Posts by CalebInFloroda

41

Jehovah kicks a puppy

by Simon in

technically incorrect, but effectively he does .... if we're to believe the genesis account the serpent deceived eve and made her eat of the tree of knowledge.

it all went pear shaped from there on in, although most people believe it was an apple (boom tish).. but anyway .... either it was a literal serpent that could talk on it's own behalf or, as people typically believe, it was satan who was the puppet master and possessing the creature.. the first raises all sorts of questions that contradict the whole bible narrative (another creature that could reason, talk, debate existence and law etc...) so let's go with "the satan theory".. how does got react to his 'perfect' creation immediately being completely imperfect as soon as he takes it out of the box?

(he's like 0 for 4 ... satan, serpent, woman, man ... all break his rules).

CalebInFloroda

While I cannot speak directly for Hold-Me, I can state that none of the texts DJS cites state that the snake from Genesis 3 was held to be a factual and historical account.

Also, Christian theology through the centuries shows that the belief in “Satan the Devil” was a new revelation from Jesus of Nazareth who connected the symbols of the adversaries of Scripture to evil unseen forces battling against humankind. This is a technique known as “midrash” which is still used today by Jewish rabbis. It is a retelling and resetting of Scriptural stories, whether true or false, in the light of current thought. Word play is heavily employed in this technique when speaking in the original Hebrew, and an etymological methodology must be employed when attempting to reconstruct the meanings therein. Face-value readings are never implied or allowed in midrash, especially in the face of a doctrine that was clearly in developing stages in the first century.

Around the time the New Testament canon was being settled, St. Gregory Nazianzen, working from and building upon current Christian theology about “the Fall,” taught that the narrative in Genesis 3 was symbolic of something far more complex. The death of the characters in the play symbolize God’s killing of death, he explained. This didn't contradict the then accept doctrine of the Evil One now in full stature in the Christian religion, but it does show that their belief that the Devil was real and symbolized from the protoevangelium did not rely on the symbols being facts.

Similarly, the tales of George Washington chopping down a cherry tree, the mythical details of the midnight ride of Paul Revere, and the various tall-tales which practically deify Abraham Lincoln do not keep thinking and reasoning Americans from remaining patriotic and supporting their country. All cultures have their mythology, but those myths are used as transports for essential truths important to the culture that devises them. George Washington may not have chopped down the cherry tree, but the truth in the myth is still real: he was a man of high character. The fact that these stories are just "fairy tales" doesn't make people pack up and leave America or abandon democracy. Americans still build upon these legends to create realities in their lives regardless.

In the same manner, while New Testament theology builds upon the midrash of “the satan” figure as a literal spirit entity that is bent on causing more than a little trouble for humans, it isn’t saying that the literal figure makes some of the narrative dramas fact. Nor does it mean that the use of “the satan” from Old Testament sources via midrash implies that “the satan” in places like Job is the same figure as the Satan of New Testament texts.

The above isn’t new theology or new views on Scripture and the devil either. It is theology that the uneducated leaders of the Watchtower ignore and keep from their adherents. While I don’t expect that atheists have to be totally educated in an academic approach to Scripture, these very few points should at least make one pause before projecting the naïve Watchtower approach we once fatally trusted in to what scholars and theologians of Scripture have taught for centuries. They are very much not the same thing.

41

Jehovah kicks a puppy

by Simon in

technically incorrect, but effectively he does .... if we're to believe the genesis account the serpent deceived eve and made her eat of the tree of knowledge.

it all went pear shaped from there on in, although most people believe it was an apple (boom tish).. but anyway .... either it was a literal serpent that could talk on it's own behalf or, as people typically believe, it was satan who was the puppet master and possessing the creature.. the first raises all sorts of questions that contradict the whole bible narrative (another creature that could reason, talk, debate existence and law etc...) so let's go with "the satan theory".. how does got react to his 'perfect' creation immediately being completely imperfect as soon as he takes it out of the box?

(he's like 0 for 4 ... satan, serpent, woman, man ... all break his rules).

CalebInFloroda

From a scriptural philologist's and teacher of critical analysis, this account in Genesis isn't considered literal.

Even traditional Jewish, Othordox, and Catholic views agree that this narrative does not teach the origins of sin as much that it is an illustration meant to teach the Jewish view that sin is always there when humans make choices. It may suggest that early on Jews recognized that people don't have an interest in including God in their lives.

Originally the snake was not viewed as Satan the Devil. In fact, "satan" was viewed as a position often played by angels in the heavenly court when divine decisions were being argued. In Job "the satan" of the early chapters is not an evil character but someone assigned to act as "defense" for opposing arguments of reason.

