Posts by MerryMagdalene

173

Birthday celebrations and customs - Are they for Christians?

by AlmostAtheist in

jw
friends

i sent my birthday document (http://thebentinel.com/jw-birthdays.html) to a poster here that is at the very least a jw-sympathizer, if not a full-blown jw.

the response i got back indicated that my reasoning on it was seriously flawed and essentially any idiot with a passing knowledge of scripture and history can tell that birthdays are not something christians should celebrate.. of course, if you're not a bible-believer or a god-believer, you couldn't care less about pagan origins and all that.

but let's keep this conversation on the 'appropriate for christians' vein.

MerryMagdalene

I'm just a simple girl with a few simple questions hoping for some simple answers (forgive me if this has already been addressed, I missed it):

*Is it wrong for a Christian to celebrate birthday anniversaries without the "pagan trappings"? with trappings of one's own design, perhaps, or even none at all?

*If not wrong w/o the trappings, is there an approved list of trappings? Pinatas would be ok, right?

*If wrong w/o the trappings, why exactly? Creature worship?

*Then why isn't it wrong to celebrate the original birth with a "baby shower" or what have you?

*And, if it is wrong even minus the pagan customs, then am I sinning if I celebrate the birth of my daughter in my heart (just as it is possible to commit adultery in one's heart)?

When her birthday comes around I can't help but remember all that transpired on the day she was born, give thanks for how she has enriched my life every day since then, and I want to celebrate. All that love and joy and gratitude I feel internally just longs to be expressed externally. I'm pretty sure pagans aren't the only folks to be glad they were born and glad their loved ones were born and feel comfortable showing it. I know that in my family (5 generations' worth of JWs now) even many of them can't let that date slide by completely unacknowledged. Why should they?

~Merry

8

Jesus

by lime05 in

jw
friends

the second stage of jesus life course was here on earth.

he willingly submitted as god transferred his life from heaven to the womb of a faithful jewish virgin named mary.

jehovahs powerful holy spirit, or active force, overshadowed mary, causing her to become pregnant and eventually give birth to a perfect baby.

MerryMagdalene

JT, LT--I like both your hats

Lime, I got more questions than answers on this one myself right now...(uh oh, yer in fer it now, aren't ya LT??? guess ya better steer clear of IM for a while)

~Merry

66

Is Christmas for Pagans?

by LittleToe in

jw
friends

given that so many practises associated with christmas are blatantly christian in origin, is christmas truly for pagans?.

i know that often there are few christian connotations attributed to it nowadays, in such a secularised society, but history is on record in showing that the whole baby jesus thing is definitely a christian element.

would any true pagan today want to drink such a mixed cup?.

MerryMagdalene

wow...it looks like I'm just bad bad bad any which way this pie gets sliced...LOL

When I was a Pagan I celebrated Winter Solstice (alone) ON Winter Solstice, because I loved nature and enjoyed the change of season. A couple days later I celebrated Christmas (with my Christian friends), because I loved and respected my friends. Bad Pagan

Now that I am a Christian I will still celebrate Winter Solstice (with my friends who are now Pagan) because I still love them and nature, and enjoy the change of season. A couple days later I will celebrate (for the first time) the birth of Christ and think about how the Pagan Magi found and honoured him, not necessarily because I believe that he was born at this time but because I am glad that he was born at all and glad I found him. Bad Christian

I think I deserve a spanking...or, at the very least, a good tongue lashingAnybody...?

~Merry

27

Anyone leave the JW's and Still Follow Some of the Beliefs?

by lynnmelo in

jw
friends

many of you have seen my posts in the last week or two, but for those who haven't, here's my story in brief: i've been studying with the jw's for a couple of years, but just had too many doubts to commit.

those doubts were solidified when i discovered this site.

now i've decided not to commit.. however, i still believe in some of the things that the jw's believe.

