no regard for how God feels about owning a cat. In harmony with the pattern set by the faithful prophets and worthies of old, it would therefore not be fitting for the true Christian today to own a cat.

But, the most modern scientific evidence also supports the Biblical view. Contrary to popular beliefs among worldly people, cats are unhygienic animals. Recently the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) announced that ‘Cats .. can shed Salmonella in their feces, which can spread the bacterial infection to humans’. Salmonella (salmonella typhimurium) creates a condition of ‘week-long diarrhea, abdominal cramps and in some instances, hospitalization.’ Would we be showing the proper respect to our life, Creator and to our ‘neighbor’ by exposing ourselves and others to this potentially deadly disease? Would this be seen by your brothers, and by those showing an interest in God’s word, as giving a good witness?

Additionally, cats practice many unclean habits not befitting a Christian household: coughing up fur balls, licking inappropriate body areas on their own bodies (inappropriate handling) and even, in some cases, on the bodies of their human owners (wrongful motive?), urination on the floor, vocal and blatant promiscuity (unknown to any other species, all others being endowed with Godly chastity and decorum) and widespread sexual misconduct without the benefit or sanctity of holy matrimony, even orgiastic practices, substance abuse of catnip (an intoxicating herb) which produces conditions akin to drunkenness, stealing food from the table, producing ungodly sounds, excessive playfulness and the employment of devices not known to have been used by Jesus, the conducting of its unholy business under the cover of the darkness of night, and so on. What sort of example does this give our young ones endeavoring to faithfully serve Jehovah? The Bible clearly shows that ‘neither fornicators .. nor thieves .. nor drunkards .. nor revilers .. will inherit the Kingdom.’ (1 Cor. 6:9-11)

It must not be forgotten that the feline is a killer. It eats mice and their kind, which is forbidden to Christians and their pets (Lev. 11:29, Isa. 66:17). But, far more serious, is the matter of the wanton consumption of the undrained corpses of the victims of this nocturnal creature; eating bodies filled with God’s sacred blood is not a matter to be trifled with (Gen. 9:3,4; Lev. 3:17; Deut. 12:16,23,24; Acts 15:20,28,29). In an earlier article in The Watchtower, we have shown that it would be improper for a Christian to permit a veterinarian to give blood transfusions to his pet, for animal feed known to contain blood to be served to a pet or a farm animal under one’s jurisdiction, or to employ any fertilizer that is known to have blood in it (w64 2/15 127-8). By allowing one’s cat to roam uncontrolled, the Christian becomes a willing party to, even a conspirator within, this serious breach of God’s law of life.

In addition, the Apostle Paul admonishes us to ‘quit mixing in company .. not even eating with such an unclean [one].’ -1 Cor. 5:9-11; Mark 2:13-17. Although Paul was speaking primarily about Christians who fell into sin, there is no reason to conclude that this inspired Biblical principle cannot be applied to association with cats. Uncleanness in any form is condemned by Jehovah and the fact that the Apostle Paul made no distinction when it came to associating with housecats proves beyond a doubt to the right-thinking worshiper of Jehovah that loyal Christians must avoid all association with all sources of uncleanness. This would logically include animals that either harbor these tendencies or indulge in such practices.

Of course, while demonstrating one’s obedience to God’s lovingly-issued commandments, one must do so without any spirit of meanness or ill-will towards these Satanic creatures, though they represent God’s enemies. Instead, mature Christians ‘feel a loathing’ toward those, including cats, who have voluntarily or otherwise made themselves God’s enemies, and they leave it to Jehovah to execute vengeance. -Job 13:16; Romans 12:19; 2 John 9,10.

Are we not grateful for this insight on God’s viewpoint regarding such matters? True worshipers follow closely God’s mandates on cleanness to their eternal benefit! Sister N.K. from Virginia, U.S.A. tells us that since getting rid of her cat, she has not had to be preoccupied with cleaning the litter box or wasting valuable time better spent pursuing kingdom interests with the burden of purchasing cat food. This has allowed her to become a full-time pioneer; she finds that it is now easier to meet her allotted hours in field service. Godwin, a brother from Sierra Leone, puts it this way: ‘I’m so grateful that God’s organization is kept clean! It has freed me from the burden of owning a cat and all the spiritual pitfalls and financial commitments that go with it. I hope all the brothers will realize how the Devil subtly uses cats to corrupt and distract us from the disciple-making work.’ (Matt. 24:14). What fine examples of faithfulness!

The question of how to dispose of one’s unwanted cat is a serious matter. Would it be proper to hand over such a creature of Satan to a person of the world? We see no immediate problem with this, as such a person is already immersed in the wicked ways of this system of things, and so a beastly companion would be a fitting one indeed. They could accompany eachother on the road to destruction, through ignoring God’s generous gift of life proffered via His spirit-begotten earthly organization. It is on this same sound principle that a Christian doctor would have no reason to deny blood transfusions to a worldly patient. If, on the other hand, one took the view stated on page 128 of the abovementioned Watchtower, and consider that the pet or any other animal is under the ultimate jurisdiction of a Christian, who therefore bears responsibilities (Eccl. 12:13,14; Jas. 4:17, 1 Pet. 3:21) that are essentially parental in nature. The cat is a dependant. In harmony with this, surely it is the parent’s obligation before God to ensure the feline pet is treated as one would an unruly child who repeatedly refused to obey its parents, or of one who committed apostasy. Unfortunately in the case of human offspring, one is limited by the laws of the higher authorities of the land as to what scripturally-ordained punishment may be meted out, as compliance with both sets of laws is necessary in such areas. This may not always be the case in terms of felines, where the fact that we are not living in theocratic countries may not prove such an impediment to what God requires of us, as manmade law may not afford such unmerited protection to cats as it does to humans. God’s soldiers would be mindful to apply, where the case merited it and local custom did not prohibit it, the principle of Deut. 21:18-21 which states that: ‘In case a man happens to have a [dependant] who is stubborn and rebellious, he not listening to the voice of his [guardian], and they have corrected him but he will not listen to them, his [guardian] must also take hold of him and bring him out to the older men of his city and to the gate of his place, and they must say to the older men of his city, ‘This [dependant] of ours is stubborn and rebellious; he is not listening to our voice, being a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of his city must pelt him with stones, and he must die.’ The mature follower of Jehovah will do well to be reminded of God’s advice in page 503 of The Watchtower of November 15, 1952 where it was held that ‘In the case where a father or mother or son or daughter is disfellowshiped, how should such person be treated by members of the family in their family relationship? .. We are not living today among theocratic nations where such members of our fleshly family relationship could be exterminated for apostasy from God and his theocratic organization, as was possible and was ordered in the nation of Israel in the wilderness of Sinai and in the land of Palestine. ‘Thou shalt surely kill him; thy hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him to death with stones, because he hath sought to draw thee away from Jehovah thy God, .. And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is in the midst of thee.’ -Deut. 13:6-11, AS.’ Of course, we can take no legal responsibility for anything which results from your voluntary application of your interpretation of such Biblical principles as you may believe that we have brought to your attention.