While Christians eventually equated the snake of Genesis 3 with the devil, this theology itself is not based on a demand that the narrative in Genesis is anything but parable. Read at its most basic level, the snake may be a symbol for the denial or rebellion in each of us.

It was increasingly popular during and after the First and Second Awakening for the new American religions (like the Adventists who eventually became the JWs) to develop Satan into an archenemy of God, thus developing a new doctrine that a great battle between these two was being played out on the universal stage. But prior to this, even at his worst the entity known as "the Devil," evil and powerful as he was, was never equal enough to God to be considered an archenemy by both Christianity and Judaism.

And the belief that snakes were once talking animals that walked on legs was not popularized outside of the new American movements.

56

Question for atheists and nonbelievers

by pressman in

i profess to teach the truth to you all and get you to all to think and believe.

believing in christ through his words and not through evil religious cults, like hoj and jw, can and will save you.

do you all realize that every time you are victorious and receive something of value through your hard work and sweat, it was our holy god who blessed you.

CalebInFloroda

Pressman,

As someone who believes in the Bible and God, I agree with the majority of voices here. Your message is either repulsive or an attempt at satire that I find neither funny nor helpful.

Upon leaving Jehovah's Witnesses many face challenges in learning to feel settled with whatever set of convictions they must now adopt upon starting a life outside of the Watchtower. It is unhelpful and uncaring to pitch either a new doctrine that is unbending in its demands or to parody convictions which may resemble some who are trying to find their way.

I left the Witnesses because I was tired of people making fun and judging others because they had this or that set of convictions or didn't. Debating subjects to open them to various views is one thing, but to attempt to confront ex-JWs with more of the same they have freed themselves from is far from considerate.

You will gain far more respect and be far more helpful supporting the choices people freely make for themselves instead of trying to tell them that you have something they have no access to without you. If you are just poking fun, it's a bit tasteless for those of us who have chosen religion or a spiritual path because it paints all who do so with negative judgment. Neither is supporting which is what we should be doing for one another.

Besides, if you are being very truthful then you teach against Scripture which teaches that truth is even found outside the Bible and that even people who don't know God can be just as upright and even more so that those who believe in Romans 1.19-20a and 2.13-16. People have been finding truth before you, me or the Bible.

75

Having Faith in the Bible

by william draper in

i know many on here have lost faith in the bible , is it possible that is because ones do not have the right perspective regarding it .

we have usually been taught by bad teachers , or ignorant .

i believe if we take an honest look at the bible , we will see that it gives us the best answers to crucial matters , it gives us some amount of bearings ( understanding ) , which without having such knowledge we would all be more like walking zombies in amanner of speaking , we would be lacking hope in something better , for surely something better is to come , how can we be sure , .

CalebInFloroda

I am often perplexed by the way some non-Jews hold the Bible up as the source of truth or most perfect of books. While I don't think any person, theist or atheist, questions the sincerity of this type of belief, I as a Jew think it is quite misdirected and often destructive.

This is a book not of facts but of truths. It is a book of lessons, hard learned by my stubborn ancestors. It has stories about us constantly failing, proving unfaithful time and again, and stoning practically every prophet God sent to us.

We took these lessons and placed them in various narratives, sometimes poetry, other times mythology, mixed in parable and proverb, and often dressed them up dramatically for effect. But the end story has yet to be written. And this is probably what most religious people miss too often.

There is so much fighting in the Bible, so much hatred, so much argument, so much unnecessary killing. It is not by chance that such things litter the narrative of Scripture from its beginning to end, but it is often what believers ignore the most. These things are connected, very much connected.

It does nothing to love and honor the Bible more than the human who lives beside you. It doesn't matter if that human worships a hundred gods or none. If you can't learn to love your neighbor, sooner or later one of you is going to stab the other and blood will be shed. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Bible is about people of various religions constantly at war and shedding blood...people who are religious. I don't recall seeing an atheist in the Bible doing these things.

It isn't religion or lack of religion that creates hatred. It isn't religion or lack of religion that distorts love. Humans have the capacity to blame and point the finger at everything and anybody else but themselves when it comes to the real problems in life. A book, no matter how sacred or its source will not and cannot solve our problems and bring us peace if we aren't willing to really bring those things to everybody, regardless of who that person is.

We, humans, distort all things. We distort religion, we distort atheism, we distort science, we distort one another. We are the distortion. We have the ability to continue down this path or stop ourselves, but we would rather not stop ourselves if this means admitting we are wrong. We'll do anything but that, and will even take another's life before we give up our pride whether we are religious or not.

