Jehovah's Witnesses. Two of them just knocked on my door. I mention it because they had a brochure detailing their version of "creation care." I told them I was happy to see more Christian sects beginning to interpret Bible passages in an environmentally positive manner. "Oh no," they assured me. "We aren't environmentalists."
I was fine with that. I don't admit to being an environmentalist outside of the right circles either. I then volunteered the fact that I am atheist in outlook, which tends to greatly excite proselytizing religionists. I always politely engage these folk when they show up, not in hopes of opening their minds, but purely for the entertainment value, which I admit isn't the nicest thing to do.
I asked if they knew how many sects of Christianity there are (2,400). I explained that this endless splintering is the result of different biblical interpretations. I mentioned that it has been proven statistically that there is no deity imparting favors to select bipedal primates. I asked if they were aware that 666 is a biblical typo (one of many, the real number is probably 616 found in an older version of a manuscript in an ancient Egyptian dump), and on and on.
One of them finally conceded that the other Christian sects have indeed interpreted some Bible passages to suit their own purposes. However, they have the right interpretations, and no those interpretations have never changed. They have always believed that those who destroy the Earth are sinners. Off they finally went, slightly less comfortable than when they arrived, but the feeling will pass and no harm will have been done.
I hope this works out for the best. There is something wrong about having Pat Robertson on your side. The problem is that we don't have many answers yet and it is unlikely that religion will lead to any. I can just hear Robertson now, "God told me to drive an American made flex fuel SUV. Priuses are the work of the devil."
If many are to be guided by biblical interpretations instead of science, maybe science can at least give some guidance to the authority figures who will be doing that interpreting.
Greens have finally got the Big Mo
Bikers seeking good ride get naked, and more
Comments
View as Flat
DannyHaszard Posted 4:32 pm
21 Feb 2007
Their biggie dogma that makes them 'different' is they claim that:Jesus already had his second coming "invisibly" in the year 1914 and is working "invisibly" through their Watchtower corporation.
-tell the truth don't be afraid-
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 4:48 pm
21 Feb 2007
If you catch them outside, cross two sticks and back away from them like they are vampires while uttering some phrase like "Begone foul demons!" at the top of your lungs, over and over.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 7:18 pm
21 Feb 2007
I have not been able to find that outstanding website again, but I did manage to locate this. To quote from one of its passages:
According to Ezekiel's account of the final war, God's people will help clean up afterward. They will "build fires with the armor and shields, bows and arrows and handstaves and lances; with them they will light fires seven years. They will not gather firewood out of the forests, for with the armor they will light fires. And they will plunder those who had been plundering them... . There will be men continually employed, passing along through the land, burying, in order to cleanse it. To the end of seven months they will keep making search. If one sees the bone of a man he must build beside it a marker, until those who do the burying will have buried it. And they will have to cleanse the land." This is in addition to the work of the birds and other animals in quickly consuming the flesh. --- see Ezek 39.9,10,14,15,17-19.
Forget other energy sources: invest in armaments, the fuel of the future! (And preserve thee the birds and other animals of the forest, for they are needed to consume the flesh of the smitten.)
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 8:37 pm
21 Feb 2007
Two other groups who make much of Jesus but are definitely not Christians are Muslims and Mormons. The Muslims consider him a great prophet, and have high regard for his mother Mary; he did not die on the cross, but God substituted someone who looked like him. The Mormons' theology is one of the most bizarre and crazily complicated religious constructions in history; even the Muslims have more theological ideas in common with biblical religion, including Christianity, than the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.
The JWs, for their part, being bibliolaters, at least preserve some biblical statements about Jesus, however they choose to interpret them. Clearly, they read the Bible in a manner very similar to that of their fellow bibliolaters, the fundamentalist Christians. Still, I am doubtful that they truly deserve to be called "Christian."
Ron's quote, and the site from which it is taken, are good examples of the astounding loss of balanced judgment to which bibliolatry leads. We ought to doubt whether anything in Ezekiel ought to be taken literally. Clearly that "toe bone connected to the foot bone, the foot bone connected to the ankle bone" passage is meant to be symbolic. And then there is that bizarre, unintelligible vision of God's chariot at the beginning, and the hideously misogynistic Chapter 16, about Jerusalem personified as a young woman, which is surely one of the ugliest texts in the Bible, and in all literature. A friend of mine, a psychologist and a convert to Catholicism, told me that she was sure Ezekiel was schizophrenic.