As loyal followers of Jehovah’s thinking on this matter, we can rejoice in the fact that in the new system, the incoming theocracy and World Order, the ‘lion will lie down with the lamb’ -Isa. 11:6-7. Yes, when Satan is finally abyssed, the ‘beastly’ nature of felines will be forever abolished, and they will be fit companions for humans on Paradise Earth! But until that rapidly-approaching time, God will reward all of our efforts to maintain integrity by loyally submitting to the leading of his spirit expressed through the loving guidance of the ‘faithful and discreet slave’. -Matt. 24:45-47 "

I have found that it reads MUCH better .... after four beers.

Much better ...

.

11760231_10153492975982520_3880801942269116591_n.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

    Hello guest!

I used to LITERALLY stumble over my cat, the stupid thing. Finally I bought it a one-way bus ticket to Boise, Idaho.

And on birthdays, Shiwii, what happens if you do a search on the website or app?

(JTR: Want your dog back?)

image.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

    Hello guest!

thank you James, that was certainly a fun read. I think the point is the same, anything and everything not specifically prohibited within scripture can be supported either way by our own good conscience and understanding of scripture. A perfect example of this "right" to make up our own minds on the matter is found in Romans 14. 

5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.

This gives us the right to make up our own minds, and I'm not judging individuals here on their right to abstain from birthdays or cats. I'm merely pointing out the faulty reasoning the society is using to force its followers to adhere to the standards set forth by the gb, when the Bible tells us that individually we can make this decision. 

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Nnaemeka said:

You missed two points from what you read in the reasoning book. 

1. 2 Timothy 3:16,17 was quoted. It emphasizes the fact that what were written in the scriptures was to equip Christians to please Jehovah. 

The examples of birthdays in the bible were bad examples and not worthy for Christians to emulate.

Then comes the second reason you decided to miss out. 

2. Secular history. The Jews and early Christians associated birthday with idolatry. Why did you not realize that, Shiwii? The Jews wouldn't celebrate birthdays and when they read pharah's account and Herod's beheading of John they see it as a scriptural confirmation of what they are already aware of. Bad examples. Romans 15:4a comes to mind here:

As Christians we copy good examples.

1. How does 2 Tim 3:16&17 apply to the topic of Birthdays? 

2. To use secular reasoning to prohibit birthdays and attach the "pagan" practices to them is the same with pinatas, but the society has stated that since this is no longer the main practice of pinatas, then pinatas are ok now.  So by using that same logic, birthdays are ok too, since no one is worshiping the person. Romans 15:4 is referring to the OT, which had nothing to say about the prohibition of birthdays. 

Share this post


Link to post
23 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

And on birthdays, Shiwii, what happens if you do a search on the website or app?

my point being is this shouldn't be a decision made by a group of men to determine if you should or should not participate in a birthday celebration. I have looked at many references from the society on birthdays, and honestly find none of them satisfactory in explaining exactly why birthdays are bad. Each instance cited in the Bible and secular support, does nothing to refute that birthdays are bad. In fact the very same logic used to support the birthday ban is the same used to allow other things (pinatas). 

Awake! 2003 Sep 22 pp.23-24 is your answer on pinatas. 

Share this post


Link to post

TTH:

Little known is the fact that cats shipped to Boise, Idaho by bus are re-routed to the "Home" Facility for felines where they watch mickey mouse cartoons from a supine, feline position until the beers kick in, and then become "Solyent Fur".  The beer of course is "SPUD BEER" (... The Beer that Made Boise Famous" ...), and is made from Idaho potatoes.

SPUD BEER is the same beer used in "nervous hospitals" by Carl Childers school of lawn mower repair graduates, after a grueling day of electroshock therapy ... for "...those who cannot tell the difference!" (tm).

As the human patients are dragged back to their rooms, strapped to a stretcher, they have been known to raise a hand in the imitation of a paw, and exclaim ' SOLYENT FUR IS FELINES!".

 

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

disagree, Its more so because defending the syllogism fallacy used to support the control of people for harmless practices  is impossible, so one must take a diversion as to avoid the obvious. 

gobble-de-gook

Share this post


Link to post

..reminds me of when Stalin gave a speech before the Soviet Politburo .... everyone ALWAYS stood up and clapped, and clapped...and clapped, and clapped.

The first ones to stop clapping  would disappear mysteriously.

Is obeying your educated conscience about birthday celebrations the hill you want to die on?

Think about it ...

 

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

It DEFINITELY is in the same style and logic used by the Society's Publications. from the time the Magazines had "Questions from Readers", which were actually set-up rhetorical questions, in most cases.

" Is it appropriate for a Christian to own a cat, in light of their past pagan religious affiliation and the medical information that is now coming to light? -J.R., U.S.A.

I can tell you James that the article you quoted above is not in the same style and logic by the organization's publications because it is scripturally flawed; basically flawed. And the article is misleading. I searched Google and discovered it is the logic a purported ex-JW posted on a website so it is apostate logic. Check your facts thoroughly next time before quoting from apostate sources so you don't end up misleading or stumbling others.

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

..reminds me of when Stalin gave a speech before the Soviet Politburo .... everyone ALWAYS stood up and clapped, and clapped...and clapped, and clapped.

I loved that part.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Nnaemeka said:

Check your facts thoroughly next time before quoting from apostate sources so you don't end up misleading or stumbling others.

Nice as newbie N is, he will get his head handed to him on a platter if he does not explore the nuances here before putting in his loyal comment. Ah, well....that's the mark of a newbie. I have misread things far more myself.

'Toto, something tells me we're not in Kansas anymore.'

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Celebrate your birthday, then.

I will and I do. but that wasn't the point of the thread now was it? It was about pinatas, which are closely tied to birthdays in some cultures. 

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

..reminds me of when Stalin gave a speech before the Soviet Politburo .... everyone ALWAYS stood up and clapped, and clapped...and clapped, and clapped.

The first ones to stop clapping  would disappear mysteriously.

Is obeying your educated conscience about birthday celebrations the hill you want to die on?

Think about it ...

 

I understand your point and agree with you to an extent. However, this place is for discussion and intellectual banter, a place to gather minds with different perspectives and discuss topics that interest us. While I can see that this is not usually the case, it IS what this forum is for. I just happen to hold a different perspective on some subjects and like to see how the majority of jws view things deemed by the society to be wrong/right. I am here to learn, not what the society teaches, but rather why jws follow their teachings if the logic behind it is flawed (in my opinion of course). 

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Don't make me laugh. Speak plainly or not at all! :)

 Its more so because defending the syllogism fallacy ( the fallacy that if an apple is red and a car is red, then the car must be an apple) used to support the control of people for harmless practices (someone was bad at a party, so party's must be bad and you cannot attend because we said so)  is impossible, so one must take a diversion as to avoid the obvious (find something else to argue against because the point raised is too hard to defend)

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

I will and I do. but that wasn't the point of the thread now was it? 

I wonder how Shiwiii feels about Christmas. Should that, too, be avoided or embraced per individual conscience? How does she feel about tobacco? Same way? What of recreational drugs, which edge ever closer to normalization and legality? Or for that matter, ANY position that the Governing Body has given direction on? Is it birthdays alone that get under her skin, odd, since she has departed for greener pastures, or is it but one of a host of items that get her riled? 

Share this post


Link to post

.

As an ex-skydiver, and ex-motorcycle rider, and several other things that might have gotten me killed ...   I am a firm believer in COMPLETE FREEDOM OF CHOICE.