The Bible is not the story of the chosen people of God being better than everyone else. It's about God choosing to love people who don't deserve it. It's a demonstration of how far God is willing to go to love even the good and faithful, let alone my people who have abandoned him many times throughout history.

The stories don't have to be fact-filled to be true. By considering that our own point of view is correct and that our neighbor's is automatically wrong when it does not align with our own shows we don't get the Bible at all. We are often what is the most false about the Bible, not its words.

The Bible is about God loving people who don't love him back. It's about God loving people who don't believe in him, who constantly run after ever other god imaginable but him, who don't deserve God's care and affection and love...but who get it anyway, because that's how loving God is.

If you constantly bring up points that aggravate your neighbor instead of loving them for who they are and where they are, then how is that bringing the Bible to them? Shouldn't we be imitating God by loving people who don't love you, who don't worship God, who don't believe in him or your views, loving them because God loves them regardless of what they think of him? If you can't do that, all the arguments you raise here to try to convince others about the Bible's value are moot.

The Bible is not true because of what's written on its pages. It's true when it makes others like the God in its pages. If you don't love the failures, the faithless, the haters, the hated...they won't believe in you.

People only believe in those they love. People only believe in things they choose to believe in. Belief is a choice. Why choose to believe in something when that something or someone doesn't show that they believe in you? I don't believe in the message of people who hate me or even do as little as show disrespect for my point of view. I don't believe others owe me any different if I treat them that way.

In my opinion, it shows great disrespect to people of other convictions, philosophies, creeds or lack thereof to constantly parade the Bible as something they are failing. I believe when believers do that, it is they, the believers who are truly failing the Bible.

Francis of Assisi stated that Christians should proclaim the Gospel at all times, and when it called for to use words. What he meant was that the Bible's message was not something you find in a page or can argue about on a forum like this. It's found in acts of love that believers perform willingly and to everyone, regardless of creed. If people are arguing back at you when you think you are championing the Bible, it might mean that they do not feel loved by what we are doing.

And if people don't feel loved by what we are doing to them, how is that recommending the Bible?

10

How a Christian Converts an Atheist

by Magwitch in

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/04/13/how-christians-think-they-can-convert-atheists-according-to-wikihow/.

this article is pure pleasure.

i thought at first it was a joke, but apparently not.

CalebInFloroda

Speaking from the stand point of one who teaches critical Scripture analysis, I have to totally agree with Simon and even state that the article link is unfortunately too true.

Teaching from an academic and scholarly critical methodology is often equated as being equal to an atheist in their minds, or even something worse as some of my "fellow" theists have been too eager to share with me in less than kind and mannerly terms.

Unless you hold to a Fundamentalist Evanglistic Christian credulity which "just believes because it's true," you are reckoned with the damned and the wicked...even though it is you and your fellow scholars who have just produced their Bible translations or study guide or commentary that they use (or should I say fail to study).

Yep, I've had this exact approach repeatedly used on me, and I'm a theist. There seems to be a hatred for anyone who wants to use reason or hold a different conclusion or just doesn't feel the need to believe...not a concern for these but a prejudiced hatred, and this often promotes their desire to "convert."

When my "fellow believers" insist that atheists must be converted, I always point out how mountains, trees, animals, and stars don't believe in God either and they are more faithful in fulfilling their roles than I can ever be. If God doesn't like things that don't believe in him, why do the majority of things in the universe--especially among living creatures--not have the capacity to have faith in God?

STUDENT: Mr. J, why don't you try harder at converting some of you atheist friends?

ME: Convert them into what? Lawn furniture?

I'd like to apologize on their behalf but I'm not responsible for their insulting behavior.

24

Why did God permit Scriptures to be corrupted?

by economy in

if someone informs you that your shop caught fire, and firefighters are on the job, you will run to the spot.

however, if you had already sold that property on the previous day (which this messenger is ignorant of), you are likely to respond, saying: shop is not mine..

situation is same with god.

CalebInFloroda

It's kinda near Florida but lost between an excuse and boredom.

5

Me and the bible don't see eye to eye

by bobld in

jw
friends

matt 7:13 in the past 2000 years billions of people took the broad and spacious road to destruction.john 5;29 however,they will be resurrected.why!

would you retrieve a rotten apple from the trash.. james 1;15 desire-paraphased leads to sin and death.a married man desires and has sex with a woman.you could say he screwed himself to death.on the other hand a man with pure thoughts would not think of such a thing.he's going to die anyways.bummer.. james 1:17 a perfect gift from above.my ass,drought in california and snow to high heaven in boston.. one more james 1;22 become doers of the word (per john 1;14 the word is j.c.) how am i suppose to do something with the word that is somewhere in space.

.

CalebInFloroda

It could be that the way we are reading a text is influenced by years of Watchtower indoctrination or some other view we hold that we never put to the test. I know that for myself I decided to invest several years to critical philology and similar studies after leaving the Witnesses because I wanted to know how much of religion and the Bible I was still judging by holdovers from the Governing Body and how much was actually from the Bible itself. (Of course this may not at all have anything to do with your views and where you get them. )

While this is not an endorsement that what I am presenting is the final word on these texts, I did learn the following alternative possibilities.

Matthew 7.13—Rabbis like to show us two paths.

Jewish teachers commonly use the imagery of two paths or two possible ways to take their teaching and the result to us if we choose one path over another. Deuteronomy 30.15 has Moses setting paths of life and death before the nation of Israel. The first Psalm is a contrast between the way a righteous person takes compared with that of someone who ignores the teaching of Torah. The Sermon on the Mount ends with Jesus setting two ways people can respond to his teaching, either using it as a foundation for life or “building upon sand,” and the results of either decision. (Matthew 7.24-27) The text in Matthew 7.13 is using the same type of imagery, a parable or hyperbole type of speech employing a common rabbinical model: the narrow and difficult way that “few” find and the broad and wide one that gets found by “many.” Notice that “few” and “many” are the result of Jesus telling everyone who listens to (and now reads) his words to accept his invitation to do one over the other. It’s an open invitation, not a prophecy.

It should be of interest that Matthew 7.13 has this “two path” imagery in common with James 1.15.

James 1.15—More dual path stuff.

James is written in a peculiar proverbial style, like wisdom literature of the Old Testament. The text from James might also be employing identical patterns, and verse 12-15 seem part of a section discussing what happens to those who don’t follow God’s teaching. For instance, 12-13 gives the impression that anyone can withstand temptation since God is not the source of making a person’s life sinful. Verses 14-15 show the result if the person chooses to act independent of God.

This pattern is followed at first three times in chapter 1 of James, namely 5-8, then 9-11, and finally 12-13. It picks up for fourth time in 22-25. Why? James is talking about application of the “word,” as you mention, only he is speaking about the laws of God here. Note that the other verses in the first chapter are about asking God for guidance and how God will generously supply those who truly want it.

Of course 17 and 22 aren’t speaking about rain or Jesus. But I am sure you know that. Also, this is just one way scholars deal with these texts and not necessarily reflective of my own convictions. I can't speak for you, but I know I often blamed Scripture or religious people in general for my views of Scripture and "worldly" people that I learned years later didn't originate with them.

And I agree with Heaven, not being thrilled with the misogyny in Scripture.

Of course, the misogyny is not from Jewish culture or invented necessarily in Scripture, but reflective of Hellenistic or social mores and customs.

The texts is 1 Co 11.5-13 have to do with Gentile head covering issues, not those followed by the Jewish Church in Jerusalem. While it would not become a universal custom for Jewish men to wear kippah until after the Second Temple fell, it is widely held that the custom took root after the return from Babylon. The fact that priests at the Temple wore headcoverings in worship and many priests that served at the Temple became Christians shows that Paul had to be addressing something particular to the Gentile group.

For instance, the prophetess Anna, daughter of Phanuel, freely spoke and prophesied in the Temple. (Luke 2.36-38) This is contrary to Paul’s words of 1 Corinthians 14.34. Did Anna break Mosaic Law or is Paul referring to another law of submission that the Corinthians were aware of because women served in the capacity of synagogue leaders in the first century as well as civil leaders (Antiquities 13.405; see also http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2013/03/07/women-in-first-century-synagogues/).

Thus the misogyny is not from Mosaic Law but a reflection of some other law that would have been understood by non-Jews in the exhortation from Paul.

Paul’s instruction in these other verses are also in epistles written to Gentiles, and even his letter to Timothy is speaking about what Paul allows and does not allow in Gentile Churches. Paul’s words did not cover his views and practices for Acts 21.15-26 state that he and members of Jewish Churches still followed Jewish practice.

24

Why did God permit Scriptures to be corrupted?

by economy in

if someone informs you that your shop caught fire, and firefighters are on the job, you will run to the spot.

however, if you had already sold that property on the previous day (which this messenger is ignorant of), you are likely to respond, saying: shop is not mine..

situation is same with god.

CalebInFloroda

Until Marcion of Sinope ( circa 85 C.E.-160 A.D.), it was not a popular notion among Jews or Christians to see the Scriptures as a basis for religious doctrine or free of contradictions. Even to this day, among Jews, Catholics, and Orthodox, Scripture is read and interpreted as a product of religious belief, not the source.