In fairness to the JWs, the page to which Ron links us also has this more pretty vision, including a few values shared by many environmentalists:
<<
Before long, of course, we will begin to reshape the land, to beautify and repair it, to build homes according to our own design. The old system that raped the earth will be gone. The survivors will be godly people who appreciate creation and its Creator. They will not serve the god named "jobs", which justified clearcutting vast areas of forest and polluting the land and water with foul chemicals. Although humans are naturally gregarious and will no doubt choose to live in villages and communities, no more will there be sprawling cities with urban decay and poverty, rush-hour traffic, and great skyscrapers isolating people in stacked offices. The Bible does not spell out the new system in detail, but we can be sure it will not revolve around money like this one does. Rather, it will be centered on serving God and loving life according to His high moral standards.
>>
The JWs are not a large or influential group, and they do not fit into any network of evangelical Christian groups, and so I am not sure why BioD has shared with us this encounter of his. What kind of pro-environmental work could they be engaged in? Danny Haszard's criticisms are well stated, the most important being, they are not doing anything green with any genuine energy, because they are fixated on an imminent Armageddon.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 9:16 pm
21 Feb 2007
<<
I asked if they knew how many sects of Christianity there are (2,400). I explained that this endless splintering is the result of different biblical interpretations. I mentioned that it has been proven statistically that there is no deity imparting favors to select bipedal primates. I asked if they were aware that 666 is a biblical typo (one of many, the real number is probably 616 found in an older version of a manuscript in an ancient Egyptian dump), and on and on.
>>
Yes, the Bible is full of "typos" -- technically they are called "scribal errors" -- and no two manuscripts have identical readings throughout. But after examining the apparatus criticus of the Apocalypse, aka the Book of Revelation, 13:18, where "the number of the Beast" is given, I see no textual problem with "666." The great majority of the oldest manuscripts have that number, including the fourth-century Sinaiticus, in the British Library in London. The only MS that has "616" is one that is from the fifth century, in the Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris. BioD should explain why he prefers that reading.
I also wonder what exactly "ancient Egyptian dump" is supposed to refer to.
Anyway, the matter is hardly at all important or central to Christianity. Most scholars are satisfied that the number is the sum of the arithmetic values of the letters in the name of the Roman emperor Nero, as spelled in Greek. Only fundamentalists get all worked up about the details of the Apocalypse, and they are bibliolaters really, barely true Christians.
Otherwise, what BioD writes is correct enough. There are very many Christian divisions, and the fact that they exist embarrasses us terribly. I do not think they all resulted from contrary interpretations of biblical passages, but many have. In fact, a new schism may be developing before our eyes, within the Anglican Communion, to a large extent on account of differences in how to read the Bible.
On "no deity imparting favors," and the apparent randomness of evolution, including that of human beings, I entirely agree that the history of life on Earth supports that. But there is a deeper biblical theology which not only is not troubled by that observation, but actually finds it important, instructive and inspiring.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
Devon McBride Posted 11:57 pm
21 Feb 2007
Not once has any of their meetings ever focused on protecting God's earth or environmental issues.
Permalink
Atticus Finch Posted 12:51 am
22 Feb 2007
Permalink
Whiskerfish Posted 1:06 am
22 Feb 2007
"I need to get to my exam!" I said, trying desperately to get one of the old doilies to take her walking stick out of my path.
"What exam are you writing, young man?" she asked, still blocking my way.
"Evolutionary biology!" I yelled, getting more pissed off by the second.
"Oh" she said, "I have just the thing for you!", and whipped out some tatty screed about the world being made in 6 days and Darwinian sinners that say we all come from monkeys etc.
The two old ducks crab-walked left and right in front of me and only let me out of my own door once I had taken and promised to read their cruddy bits of paper.
I sometimes wonder if they didn't know that we wrote exams then, because we never saw them at other times of day or year. Perhaps they were hoping to convert the poor desperates who hadn't studied enough?
Whiskerfish
Permalink
Dogpatch Posted 1:23 am
22 Feb 2007
http://www.freeminds.org/doctrine/doctrine.htm
to see what I mean. It is a corrupt, power-hungry organization masquerading as the only true Christians.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 2:33 am
22 Feb 2007
Canis, here you go.
Ron,
That may have been a spoof. It can be real hard to tell the difference.