You have probably never thought of it this way, but SO IS JEHOVAH GOD A FIRM BELIEVER IN COMPLETE FREEDOM OF CHOICE.!

When was the last time  an angel blocked anything you wanted to do? (Answer for the timid - NEVER).

However, everything a human does, small or large, has consequences, epitomized by the phrase "Don't do the crime, if you can't do the time.".

Jehovah wants us to have a WONDERFUL life ... and that is why there are SO MANY restrictions on what we CAN do, and what we should NOT do.  There is a very simple test to see if what you are practicing is the TRUE RELIGION, and it is this ....

DO THE "COMMANDS FROM GOD" HAVE THE BEST LONG TERM INTERESTS OF HUMANITY AS THEIR END RESULT.

This is of course, a matter of opinion, based on how smart and perceptive you are, and what filters you see the world through, and your accumulated experience and education, and many other things that make You, YOU.

When you consider how Jehovah told the Israelites how to dress... quite specifically, it made them the laughing-stock of the surrounding nations .... skirts with pomegranates and bells, ( rolls eyes..)  ... BUT ... it made them quite distinctively SEPARATE in a sometimes painfully (for those wanting universal admiration...) way. 

This served as a protection for them, to the extent that they understood WHY God made them dress "like clowns", and they avoided the evils that being part of the nations had as NATURAL consequences of their behaviors.

I realize that Jehovah God cares NOTHING about whether or not we celebrate ones' birthday ... and that disfellowshipping one for doing so is an evil travesty, BUT, I still think the  IDEA is a very good idea, because it contributes to a culture of separateness from the "world", which has many, many benefits.  I do not celebrate Birthdays because it is a very good idea ... in my considered and educated opinion about cultures, and what motivates people.

However, I would explain this to someone in great detail, but NOT require it of them ... as coincidence is NOT necessarily causality.

Yeah, people were beheaded in the Bible, at the same time someone celebrated a birthday ... but prostitutes wearing shoes does NOT make shoe wearers prostitutes, nor the fact that in their later years Earnest Borgnine and Elizabeth Taylor never having had their picture taken together makes them the same person ... although that is an interesting coincidence.

When you walk into an AIDS hospital charity ward and see the emaciated lost souls dying in pain and anguish ( A mental picture of actor Rock Hudson's appearance as he died of AIDS comes to mind...) , it is OBVIOUS there is no "gayiety" there.

Christmas, on the other hand, is obviously an amalgam contaminated  Catholic religious ceremony that Protestants in the first 70 years of America did not celebrate ( Christ-Mass), but the Protestant Churches were closed and the Catholics were having a 12 day party, and they eventually caved in, and as they say the rest is HISTORY.

Remember ... we can restrict ourselves in any way we see fit ... we can live in a cage if we want to... to keep us in ..or keep other people OUT .... but Jehovah has made it VERY clear through Scripture what he cares about, and where there is silence .. it is NOT because he forgot to mention something.

Some things we care about to the very marrow of our bones, and it will always, Always, ALWAYS be who we are ... but when Scripture is silent on any particular subject ... we can make a best educated GUESS about how related principles should be applied ... but that is ALL it is... a GUESS.

Jehovah God will judge us if we are messengers of righteousness, or carriers of tyranny ... but even before that the Universe will judge us, and the Universe is impartial, and doesn't care about us at all.

Remember ... we can restrict ourselves in any way we see fit ... we can live in a cage if we want to... to keep us in ..or keep other people OUT .... but Jehovah has made it VERY clear through Scripture what he cares about, and where there is silence ...

... it is NOT because he forgot to mention something.

There is a word for ideas and actions that Jehovah God has expressed no opinion or command about ......

FREEDOM!

.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/26/2017 at 3:28 PM, Eoin Joyce said:

Are you are  attacking then? Freedom of choice needs no defense.

I see you have no interest in an actual conversation. Just trying for some sort of avoidance. 

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/26/2017 at 7:13 PM, TrueTomHarley said:

I wonder how Shiwiii feels about Christmas. Should that, too, be avoided or embraced per individual conscience? How does she feel about tobacco? Same way? What of recreational drugs, which edge ever closer to normalization and legality? Or for that matter, ANY position that the Governing Body has given direction on? Is it birthdays alone that get under her skin, odd, since she has departed for greener pastures, or is it but one of a host of items that get her riled? 

TTH, I am a he not a she. No hard feelings, I can easily understand the ambiguity of our usernames sometimes. 

See to answer your questions/points: 

I do not adhere to what the gb states, I only try to adhere to what the Bible states. That should answer your questions, if not then please by all means start a thread and ask away. I have nothing to hide from you or anyone else. 

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/27/2017 at 3:15 AM, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

 

FREEDOM!

.

 

 

Excellent post! Thank you for giving us a little insight into your view of things. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Shiwiii said:

 

I do not adhere to what the gb states, I only try to adhere to what the Bible states. That should answer your questions, if not then please by all means start a thread and ask away. I have nothing to hide from you or anyone else. 

It's good you have nothing to hide. You do hide your name, however. Is it truly Shiwii?

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

It's good you have nothing to hide. You do hide your name, however. Is it truly Shiwii?

No it is not, but it also matters not. 

Shiwi is a native american word from the Zuni tribe

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/30/2017 at 0:07 PM, Shiwiii said:

I do not adhere to what the gb states, I only try to adhere to what the Bible states. That should answer your questions, if not then please by all means start a thread and ask away. I have nothing to hide from you or anyone else. 

There is the person who will not do a single thing unless he sees it in the Bible. It sounds very pious, doesn’t it? Very holy. Instantly it casts aspersions upon the one who will do things not expressly spelled out in the Bible. Noble though it sounds, however, it is but an indication of timidity at best, and rebelliousness at worst.

This person is like the citizen of a country who will not do a single thing unless he reads it in the Constitution. He distrusts those idiots on the Supreme Court. What right have they to adapt the Constitution to modern times? They are liars and impostors, most likely, he tells himself.

If the Bible does not specifically say that there will be a governing body for 2017, it certainly gives carte blanche. God has always provided some human agency to adapt his Word to those trusting in it. He is not the Grand Idiot, so as to think it obsolete just when the going gets rough. Today, it is Matthew 24:45-47, a passage which admittedly takes some interpretation. I’ve had someone tell me that it is merely a nice little story with the moral to always do your best.

‘It is necessary to shut the mouths’ of certain rebellious scoundrels, Paul wrote to Titus in the first century. Is it no longer necessary? Did the scoundrels all become saints the moment the apostles died? Who today is going to shut the mouths of the liars? Plainly, there is to be an organization in the modern day.

So obvious are the benefits of organization - so many things you can do with it that you cannot do without it - that it is inexcusable not to be that way. That being the case, why would anyone resist the idea? All I can come up with is that they really don’t want to stray too far from this world and its definition of what is normal. They aspire to be smilely gumdrops in this system of things, and nothing more. ‘It is not bad how the world is arranged,’ they say. ‘All that is needed is for people to be nicer.’ As a smilely gumdrop, they gush joy and love to everyone. Then it turns out that one thinks Trump is the best hope for achieving his aim and another thinks it is Hillary, at which point they assassinate each other. Or they fall into the mindset of the national king, who will invariably convince them that their fellow religionists in that other kingdom have it all wrong and will not straighten up until their butts are kicked.

