| Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format |
| Open Forums for ExChristian.Net > Old Board > Into the Lion's Den |
| Posted by: sexkitten Oct 14 2004, 06:43 PM |
| Printable Version of Topic Click here to view this topic in its original format ExChristian.Net Open Forums > Rants & Replies > Into The Lion's Den Posted by: Tocis Apr 27 2004, 10:51 AM Yo hey, for the sake of fairness (well, and because it's better to know your enemy) I just attended a congregational book study meeting of Gifhorn's JW group. Uh huh. There it is again, the feeling that fundyism kills the brain. I had more intellectually demanding lessons in my first year in school. Talk about spoon-feeding the propaganda to the drones, very slowly lest their untrained brains overload, assisted by questions that an amoeba could have answered. The best thing? I now have a watchtower buybull at home and will gladly dismember the dusty book to dump the pieces in front of their feet (not literally of course, in debate form). The worst thing? For the whole hour, across the room sat the children... three girls of perhaps 12 to 14 years of age, looking very much alike - they could have been sisters (well, perhaps they were). Their body language practically cried "please let me get out of this endless hour of babbling stuff that no one here really understands!". The pity I felt for them... Sickening. Well then... I wonder just what faces will stare at me in utter horror when I start this year's debating season... Posted by: SteveFDL Apr 27 2004, 12:31 PM QUOTE (Tocis @ Apr 27 2004, 12:51 PM) Yo hey, for the sake of fairness (well, and because it's better to know your enemy) I just attended a congregational book study meeting of Gifhorn's JW group. Uh huh. There it is again, the feeling that fundyism kills the brain. I had more intellectually demanding lessons in my first year in school. Talk about spoon-feeding the propaganda to the drones, very slowly lest their untrained brains overload, assisted by questions that an amoeba could have answered. The best thing? I now have a watchtower buybull at home and will gladly dismember the dusty book to dump the pieces in front of their feet (not literally of course, in debate form). The worst thing? For the whole hour, across the room sat the children... tree girls of perhaps 12 to 14 years of age, looking very much alike - they could have been sisters (well, perhaps they were). Their body language practically cried "please let me get out of this endless hour of babbling stuff that no one here really understands!". The pity I felt for them... Sickening. Well then... I wonder just what faces will stare at me in utter horror when I start this year's debating season... Sad, isn't it. What scares me is all the time and energy people put into spreading the faith as opposed to feeding the poor, or getting a sound education. One of those precious little girls might have gone on to become a life-saving surgeon, or at least something that made a difference. But instead, their focus is on cult activities. I find this sad. I really do. I have 2 young daughters and I feel so lucky that I left fundyism before I brainwashed their little minds. I want their lives to be wrapped around theri passions and not around fairy tales. Posted by: Madame M Apr 27 2004, 12:41 PM QUOTE I have 2 young daughters and I feel so lucky that I left fundyism before I brainwashed their little minds. I have two little daughters, too and a son. I am also glad they won't be brainwashed. Well, my husband could always go into a fundy induced guilt frenzy and decide they absolutely must go to church, but so far he hasn't. Part of the reason I started questioning my faith was for their sakes. I wanted to make absolutely sure I was passing on truth before I indoctrinated them into the mind fears and faith cartwheels. Posted by: Tocis Apr 27 2004, 01:22 PM QUOTE (SteveFDL @ Apr 27 2004, 12:31 PM) One of those precious little girls might have gone on to become a life-saving surgeon, or at least something that made a difference. But instead, their focus is on cult activities. Well, who knows... they seemed less than lucky about sitting there. Maybe they'll wake up in time. I hope so. What a waste of young lifes... Posted by: Baby Eater Apr 27 2004, 04:10 PM RELIGIOUS FREEDOM! RELIGIOUS FREEDOM! (Just to break the ambiance) Posted by: Libertus Apr 27 2004, 04:57 PM Tocis, you will have to keep us informed if you run into these people during your debates. Great entertainment, to be sure. Libertus Posted by: SteveFDL Apr 27 2004, 05:11 PM QUOTE (Madame M @ Apr 27 2004, 02:41 PM) QUOTE I have 2 young daughters and I feel so lucky that I left fundyism before I brainwashed their little minds. I have two little daughters, too and a son. I am also glad they won't be brainwashed. Well, my husband could always go into a fundy induced guilt frenzy and decide they absolutely must go to church, but so far he hasn't. Part of the reason I started questioning my faith was for their sakes. I wanted to make absolutely sure I was passing on truth before I indoctrinated them into the mind fears and faith cartwheels. I was the one insisting on their church attendance. I wanted to home school them, and turn them into little God chasers. I was a rabid fundamental. Then I heard a stat that the majority of alcoholics, and sexual abusers came from conservative Christians homes. Before Christians attack me over this: the study comes from Christians themselves. Wayne Jacobsen is the spearhead: http://lifestream.org/lsfrontpage.html I started wondering why this was, and then it hit me. My father was an alcoholic, and my "beliefs" were addictive in nature. (I repeat MY BELIEFS...not anyone lese's). I think many religious beliefs are addictive. Try to remove modern Christian culture (books, music, et al) from Christians and they would go through withdrawal. Posted by: SteveFDL Apr 27 2004, 05:12 PM QUOTE (Tocis @ Apr 27 2004, 03:22 PM) QUOTE (SteveFDL @ Apr 27 2004, 12:31 PM) One of those precious little girls might have gone on to become a life-saving surgeon, or at least something that made a difference. But instead, their focus is on cult activities. Well, who knows... they seemed less than lucky about sitting there. Maybe they'll wake up in time. I hope so. What a waste of young lifes... I hate to generalize and assume they are unhappy, but I do yearn for each human being to be afforded the opportunity to explore life free from bondage. Posted by: Rameus Apr 27 2004, 05:56 PM (by Steve) QUOTE I want their lives to be wrapped around theri passions and not around fairy tales. Don't let the bible ruin fairy tales for you. In my opinion some of the greatest literature ever written were fairy tales. It's when fairy tales become a hard core religion that things get ugly. Rameus Posted by: woodsmoke Apr 27 2004, 07:00 PM Rameus makes a good point. Some of my favorite literature was written by the Grimm brothers, and I'll go to my grave appreciating the wonderful elements of story-telling in ancient mythology--particularly Greek, Norse, and Celtic. Posted by: fortunehooks Apr 27 2004, 08:42 PM i am in total agreement with rameus. fairy tales should be appreciated for it's artistic merit,but not looked upon as something written by insert your deity here___. tocis,i applaud your efforts to confront the jw's on their turf. i really wished all children of the world could lose the mental bondage and physical constraints religion instills in them. keep us posted on the current ongoings. woodsmoke,let's make an effort to