Hi, I'm new to the site, and kind of don't understand...

by my-journey 70 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  amac

  Welcome to the board My-journey,

  Please forgive any rude responses. We quickly forget...it is probably not evident to you, but once you stop believing in "The Truth" you realize how condescending the whole belief is. Some of that comes across in posts by active JWs, even if they are open minded. Some people snap back. Try not to take it too personal.

  I myself am still a JW in good standing...just not very active. So I'd like to give you my reponses...first off...

  What do you mean by "PUBLIC [REPROOF]"?

  Do you really not know what public reproof is? If not, I imagine you are a fairly new JW. Public Reproof is given to someone who has done something wrong that many people know about. If they are not DFed due to repentance, they can be put on Public Reproof which means their privileges are taken away and their name is anounced as having been publicly reproved. The idea being that they are letting everyone know that the public problem was "handled." This is a completely unscriptural practice by the way. Now on to your first post.

  I was just curious as to the aim of this website? I thought it was a discussion board for those interested in/ for Jehovah's Witnesses, but it seems like you're all former Jehovah's Witnesses? So is this site just to bash Jehovah's Witnesses?

  This site is mostly former JW's, but all are welcome. When I first started posting I was still active as a JW and searching for answers to some questions I have. Not everyone on here bashes JW's. I have often defended them myself.

  The interesing thing about this site is that most people here would love to discuss JW beliefs with active JWs. But very few active JWs are open to discuss areas of question in JW doctrine. As soon as they run out of answers, they deem the discussion "discouraging" and disengage. This is a defense mechanism that perpetuates belief in hollow doctrines.

  What do you believe in now?...Who do you think knows the truth?

  You'll find all sorts of different beliefs on this board. Very few claim to know "The Truth." As others have pointed out, claiming to know the "Truth" is simply arrogant faith in something unprovable.

  Are you still searching, or do you think Jehovah is the truth, but because it didn't work out with you first time round, you've decided not to continue looking, cos you know you've found the truth, but it didn't work out convenient to you - I hope that's clear?

  There are very few on here (but I'm sure there are some) who left the JWs because it was not convenient. Most just had different beliefs and that is not allowed in the JW org. I was a full time pioneer and MS when I started questioning, so it had nothing to do with inconvenience. My lifestyle has hardly changed since then as well. So people don't leave the JWs and then fall into "low sinks of debauchery."

  Do you think about Armageddon?

  No, what's the point? You either are a good person who tries to show love to others and to God or you are not. If he is willing to destroy good people because they are unable to wrap their heads around a belief in him with the proof given, then that is his loss.

  Do you now believe that this earth wasn't desgned by [a] God, but was a random accident?

  I personally believe in a Creator. He may have used evolution in some aspects, but I do perceive design in nature.

  Do you hate Jehovah's Witnesses (I expect you wouldn't HATE them, just not believe in what they say, if you have moved to Protestant/Catholic religions)?

  Very few on here hate them (although there are a few nutjobbers who probably do.)

  I really did think this site was aimed at Jehovahs Witnesses, but it's just a hate site,

  It's not a "hate site." Think of it as an open discussion site. I guarantee you will get discussions here that will be avidly avoided by an active JW.

  and you're all entitled to hate Jehovah's Witnesses - after all, most people do, even so called Christians -

  This is a persecution complex that is perpetuated by JWs to try to connect with Jesus. Most people do not HATE JWs. Most people know nothing about them. I hate to burst the ego bubble of JWs on this, but the JW religion is a small blip on the map. They are not HATED and PERSECUTED worldwide as claimed.

  however, I do enjoy reading anything that challenges the faith, I want to know that I have come into the right religion.

  Then you should enjoy this site because you will have discussions here with people knowledgable about both JW doctrine and the Bible...and they will be discussions you will never hear at the Kingdom Hall.

  When I talk to my Baptist Church friends, I get more confident, as I point them to stuff they didn't know, or don't observe (e.g. it says a tree (for cross) in their bible 3 times, Christmas, Sun God etc).

  I remember feeling the same way. It was this confidence/arrogance that finally got to me. I remember thinking how stupid people were to believe in the cross, only to do personal research later to see that he very likely may have died on a cross. Although it can't be proven either way, JWs assume they know the "truth" of the matter, when they don't.

  If Jehovah's Witnesses weren't the true religion, I don't think there would be one (or who is? Anyone think differently?)

  I agree with you on this.

  , as I don't see others that outwardly appear peaceful, truthful and ready to serve God down to the letter, for want of a better expression.

