DISCLAIMER: I am an equal opportunity offender, meaning I like to poke fun at everyone and everything including myself, my religion, my heritage, my parents, my wife and kids and especially my mother in law! By continuing to read this, you agree to not be offended and take it for what it's worth, an opinionated observation.
So I find it more than slightly humorous that I can draw a direct comparison between hikers (and any other outdoor activity that draws avid interest) and one of the standard tenets within the belief structure of Jehovah's Witness. A good friend of mine is a Witness and I have had this discussion with him, and he chuckled so I feel as though I have permission. If I don't, tough, I'm gonna say it anyway...
So my question to him (tongue in cheek) was that if he truly believes that when the world ends, there is enough room for 144,000 souls in heaven, why would he and his Witness brothers and sisters go door to door trying to advertise? If that were me, I'd be trying to keep it a secret, ensuring my seat on the proverbial bus. Laugh Out Loud...
Well the same can be said for some hikers. I'd be curious to speak with someone that will encourage other people to get out there on the trail and start hiking (noble cause to which I completely agree) and in almost the same breath complain that the trails are overcrowded and cannot find solace in the wilderness because of all the people in it. (While typing this post, I realized I am one of them!)
Irony can be pretty ironic sometimes...and I'm spent.
_________________________
Did you know that 83.6% of all statistics are made up on the spot?
Registered: 02/07/07
Posts: 3917
Loc: Ozark Mountains in SW Missouri
That's a fair observation. I didn't know the Jehovahs had a limit, so that news to me, but I have a buddy who's a "Witness" so I'll have to ask him now too
I do see your point, and to that point I'll say that Ozarkers can be pretty stingy about telling you where their favorite spots are located. Friends post photos of themselves at swimming holes on FB and often others will ask where they are. I don't believe I've ever seen anyone answer that question.
Personally, I don't feel any guilt or apprehensions at all about encouraging others to "Get out on the trails" since I mostly bushwhack
Registered: 02/05/03
Posts: 3293
Loc: Portland, OR
Out here in the wild and wooly western states, there are plenty of uncrowded places to hike, so complaining about the crowds on the trails just means you haven't figured this out, yet. Of course, the overly populated trails are usually crowded for a good reason - because they are both easily accessible and spectacular. As soon as you understand the psychology of the people flocking to those spots, you can easily calibrate how much company you'll get on a given trail, based on a bit of adroit map reading and a guide book or two.
Registered: 02/03/06
Posts: 6800
Loc: Gateway to Columbia Gorge
Most Biblical scholars consider the 144,000 to be a symbolic number--the 12 tribes (Old Testament) times the 12 apostles (New Testament) times 1,000, the number of perfection. There is lots of numerical symbolism in Revelation.
_________________________
May your trails be crooked, winding, lonesome, dangerous, leading to the most amazing view--E. Abbey
Am I the only one who tells people of sidewalk trails in town and not the ones in the woods I really like?
I tell people there are homeless camps along the sidewalk trails and it's better not to walk there.
The trails in this part of Colorado are old trails that haven't changed since the 20's when they were made. They didn't know much about switchbacks back then. They often built outhouses next to streams, so watch out for the water.
It's dangerous to go in the prairie as there are rattlesnakes. If they don't get you the mosquitoes will give you West Nile virus. We have had the plague in this area thought to come from fleas on the prairie dogs.
Registered: 02/23/03
Posts: 2124
Loc: Meadow Valley, CA
If the Jews are the chosen people, what chance do the rest of us have? I've been in very popular areas, just a lake or mile or two away, nobody around. Have not seen anyone for four days before, then within an hour of hitting the JMT again, over 20 people. I'll be that 20 in a few more years when I attempt the JMT. Duane
not trying to troll anyone man but seriously why anyone still believe in JW? I mean, they literally changed the Bible. if anyone believe in christianity, that's fine, but at least follow the Bible. JW has their own version of Bible. I dont understand why christians say it's God's words if they change it over and over again.