call it greek religion,norse religion,and celtic religion. why should the xtians not also be called ancient mythology. just my thought,i think these religions should be called as such. Posted by: woodsmoke Apr 27 2004, 08:46 PM Or, because it will burn the Xians even more (but mostly because I'm just lazy), we could call it "Christian mythology." Posted by: fortunehooks Apr 27 2004, 08:58 PM woodsmoke,you know i meant no harm at all. i wasn't trying to correct you or anything to that nature. i just have a problem when xtians want to degrade an ancient belief system as mere myth today. it is my thoughts that in the class of ancient myths,that christianity the paul or yeshua version be put in the class as well. after all,we know the only true religion is the the worship of RA. Posted by: Tocis Apr 27 2004, 09:15 PM QUOTE (woodsmoke @ Apr 27 2004, 08:46 PM) Or, because it will burn the Xians even more (but mostly because I'm just lazy), we could call it "Christian mythology." You know, I had to bite my lips yesterday when someone read aloud from the "book of the evening" about the "pagan mythical nature deities". Aaaah, pot... kettle... Posted by: SteveFDL Apr 27 2004, 09:18 PM QUOTE (Rameus @ Apr 27 2004, 07:56 PM) (by Steve) QUOTE I want their lives to be wrapped around theri passions and not around fairy tales. Don't let the bible ruin fairy tales for you. In my opinion some of the greatest literature ever written were fairy tales. It's when fairy tales become a hard core religion that things get ugly. Rameus I grew up on Spider-man, and sci-fi, and love a good alternate world. When I said I don't want them to wrap their lives around a fairy tale, I meant I don't want a faiy tale to become their world view, if that makes sense. Posted by: Vixentrox Apr 28 2004, 04:30 AM Someone should write a childrens book with a lot of the ancient fairly tales then include a couple from the bible to tweak the Xtian noses. Posted by: HeathenM0M Apr 28 2004, 04:49 AM QUOTE (Tocis @ Apr 27 2004, 01:51 PM) Well then... I wonder just what faces will stare at me in utter horror when I start this year's debating season... That sounds like good entertainment. I hope that you can open up some minds in the process (not likely I know). Posted by: Loren Apr 28 2004, 09:27 AM QUOTE (Madame M @ Apr 27 2004, 12:41 PM) I have two little daughters, too and a son. I am also glad they won't be brainwashed. Well, my husband could always go into a fundy induced guilt frenzy and decide they absolutely must go to church, but so far he hasn't. Isn't it funny how often when a fundy gets a case of the guilts, other people are the ones to suffer? Posted by: Lokmer Apr 28 2004, 10:11 AM QUOTE (SteveFDL @ Apr 27 2004, 06:11 PM) I was the one insisting on their church attendance. I wanted to home school them, and turn them into little God chasers. I was a rabid fundamental. Then I heard a stat that the majority of alcoholics, and sexual abusers came from conservative Christians homes. ...... I think many religious beliefs are addictive. Try to remove modern Christian culture (books, music, et al) from Christians and they would go through withdrawal. There was a book in the late 80s from an Evangelical press called "The Dangers of Growing Up in a Christian Home" which compared the family dynamics of Fundamentalists, Evangelicals, Catholics, and Charismatics to those of abusive alcoholic homes, and found that - alcohol or no - the emotional power dynamics were identical and that the Christian homes were more often abusive than the alcoholic ones. A very interesting read indeed. -Lokmer Posted by: Lokmer Apr 28 2004, 10:22 AM I once heard Robert Price defend the Bible with the following: "We shouldn't have to criticize it - we shouldn't [b]have[/i] to tear it apart. But the problem is that people read this book of wonderful stories and human truths and great myths, and they make a category error. They think that if it's true in one sense it must be true in every sense, and they base their entire lives around it. And speaking as a fan of the Bible - I LOVE the Bible - the Bible is just not that kind of book." I agree with him completely - I LOVE the Bible. It is a remarkable collection of history, myths, and religious thought. But the second you try to say it is somehow infallible, or spoken from the mouth of God, or eternal truth without regards to its context and origins - the second you do that you actually devalue what is an otherwise wonderful book. You put on it more weight than it was ever meant to bear, and you lose the beauty and truth that is there by trying to make it into something it's not. -Lokmer Posted by: Loren Apr 28 2004, 10:38 AM QUOTE (Lokmer @ Apr 28 2004, 10:22 AM) I agree with him completely - I LOVE the Bible. It is a remarkable collection of history, myths, and religious thought. But the second you try to say it is somehow infallible, or spoken from the mouth of God, or eternal truth without regards to its context and origins - the second you do that you actually devalue what is an otherwise wonderful book. You put on it more weight than it was ever meant to bear, and you lose the beauty and truth that is there by trying to make it into something it's not. -Lokmer Exactly!! I've seen countless times when some Christian thought they were defending the Bible, but they were actually trivializing it. If they could only have seen what they were doing through my eyes for a moment... Posted by: SOIL Apr 28 2004, 10:59 AM QUOTE (Loren @ Apr 28 2004, 10:38 AM) ...If they could only have seen what they were doing through my eyes for a moment... Hi Loren and Lokmer, Hey, maybe that is why I come to this place occasionally, I would like to see what I am doing through your eyes for a moment. Feel free to be more specific. At least for now anyway, I'm listening. Dennis Posted by: Lokmer Apr 28 2004, 11:18 AM Dennis, I would love to oblige. Could you perhaps pose a more specific question - the one you have is pretty broad and could go anywhere. -Lokmer Posted by: Doug2 Apr 28 2004, 12:32 PM QUOTE (Vixentrox @ Apr 28 2004, 04:30 AM) Someone should write a childrens book with a lot of the ancient fairly tales then include a couple from the bible to tweak the Xtian noses. excellent idea! Unfortunately I would feel bad about publishing any of the bible stories for children to read. Most are bloody and have a vengeful god. Even the talking donkey story leaves the rider to die a slow death. Maybe we could modify some of the endings. Posted by: SOIL Apr 28 2004, 12:36 PM QUOTE (Lokmer @ Apr 28 2004, 11:18 AM) Dennis, I would love to oblige. Could you perhaps pose a more specific question - the one you have is pretty broad and could go anywhere. -Lokmer Hi Lokmer, thanks for responding! Well, the two posts which caught my attention were the one by you and then it was responded to by Loren: Loren's post: QUOTE QUOTE (Lokmer @ Apr 28 2004, 10:22 AM) I agree with him completely - I LOVE the Bible. It is a remarkable collection of history, myths, and religious thought. But the second you try to say it is somehow infallible, or spoken from the mouth of God, or eternal truth without regards to its context and origins - the second you do that you actually devalue what is an otherwise wonderful book. You put on it more weight than it was ever meant to bear, and you lose the beauty and truth that is there by trying to make it into something it's not. -Lokmer Exactly!! I've seen countless times when some Christian thought they were defending the Bible, but they were actually trivializing it. If they could