  One kudo I will always give to JWs is their belief in not participating in war. The truthful part is highly debatable. And serving God down to the letter...I believe many people in many religions BELIEVE they are doing this.

  I am new to the faith though, and like to look at other religions, as they always seem to confirm that I have just joined the right one.

  That's good. Just remember that others being wrong does not make what you believe right.

  Isn't the URL a bit misleading? Shouldn't it be called "EX-JW's" or something, so that people are forewarned that you people are former JWs, anti-JWs even? Shouldn't there be some kind of notice on the homepage that whoever is looking to learn about the religion has come to the wrong site?

  Since all are welcome and the board revolves around the JW religion, the url could be considered very fitting. And you can still learn alot about the religion here. The old analogy of "if you want to learn about basketball, talk to a basketball player" does not fit here. A better analogy would be if I was going to sign up for an internet service provider, but I found a group of former customers who had complaints, they would be the FIRST ones I go to, in addition to talking to those who work for the ISP. The things that really got to me about being a JW was how dogmatic their beliefs are. There are many beliefs and practices that are not scriptural, yet you are required to believe and follow them. If you don't, you can get marked or even DFed. I hate to say it, but the JWs are the modern day Scribes and Pharisees. If you have a single topic you would like to discuss, I would be happy to. Or if you would like me to pick, let me know and I can start another thread where it can be discussed in detail. Glad to have you here.
• 

  Crazy151drinker

  Not to hi-jack the new guys thread, but didnt God in the OT encourage the Isrealites to destroy their enemies? That would seem a bit pro-war.
• 

  my-journey

  hi Special K, mouthy, kat2u, Kenneson, DebraDoll (red = accidental, I clicked on the "A", sorry)

  hi realist, I don't know what to say. Maybe I should pity you too, but I don't - you've made whatever choices you've seen fit. As long as you're happy, why would I pity you? I wouldn't belittle anyones beliefs in that manner (calling them kindergarten ones) but maybe you've seen something that justifies it. Who knows? Thanks anyway.

  Hi Corvin, I'll read up sometime. Was it the org that nearly killed your kids, the bible, their interpretation of the bible or how your kids tried to live by any of the above? Actually, don't answer - I'll read up soon. Thanks.

  Hi Quotes, I would love to go through all your work one day, and examine it with a JW to see what they say. PS: That bit about "most people hate JW's" please dont judge them on that - that was from ME, I wasn't representing anyone when I said it. I just said it out of this big emotional imbalance I felt at the time, realising that not everyone found the truth in JW's. Sorry. That was all MY fault. It was my persecution complex.

  Hi Flash, thanks.

  CeriseRoce - what can I say, thanks for the reply. I appreciate that hour too. Well, I don't have a study. I've had just like...2. Mum used to study though. I just go to Sunday meetings. I want to gather tons and tons of views, then offload them at the feet of the man Ive had 1 or 2 studies with, and see what he says. I'm not looking for TRUTH online, but EVIDENCE or QUESTIONABLE MATERIAL that I can bring back for questioning. Thanks for your reply. I feel bad for not spending an hour on mine. But Im in a rush and replying to everyone else. THanks.

  Devon Mcbride, hi. I used to read a JW book on world religions, noting their similarites. They didn't say anything about hate there. But maybe you've read something I haven't. Fair enough. About the "ailing" Cath/Prot - sorry, I judged it on hearsay and one baptist church that I went to. Sorry. Thanks.

  Double edge, woah. Okay, have you got a link to the cross vs tree thing. I wanna know once and for all. Also...why do both bibles use "tree" a few times, and "stake" or "cross" in others?

  Hi pope. What do you mean by OO Programmer? C++? I study it. How did you know?

  Cybersister: If thats true then thats wrong. hate is wrong. But it may be true that God will destroy some people. I guess they should leave the judging to God.

  Nathan natas, I'm not a troll...or maybe I am? As long as you keep providing me with info that I can then bring back to any JWs for answers, I don't mind what you call me.

  I've been replying and reading for an hour now. I will come to the rest of your posts later. My hands are so tired (i've been on other forums too). My spelling (punctuation etc?) is normally better than this, lol. Thanks for everyones efforts. Sorry if my first post was judgemental - blame me though, cos I was a bit emotionally charged when I wrote it. Sorry.
• 

  drwtsn32

  I don't hate anybody (OK - maybe Alanis Morrisette)

  Pope:

  Ok, I thought you were pretty cool... then you go and say something like that!!