First, "christians" should be capitalized. "Christians" Just like "Jews", "Muslims", "Buddhists". The canonization or "change" as you put it, was a work of mostly translation, and the deciding of what scripture would be included. Some religions felt they had to add to it on their own, for whatever reason. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon
Registered: 02/03/06
Posts: 6800
Loc: Gateway to Columbia Gorge
Quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances
--United States Constitution, Amendment 1 [emphasis mine]
Edited by OregonMouse (12/17/1502:11 PM)
_________________________
May your trails be crooked, winding, lonesome, dangerous, leading to the most amazing view--E. Abbey
Registered: 02/03/06
Posts: 6800
Loc: Gateway to Columbia Gorge
Reply to MZSow's criticism. At least in the US, JWs or any other folks whose faith we consider "oddball" have as much a right to their beliefs and the free exercise of their religion as anyone else.
Edited by OregonMouse (12/17/1505:54 PM)
_________________________
May your trails be crooked, winding, lonesome, dangerous, leading to the most amazing view--E. Abbey
Oh, exactly! 90% of America has no idea what that amendment means with regard to church/state. You can believe as you wish, and the government can't interfere or sponsor a faith.
Have you been listening to what He Who Fancies Himself A Presidentail Candidate has been saying? Senator Dole is a flaming liberal and intellectual giant by comparison.
One fine point often missed is that the amendment does not prohibit a legislator from following their Christian (or Jewish, or even Islamic) beliefs when deciding whether to support or oppose a piece of legislation. It does not even prohibit them from sponsoring legislation that is influenced by their religious beliefs - it simply prohibits them from imposing their beliefs on others who believe differently, or establishing their personal denomination in power over other religions.
For example, much of the social legislation of the 20th century had, as an underlying assumption, that our collective society had a moral obligation to help those less fortunate, and to provide collectively for a secure retirement (I.e., Social Security.) However, it did not limit the benefits of that program only to those wiho professed those same Judeo-Christian beliefs.
The Kentucky county official who refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples clearly overstepped her bounds. She was certainly entitled to believe that such marriages are immoral; she is not required to socialize with such people. But she is not allowed to base her official acts on her bigotry. If she feels so profoundly about this issue, her option was to resign, not to change the law to fit her personal beliefs.
Another thing most people forget is that most privileges and liberties also come with responsibilities - including the responsibility to give every other citizen the same privileges they claim for themselves. (Pesky Constitution!)
Oddly enough, I've found that (at least in Ohio), telling others about trails and getting them out on those trails has had the consequence of: more trails!
When I started backpacking in the early 80s, I had to drive three hours to Kentucky to get to any backpacking trails. Then I discovered there were one or two places, three hours away in southeastern Ohio, where you could backpack for a night.
I always told people about the places I went, and started going to southeast Ohio more frequently. I took people with me on beginner trips, and then started "simulating" trips closer to home, in the off seasons at local state parks.
And now, 30+ years later, there are two 35 mile backpacking trails within 15 miles of my front door - and they both see a lot of use. We've even got the Metropark system putting on events for backpackers (including beginner overnights and presentations by people like the executive director of the Appalachian Trail Conference, as well as local backpackers. They're also starting to study the feasibility of connector trails from the backpacking trail to other MetroParks with trail systems - and the backcountry sites on the existing trails are booked pretty full most weekends.
At least around here, the more people I can get out on the trails, the more trails there will be for me. I kind of like how that's worked out!
Registered: 12/22/01
Posts: 2688
Loc: Pullman, WA, USA
Originally Posted By Glenn Roberts
At least around here, the more people I can get out on the trails, the more trails there will be for me. I kind of like how that's worked out!
Interesting perspective, Glenn. I like your attitude.
Even though many of the trails in the Pacific Northwest are often overcrowded, I also eagerly introduce friends and family to those trails - usually during the week if possible. There's a reason those trails are so popular.
At the same time, I find myself mumbling about the overcrowdedness and most of the time seek out other backcountry venues for my own satisfaction - usu via offtrail access.
Of course most of us have heard the oxymoronic statement "No one goes to that place anymore-it's always too crowded." I've probably said that without realizing it
_________________________
" Not all those who wander are lost ! " J.R.R. Tolkien
Registered: 02/07/07
Posts: 3917
Loc: Ozark Mountains in SW Missouri
"Have you been listening to what He Who Fancies Himself A Presidentail Candidate has been saying? Senator Dole is a flaming liberal and intellectual giant by comparison."