MerryMagdalene

Hi again, Lynn!

just trying figure out how one can go from not believing it's right to celebrate the holidays to thinking it's okay to celebrate the holidays.

I was raised a JW and I guess I just never could fully bring myself to believe it was wrong to celebrate some aspects of life but not others (birth--baby showers ok; anniversary of birth--not ok--why?; marriage--ok, anniversary of marriage--ok, death--memorial service ok), and faith (Jesus' birth--not ok unless you're an angel, a shepherd or a pagan magi perhaps?; Jesus' death--ok, but don't partake even though He told us to do--why?; Jesus' resurrection--not ok--why? I couldn never totally understand and accept JW explanations. I celebrate life and faith. "Pagans," or non-Christians, also celebrate life and faith. Is that a good reason for me not to? I have been both and have found even more to celebrate after becoming a Christian...

How many out there hold onto some of the uniquely JW beliefs even though they've left the JW's?

I can't think of any unique to them that I now embrace...

*Millions now living will never die (c.1920 and before)?...not so easy to believe any more, but my great grandfather (deceased) believed it, and my grandparents (deceased) believed it...

*Blood transfusions are the same as eating blood and are a sin against God?...nope, I've read the Scriptures and feel they're dead wrong on that one...

*The soul dies when the body dies?...nope (Matthew 10:28, for one)...

*Jesus came invisibly in 1914?...nope (Matthew 24:23-27)...

~Merry

31

I Love You Guys

by joelbear in

.

man, i wish some of y'all lived closer.. i feel closer to y'all than i do to most of my friends or family for that matter.. you make me laugh like no one else can these days..

MerryMagdalene

Can I get in on this lovin'? I give as good as I get, sometimes even better(((joelbear)))

~Merry

27

144,000 bottles of beer on the wall,

by avishai in

jw
friends

144, 000 bottles of beer!!!

you take one down, pass it around.......

MerryMagdalene

one-foUr-threety-niNe-t-e-e-no-n0-thas-notit-ate-what*?*

~mErRy

69

What is God's true organization he is using? if this not it, then point me

by amommy in

i have been a jw all my life, my sister and i are now in our late twenties and are so unhappy and after desparate attempts to keep up meeting attendance are not spiritually motivated.

we in last few weeks have found some very disturbing things in our search such as the un involvement.

after research on these things and use of the wt library the society speaks for it's self on these issues calling the un the "disgusting thing" that the book of daniel spoke about(wt 85' para.

MerryMagdalene

Here's a good article on the inherent dangers of organization:

http://www.freeminds.org/fishin/ideas.htm

Imprisoned Ideas by W. P. Brown, MP
A member of the British Parliament outlines the dangers of becoming a slave of institutions or organizations

There are many classifications into which men and women may be divided -- as upper, middle or lower class; rich, well-to-do and poor; religious, skeptical and theist; Conservative, Liberal, Labor, Catholic, Protestant, master and man; and so forth and so on, ad infinitum. But, as I think, the only categorization which really matters is that which divides men as between the Servants of the Spirit and slaves of the organization. That classification, which cuts right across all the other classifications, is indeed the fundamental one. The idea, the inspiration, originates in the internal world, the world of the spirit. But, just as the human spirit must incarnate in a body, so must the idea incarnate in an organization. Whether the organization be political, religious, or social is immaterial to my present argument. The point is that, the idea having embodied itself in an organization, the organization then proceeds gradually to slay the idea which gave it birth.
We may see this process at work in many fields. Let us take one or two by way of illustration. In the field of religion, a prophet, an inspired man, will see a vision of truth. He expresses that vision as best he may in words. He will not say all he saw. For every expression of truth is a limitation of it. But he will, so to speak, express the sense of his vision. What he says is only partly understood by those who hear him; and when they repeat what they understand him to have meant there will already be a considerable departure from the original vision of the prophet. Upon what his disciples understand of the prophet's message, an organization, a church will be built. The half-understood message will crystalize into a creed. Before long, the principal concern of the church will be to sustain itself as an organization. To this end, any departure from the creed must be controverted and, if necessary, suppressed as heresy. In a few score or a few hundred years what was conceived as a vehicle of a new and higher truth has become a prison for the souls of men. And men are murdering each other for the love of God. The thing has become its opposite.