At heart, they like this system of things. It just needs a little tweaking – that’s all. Nothing drastic. They are like Demas, who departed because ‘he loved this system of things.’ Unlike Demas, who most likely re-assimilated into the world he once left – for we never hear of him again – they do all they can do denigrate the Apostle Paul and the organization he represents. That way they don’t look so bad. ‘How can I put up with someone telling me what to do?’ they explain. ‘Why, they don’t even do birthdays over there.’

It’s a template. I don’t know who specifically fits into it and who does not. I’m not saying you do, Shiwii – how do I know? But it is a template nonetheless. If you like, I’ll say more. I’ve got nothing to hide from you  or anyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
18 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

 

It’s a template. I don’t know who specifically fits into it and who does not. I’m not saying you do, Shiwii – how do I know? But it is a template nonetheless. If you like, I’ll say more. I’ve got nothing to hide from you  or anyone else.

It is a template, I agree but it puts restrictions and limitations. I understand your position and have seen the world through the same lens before. I try my very best to not assign labels to people based on their opinions, as times I fail though. I DO assign labels to groups who profess to have the whole truth and anyone and everyone outside of the group is in the wrong. This is a narrow minded view held by MANY religious organizations. There are many religions who claim they are God's chose people, the only ones who know what God wants and the sole channel for communicating with God. Hogwash to all of that mess. If God wanted an strict group or organization, He would have laid out the structure and rules within the Bible. Some will argue that that IS what the Bible says, I beg to differ and would gladly discuss this in depth as long as it is an intellectually honest discussion. Of course there will be people who won't do anything unless they are told, and others who will be so stubborn as to not receive correction or guidance, but on the other hand you have those who DO ponder their relationship with God and other people without outside influence (other people's/groups opinions). 

19 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

God has always provided some human agency to adapt his Word to those trusting in it.

I would have to disagree with you. The eunuch from Ethiopia was not a part of ANY organization and nor did he have any agency to guide him when he was speaking with Phillip. The lands that the early disciples went to and converted folks had no "agency" as told to us in the Bible. Also,  Paul and Barnabas did not appeal to an agency about those in Jerusalem over the idea of circumcision of the gentiles, but rather corrected the Pharisees (who converted) about bringing additional restrictions/ unfair yoke, upon the believers. 

Share this post


Link to post

.

Thomas Thom, Thommy Thom Thom ....

I thought Shiwiii had an extremely well reasoned argument that was based in fact, and that further discussing it with you would put your position held in extreme jeopardy, if not ALREADY completely demolished with reason and logic.

I hold a view somewhere in the middle, but because I can see BOTH sides ... it was crystal clear to ME that you have resoundingly LOST THIS DEBATE, and embarrassingly BADLY ... with your infantile debate concession comment ...

22 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

'Hogwash' is my word, from the second book title. You may not use it.

It will be interesting to see, although I already see the current outcome, and forsee the ultimate outcome, if you decide to continue this exchange using Scripture, reason and logic.

It is embarrassing to see someone cut off their OWN head, to have someone else hand it back to them ... on a platter.

.

 

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

.with your infantile debate concession comment ...

Suppose I took the crass words you use and threw them around, like Kim and his nukes. Would you like it?

Most things are arguable, and as you know, I'm not one to argue. Shiwii wanted to celebrate his birthday. I told him he could. What more can he ask for? Is he upset that some are convinced by the explanations that failed to convince him? What's it to him? Why is he here?

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

It will be interesting to see, although I already see the current outcome, and forsee the ultimate outcome, if you decide to continue this exchange using Scripture, reason and logic.

It is embarrassing to see someone cut off their OWN head, to have someone else hand it back to them ... on a platter.

Nothing else need be said.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Nothing else need be said.

Rather, I think it important to stick with the original theme of this theme. My last reply was a noble attempt to do that. Look, if you want to take on the Librarian, be my guest.I don't want to sit in detention for a month.

Share this post


Link to post

Tommy Tom Tom:

I have spent several hours reading your blog "SheepandGoats", and I was impressed with the quality of your communication skills in that forum ... I especially liked your treatment of Mickey Spillane .... but when in a discussion of things where people's viewpoints strongly differ .. IT IS A DEBATE ... and that is how adults sift out bad ideas, and set them aside .. on the intellectual battlefield.

IN CONTEXT of the discussions, you "took your ball, and went home ...", thereby AVOIDING THE ISSUES, which were left to stand.

... like turning over your King, half way through a chess game.

Debate is sometimes a war of attrition ... until the last of the opponent's ideas are individually squashed.  That is basically how the "Scientific Method" works also ... and that effort is the ONLY way that real truth is separated from comfortable fiction.

You cannot LEAVE THE BATTLEFIELD while the opponents' army of ideas are still standing erect and strong.

I can see BOTH viewpoints .. but to "win the day" you have to finish the fight.

The "Rubber Duck" theory states that you have to explain what you believe to the rubber duck until it becomes crystal clear what ideas we hold are real, and which are stupid.

This forum is our "Rubber Duck".

This is the issue that Shiwiii proposed, and that you avoided by conceding the battle:

" I would have to disagree with you. The eunuch from Ethiopia was not a part of ANY organization and nor did he have any agency to guide him when he was speaking with Phillip. The lands that the early disciples went to and converted folks had no "agency" as told to us in the Bible. Also,  Paul and Barnabas did not appeal to an agency about those in Jerusalem over the idea of circumcision of the gentiles, but rather corrected the Pharisees (who converted) about bringing additional restrictions/ unfair yoke, upon the believers."

.

 

 

.

 

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

IT IS A DEBATE ... and that is how adults sift out bad ideas, and set them aside .. on the intellectual battlefield...

Debate is sometimes a war of attrition ... until the last of the opponent's ideas are individually squashed.  That is basically how the "Scientific Method" works...

You cannot LEAVE THE BATTLEFIELD while the opponents' army of ideas are still standing erect and strong.

"If any man teaches another doctrine and does not agree with the wholesome instruction, which is from our Lord Jesus Christ, nor with the teaching that is in harmony with godly devotion...he is obsessed with arguments and debates about words".....(1 Timothy 6:3-4)

"Further, reject foolish and ignorant debates"... (2 Timothy 2:2)

"So I desire that in every place the men carry on prayer...without anger and debates"...1 Timothy 2:8

2 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

like turning over your King, half way through a chess game.

Since I am constrained to follow scripture, I am overturning my king. 

2 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

I can see BOTH viewpoints

Excellent! You debate my side. Let me know how it turns out. Argue hard. Don't be stupid. I don't want to lose this one.

Share this post


Link to post

You have already conceded, True (Tom), by default, for leaving the battlefield, and by surrender, when you "overturned your King".

Using YOUR logic, you have  self-forfeited the right to disagree with anybody about anything .... and only think approved happy thoughts.

You cannot even reply to THIS!

Stupidity would be to referee a fight already lost.

Participation  Trophy  500  .jpg

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

You have already conceded, True (Tom), by default, for leaving the battlefield, and by surrender, when you "overturned your King".

Using YOUR logic, you have  self-forfeited the right to disagree with anybody about anything .... and only think approved happy thoughts.

You cannot even reply to THIS!