  ~Doc (of the "I love Alanis" class)
• 

  kls

  Seems the watchtower has done their job on you . You are following the teachings and hiding behind the lies ,just as you are instructed to do. Don't you think most here felt like you at one time,do you think we just wokeup one day and said " i am not going to be a jw any more ". Read through the lines of your own magazines and research. Do it with an opened mind not a clutered watchtower mind.
• 

  Leolaia

  Double edge, woah. Okay, have you got a link to the cross vs tree thing. I wanna know once and for all. Also...why do both bibles use "tree" a few times, and "stake" or "cross" in others?

  I have done extensive research on this subject, looking up references in the original Greek and Latin sources. The Watchtower claim is not only erroneous, but it is also disingenuous.
  

  1) The Romans did crucify prisoners and slaves in the first century with a two-beamed cross and the words crux and stauros did denote such an execution instrument (cf. Plautus, Lucian, Artemidorus, Seneca, Tacitus). The Society's repeated claim (1950 NWT, 6/22/1984 Awake!, 1984 Reference NWT) that Livy used crux to only denote impalement is totally without merit; I looked up every time Livy mentioned crux and he never was specific the way the Society claims he was. The claim (cf. 1950 NWT, 1984 Reference Edition) that Lucian used anastaroo to denote impalement in his play on Prometheus is also false; Lucian actually indicated a two-beamed cross. The Jewish historian Josephus described the Romans crucifying the Jews "in different postures" when they attacked Jerusalem (Jewish War, 5,450-451). By claiming that crux and stauros did not mean "cross" until the third century, the Society is intentionally distorting and hiding the facts.

  Here are some ancient Greek and Roman references to crucifixion (stipes is the Latin word for the upright pole and patibulum is the word for the crossbeam):

  "Being crucified is auspicious for all seafarers. For the stauros, like a ship, is made of wood and nails, and the ship's mast resembles a stauros." (Artemidorus, Oneirocritica, 2:53)

  "Men weep and bewail their lot, and curse Cadmus with many curses for introducing Tau into the family of letters; they say it was his body that tyrants took for a model, his shape that they imitated, when they set up the erections on which men are crucified. Stauros the vile engine is called, and it derives its vile name from him. Now, with all these crimes upon him, does he not deserve death, nay, many deaths? For my part I know none bad enough but supplied by his own shape--that shape which he gave to the gibbet named stauros after him by men." (Lucian, Trial in the Court of Vowels, 12)

  "Suppose we crucify [anestaurosthai] him half way up somewhere hereabouts over the ravine, with his hands out-stretched from crag to crag....Do you suppose there is not room on the Caucasus to peg out a couple of us? Come, your right hand! Clamp it down, Hephaestus, and in with the nails; bring down the hammer with a will. Now the left; make sure work of that too." (Lucian, Prometheus, 1-2)

  I suspect you're doomed to die outside the gate, in that position: Hands spread out and nailed to the patibulum....Oh, I bet the executioners will have you looking like a human sieve, the way they'll prod you full of holes as they run you down the streets with your arms on a patibulum, once the old man gets back! .... I'll give two hundred pounds to the first man to charge my crux and take it ? on condition his legs and arms are double-nailed, that is....I shall bear the patibulum through the city; then I shall be nailed to the crux." (Plautus, Miles Gloriosus, 359-360; Mostellaria, 55-57, 359-360; Carbonaria, fragment 2; Plautus wrote about 250 BC)

  "Though they strive to release themselves from their crosses (crucibus)---those crosses to which each one of you nails himself with his own hand--yet they, when brought to punishment hang each one on a single stipes; but these others who bring upon themselves their own punishment are stretched upon as many crosses as they had desires. Yet they are slanderous and witty in heaping insult on others. I might believe that they were free to do so, did not some of them spit upon spectators from their own patibulum!" (Seneca, De Vita Beata, 19,3)

  "I should deem him most despicable had he wished to live up to the very time of crucifixion (ad crucem). . . .Is it worth while to weigh down upon one's own wound, and hang impaled upon a patibulum? . . . . Can any man be found willing to be fastened to the accursed tree (infelix lignum), long sickly, already deformed, swelling with ugly tumours on chest and shoulders, and draw the breath of life amid long drawn-out agony? I think he would have many excuses for dying even before mounting the crux!" (Seneca, Epistle 101,10-14)