only have seen what they were doing through my eyes for a moment... So - to pick out a couple of the salient phrases : "without regards to its context and origins" "... when some Christian thought they were defending the Bible, but they were actually trivializing it." I guess I would like to know what you think about the Bible's "context and origins" which cause you to think it is not to be considered as "spoken from the mouth of God" and/or must not be considered to contain "eternal truth"? Also - I suspect that Loren has read posts which I have made - where he most likely would have felt that I was "defending the Bible" - I guess I would like to know if he was thinking (while reading my posts) that I was "actually trivializing it" ? If that was going through Loren's mind - I guess I am just willing to let him tell me exactly (more specifically) what was going through his "mind for a moment" - and by that I mean - I want to know WHY he (or you perhaps?) may think I (or other Christians) are trivializing the Bible. Dennis Posted by: UV2003 Apr 28 2004, 12:45 PM QUOTE (SteveFDL @ Apr 27 2004, 05:11 PM) I started wondering why this was, and then it hit me. My father was an alcoholic, and my "beliefs" were addictive in nature. (I repeat MY BELIEFS...not anyone lese's). I think many religious beliefs are addictive. Try to remove modern Christian culture (books, music, et al) from Christians and they would go through withdrawal. You are right on this I think. How long were you a fundy? I have some friends who want me to become a fundy, but I want them to start reading the other side, only one of them is willing to read right now, but I'm not sure how it will go once he starts to read. He may backlash. Posted by: Lokmer Apr 28 2004, 01:51 PM QUOTE (SOIL @ Apr 28 2004, 01:36 PM) So - to pick out a couple of the salient phrases : "without regards to its context and origins" "... when some Christian thought they were defending the Bible, but they were actually trivializing it." QUOTE (SOIL) I guess I would like to know what you think about the Bible's "context and origins" which cause you to think it is not to be considered as "spoken from the mouth of God" and/or must not be considered to contain "eternal truth"? The context and origins of the Bible (speaking of the OT at the moment) are manifold - different stuff for each book. Let's take one of my favorites, the Book of Job, since it presents a lot of problems like the ones I was describing. The book of Job is a beautiful piece of wisdom-literature that tries to wrestle honestly with the big questions of human existence: The justice of God, the problem of evil/suffering, the role of piety, and the nature of honor. It is written in the genre of an epic poem, and is a marvel of the idiosyncratic art of Hebrew poetry. It contains some of the most quotable and insightful passages in ancient literature, and it is, to boot, a biting and brilliant satire of self-righteous pietism. While many people finds its answers to the questions it raises unsatisfactory (the ultimate answer is "might makes right"), it does not fall prey to the temptation of propaganda - it actually really explores the questions it raises in a very human and honest manner. It's a very thought-provoking book. Its historical context is very ancient - it is, as far as anyone can make out, the oldest book in the Tanakh. It comes from a polytheistic culture that is moving toward monotheism, and is very similar to sections of Babylonian and Sumerian epic poetry. It's a OLD book, telling an even older story. But the book itself never claims to be historical, and the Jews certainly have never seen it that way (they place it with Psalms and Song of Songs in their Bible, rather than with the histories or the prophets). It is, frankly, a book of fiction. There is NOTHING about it to suggest that it is anything other than myth. It claims to be nothing other than myth. And the people who handed it down to us never believed it to be anything other than myth. But then come the inerrentists, insisting that if it's true in any sense it's true in every sense. It must be historically accurate - God must have actually played poker with a man's life, sent Satan to wreak havock, etc. There must actually have been a real guy named Job who lived in the land of Nod. It's part of God's autobiography, after all, so the book must also bear completely accurate witness to the character of God. So, they do that, and it destroys the book. An epic poem - a brilliant one, becomes a very bad piece of PR propaganda for Yahweh. A touching inquiry into the fundamental questions of human life becomes the divinely-inspired truth from heaven that we are pawns in a chess game between God and Satan. What once was a poem searching for God's meaning becomes a direct statement from God that we should all shut up and fuck off. And thus, it does violence to the text and obscures any real divine truth that might be in there, because it imposes a 19th century plain-facts reading of a text written as a myth. And in doing so, it robs the story of its grandeur. That's exactly the same sort of category error that Price was talking about. Anyhoo, I hope that helps I'm here if you have any more questions! -Lokmer Posted by: SteveFDL Apr 28 2004, 02:23 PM QUOTE (Lokmer @ Apr 28 2004, 12:11 PM) QUOTE (SteveFDL @ Apr 27 2004, 06:11 PM) I was the one insisting on their church attendance. I wanted to home school them, and turn them into little God chasers. I was a rabid fundamental. Then I heard a stat that the majority of alcoholics, and sexual abusers came from conservative Christians homes. ...... I think many religious beliefs are addictive. Try to remove modern Christian culture (books, music, et al) from Christians and they would go through withdrawal. There was a book in the late 80s from an Evangelical press called "The Dangers of Growing Up in a Christian Home" which compared the family dynamics of Fundamentalists, Evangelicals, Catholics, and Charismatics to those of abusive alcoholic homes, and found that - alcohol or no - the emotional power dynamics were identical and that the Christian homes were more often abusive than the alcoholic ones. A very interesting read indeed. -Lokmer Thanks Lokmer. Sounds like an interesting read. Posted by: Loren Apr 28 2004, 06:09 PM Hi, Dennis. To quickly answer your second question first, I don't recall if I've ever thought this of you. Although I've read quite a few of your posts, I haven't seen one in a long time. If you frequent the site, you must be doing it in forums I generally don't visit. However, I'll go to the first question and hopefully you'll be able to tell for yourself whether the shoe fits. I see many forms and examples of apologetics and attitudes that, in my opinion, trivialize the Bible. A very common and widespread example would be any form of insistence that a given story, or the whole Bible itself, MUST be completely historical to be of spiritual value. One of the things about various spiritual truths I've found in the Bible is that I am able to see, understand and use the lesson involved regardless of whether the event ever really happened or not. If a spiritual truth is really solid and valid in any deep sense, then I've found that it's historicity is actually irrelevant. Must something be factual to be true? Many Christians seem to think so. To insist that said event's concrete existence in history is what makes it valid tells me that the person using such an approach either doesn't understand the lesson, or they think it's less