Stupidity would be to referee a fight already lost.

.

 

Even so, with you referee for me when I take on the Librarian in DEBATE, the ugly old hag? 

IT IS SHE WHO STARTED THIS IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!

CONFISCATING MY LIGHTER! ALL I WAS DOING WAS LIGHTING THE CANDLES ON MY BIRTHDAY CAKE.

LAST WEEK I TRIED TO LIGHT ALL THE MANY CANDLES ON HER CAKE AND THE LIGHTER RAN OUT OF FUEL!!!

Once again, James, you must turn that frown upside down. I'm too peaceful to debate.

Share this post


Link to post

I would have to know more about the subject being debated .. I may not be an impartial judge, or referee .... if you intend to challenge him on some subject .. it should be until there is only one man standing. 

Among INTELLIGENT honest men of integrity, which I assume you both are, one will concede the debate points originally premised, and see the other is correct, WITHOUT THE NEED TO APPEAL TO AN OUTSIDE AUTHORITY FOR VALIDATION.

I WILL, however,  put my "two cents" in and help in my usual manner ...

.

 

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, The Librarian said:

oh wow... I think I heard @TrueTomHarley throw his glove on the floor.

What exactly, pray tell, are you wishing to debate?

 

 

My BOOKS, you old hen! You know it very well.

My BOOKS, written by the most astute mind of our times, a person who, despite being undeniably brilliant, is unfailingly respectful of all persons and scrupulously  avoids ad hominem attacks!

My BOOKS, you disgusting and ignorant, diuretec dinosaur! The ones you will not let me hawk in your library! They don't exactly fly off the shelf, you know, as they should, and as they WOULD but for not your petty rules!

My BOOKS, which I pluralize because there are two, soon to be three. The third would come even sooner if I did not piddle away so much of my time here! It must be conceded, however, that I am also writing much of it here, so the relationship is symbiotic.

My BOOKS, which you will only let me display on my profile page! My BOOKs, which ought to be required reading at your pathetic library, instead of the shelves upon shelves of the great philosophers down through the ages! If any of the thoughts they thunk were worth the paper they were printed on, it would be a much better world today, wouldn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/2/2017 at 9:06 PM, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

I especially liked your treatment of Mickey Spillane

The reason I wrote about Mickey more than I ever intended to is that, the more I learned about him, the more I thought he would make such a cool Grandpa. He had that irresistible combination that typified so many old-time Witnesses of the previous generation: an unfailing good nature - he liked people, plus and absolute lack of pretense.

I put him in the Tom Irregardless book, too. It was Ivor E. Tower's (George Chryssides) favorite part:

“My favourite part of the book was the parody of Mickey Spillane near the end, where Tom Harley envisages a house-to-house publisher acting like one of Spillane’s macho characters. For those who don’t know, Spillane was a novelist whose books were renowned for their sex and violence, until Spillane converted to become a Jehovah’s Witness in 1951 – a decision that drastically changed his writing style."

On Twitter, I follow his wife, who was much younger than Mickey. She is intensely political and a strong supporter of a certain blond politician who is in the news a lot. (she says Mickey was that way, too)

Share this post


Link to post

I consider Mickey Spillane and myself to be kindred spirits .... he carried a 1911 .45 cal. pistol at all times, but I carry a .38 Special S&W with less power at all times.

I positively gushed when I learned that an elderly Brother in the Congregation  knew him personally, went to his Congregation, and had lunch many times at his house.   I don't gush very easily, and almost never.

In MY generation ... he was at least as  famous as Michael Jackson ...., and although many will not be able to understand why I think so ... with his personality he HAD to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses, and was to all reports, faithful until his death.

... and by today's standards, his writing was quite tame.

At one time, the line "Frankly Scarlet, I don't give a damn!" ..... was scandalous.

.

 

.

 

Share this post


Link to post

Finally, Finally, Finally I may be able to relate to JTR on something.

1 hour ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

and by today's standards, his writing was quite tame.

Was it?

"I snapped the side of the rod across his jaw and laid the flesh open to the bone. I pounded his teeth back into his mouth with the end of the barrel ... and I took my own damn time about kicking him in the face. He smashed into the door and lay there bubbling. So I kicked him again and he stopped bubbling."

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

and although many will not be able to understand why I think so ... with his personality he HAD to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses,

I believe I do understand this. He possibly was not unlike you, only he died having made peace with leadership of the congregation. His name is spoken of gingerly by some. He was in and out a time or two, I think, but ended up in. About the time I wrote the tomsheepandgoats.com posts, I wrote him, having read a few of his books just prior. But I had only an address found online somewhere - it came back undeliverable.  Shortly afterwards, I heard he had died. 

You cannot but love his lines. Such as, (not a direct quote) "[such and such] may be my last book. I can't sit for eight hours anymore. My rear end gets sore."

Share this post


Link to post

I have no idea what a fictional character would have thought, perhaps dis-interest.

.... as I do give it some thought. Hmmmmm .... OK... got it. 

Mike Hammer would have absolutely NO INTEREST in Science Fiction, but he ( say, he went with some Dame wit' beautiful gams to da' show..) would not be horrified by things that King David of Israel, coming home after a hard day of slaughtering the enemies of God in close hand-to-hand combat, his clothes covered in blood and pieces of sticky gore, and globs and smears of their stomachs and intestines stuck to his armor, as he ripped them open with a sword or spear,  and their guts fell out in a steaming mass on the ground, and they screamed and cried in agony, or after chopping a Philistine in the throat, watching him unsucessfully try to stop the torrent of blood, as it squirted through the fingers clasped to his throat, and he lay there, gurgling and wheezing through lungs filling up with his own blood.

... but those "Alien" franchise movies are firmly entrenched in contemporary popular culture, and have become the "new norm" and make Mike Hammer's visuals tame in the extreme. The same was true about everyday life in King David's time ... but today reality has been Bugs Bunny sanitized.

Just as today, we think Rhett Butler's exclamation of "Frankly Scarlett, I don't give a damn ... " in the Civil war era movie "Gone with the Wind", which line was scandalous at the time and worthy of censorship by many, an irrelevant "nothing issue", today.

I remember BOTH "Worlds"., and understand King David's world.

...   and I used to be a pacifist, until I understood reality.

... and when I can, I even take spiders outside, so they do not go hungry.

And that, as Mike Hammer would say ... is the bird's-eye low-down on THAT caper ...

dt170609  600 .jpg

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

King David of Israel, coming home after a hard day of slaughtering the enemies of God in close hand-to-hand combat, his clothes covered in blood and pieces of sticky gore, and globs and smears of their stomachs and intestines stuck to his armor, as he ripped them open with a sword or spear,  and their guts fell out in a steaming mass on the ground, and they screamed and cried in agony, or after chopping a Philistine in the throat,

and enters his front door, and hollers "Honey? I'm home!"

"and when I can, I even take spiders outside, so they do not go hungry"

I can understand this, too.

Share this post


Link to post

  • Similar Content

    • By James Thomas Rook Jr.
      Here is another question.
      If Christ has ALREADY come to Earth as an invisible presence, and is ruling as King NOW ......  starting in 1914 ...... why are we still celebrating the Memorial?
    • Guest Nicole
      By Guest Nicole
      Genesis 2:9 
    • Guest Nicole
      By Guest Nicole
      I was told by some other sisters that I have to wear a black T-Shirt instead of the normal bathing suit. Is this true?
    • Guest Nicole
      By Guest Nicole
      Wouldn't that constitute "touching the unclean thing" and not "getting out of her"?
       