  2) The Gospel accounts assume a two-beamed cross, especially in the motif of Jesus or Simon of Cyrene carrying the cross on the way to Golgotha (cf. John 19:17) which is nothing other than the widely-attested practice of patibulum-bearing (the patibulum was the crossbeam). This practice pre-existed the invention of crucifixion as a method to torture disobediant slaves (cf. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Plutarch) and was widely adopted as a prelude to crucifixion (cf. Plautus, Plutarch, Artemidorus, Chariton). The Society would instead require Jesus or Simn to carry a pole to Golgotha (actually pictured in the Greatest Man Who Ever Lived book (1991, chapter 124), which is utterly without any historical support and ignores the copious evidence of patibulum-bearing. The traditional Christian picture of Jesus carrying the whole cross over one of his shoulders (seen in the Passion of the Christ movie) is also unhistorical....what the Romans did was have the prisoner stretch out his hands, nail or tie the hands to the crossbeam, and then having him bear the beam over his back or chest to the stationary stipes (vertical beam), and then hoist him up to the cross. This practice is also possibly alluded to in John 21:18-19 which also assumes a two-beamed cross. Details in John 20:25 and Matthew 27:37 are also best explained by assuming a two-beamed cross.

  3) The use of the word xylon "tree, wood" in Acts 5:30; 10:39; 13:29, Galatians 3:13, and 1 Peter 2:24 does not indicate the kind of stauros Jesus died on, only that the Bible writers understood Roman crucifixion in terms of the law in Deuteronomy 21:23-23. Other Jewish writers referred to Roman crosses in exactly the same manner (including the Dead Sea Scrolls, Philo, Josephus), and Roman writers also referred to Roman crosses metaphorically as "trees" (cf. Seneca, quoted above).

  4) There was a strong tradition in late first century and second century Christianity that repeatedly looked for prophecies and prefigurings of the two-beamed cross of Jesus in the OT, and described the stretching out of the hands from side to side as a sign of Jesus' cross (cf. Barnabas, Justin Martyr, Odes of Solomon, Irenaeus, Tertullian, etc.). Even the pagan Romans, in mocking the Christians, depicted a two-beamed cross (cf. the Palatine graffito).

  There is lots more evidence, but this covers the basics.
• 

  Gerard

  I then will bring any doubts to people I have a study with, when I arrange one, and they can try and explain some of the damning (sp) things I've been hearing this week about the org.

  Facts Jehovah’s Witnesses WON’T TELL YOU When calling at your door

  www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/_PDFArchives/ apologetics/AP3W0699.pdf
• 

  Stefanie

  Doc, I am part of that class too..
• 

  stillajwexelder

  but it seems like you're all former Jehovah's Witnesses?

  I am an active JW by the way - just to make sure the facts are correct - Ijust have an open mind - am well-educated and a critical thinker - I quite like JWs - I just know that they preach lies from the platform from time-to-time and some of their beliefs are anti-scriptural
• 

  Oroborus21

  Greetings!

  Aside to the Maddening Crowd: Shush! Don't scare the new guy away! Jeez, there are lots of reasons why JWs don't come here, including cause they are told not to, but when one does visit, its like throwing a (insert your own analogy here)

  Ok anyway, I just want to address one point and I am glad that if I hit send fast enought I will be right behind StilEXJWElder,

  I think too that Quotes summed up the issue with the website's name early on but that touches on something dear to me and that is what I want to say:

  The general topic here is Jehovah's Witnesses so on that basis alone the website is appropriately named.

  From your post though it appears that you do not feel that it is right for a website that contains critical (or even anti-) information, commentary, etc. about JWs, the Society, etc. to be truly worthy of the label Jehovah's Witnesses.

  Thus the underlying thought here is that real JWs are not critical, do not openly speak critically or even in many cases entertain thinking that may be critical of the truth, the Society and the Organization.

  While that may very well be true for many Jehovah's Witnesses, I would like to assert to you that the real truth, the truth that the Society doesn't want you to even think about as a possibility is that there are many, yea even numerous, active Jehovah's Witnesses that have serious doubts, concerns and even disagreement on doctrine, procedure, culture, etc. etc. of the religion.

  And no I am not talking about the thousands of persons who will soon be DF'd or who are on the brink of leaving the Organization each year. I am talking about persons that do not plan to leave for whatever reason.

  Thus is this site accurately labeled? Yes it is. Not just because of the topical nature, but more importantly because it must be recognized that it is completely natural and in fact necessary for the future survival of the Organization that the friends accept that such disagreement is "OK."

  Someday the Society/Organization will accept that fact and in doing so it just might save itself from total obsolescence.

  -Eduardo