important than whether it actually took place or not. It's the old medium versus message thing, and I've seen many times when it led the person using it directly into the idolatry of turning the Bible into the primary object of worship. It's thinking that the finger pointing at the moon is the moon. Frankly, it's very difficult for me to not think of such people as being somewhat off their rockers. I think what leads to this approach as well as what comes out of it is the idiotic idea that belief in an event is more important than the putting into practice of the principle in the lesson. I see Christians trivialize the Bible every time they subvert the highest and elevate the lesser in order to defend it. It tells me that they haven't learned from it, and that it has done them no noticable transformative good (In that area, anyway.). Which brings me to another way Christians trivialize the Bible. All my life, even when I was a Christian, I had to ask, "Just why does the Bible need defense, anyway? If there's anything shaky about it, wouldn't a serious believer want to know? I certainly did! To make it short, Dennis, when I see Christians defending the allegedly invulnerable (in which I've been told to put my trust), it has to make me wonder why. They are acting like they, themselves think it needs defense. Why? I would think Christians would be grateful for finding out if some part of the religion was actually not as solid as the sales brochure says it is. I've known Christians who had just that attitude of seeing "attackers" as actually being people who would help them understand their own religion better, which is what I would expect a serious believer to want. They are unafraid of anything a human could do, and know that anything a human can destroy is not truly invulnerable. In other words, they act like they have some kind of real faith in God. They walk unafraid into dangerous theological territory like they know that that is exactly what they are supposed to be doing. These are the Christians who actually help their religion. They are also the ones who often live at the fringes, get excommunicated, and so on. But in the long run, this is how reforms take place, and these are the people who make it happen. Reforms have never been instigated by the orthodoxy. To me, "defending" the Bible has always trivialized the Bible. It makes me wonder about motives. Another example is when I see someone take the "all or nothing" stance. You know the one. Either everything in the Bible is true, or the whole thing must be thrown completely out. How can such an attitude NOT trivialize the Bible? What if you applied the same approach toward a person? Would it not trivialize them? But then Christian doctrine turns around and does just that when it tells me that I am condemned eternally for just one single sin. Same principle, but applied in another direction. And since it's been covered ad nauseum in other threads, I'll just point at it. Christians trivialize the Bible every time they subvert the higher and elevate the lesser. That's the very essence of trivialization. Posted by: Lokmer Apr 28 2004, 09:48 PM To put a finer point on it: The doctrine of innerency, always and unavoidably, makes the Bible into a paper God. And, to a lesser degree, all doctrines of exclusive inspiration do the same thing, because they make the Bible into the sole conduit for God's truth. Now the Eastern Orthodox and Neo-orthodox have a doctrine called "Common Grace", where the entire world is seen as God's book. Special weight is given to the Bible, but it is (at least theoretically) seen as one lens through which the light of God shines, and there are other lenses for this light which shines through every culture and every person. Protestants (particularly the manifold decendents of Calvin), however, will usually have none of that sort of "new agey" stuff. They prefer their God in a printed form. -Lokmer Posted by: SOIL Apr 29 2004, 05:43 AM A hearty howdy to both Loren and Lokmer, I only have the time here to respond at a general level to your excellent recent posts. THANK YOU! You both have given me some very good things to think about. Actually, I have tried to listen to fellow Christians who attend the Church were I am a member - folks who are not nearly as "fundie" as I have always been - and though I didn't really understand (did I use "ears that hear"?) what they were trying to say to me (for instance about the possibility of not believing in a literal 6-day creation), I think I do understand the more liberal (don't ya just hate that word?) position which they take - now- after I have read your most recent posts. Loren (and I think probably Lokmer also for that matter), I can certainly understand (and perhaps I have even been one, at times) of those folks who you have thought to be "off their rockers" due to their/our? insistence on taking the position that if there is any error(s) (historical, factual, etc...) present in the Bible - then none of it is useful any more. I am beginning to understand why you consider that to be an off one's rocker type of position. Having said that, however, I am not (yet?) to the point where I take several of the positions which you guys are taking, but at least you have helped me to understand why you take your positions - and you have done such a way that (once again) I think I have learned something good (for me anyway) by reading your replies -- So again, Thanks for taking the time to express what you are thinking - and I appreciate you using your gifts for expressing your opinions via writing them out - and I also thank you for being patient even with folks like me (who admittedly may be somewhat "off my rocker" in some situations at least - or at the minimum, I may certainly appear that way to you - and appearances certainly can effect how we act toward others). If, (or I should probably say, WHEN) I can find the time, (last night I visited some old friends -one 90 and the other 87 or so, actually I'm not sure if she has ever told how old she is! - and then I traveled approx. 100 miles just to buy a new lawn mower - and tonight I mow!) - but anyway, at this time I am thinking that I will probably try to reply to some of the specific points which each of you guys raised - since I would like more clarification about several of the issues. Hopefully, this time I will actually follow up on this type of statement of intent - (sadly, I have not always done so in the past). Dennis Posted by: Loren Apr 29 2004, 02:52 PM QUOTE (SOIL @ Apr 29 2004, 05:43 AM) A hearty howdy to both Loren and Lokmer, I only have the time here to respond at a general level to your excellent recent posts. THANK YOU! You both have given me some very good things to think about. Actually, I have tried to listen to fellow Christians who attend the Church were I am a member - folks who are not nearly as "fundie" as I have always been - and though I didn't really understand (did I use "ears that hear"?) what they were trying to say to me (for instance about the possibility of not believing in a literal 6-day creation), I think I do understand the more liberal (don't ya just hate that word?) position which they take - now- after I have read your most recent posts. Loren (and I think probably Lokmer also for that matter), I can certainly understand (and perhaps I have even been one, at times) of those folks who you have thought to be "off their rockers" due to their/our? insistence on taking the position that if there is any error(s) (historical, factual, etc...) present in