In the field of politics, the dispossessed dream of social order which shall be based on righteousness, a system in which men shall not exploit their fellowmen, in which each shall contribute according to his capacity and each shall receive according to his need. Upon this conception a political party is built. It gives battle, over the years to the existing order of things. As with the church, it is not long before the primary concern of the party is to sustain itself. Here again, any departure from the political creed must be repressed. The "party line" must be kept straight and dissent kept under. In the course of time, the party achieves power. By this time, it is no longer led by starry-eyed idealists, but by extremely tough guys -- who then proceed to use their newly acquired power to establish a stronger despotism than the one they overthrew, and to sew up all the holes in it that they themselves discovered in the old. What emerges is not freedom and social justice, but a more comprehensive and totalitarian control, used to maintain a new privileged class, which, because of the earlier experience of its members, is still more ruthless than the old.

Similar illustrations could be drawn from all fields of life. But these two will suffice to demonstrate the truth with which I am here concerned. It is that, the idea having given birth to the organization, the organization develops a self-interest which has no connection with and becomes inimical to, the idea with which it began. Now, the thing which permits this process of diversion to take place, so that the organization comes to stand for the opposite of the idea which originally inspired it, is the tendency in men and women to become Prisoners of the Organization, instead of being Servants of the Spirit. In this tendency there are many elements. There is a sense in which you cannot run an organization without becoming its prisoner. Organization has its own necessities, in the interests of which the original idea has to be somewhat qualified. As soon as the idea passes from the unmanifested and embodies itself in the actual, it begins to be invaded by what the poet called "the world's slow stain." In this, there need be no conscious infidelity on the part of the leaders. Better, they may well argue, that the great idea should be only partly manifested than that it should remain a mere idea in vacuo. Better half the ideal loaf than no bread at all.

Next, the wider the area to which the idea is introduced, the larger the circle of men and women to whom it is propagated through the organization, the more it must be "stepped down" for propaganda purposes. The idea which gives birth to a party which wants to establish the cooperative commonwealth, must be translated into practical proposals, such as the eight-hour day, the five-day week, and what not, if it is to attract a mass backing. And so the organization becomes less the vehicle of the idea than a channel through which particular interests must be served. The service of such particular interests attracts the backing of other organized bodies more interested in the limited objectives which the organization has now adopted than in the great idea itself. And the pressure of such bodies is felt by the organization, with the result that the idea tends to retreat into the background in favor of less ambitious objectives. In this world, the Devil walks, and it is necessary sometimes to hold a candle to the Devil.

Another element is this: Prophets always stand a good chance of being bumped off. This chance is increased if they come down from the hills into the marketplace, and still further increased if they come down unarmed. Prophets should only go unarmed into the marketplace if they think that their work is done, and are prepared to depart hence. Some prophets take to arms. Even where the original prophet does not, his disciples may do so. The Devil must be fought with the Devil's weapons. This is argumentatively sound but practically disastrous. For it means that the servants of God, the disciples of the idea, tend to descend to the Devil's level. As the organization grows, it deteriorates. Its leaders are not the men they were.
Among the rank and file many things combine to keep them in the organization, even when they become uneasily conscious that there is a dawning, and even a yawning gap between organization and idea. First there is the force of inertia. It is easier not to resign than resign. Drift is easier than decision. Next there is the factor of sentiment. All of us tend to project onto the organization of which we are members, the virtue we would like it to have, and to be blind to its defects. And, finally, men are gregarious creatures and dislike falling out of the ranks away from the comrades of years. Gradually the organization changes. As it changes it attracts new elements which approve the change. Not because of conscious calculation, which comes much later, when the idea has been deserted, but because organization develops its own logic, its own raison d'etre, and because men tend to become the Prisoners of the Organization, the organization can finish up by standing for the precise opposite of the idea which called it into being.
What is the moral to be drawn from all this?

One moral, it would not be wholly facetious to suggest, might be that the first rule for an organization should be a rule providing for its dissolution within a limited period of time. "This organization shall be dissolved not later than . . ." But the deeper moral is concerned with our attitude to organization as such. The moral is that, even when we are members of an organization, our attitude to it should be one of partial detachment. We must be above it even when we are members of it. We should join it in the knowledge that there we may have no abiding place. We should be weekly tenants, not long-leaseholders. We should accept no such commitments as would prevent our leaving it when circumstances make this necessary. We should reckon on being in almost perpetual rebellion within it. Above all, we should regard all loyalties to organization as tentative and provisional. The whole concept of "my party, right or wrong," "my union, right or wrong," "my church, right or wrong" should be utterly alien to our thinking. We must be Servants of the Spirit, not Prisoners of the Organization. We must keep in touch with the sources of life, not lose ourselves in its temporary vehicles. And whenever the demands of the Spirit, the categorical imperatives of the soul, conflict with the demands of the organization, it is all contained in one of the legendary sayings of Jesus, which bears all the marks of authenticity:

This world is a bridge. Ye shall pass over it, but ye shall build no houses upon it.

Bivouacs. Yes! Tents. Maybe! Houses. No!

~Merry

19

Where is the love?

by sweet tee in

jw
friends

jw's are taught that their love is what identifies them as true christians.

but typing on another thread let me to this discovery:.

what i expected from witness friends and what i expect from my friends now are totally different.

MerryMagdalene

I couldn't confide a lot of things in my Witness friends because I didn't understand that many of us had the same feelings, doubts and fears, but we weren't able to discuss them freely because the society discouraged it.

Sweet tee-- I find this statement in particular to have been SO true. Not only were we isolated from people on the outside, but we were isolated from each other on the inside. I remember it so well.

And, additionally, that seems to me to lead to the fragmenting and isolating, within oneself, of certain thoughts and feelings. If there are doubts, then the harder you try to conform the worse the inner split becomes...you lie to yourself and continually have to bolster those lies (about what you think and feel) so that at least some part of you believes them and can fit in with everyone else, so that you are not singled out for "discipline."

Not healthy. Not loving.

~Merry

69

What is God's true organization he is using? if this not it, then point me

by amommy in

i have been a jw all my life, my sister and i are now in our late twenties and are so unhappy and after desparate attempts to keep up meeting attendance are not spiritually motivated.

we in last few weeks have found some very disturbing things in our search such as the un involvement.

after research on these things and use of the wt library the society speaks for it's self on these issues calling the un the "disgusting thing" that the book of daniel spoke about(wt 85' para.

MerryMagdalene

Welcome! Maybe something in here will help... http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/94276/1.ashx

~Merry

49

Name One Thing (Just One!!) that the Dubs teach that is TRUE

by ozziepost in

it was a comment that defd made today that did it, he got me thinking!!

(thanks, defd.. it was one of those spoiling type of comments, oh okay derrick, here 'tis: lt you oughta know why he recieved the spirit before being baptised.

you were an elder once right?.

MerryMagdalene

Ok...this kinda puzzles me, from the Revelation Climax book, p.9:

It is not claimed that the explanations in this publication are infallible....At the same time, however, we firmly believe that the explanations set forth herein harmonize with the Bible in its entirety...

What are they saying here exactly? That even though some of their explanations might not be right they're still not wrong?That even if an explanation of prophesy eventually fails and has to be replaced with a new explanation, it can still be considered to have somehow been in harmony with the Bible as a whole?

~Merry