This is an environmental blog, not a religion bashing forum. Stalin proved that people can be murderous without it, the inquisitions, crusades, and all of history right up to the sectarian violence in Iraq today prove that people can be murderous as a result of it. You can't just say religion is good or bad. Sometimes it is good, sometimes it is bad. Defining good and bad is, as always, the hard part.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
DannyHaszard Posted 3:40 am
22 Feb 2007
Yet,you cry foul when debated on the public Internet.Would you please explain the "invisible 1914 Jesus" of the Watchtower doctrine?
Back to topic,JW's are not green friendly because they are an apocalyptic cult.
-tell the truth don't be afraid-
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 4:01 am
22 Feb 2007
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 5:06 am
22 Feb 2007
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 7:05 am
22 Feb 2007
"This is an environmental blog, not a religion bashing forum."
Here's my 3 cents...
(1) I do not understand people who can reject information presented by informed LIVING investigators (e.g., global warming and climate scientists) who can be interviewed, yet embrace doctrines taught by dead strangers, passed on by word of mouth for centuries, recopied over and over for tousands of years, and eventually filtered by authorites known to distort information. Boggles the mind!
(2) Biodiversivist wrote... "Stalin proved that people can be murderous without it [religion], the inquisitions, crusades, and all of history right up to the sectarian violence in Iraq today prove that people can be murderous as a result of it [religion]."
I'm inclined to agree with Richard Dawkins suggestion that religion paves the way for most despots -- both secular and religious -- by instilling in a population an excessive respect for authority. Stalin might have been an athiest, but the people following orders were not.
(3) Someone mentioned that Jehova Witnesses can't be environmentalists because they are apocalyptic. An interesting point. Just like the current Republican party and it's Christian Fundamentalist foundation.
Question... are Mormons apocalyptic? I do not believe our country can survive another president allied with a doomsday cult.
Forward!
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 7:47 am
22 Feb 2007
What are the items constructed from?
I'm assuming the specific words are simply poetic descriptions of modern weaponry. I don't know enough about chemistry to understand whether it is easy or difficult to burn metal. I know the Brits had a problem with aluminum ships during the Falklands War, but most of our armor and weapons are probably constructed from other metals. Those will be some very unusual sources of heat and light. Or perhaps they will fuel something even more advanced than a fusion reactor? Sounds like armageddon is a long way off. We don't have the technology for fulfilling the prophecy.
Alternatively, perhaps we will slip back into a simpler age before armageddon arrives. We will be fighting with green weapons... bamboo spears and hemp slings, armor made from fast-growing trees. Apparently, no metal vehicles. Natural composites? Maybe GMOs will have a role? This suggests that the Christian Fundamentalist should really encourage green living and green combat. Especially, no more nukes -- though we could "burn" the ones that land without detonating. But the prophecy really implies the use of organic material for armor and weapons. Once again, sounds like armagedon is a long way off. We have too much technology for fulfilling the prophecy.
Forward!
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 7:47 am
22 Feb 2007
He was visiting some relatives in the country, and he was out back helping them slaughter and dress chickens, when the doorbell rings.
He walks around to the side gate, knife still in hand. Along the way, his little nephew runs up to him and begs to be picked up, so he does. This kid apparently liked to be carried over the shoulder like a sack of potatoes.
So my friend gets to the gate, where he meets the pair of JWs. Bloody knife in one hand, small child over his shoulder. He turns around and shouts back into the house "Put another one on, we've got company for dinner!".
End of JW visits to that house.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 8:21 am
22 Feb 2007
Permalink
tsbremer Posted 11:47 am
22 Feb 2007
Permalink
sunflower Posted 12:25 pm
22 Feb 2007
Permalink
atreyger Posted 2:36 pm
22 Feb 2007
'On the other hand, it may also be true that a long-run vision, as it were, of the deep crisis which faces mankind may predispose people to taking more interest in the immediate problems and to devote more effort for their solution.'
This is a very deep insight into human (maybe even ape) psychology that I'm not so sure Boulding even implied: there will be a deep crisis in far off future and there may be a way that we can do something to alleviate the actual problems right now, so we should act.
Boulding was implying 'environmentalists' as the people doing something about it, i.e. the environmental (pollution) and resource-limiting crises. At the same time, exactly the same can be said for the majority of Chrisitianity: there will be a Judgement Day, so the best you can do is do as much to alleviate it right now.