the Bible - then none of it is useful any more. I am beginning to understand why you consider that to be an off one's rocker type of position. Having said that, however, I am not (yet?) to the point where I take several of the positions which you guys are taking, but at least you have helped me to understand why you take your positions - and you have done such a way that (once again) I think I have learned something good (for me anyway) by reading your replies -- So again, Thanks for taking the time to express what you are thinking - and I appreciate you using your gifts for expressing your opinions via writing them out - and I also thank you for being patient even with folks like me (who admittedly may be somewhat "off my rocker" in some situations at least - or at the minimum, I may certainly appear that way to you - and appearances certainly can effect how we act toward others). Dennis You're very welcome, Dennis. I guess it's just that I've had so many times when I've seen a Christian who clearly thought they had some extraordinarily profound grasp of scriptures, yet to my vision, what they had was far too often no deeper than tea saucer. But it's not reasonable to expect a person to do better than they can do. Basically, I don't blame the laity for this stuff, I blame the clergy. It's their responsibility to educate and train the laity, and they've clearly been doing a shoddy job of it. The lay people have an excuse. The clergy don't. In a nutshell, for me it boils down to seeing a genuine fearless search for truth getting sidetracked into any other pursuit, especially fighting over who is right. And it seems the people with the shallowest understanding usually claim to have the deepest. As Metallica said in one of their songs, "The empty can rattles the most." I'm glad you found our two replies useful for increasing your understanding of how other people see things. (I thought Lokmer's was better than mine, by far.) Loren Posted by: SOIL Apr 29 2004, 06:16 PM QUOTE (Loren @ Apr 28 2004, 06:09 PM) ... I see many forms and examples of apologetics and attitudes that, in my opinion, trivialize the Bible. A very common and widespread example would be any form of insistence that a given story, or the whole Bible itself, MUST be completely historical to be of spiritual value. One of the things about various spiritual truths I've found in the Bible is that I am able to see, understand and use the lesson involved regardless of whether the event ever really happened or not. If a spiritual truth is really solid and valid in any deep sense, then I've found that it's historicity is actually irrelevant. Must something be factual to be true? Many Christians seem to think so. To insist that said event's concrete existence in history is what makes it valid tells me that the person using such an approach either doesn't understand the lesson, or they think it's less important than whether it actually took place or not. ... (underlined emphasis mine) Loren, I can understand how you could say that you can derive good things of substance from something - if it is spiritually true - even if perhaps it is not strictly historically and/or even what perhaps I might call hard-core factually true. However, at least in my case - the reason I very much prefer things which are historically true in addition to being spiritually true -- I think is mainly due to the one historical truth which I consider the linchpin of the Christian faith -- that being the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. I think this is one of the main things that differentiates Christianity from other religions - the claim that Jesus has in fact literally "conquered death". For this historical happening (at least this one), I think Christianity basically would no longer be tenable if it were not historical reality. QUOTE 1 Cor. 15:14-19 (ESV) And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. [15] We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. [16] For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. [17] And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. [18] Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. [19] If in this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied. As far as the bodily historical resurrection of Jesus is concerned - I have always insisted it must be completely factual - because it (to me anyway) is the proof (which I feel I need) - in order to believe His extravagant claims were in fact correct. (Here I agree with Rameus - I think it was he anyway - who said something to the effect that "extravagant claims require extravagant evidence"). If I didn't think there was very good reasons to believe that Jesus did in fact rise again , bodily, from the grave, then I really don't think I would value what He said enough to try to pattern my life after the things he taught. I think perhaps you and Lokmer (and maybe also several others who I have read on this board from time to time) are much more willing to consider each book in the Bible separately "on it's own merit", rather than applying a specific litmus test to every book since they have all been placed (through the canon process) into the one big book: "the Bible". I think I have always tried to apply the same identical criteria to each and every book - and perhaps that may not be as appropriate as I have always thought was called for. For instance - there is a part of me that wants to pretty much agree with what Lokmer said about the book of Job - however - I think I will probably eventually write a post that expresses why I don't agree with a lot of what he said. I think there are some lessons that I can learn from Job much better if it is in fact, fact. (but I'll wait to elaborate on that in a separate post). Thanks again Loren, Dennis Posted by: SOIL Apr 30 2004, 08:08 AM QUOTE (Loren @ Apr 29 2004, 02:52 PM) ... But it's not reasonable to expect a person to do better than they can do. Basically, I don't blame the laity for this stuff, I blame the clergy. It's their responsibility to educate and train the laity, and they've clearly been doing a shoddy job of it. The lay people have an excuse. The clergy don't. ... I'm thinking of something that was written in another thread: (Madame M said:) QUOTE ... Alot of Christians have the "full service" mentality in church. I paid my 10%, now serve me church. "I don't need to do that, this is why I pay my money, so the pastor can do it." "I don't need to study my Bible, I pay the pastor to do that and he better turn out a good show on sunday... Overall I do agree that the average tendency to "go deeper" in our search to understand what is taught about the big issues in life (whether that be digging into the Bible - or just thinking for one's self and researching for instance the world around us - and other books) is often at a pitiful state of shallowness (and as I point with my index finger at others - there are three other fingers on my hand - and a thumb - pointing back at me). Dennis Posted by: SOIL Apr 30 2004, 09:16 AM QUOTE (Lokmer @ Apr 28 2004, 01:51 PM) ... The book of Job is a beautiful piece of wisdom-literature that tries to wrestle honestly with the big questions of human existence: The justice of God, the problem of evil/suffering, the role of piety, and the nature of honor. It is written in the genre of an epic poem, and is a marvel of the idiosyncratic art of Hebrew poetry. It contains some of the most quotable and insightful passages in ancient literature, and it is, to boot, a biting and brilliant satire of