Yeah, I listen to them all. Anyone who thinks "The Don" wouldn't bite them in the butt has only to wait to find out they were wrong. He's always been solely about himself.
This campaign cycle is a mess on both sides. The Dems really didn't even try to offer us a choice. Bernie's not really a party Democrat and he's being treated as an insurgent by the DNC, and O'Malley is a decent guy but he seems to be acting the part when I hear him speak. He's there for Hillary. His job is to take a few pulled punches from Hillary and support her when the time comes.
Everyone but Trump on the GOP side is a shameless lackey and Trump is a shameless collector of lackeys, and among them is Hillary. That was clearly demonstrated in the first GOP debate when several of the other candidates asked him for money and he explained how Hillary paid him back for the money he sent her way.
The money fueling the machines behind the parties has never been so obvious or blatantly in our faces. We can see that in how Dems treat Bernie and the GOP treats Trump. They both want them gone and are taking desperate leaps to make that happen.
I like Bernie because he's clearly not a lackey, but I wish he'd update his message by reaching out more to both Democrats and Republicans and move away from his "We need a revolution" and speak more plainly about the values and objectives he wants to focus on and how they are drawn from the best in the American way of life and nation.
I'm neither a Republican or a Democrat, but I am obviously a wonk, which may be worse.
One fine point often missed is that the amendment does not prohibit a legislator from following their Christian (or Jewish, or even Islamic) beliefs when deciding whether to support or oppose a piece of legislation. It does not even prohibit them from sponsoring legislation that is influenced by their religious beliefs - it simply prohibits them from imposing their beliefs on others who believe differently, or establishing their personal denomination in power over other religions.
The Kentucky county official who refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples clearly overstepped her bounds. She was certainly entitled to believe that such marriages are immoral; she is not required to socialize with such people. But she is not allowed to base her official acts on her bigotry. If she feels so profoundly about this issue, her option was to resign, not to change the law to fit her personal beliefs.
I'm not sure I understand the distinction. Agreed that the Kentucky county official overstepped her bounds. She allowed her personal beliefs to impact her official duties. How is the President not held to the same standard? How is sponsoring legislation influenced by their own religious beliefs not a perfect example of imposing their beliefs on others?
_________________________
Did you know that 83.6% of all statistics are made up on the spot?
The distinction I was trying to make was this: let's assume we're voting on a piece of proposed legislation (say, Medicare, in the 70s.) My fundamental Christian beliefs guide my vote, in the sense that I believe that we have an obligation to love one another; I decide to vote yes. But, when I propose an amendment that says that Medicare benefits are only available to those of my own denomination, because I believe mine is the true faith, I have crossed the line between separation of church and state.
The current debate over abortion is actually a manifestation of proper influence of personal belief without imposing a state religion. (For what it's worth, I'm pro-choice.) Those saying that the federal government should not fund abortion are informed by their own beliefs (at least their morals, perhaps also their religion); so are those who argue that the government should fund it. However, were they to say that only the Methodist church could determine who should and shouldn't be allowed access to abortion - the line is crossed.
I don't know if that helps or not. I was merely trying to say that all of us are influenced by our moral/religious beliefs in our decisions (from whether or not to attend church, to what charity we contribute to, to the ethical decisions we make in business) - but when we try to use political power to favor one religious group over another, we've crossed the Constitutional line.
Or, maybe: we can each follow our own moral compass; but I can't force you to use mine - and vice versa.
Registered: 01/16/13
Posts: 913
Loc: Nacogdoches, TX, USA
I would add that if your denomination/religion/group teaches you to only care for people who believe/look/act like you, you seriously need to examine your belief system!
_________________________
The journey is more important than the destination.
I would fully agree with that. One of the major takeaways from earning my history degree was that more people have been killed in the name of God/Jehovah/Allah than for any other reason. Not sure that's fully relevant, but it kind of feels related to your point.
Our long-time Sponsor, BackcountryGear.com - The leading source for ultralite/lightweight outdoor gear:
Affiliate Disclaimer: This forum is an affiliate of BackcountryGear.com, Amazon.com, R.E.I. and others. The product links herein are linked to their sites. If you follow these links to make a purchase, we may get a small commission. This is our only source of support for these forums. Thanks.!