       
    • By Israeli Bar Avaddhon
      " When you see a cloud rising in western places, you immediately say: 'It is the time', and it happens. And when you see a south wind blowing, you say, 'There will be a heat wave,' and it happens. Hypocrites, you know to examine the appearance of earth and sky, but why do not you know look at this particular time? "- Luke 12: 54-56   From the first article in this blog wanted to distance itself clearly from all those sites and polemical blogs created solely as a safety valve and cast a shadow on the governing body or the people of God as a whole. Many of these, though not all, are the expression of the frustration of some for losing certain positions, visibility and below. We do not reveal any mystery by asserting that some are puffed up with pride thinking of always being right and being invested supreme authority - 1 Timothy 3: 6 We do not even say nothing strange if we say that some people, seeing recognized their merits, real or perceived, on the job or elsewhere, have seen in the "theocratic assignments" a kind of redemption. One way to demonstrate the "worth something" - Psalm 18:27; Proverbs 6:16, 17 For this and other reasons, when some have seen the collapse of all their "dreams of glory," they thought to start a smear campaign against God's people and also have the pass to do anything - 2 Peter 2:22 Apart from these, you have to recognize or admit the possibility that there are people who have opened sites or blogs contentious because they suffered real injustice or clashing sincerely from a scriptural point of view - John 9:34; Revelation 2: 4, 20 If anyone re-discuss openly the "doctrine" of 1914, for example, would sooner or later expelled from the congregation if they did not fit immediately into the ranks. It would be presumptuous to think that the reflections made in this blog on the 1914, as well as on other subjects, are not already been done by others. Although humanly speaking the author of this blog is close to all those who have been expelled not for a repeated offense but because of his own conscience on biblical themes, none of us has the authority to denigrate, insult or alienate others by the people which, net of all faults and limitations , it is still God's people. That each of us to reflect seriously on the words of the Lord when he said what we find in Matthew 18: 6 So, as much as depends on us and as long as Jehovah will show us clearly something else, no one let the people of God because if within the His People there will be severe discipline (also because of those who were unjustly expelled - compares Giovanni 16: 2), outside of His People there will be something else. Of course, situations may arise in which we listen to our conscience - Romans 14: 5 To avoid this sad event, we are encouraged to be "cautious as serpents" also to our brothers - Matthew 10:16; 24:10 For the moment we can share many things with our brothers including the preaching work, attendance at meetings, etc., without necessarily having to collide on the 1914 or Babylon the Great. So, reiterating the concept, regardless of the GB and errors of God's people as a whole, a blog or website for purely polemical can not be considered a viable option for those who love God and sincerely studying His Word. We should also ask ourselves "What gave me" a site after reading an article that mentioned what is wrong and even make it a novel is the easiest thing in the world * (see footnote). This introduction was necessary to explain the following article because the reasons could be easily misunderstood. As we saw from the very first articles, though this blog is dedicated to the prophecy, it was not possible to treat the prophecy without touching some doctrines associated with them. The Word of God has such a strong internal consistency that is not reasonable to believe that he could explain the prophecies of Revelation (and other prophetic books) without touching the doctrine of the resurrection (which will happen at the end of the millennium and not during), the order chronological or not the book, the "doctrine" of 1914, the seven days of the dream of Nebuchadnezzar and so on. For this reason you will find after not purely prophetic that was inevitable anyway to deal hope to understand something more about the prophecies. This highlights one of the reasons why some will never understand the prophecies in spite of the efforts: the inability or unwillingness to renegotiate certain doctrines that are upstream. On the same principle we must necessarily realize that you can not move forward in the understanding of the times in which we live and those who arrive without touching the sensitive topic of "governing body" or "quality of spiritual food." This has already been done, more or less soft, in several previous post (see for example the article entitled "Restoration of true worship. Dress clean for the High Priest"). At least with regard to the current understanding, the prophecies do understand that the "light" to lead the people of God (which is clearly not the Bible or it may not be less - Psalm 119: 105) will turn off for a certain period of time and this will serve to lay bare the depth of our relationship with Jehovah - compares Isaiah 28:16 So it does not be surprised if before then that the light begins to fade. Many of us have noticed that certain topics are not touched for years and that on certain issues it is more elusive than before. In return, all the paper work which involves legalism for appointments, discipline, legal protections and various committees have greatly strengthened - Psalm 127: 1, 2 So the following article is of course a critical and will be targeted to the specific material , but everything will be done remembering who we are (Romans 3:23, 24; 1 Corinthians 4: 7) with the sole purpose of reflecting as part of prophecy is already fulfilled before our eyes - 1 Corinthians 14: 8, 9 The reader is invited not necessarily share the article but at least compare the scriptures mentioned and to consider whether the arguments are brought forward with logic.   The following article will cover part of the Watchtower in October 2017. The article is titled "Visions of Zechariah: because there concern?"   Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. A vision does not understand something more of a command or a need?     Since the beginning, we can focus on the questions listed in the first paragraph. Why Jehovah gave to the prophet visions so unusual? In what situation were the Israelites at that time? What do we learn today from those visions?   