However, he also has an interesting part about future discounting, where we are inclined to discount not only our progeny's future, but our own as well. This is the cause for the religious zeal that most people have in either religion or environmentalism, that is, a socio-psychological response to our lack of concern for the future. Not sure if the argument for the concern of the future is fully developed for every person: see Kinison (in that he died) from http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/2/20/113310/948#com ... .
By the way does anyone know of a either a quick or a permanent cure for bronchitis? I had a bronchitis-like cold maybe three weeks ago, and now I got another, it's wicked annoying.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 3:21 pm
22 Feb 2007
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
RickyG Posted 3:31 pm
22 Feb 2007
We look at the mess that the world has become, and it relates back to the failure of humans to care for the earth, but rather plundered it.
If you have ever looked at the illustrations in the Watchtower or Awake!, the "future" under Christ's Kingdom where humans live in harmony with each other and all creation, show the hope of a earth, clean, safe for humans and animals.
My friends, when they stopped by knocking at your door, wanted to invite you to that future. And strangely that is the future you should want to happen. That is what you wish, isn't it?
We are not enviromentalists, believeing that the environment can be saved by human actions. We believe that it will take an act of God to put into place a government that will care of the earth the way Jehovah God had intended.
Permalink
JMG Posted 3:37 pm
22 Feb 2007
Permalink
bluejam Posted 4:37 pm
22 Feb 2007
If your blabber wasn't so pathetic you would be a danger to our future survival.
Spouting self-aggrandizing lint pickers pose a much greater threat to our planet than those who are at least sincerely dedicated to something. Have you ever taken the time to do more than play insincere mind games with these good people? Oh yeah, that would take a sincere interest in what others think and feel wouldn't it? Sorry for asking.
Listen very closely to the following Mr. Big; our biological, environmental, mental and emotional future depends on sincerity and human kindness. Your outlook is truly dangerous. We won't stop hate, crime and war by being snobbish jerks.
If you can't learn to love your neighbor you will do your neighbors a service by crawling back into the primordial soup from whence thou believest thou comest.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 5:06 pm
22 Feb 2007
www.grist.org
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 9:17 pm
22 Feb 2007
Thanks, ATreyger, for your interesting message. I shall try to find Kenneth E. Boulding's paper. Sorry about your disease. I too have had a nagging cough with congestion for a couple of weeks -- I am too ignorant to say it is "bronchitis" -- which at last seems to be passing. These things can hang on, though. And my doctor is rather "conservative" about these things: better than getting a prescription would be writing an off-off-Broadway play about the experience of being sick.
Thanks, BioD, for the interesting link, regarding the 3rd-century textual source for "616." Scholars are not supposed to quote Wikipedia, but this seems well written, and might be helpful, for anyone who is interested:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_the_Beast
Notice that the source in question is just a teensy scrap of papyrus, which was indeed discovered in that extremely important "dump," better described as a depository for unusable papyri, at the site called after the nearby ancient town Oxyrhynchus, west of the Nile, in the desert, in excellent conditions for preservation. Very many literary papyri have been recovered from that same "dump."
The Wikipedia article has a not bad photo of the scrap, with an arrow pointing to the place in question, on the upper right, three lines down: XIC, with a horizontal line over the top. The horizontal line indicates that this is a numerical use of those letters. X (Chi) is 600, I (Iota) is ten, C (Sigma) is six, in the Greek system of numbering things. The letter Xi, which looks like three horizontal dashes one on top of the other, is the letter used for 60, and cannot be mistaken for Iota. So this is definitely 616.
But that is not the whole story at all. As the article explains, the intention of the author was clear to the first generations of readers: the Beast was the Roman emperor Nero. 666 vs. 616 is based on two ways of rendering his name in Hebrew. In his own native Latin, it is "Nero Caesar." But when that is written in Greek -- as it would have been in the eastern part of the empire -- , it becomes "Neron Kaisar." Significant is the new "N" at the end of "Neron." ("Caesar" and "Kaisar" are the same.) The "N," Nu, Hebrew Nun, happens to be worth 50 points, by the numeric reckoning of letters. So it turns out that there is no controversy between 666 and 616 at all, they both refer to the same monstrous Italian, it just depends on which way of calculating his name you prefer.
Thanks again, Goodman BioD.
GreenEngineer and Sunflower, those stories are wonderful! Clearly it is time for some charming young story-collecter, who can coax memories out of back-road types, to start assembling a collection of stories about visits by missionaries.