self-righteous pietism. ... "... and it is, to boot, a biting and brilliant satire of self-righteous pietism" Lokmer, I am with you 100% on that point. Many of Job's friends thought his suffering must have been related to some flaw in his character, (... and since they were not afflicted by such a similar pathetic physical state - I reckon that must mean each of their character's was much better than that wily ole Job! - who must clearly have been concealing some great sin! ) I think I pretty much agree with Chesterton's take - concerning Job's situation: QUOTE ... The book of Job is chiefly remarkable, as I have insisted throughout, for the fact that it does not end in a way that is conventionally satisfactory. Job is not told that his misfortunes were due to his sins or a part of any plan for his improvement. But in the prologue we see Job tormented not because he was the worst of men, but because he was the best. It is the lesson of the whole work that man is most comforted by paradoxes. Here is the very darkest and strangest of the paradoxes; and it is by all human testimony the most reassuring. I need not suggest what high and strange history awaited this paradox of the best man in the worst fortune. I need not say that in the freest and most philosophical sense there is one Old Testament figure who is truly a type; or say what is prefigured in the wounds of Job. ( above I copied from the closing paragraph on this page: http://www.dur.ac.uk/martin.ward/gkc/books/job.html ) More to come (in subsequent posts - maybe a new thread over in the Debating Christians Discussion area?) about how some of my views differ from the ones Lokmer did such an excellent job of presenting in his earlier post. Lokmer - I must say however, I do very much respect the views you have presented - and I am have been rolling them over in my mind repeatedly. Several of the points you mentioned are discussed in a book written by Phillip Yancey entitled "Disappointment with God" - I am not sure I completely agree with every conclusion he comes to in that book - but I do think it is very much worth reading (even for a guy who reads as slowly and laboriously as I do!). Dennis Posted by: Loren Apr 30 2004, 09:30 AM QUOTE (SOIL @ Apr 29 2004, 06:16 PM) QUOTE (Loren @ Apr 28 2004, 06:09 PM) ... I see many forms and examples of apologetics and attitudes that, in my opinion, trivialize the Bible. A very common and widespread example would be any form of insistence that a given story, or the whole Bible itself, MUST be completely historical to be of spiritual value. One of the things about various spiritual truths I've found in the Bible is that I am able to see, understand and use the lesson involved regardless of whether the event ever really happened or not. If a spiritual truth is really solid and valid in any deep sense, then I've found that it's historicity is actually irrelevant. Must something be factual to be true? Many Christians seem to think so. To insist that said event's concrete existence in history is what makes it valid tells me that the person using such an approach either doesn't understand the lesson, or they think it's less important than whether it actually took place or not. ... (underlined emphasis mine) Loren, I can understand how you could say that you can derive good things of substance from something - if it is spiritually true - even if perhaps it is not strictly historically and/or even what perhaps I might call hard-core factually true. However, at least in my case - the reason I very much prefer things which are historically true in addition to being spiritually true -- I think is mainly due to the one historical truth which I consider the linchpin of the Christian faith -- that being the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. I think this is one of the main things that differentiates Christianity from other religions - the claim that Jesus has in fact literally "conquered death". For this historical happening (at least this one), I think Christianity basically would no longer be tenable if it were not historical reality. QUOTE 1 Cor. 15:14-19 (ESV) And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. [15] We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. [16] For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. [17] And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. [18] Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. [19] If in this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied. As far as the bodily historical resurrection of Jesus is concerned - I have always insisted it must be completely factual - because it (to me anyway) is the proof (which I feel I need) - in order to believe His extravagant claims were in fact correct. (Here I agree with Rameus - I think it was he anyway - who said something to the effect that "extravagant claims require extravagant evidence"). If I didn't think there was very good reasons to believe that Jesus did in fact rise again , bodily, from the grave, then I really don't think I would value what He said enough to try to pattern my life after the things he taught. I think perhaps you and Lokmer (and maybe also several others who I have read on this board from time to time) are much more willing to consider each book in the Bible separately "on it's own merit", rather than applying a specific litmus test to every book since they have all been placed (through the canon process) into the one big book: "the Bible". I think I have always tried to apply the same identical criteria to each and every book - and perhaps that may not be as appropriate as I have always thought was called for. For instance - there is a part of me that wants to pretty much agree with what Lokmer said about the book of Job - however - I think I will probably eventually write a post that expresses why I don't agree with a lot of what he said. I think there are some lessons that I can learn from Job much better if it is in fact, fact. (but I'll wait to elaborate on that in a separate post). Thanks again Loren, Dennis I can understand that, Dennis. Thank you for the response. I hope some of the things you find on this site help you in some way. Loren Posted by: SOIL Apr 30 2004, 02:38 PM QUOTE (Loren @ Apr 30 2004, 09:30 AM) ... I hope some of the things you find on this site help you in some way. Loren Yes, Loren I think there are some things on this site that may be of help to me. I have been quite the fundamental type of person for most of my life - I have always wanted to see things strictly in BLACK and WHITE - however in recent years I am discovering things are not always as clear cut as I have wanted them to be. Some of what You and Lokmer have said have helped me to start thinking that I may need to "back off" some of my ultra conservative (fundamentalist) positions. Things you guys have said both in this thread and others are helping me look at (through different glasses) some of the issues that I have already been re-considering anyway. For instance, a post - (on the 4th page I think) by Lokmer in the thread http://www.vanallens.