The questions are certainly deep and detailed so that we isolate some notable points to see how we have tried to give an answer. After a brief explanation of the background and necessary (paragraph two), " Jehovah assured them that would help them restore the true worship" (paragraph three). Let us pause a moment and reflect on these words. He took for themselves, without knowing anything of Zechariah, the book and the time in which it was written, one would think that the theme that will be developed will focus precisely on how Jehovah will restore true worship. Doing disquisitions on whether past or future fulfillment of these words, should not talk about this? Among other things paragraph confirms that this will be the sixth and seventh vision and this would appear to suggest that these visions reveal details on how Jehovah will do this. Besides a vision should include something more of a command; the same ten commandments and all the Mosaic law did not need a vision that was dictated and that the Israelites understood the requirements of the Most Almighty and moral norms that should have respect. Instead the following paragraphs, although the steering wheel scroll vision written in front and behind is "very special", they say that "God will punish whoever steals and among Christians there is no place for any kind of theft." Zechariah really needed a vision to understand that God does not tolerate the theft? Apart from that, as we have said, it seems strange that a vision is limited to this, but the question we should ask is ... "Zacharias did not know that Jehovah does not tolerate the theft?" - Compare Exodus 20:15; Leviticus 19:11, 13; Proverbs 11: 1; 20:23 It 's unusual for a prophet of Jehovah but also the rest of the people had to remember a need so obvious, present even in the most primitive human legal systems.
      It would not be sufficient to read "the book of the law" as in the past it was done and how the law itself provided? Until the end of paragraph seven, there is not the slightest indication that this vision can have a deeper explanation and that can be applied particularly in the future. The subsequent paragraphs remain the same "conservative" line. We should not swear falsely, and the promises made to Jehovah - compares Leviticus 19:12; Numbers 30: 2; Ecclesiastes 5: 5, 6 The next vision is even more interesting.   Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content. Even the arrival city has no prophetic significance?   From the subtitle "The evil is put in its proper place," we can see how the vision that perhaps leaves Zaccaria "horrified" with all its details, it "makes it clear that Jehovah will never tolerate any form of evil within his people and will ensure that it is eliminated quickly. " Then women with wings stork carrying away the mingled with evil in the land of Shinar, underline this aspect. Why they choose Sinar and not Nineveh, for example? Because "Israelites them have thought that Sinar was the place where relegate Evil. Zechariah and his contemporaries Jews, in fact, they could confirm that Babylon wickedness was widespread." Again the vision of the container, the evil woman, women with wings stork and the country of destination have no special meaning, much less prophetic. It must be said that if we had dealt with this issue even thirty years ago, maybe someone would begin to calculate the distance between Jerusalem and Sinar to find some correspondence with some meeting or resolution modern or past. This article is definitely more conservative than those of a few years ago ** (see note below) but it really is prudent that we see in this article, or something else? We try to be very objective without hiring a team cheer attitude. Do we really think that Zacharias had seven visions in such a special time, to learn that Jehovah does not tolerate theft, falsehood and evil? Do we really think that the restoration-of true worship has nothing to do with our days? If we had started from chapter four instead to section five, we would not perhaps have inevitably head towards Revelation? - compares Zechariah 4: 2, 3 and Revelation 11: 4 Zechariah chapter four he not also speaks of the restoration-of true worship, just as do the five chapters and six? If Zechariah and Revelation are connected, even if only in part, we would not have had to reflect on the identity of this "evil woman" which, incidentally, is transported in the most important city of Babylon that "to his own place"?   We said that the article is not intended as a criticism for its own sake so that everyone will have to make their own assessments in the light of the scriptures. Certainly, as we have seen in the articles entitled "We are staggering like drunks?" and "Approaching Storm", we can understand "how far we are" the discipline of Jehovah, and also understand the reasons why he decides have to discipline there meditating on these aspects. If they make a reason all those who believe that the withdrawal of the books "Pay Attention to Daniel's Prophecy" and "The Revelation Its Grand Climax" was the prelude to a new version with "new light." Indeed, there is to be afraid to imagine the explanations that may be. However, those who really pay attention to the prophetic word, they have no reason to be discouraged or be upset. If the light of a certain guide goes out, we have a guide that will never disappoint - Isaiah 40: 8 It 'important and urgent than ever, particularly in view of what will happen, become independent in our research and sharpen our power of reason - Romans 12: 1 We must also realize the responsibility that entails some knowledge. We must help not those who have become critical for bias and with whom you can not think and even those who can not and do not intend to call into question every truth imposed from above - Matthew 15: 6 We must help those who can still asking questions that do not come from the organization or even close their eyes to what is going to happen. We do not know to what extent the people of God will reshaped , but up to the revelation of the two witnesses in sackcloth this will continue to be the people of God and in any case, whatever happens, let us cling tightly to the Word of God that is the only truth - John 17:17 Recalling the words of Jesus quoted at the beginning of this article, and keeping in mind that we are nobody and we have one thousandth of its authority , make sure not to become like those who were part of God's people and that they were recognized as authorities but at the same time, could not understand "their particular time." We do not seek excuses why everyone has a Bible and the basic knowledge to deepen the arguments. Let us not be too full of us, basking in our safety thinking that others will pay. We could wake up in a really unwanted. How would we feel if the Lord said, " You're a hypocrite" ? - compares Amos 3: 2     Footnotes. * This also applies to all those sites that say they are prophetic but are merely interpreting the past Jehovah's judgments to the people of God. This is also a fairly easy game.   ** Just take a look at the book, no longer in publication "Pay Attention to Daniel's Prophecy" where virtually any number of days in the prophetic book were applied to assemblies, resolutions and publications.
    • Guest Nicole
    • Guest Nicole
      By Guest Nicole
      Why JW.ORG does not show development regarding sexual abuse cases as it does with other legal issues? 
       