BlueJam, I too was thinking that our good friend BioD was not at his best that day, when he toyed with his JW visitors. Nevertheless, David Roberts's caution is in order: let us not be too quick to release the Bengal Tigers.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
atreyger Posted 11:52 pm
22 Feb 2007
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 1:07 am
23 Feb 2007
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:11 am
23 Feb 2007
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 2:52 am
23 Feb 2007
"Danny, Atticus, Take it to a religion forum."
While the original post is not appreciated by everyone here and has generated a bit of a kerfuffle -- and a few tangential remarks -- it raises a very serious issue. Perhaps it has been discussed elsewhere on the Grist site, but this is where I've picked up the thread and would like to see a serious response from a Jehova Witness, as well as members of other religions thought to hold apocylyptic views.
Danny Haszard essentially suggests that Jehova Witnesses cannot be environmentalists because they are preparing for Armageddon. This is not a laughing matter. You might recall Ronald Reagan's Interior Secretary believing that there is no need to waste tax dollars preserving forests... Jesus was on His way and those forests would soon be destroyed by God. I see a problem here. Do you really want such people in charge? Do we really owe to them to show utmost respect for their views?
Jehova Witness: "Hi. I just want to let you know it is okay to destroy the biosphere. God will fix everything next week."
Ennvironmentalist: "Oh... that's a very sound approach to life. Here's a few dollars to help you convert more people. Have a good day."
Individuals and organizations with such views are a threat to the biosphere. Not everyone is preparing for some final battle between God and Satan. Billions of people actually believe -- trusting reason rather than ancient texts -- that the planet will be here for another few billion years and are making an effort to ensure it remains habitable.
If someone knocks on your door and says God is on His way and there is no need to protect the environment, you should be free to confront them.
Atticus Finch's response...
"Deluded individuals such as the apostate troll Danny Haszard and others who claim to have special knowledge try to tear down the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses which are firmly and unwaveringly based on the Bible. They [the deluded individuals] NEVER have anything better to offer. And that, among many other reasons, is why all they offer is intellectual garbage, another type of environmental pollution."
Actually, they do have something better to offer. Rather than watching humans destroy the biosphere, rather than accepting this as fate, rather than looking toward relief in some imaginary afterlife, folks like Mr. Haszard are trying to repair the world we have, the world we already know exists. He is trying to make the most of the only life we absolutely know we will experience.
I leave it to you, Mr. Finch and those with similar views, to explain exactly why your solution is the better approach. How are apocylyptic views compatible with environmentalism? How do those views motivate people to preserve the biosphere rather than follow James Watt's approach?
Biodiversivist, thank you very much for your post. I wish I had the same courage to confront the members of doomsday cults who knock on MY door. There is always something I want to say, but I end up quietly accepting their literature and thanking them for stopping by. Not good. It only encourages further spread of such dangerous ideas.
Forward!
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 6:22 am
24 Feb 2007
After giving some thought to the matter, I believe I have found a more appropriate response to the doomsday cult representatives that show up at your door or assault you at a bus stop.
Just an aside, since others have shared their own stories... The last time a cult member tried to talk with me at a bus stop, I told them God had already returned and humans are blind to see the beauty of Heaven surrounding them. They asked me whether I was a Wiccan and wandered away, apparently confused by my words. Anyway...
However much I wish I had the courage to follow Biodiversivist's approach, I think have a somewhat better idea. Especially for the less aggressive among us. And it is quite polite, essentially treating others as you would want them to treat you.
Those of us not interested in government policies that assume we will not be needing natural resources -- like old-growth forests, fisheries, et cetera -- in a few years should come up with their own counter pamphlet. I would suggest basing it on the writing of Thomas Paine. He presented an fine case against literal interpretation of the Christian Bible -- and for caring for living in harmony with the natural world -- in his The Age of Reason. We could select a few key passages for elaboration, surround them with photos of relatively pristine lanscapes and damaged landscapes, and tie it all together with a few quotes from respected conservatives. Just an idea.
Then, when a religious fundamentalist approaches you, you can hand them your very own pamphlet. Promise them that if they read YOUR literature, you will read theirs. Make sure you point out that if they break their promise they might burn in the fires of Hell.
Their is nothing like the writing of Thomas Paine when it comes to greasing the gears for rational thinking.
Forward!
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 6:52 am
24 Feb 2007
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink