A new set of Jehovas decided to try and convert me (or "teach" me, as they say, they don't "convert"... yeah, right). Alas, my daily rhythm is pretty much the opposite of normal which means that I was already in bed reading and getting ready to sleep when I felt tired. For some reason I got up and answered the door; I guess I haven't spoken to anyone again for a while which tends to drive me passively towards some human contact. Anyway, the discussion went as usual. He says one thing, I contradict, he says the same thing again and I contradict. As I was a bit tired I decided to fuck politeness and made some rather sarcastic and just downright mean remarks (although even the mean ones were valid but I could have delivered them differently).
The guy kept insisting he didn't interpret the bible but while reading Revelations he did exactly that! When I pointed that out he said plainly stated he didn't interpret it, that it had been interpreted by a mysterious "orjakansa". I tried to ask a definition for that and what do I get? Nada, niente, absolutely nothing. No straight answer to what one would expect to be a simple question since he kept referring to the same thing so many times. He kept saying no Jehova's Witness interprets the bible. But still... Can't find the part he quoted. It was something about the signs of endtimes, of "portto" and something about ten horns and whatever (John must have had one hell of a trip.. so to speak). And all the time while reading he kept interepreting these to me: "portto" is actually organised religion (oh, the irony!!!) and politics and the ten horns signify the UN (nowadays I just might agree with the metaphor) and so on. He didn't even answer my question as to why an omnipotent being would even write text that used such metaphors (=interpretations!) rather than putting it there plainly. One of the never-ending dilemmas of all delusional nutter faith-heads.
This time I actually went to get my colour-marked bible of all the contradictions I've found (first I also tried to mark red all the morally questionable parts but the paper slips took too much space). I took the most simple example I know: which came first, humans or animals? Simple, not a question of interpretation (unlike the death of Judas being explained away by saying there just happened to be two Judases who both hanged around with the apostels and who both had a guilty conscious and 30 pieces of silver...).
Splenetic: "Niin jumala loi suuret meripedot ja kaikki muut elävät olennot, joita vedet vilisevät (1. Mooses 1:21) --- Jumala teki villieläimet, karjaeläimet ja erilaiset pikkueläimet (:25) --- Jumala sanoi: 'Tehkäämme ihmisen...' (:26)"
The goddelusional: Just like I said, animals came first.
S: "Ja herra jumala muovasi maan tomusta ihmisen ja puhalsi hänen sieraimiinsa elämän henkäyksen (1. Mooses 2:7) -- Ja herra jumala muovasi maasta kaikki villieläimet ja kaikki taivaan linnut (:19)" There, the contradiction.
G: There's no contradiction.
S: What? In the first chapter animals came first, in the second chapter after the human. How is that *not* a contradiction?!
G: It's not.
I don't know how Richard Dawkins does it. How can he camply state the same things over and over and time after time face the same inanity with serenity? After ten minutes I was beginning to boil: how can he not understand? How much simpler does this have to be for him to get it? How small and basic pieces do I have to break this easy sentence for him to see the plain contradiction?!
I wish I could see inside their minds, see that black hole in their brain that drains all logic that passes through the synapses and warps everything -even the most basic words!- into something else, something that fits to the delusion it feeds -and which in turn feeds it. How can they live in such a state, a state of continuous self-deceit? How can they live such a blatant lie?