    • By Israeli Bar Avaddhon
      “When you see a cloud rising in the west, at once you say, ‘A storm is coming,Â’ and it happens. And when you see that a south wind is blowing, you say, ‘There will be a heat wave,Â’ and it occurs. Hypocrites, you know how to examine the appearance of earth and sky, but why do you not know how to examine this particular time?” - Luke 12:54-56
      The following article will cover part of the Watch Tower of October 2017.
      The article is titled "The visions of Zechariah: why do they concern us?"

      A vision does not include something more than a command or a need?
       
      From the beginning we can concentrate on the questions reported in the first paragraph.
      Why did Jehovah give such unusual visions to the prophet? In what situation were the Israelites at that time? What do we learn today from those visions?
      The questions are certainly profound and detailed, so we isolate some remarkable points to see how we tried to respond.
      After a brief and dutiful explanation of the background (paragraph two), "Jehovah assured them of the fact that he would help them restore true worship" (paragraph three).
      Let's pause for a moment and reflect on these words.
      Taken by themselves, without knowing anything about Zechariah, the book and the time in which it was written, one would think that the theme that will be developed will focus on how Jehovah will restore true worship.
      Without making any inquiries about the eventual past or future fulfillment of these words, should not you talk about this?
      Among other things, the paragraph confirms that it will be the sixth and seventh vision and this would suggest that these visions will reveal the details on how Jehovah will do this.
      On the other hand, a vision should include something more than a command; the same ten commandments and all the Mosaic law did not need a vision to be dictated and so that the Israelites understood the demands of the Almighty God and the moral norms that they would have to respect.
      On the contrary, the following paragraphs, although the vision of the flying scroll written before and behind is "very particular", they say that "God will punish anyone who steals and among Christians there is no place for any kind of theft".
      Did Zaccaria really need a vision to understand that God does not tolerate theft?
      Apart from that, as we said, it seems strange that a vision is limited to this but the question we should ask ourselves is ... "Zacharias did not know that Jehovah will not tolerate the theft?" - compare Exodus 20:15; Leviticus 19:11, 13; Proverbs 11: 1; 20:23 It is very strange for a prophet of Jehovah but also the rest of the people had to remember such an obvious need, present also in the most primitive human legal systems. Would not it have been enough to read "from the book of the law" as it had been done in the past and how the law itself was foreseen? Until the end of paragraph seven, there is not the slightest indication that this vision can have a deeper explanation and that it can be particularly applied in the future. Also the following paragraphs remain on the same "prudent" line. We must not falsely swear and keep the promises made to Jehovah - compare Leviticus 19:12; Numbers 30: 2; Ecclesiastes 5: 5, 6 The next vision is even more interesting. Does the destination city have no prophetic significance?     From the subtitle "Wickedness is put in its own place" we can see how, the vision that perhaps leaves Zaccaria "horrified" with all its details, makes us clearly understand that Jehovah will never tolerate any form of evil within his people and will ensure that it is quickly eliminated ". So women with stork wings who take away the ephah with wickedness in the land of Sinar, point out this aspect. Why choose Sinar and not Ninive, for example? Because "the Israelites will have thought that Sinar was the right place to relegate Evil, and Zacharias and his contemporaries Jews, in fact, could confirm that wickedness was widespread in Babylon." Also in this case the vision of the container, the wicked woman, the women with stork wings and the country of destination have no particular meaning, let alone prophetic. It must be said that if we had treated this topic only thirty years ago, perhaps someone would have started to calculate the distance between Jerusalem and Sinar to find some correspondence with some modern or past assembly or resolution. This article is certainly more conservative than those of a few years ago ** (see footnote) but is it really prudence what you see in this article or something else? Let's try to be really objective without taking a team-like attitude. Do we really think that Zacharias had seven visions in such a special time, to learn that Jehovah does not tolerate theft, falsehood and evil? Do we really think that the resurgence of true worship has nothing to do with our days? If we had started from chapter four instead of chapter five, would we not perhaps have had to move towards Revelation? - compare Zechariah 4: 2, 3 with Revelation 11: 4 Does not Zechariah chapter four also speak of the resurgence of true worship, exactly as chapters five and six do? If Zechariah and Revelation are connected, even if only partially, we should not have reflected on the identity of this "evil woman" who, incidentally, is transported to the most important city of Babylon or "to her own place"?   What is certain is that, as we have also seen in the articles titled "We are staggering like drunks?" and "Approaching the Storm", we can understand "at what distance we are" from Jehovah's discipline and also understand the reasons why He decides to discipline us by meditating on these aspects. However, all those who really pay attention to the prophetic word, have no reason to be discouraged or upset. If even the light of a certain guide should go out, we have a guide that can never disappoint us - Isaiah 40: 8 It is important and urgent more than ever, precisely in view of what is to happen, to become independent in our research and to sharpen our faculties of reasoning - Romans 12: 1 We must also realize the responsibility that some knowledge entails. We must help not those who have become critical to a party taken and with which one can not reason and even those who fail and do not intend to call into question every truth fallen from above - Matthew 15: 6 We must help those who still know how to ask themselves questions so that they do not leave the organization and do not even close their eyes to what is about to happen. We do not know to what extent God's people will be reshuffled, but until the revelation of the two clothed witnesses this will continue to be the people of God and anyway, whatever happens, let us hold fast to the Word of God which is the only truth - John 17:17 Recalling Jesus' words at the beginning of this article, and bearing in mind that we are nobody and we do not have a thousandth of his authority, we take care not to become like those who were part of God's people and who were recognized as authorities, but at the same time they could not understand "their particular time". We do not look for excuses because each of us has a Bible and the basic knowledge to deepen our arguments. We try not to be too full of us, basking in our safety thinking that others will pay. We could wake up in an unwanted reality. How would we feel if the Lord told us "Are you a hypocrite"? - compare Amos 3: 2
        Final notes * This also applies to all those sites that are said to be prophetic but only apply Jehovah's past judgments to God's people. This is also a fairly easy game. ** Just take a look at the book, no longer in publication "Pay attention to the prophecies of Daniel" where practically every number of days present in the prophetic book have been applied to assemblies, resolutions and publications.
    • Guest Nicole
      By Guest Nicole
      Do you think that her father Abraham Quintanilla risks promoting idolatry by observing “remembrances” and other shows? Isn’t he profiting from her sin by releasing her songs she made while having left “the truth” to make songs turning her into a “star” that other idolize?   Or would it be ok if he donated the money to the Watchtower society?
    • Guest Nicole
      By Guest Nicole
      When conducting a Bible Study for some time (maybe a few months)  you find out that the student is not really interested in knowing the Bible message,  just wants to enjoy friendship, what do you do? Do you politely explain the main reason of your visit or just stop visiting this person without giving an explanation? 
       
    • Guest Nicole
      By Guest Nicole
      I wish I could get an answer to this question - it's either yes or no. To become a Jehovah's Witness do you or don't you have to become baptized? I've brought this up before, my neighbor calls herself A Witness even though she hasn't been baptized.
      Submitted by: Lorraine Chloe 
    • Guest Nicole
      By Guest Nicole
      Do the JWs that teach people how to read and write count their time the same as they would if spent in field service?
    • Guest Nicole
      By Guest Nicole
      What is the difference between and oath and a vow?
    • By James Thomas Rook Jr.
      WHY DO MEN HAVE NIPPLES?
      uH .. OR IS IT "NIPPELS"?
    • By Bible Speaks
      #Question? #Answers? #WhoAmI? #JehovahGod #JesusChrist #LiveForever? #LoyalLove #Peace? #WhaleOrBigFish??#GodsKingdom #GoodNews #loveoneanother❤️

    • Guest Nicole
      By Guest Nicole
      Was Jesus a minimalist? 
    • Guest Nicole
      By Guest Nicole
      ¿Por qué a los Testigos de Jehová no se les permite utilizar piñatas en sus fiestas?
       
       
    • By Jack Ryan
      Should we respect religious beliefs of others?
    • By Richteresa
      Hello  Librarian,     
      If it is  possible  can you please post the  transcript for  the  video  Encouraging  inactive  ones?  
      I  would  really  appreciate it if you are  willing and able to  get  this. Thank  you 
    • By The Librarian
      Anything Bible, Biblical Archaeology, Current Events, Rumor busting, Urban Legends or JW related would be relevant.
      I enjoy helping people get answers to their questions they were always too afraid to ask or couldn't find the answer.
      If I can't answer it... I'm sure someone worldwide on here will know where the answer is.
      Need a Publication you can't find in my Master Publications List? Ask for a copy....
      Please also try using the search function on the upper right hand side first to avoid duplicates.
      Agape!
      p.s. - The reason you don't see any posts below this is because I usually split these questions off into their own threads. ICYMI earlier.
      Preguntas en español aqui por favor

    • By Nathan Russell
      Outside of the Bible is there any archilogical or written evidence that Jesus Christ actually existed that has already not been proven to be forgeries or based on myth?
    • By Trevordaph
      Do you have" Kingdom Service Questions Answered" booklet?
    • By James Thomas Rook Jr.
      .
      This continuous, never-ending global controversy has been going on since the 1960's, that I am aware of personally, and even before, when Judge Rutherford PERSONALLY forbade beards among Jehovah's witnesses, with the possible exception of post-menopausel Sisters .... and the Society has never definitively stated ANYTHING. 
      With my usual lack of humor I present the Draft Copy of the December 2016 issue of the Watchtower which showed a Brother shaving on the cover ... it was changed before being distributed, because the Brothers responsible for the VERY GOOD and accurate article ... disappeared mysteriously.
      After you save the file to your hard drive, from the TOOL BAR, be sure to set your ADOBE PDF reader under VIEW to "Reading Mode" and under ZOOM,  "Fit Page" to read it.
      Dec 2016 Watchtower draft article .pdf
      .
       
    • Guest Sonita
      By Guest Sonita
      How do I uninstall an app at my Mac?
      Thank you  
    • By The Librarian
      Yesterday our congregation had an "elders and ministerial servants only" party, which really meant they, their wives and their children. I am in a congregation with over 50 brothers who fit this description. I am really disturbed about the trend I am seeing to hold these exclusive parties, especially in view of Jesus' clear direction at Luke 14. I would like to know the opinion of the brothers and sisters in this forum. Does this disturb you? Why or why not, with a scriptural basis.
      - Sent in via jw-archive.org
  • Forum Statistics

    62,417
    Total Topics
    118,117
    Total Posts
  • Member Statistics

    16,584
    Total Members
    1,592
    Most Online
    Vespucci Languages Private Limited
    Newest Member
    Vespucci Languages Private Limited
    Joined

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.