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=3803 has got me thinking even more (for now anyway). Dennis Posted by: brick May 3 2004, 10:14 AM Going back to the original purpose of this thread, I had the thought that next time the J-Hoovers come to the door I will ask to see some photo ID and take note of their addresses. I'm willing to bet that they will turn and walk rather than face the possibility that I will reciprocate and show up at their door witnessing to them my own flavour of anti-religion ! They seem to enjoy the anonymity. I am willing to bet that they would be a lot less brash if I were to, for example, publicly post a list of local members and their addresses. I'm so bad! Posted by: Tocis May 4 2004, 06:03 AM QUOTE (brick @ May 3 2004, 10:14 AM) They seem to enjoy the anonymity. I am willing to bet that they would be a lot less brash if I were to, for example, publicly post a list of local members and their addresses. I'm so bad! Dunno, at least their "boss" was quite open about his real name last Tyr's day... unless he trained to state an alias when asked. I'm thinking about dropping back in this evening and ask some questions along the line "Why should one join your type of faith?", writing down some of the answers. To nail them down when I start debating, you know Posted by: Tocis May 4 2004, 01:51 PM Well, well. I attended a second book study meeting. Topic? "Jehova god is loving". Ummm... where was that story again about the kids laughing at a prophet and bears tearing them apart as punishment?! Their Führer did make a mistake though. He gave me a copy of the propaganda book they were studying as a free gift. I think I will question them about it, in due time, armed with a shitload of references to babble verses contradicting everything they spoon-feed to their drones. Aaah, the anticipation... (And perhaps, even before that day I will retaliate in kind with a present they will not love... a rune stone. Imagine the faces... "OH MY GOD! IT'S PAGAN! IT'S EVIL! AND I ALREADY TOUCHED IT!!!") Posted by: Lokmer May 4 2004, 04:28 PM Dennis, I'm glad our discussion has provoked you to some thought. I'm always available for another round. Have a good one! -Lokmer Posted by: Tocis May 17 2004, 09:58 AM More news from my infiltration operation... last Friday, witnessing school. Whoa, what ludicrous stuff. Makes me wish I hadn't sent away all the JWs who ever knocked at my door. The fun I missed... And, their Führer asked me if I'd be interested in talking with some of them about my impressions. MUHARRHARRHARR! Somehow I think that talking will not be to his liking... Posted by: Luck Mermaid May 17 2004, 10:36 AM Tocis, I can't WAIT to hear back more of your entertainment and am wiggly with excitement! Posted by: Tocis May 18 2004, 08:43 AM QUOTE (Luck Mermaid @ May 17 2004, 10:36 AM) Tocis, I can't WAIT to hear back more of your entertainment and am wiggly with excitement! So am I, LM, so am I... unfortunately my schedule for this working week has been toppled, I'm on late shift currently. The fundie bunch will have to wait for next week. Posted by: BlueGiant May 18 2004, 12:49 PM Aww, I was looking foward to the next phase of Operation: Jehova's Witless. There is nothing quite like emulating their system well enough to get an in and then to reveal what's really going on . Does tend to shake them up a bit. Goes towards the "exchange" of information. I'll only take yours if you take some of mine. Posted by: Tocis May 23 2004, 05:08 AM Hey, hey, more news from my local JWs. Attended one of their Sunday meetings, and wow, for the first time one of them actually asked me about how religious I am, and what my faith is. Of course he was quite puzzled about my answer ("Asatru? What's that?"), then got me into a short talk about what's the True Faith™. I stated that in my opinion the supernatural cannot be proven anyway, because if there was scientific proof then it would instantly become natural. Then the ceremony started, he was the main orator of the day... ...and afterward, he confessed to me in continuation of our private talk (no one had been listening before the ceremony) that my comments actually had him thinking! The whole time when he was preaching to the congregation the question "How to prove what god is the true one - jehova or Thor" didn't leave him... and he then said that in his opinion there should be a way of discerning the truth by looking at the commandments the deity in question has passed to its followers. I pointed him to the Poetic Edda's Havamal poem as the main source of Divine advice for an Asatruar and assured him that it is available online though I of course was unable to state the exact URL from memory. I'm not holding my breath, but I could imagine that that man will really do some research about my faith... he didn't seem like a drone to me. And unless he lied to me very professionally about his day job (surgeon!), I'd suppose he has to be somewhat smart. I definitely look forward to meeting that one again, some day. Perhaps there will be at least some basis for informed discussion on both sides... Posted by: Luck Mermaid May 24 2004, 09:56 AM Sounds cool! Keep us informed! Posted by: Tocis May 25 2004, 10:24 PM Yesterday evening I finally just couldn't control myself any longer and just had to ask some unpleasant questions, resulting in half an hour of discussion afterwards. Interestingly, the JWs were quite open in admitting that not everything in the babble makes sense and that they don't understand everything. Granted that I didn't (yet) try to shake the very foundations of their belief, but I'd have expected much worse from them. Of course I did hear the goo' ol' "The babble says it, I believe it, that settles it" several times... but still... Posted by: Tocis Jul 2 2004, 08:43 PM Lo and behold, it's been some time, but yesterday evening I finally was able to drop back in... ...I guess next time I meet them I will invite some of them who expressed their interest in a lil' dabating to my home. Hopefully the one who addressed me yesterday can be among them - he offered me a book about "the truth about evolution". Oh boy, if he knew for how long I've been bashing fundies on that topic... WUAHARRHARRHARR! He will regret that for a looong time... (I have to check out if yesterday afternoon was just a chance meeting - I met one of them in my immediate neighborhood. Does he live there or did he just park his car there to go shopping (there's a large public parking area in front of my house)? They are everywhere! Behold, the end is near! And I wonder if he thought about just why, in his long monologue, I only interrupted him about three times, everytime on the same statement... him "...the different human views of god..." me "Or the gods..." Did he suspect that perhaps I'm a polytheist? And if so, why didn't he just ask for clarification? The plot thickens... Posted by: Killswitch Jul 2 2004, 09:49 PM dude, this rocks... thanks for the update. I wish you had a little camera, make your own version of " Farenheit J/W" HOLY CRAP. theres the Idea. make a documentary, showing the craziness of inner-workings of the church... hmm.. but how to infiltrate the ranks... oh shit. im going to be thinking about this all night, now... Carry on! Posted by: Baby Eater Jul 2 2004, 10:25 PM Fahrenheit J/W... LOL! Posted by: Lalli Jul 3 2004, 08:58 AM Ave Tocis, all power to you! Don't forget to keep us posted. We want a blow-by-blow I must say, you've inspired me. Now I know what I want to do with my summer vacation. };) Posted by: Tocis Jul 3 2004, 10:26 PM QUOTE (Lalli @ Jul 3 2004, 08:58 AM) Ave Tocis, all power to you! Don't forget to keep us posted. We want a blow-by-blow I must say, you've inspired me. Now I know what I want to do with my summer vacation. };) Go ahead. Hopefully I'll be there on Tyr's day for their next congregational book study. That is, if the Linux training I suddenly got my claws on doesn't stress me out completely. We'll see Posted by: Aminor7 Jul 4 2004, 11:58 PM OMG, I would love to see a complete transcript of this, or better yet the filmed documetary idea mentioned before. I know it's a lot of work, but is there any way you could post a blow-by-blow of the JW debates? It would be enlightening and hilarious on a mind-blowing level, especially on the topic of evolution. It could change history Posted by: Kaiser Soze Jul 5 2004, 01:33 AM Hile Tocis, I can't tell you how much unadulterated joy my reading of your escapades with the JW's has brought me; I look forward to seeing how this journey evolves... Posted by: Tocis Jul 5 2004, 10:10 AM Aminor, I guess my memory would fail to record enough of the upcoming debates for me to give a decent transcript - unless the debate takes place here where I have the leisure to take as many notes as I want. Of course, I will definitely aim for that option... Kaiser, naturally I will do my best to keep you updated. At least that linux training won't get in the way too much, as far as I can tell right now. This whole first day was perfectly futile, at least for me and my co-worker. "Advanced training" it's supposed to be... since when does advanced linux training consist of two hours of linux history and a painstakingly slow guided installation?! Hopefully we'll get to the real deal tomorrow. Anyway, I'm not holding my breath - I guess there will be time for me to harrass the JWs again tomorrow, as planned. Posted by: Tocis Jul 6 2004, 09:57 AM Dear friends, I regret having to disappoint you (I know you were anticipating my next report for today's evening meeting ), but I could not confront the enemy because it disappeared. Honestly, no one was there when I arrived. Looks like they switched to some kind of summer schedule. I guess I'll have to drop in on some Freya's day or Sunday to ask them where to find them on Tyr's days... Of course, this will only delay the inevitable. I'll keep you informed... Posted by: BlueGiant Jul 6 2004, 12:42 PM Ow, that postponement really bites. And I was enjoying seeing you just get warmed up, too... Hopefully they'll show next time. Posted by: The Silent One Jul 6 2004, 04:51 PM As a recovering JW, I'm eagerly looking forward to your updates. Posted by: Tocis Jul 6 2004, 10:25 PM QUOTE (The Silent One @ Jul 6 2004, 04:51 PM) As a recovering JW, I'm eagerly looking forward to your updates. I'll do my best, Majesty... (referring to your avatar of course - Aliens rock!) Posted by: Kaiser Soze Jul 7 2004, 01:48 AM Probably the greatest line in cinema history: "Get away from her you BITCH." Posted by: Aminor7 Jul 7 2004, 02:41 AM QUOTE (Tocis @ Jul 6 2004, 09:57 AM) Dear friends, I regret having to disappoint you (I know you were anticipating my next report for today's evening meeting ), but I could not confront the enemy because it disappeared. Honestly, no one was there when I arrived. Looks like they switched to some kind of summer schedule. I guess I'll have to drop in on some Freya's day or Sunday to ask them where to find them on Tyr's days... Of course, this will only delay the inevitable. I'll keep you informed... Maybe the JWs lurk here and caught wind of your plan... My first installation of Red Hat took about 30 minutes, most of that was trying to figure out how to get a working dual boot system with WIn 2000 server as the other OS. Posted by: The Silent One Jul 7 2004, 12:35 PM QUOTE (Tocis @ Jul 6 2004, 10:25 PM) QUOTE (The Silent One @ Jul 6 2004, 04:51 PM) As a recovering JW, I'm eagerly looking forward to your updates. I'll do my best, Majesty... (referring to your avatar of course - Aliens rock!) Heh, Actually it's Death Machine, from the movie of the same name. Basically it's a giant freaking robot version of the aliens. Posted by: The Silent One Jul 7 2004, 12:41 PM QUOTE (Aminor7 @ Jul 7 2004, 02:41 AM) QUOTE (Tocis @ Jul 6 2004, 09:57 AM) Dear friends, I regret having to disappoint you (I know you were anticipating my next report for today's evening meeting ), but I could not confront the enemy because it disappeared. Honestly, no one was there when I arrived. Looks like they switched to some kind of summer schedule. I guess I'll have to drop in on some Freya's day or Sunday to ask them where to find them on Tyr's days... Of course, this will only delay the inevitable. I'll keep you informed... Maybe the JWs lurk here and caught wind of your plan... My first installation of Red Hat took about 30 minutes, most of that was trying to figure out how to get a working dual boot system with WIn 2000 server as the other OS. More than likely they reformed the book study groups, they have a tendancy to do that every six months or so, switch nights, times, locations, basically it's a convenience thing, they break down the members into what areas they're located and 'assign' them to a certain bible study group in that area, every six months or so they restructure it to keep it convenient for the members, in case they've moved or need it to be at a different time and then they vote on where and when it should be. Ironic actually, they'll vote on their own internal structure, but scream holy hells when someone asks them to vote on our local, state, or federal government. Posted by: Tocis Jul 9 2004, 11:54 AM Verily I say unto thee, of the hour I now know. I was there again, and the local JW leader has agreed to meet me in my place on Monday 19th in the evening (7 pm local time). One way or the other, things will never be the same Aaaah, and this evening's theocracy meeting... BINGO! Today's babble highlights? Lev 17-20! You know, the goo' ol' stuff about evil homosexuals et al... someone will have to justify these views on that upcoming Monday. Not mentioning, as icing on the cake, the confirmation (from preacher to sheep) that a JW should disassociate from those who believe other than they do. Ummmm... I do have that webcam still lying around here... I wonder if I can get it up and running on linux before... Naah. Much more fun if I report it all to you here. Posted by: Loren Jul 9 2004, 11:59 AM QUOTE (Tocis @ Jul 9 2004, 11:54 AM) Naah. Much more fun if I report it all to you here. Love you, buddy! Have a ball! And thanks for the entertainment. hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!! Posted by: Tocis Jul 19 2004, 12:32 PM Heya folks, I'm disappointed, serously. The meeting with the JWs is over, and they admitted, lo and behold!, to being unsure whether their path is the True one! I guess what I suppose since quite some time is true - German "fundies" are ludicrous compared to the US ones. Anyway, as far as I'm concerned this was not the last confrontation. For today I'm a bit too tired to elaborate, but I'll try to get back to you soon with some details about this evening's discussion. Hold on Posted by: Kaiser Soze Jul 20 2004, 02:10 AM European fundies in general I'll think you'll find Tocis; they tend to have a little more common sense. Posted by: Tocis Jul 20 2004, 02:35 AM Probably yes. Anyway, some fun remains with them. I'm not done yet, you know. And even after I am, there's at least the local morg to play with... Posted by: woodsmoke Jul 20 2004, 04:18 PM Hehehe, I'll be particularly interested in how they react to your questions. Posted by: Tocis Jul 21 2004, 02:20 AM Well, the minor problem concerning the morg is - there seem to be very few of them here. I met them once in my entire life, in downtown Hildesheim near the central railroad station... and that's all. I know that there are some in Hannover and Braunschweig if memory serves (I did look them up some months ago), but compared to the JW they are all |