Marcion tranformed Gnostic principles into a "proof text" system in which doctrine was based on sacred writings interpreted by an elite or "enlightened" class, but his selection of Scripture was based on a rule (in Greek the word for rule is where we get the term "canon") that rejected all Jewish texts in favor or select epistles of Paul and an edited version of Luke. Material that Marcion felt contradicted his interpretation was dismissed as not fitting according to his rule ("canon").

The response of the Christian leadership to the Marcion/Gnostic threat was to counter the doctrine of an "elite/enlightened" class as the source of knowledge that leads to salvation and to teach that salvation was instead universal (in Greek, "katholicos") dependent on faith in the Church and its teachings more so than the texts read in liturgical gatherings (which is where Marcion extracted books for his canon).

But as the Jews divided their sacred writings according to certain rules (language, era, subject, etc.), the question about whether any of the texts read in liturgical settings written by Christians being equivalents to the Holy Scriptures of the Hebrews was one that Christian leaders would keep building on until the days of Eusebius in the 4th century. It has been suggested by some academics and scholars that the reason Luke is included as an official Gospel (Luke is neither an apostle or Jewish) is that Marcion claimed that Luke taught a Gnostic, non-universal salvation, and that the reason for such a Pauline library is also a response to the Marcion claim that Paul supported this view as well, especially the practice of proof texting. Their inclusion into an official Christian canon in full instead of the edited forms used by Marcion perhaps counters his claims.

In this process, Christians debated on how to choose and and canonize texts. It was accepted that the redaction or editorial process was part of the inspirational development, and since texts had to reflect apostolic teaching and not originate it, this would allow for inclusion of writers like Luke and Paul as well as doubtful works like 2 Peter and the Revelation of John. Again as the objective wasnot seen as setting doctrine as much as supporting current thought, the problematic sections in texts were less worrisome.

Jews likewise don't base their belief on Scripture as much as they accept Scripture as confirming and keeping alive the essential truths of their religion. This includes additions made to the Scriptures over the eras as explanatory material set old lessons into new settings, very important for the Jews during the Babylonian period where they were no longer allowed access to their own land. Upon return the lessons they learned further changed how they understood the basic truths of their religion, and these new lessons further shaped the Scripture texts. By the time the Second Temple was built, however, it became settled that the texts were at their final state, but the changes and the interpolations were also accepted and even left in place in many situations.

Scholars don't necessarily agree on or have full answers as how to handle the situations you mention. Often referred to as doublets and triplets, scholars suggest that repetition of stories twice, three times, and maybe more (often with different details) may reflect a desire on behalf of the Jews to save all the variations on a tradition. In such a situation the conflicting details are not important. The underlying story and its central lessons is what is meant to be kept intact. For instance in Exodus the Egyptians lose all their animals twice in the first nine plagues, and the firstborn of their animals die again a third time on the night of the first Passover. The animals are not dying and being resurrected in order for God to kill them again, but several traditions are being cut and pasted together to tell the Exodus story in full. In other places, like Psalms and the Book of Wisdom, the number and order of the plagues is different. All stories agree on the basic truth, but the details are different due to narrative genre or this redaction tradition process.

Marcionism became popular again during the Great Awkaenings of American religious history. Adventists created new proof texts systems which claimed that Scripture was not the product but the source of religious teaching. Joseph Smith took Marcionism to the extreme, introducing a new set of texts which he claimed were essential to salvation. These new American belief systems either claimed that the original "katholicos" system was being reestablished in them or that an elite person or class was now present on the earth and dispensing saving truths that would make others dependent on listening to these new teachers. These in turn demanded and invented creative ways to explain the contradictions in Scripture, some attempting to remove sections again like Marcion in order to have a central source without contradictions.

27

PSALMS 83: 18 What is the name of God ?

by william draper in

so many of us have been taught that the name of god is jehovah , if like me many have come to really appreciate god's name .. .

more accurately we , at least many or most love the name of jehovah , or more accurately should i say this pronunciation .

does god care what we call him , of course he does , he had his name written in the bible as yhwh ( best i can do on this computer ) , more than 6000 times .

CalebInFloroda

I don't recall using the word or implying a "conspiracy" as that would imply things being done in secret, whereas this doctrine was publicly enforced. Nor was there a denial of the fact the JWs suffered alongside my people as well as others during the Shoah. I merely pointed out that the view you mentioned had an origin that is currently being changed yet is still unknown and unaccepted by many.

I happen to be a Chrisitan but also a Jew, of the tribe of Judah. Perhaps I am in error being here, but alas that was what I also discovered when I was surrounded by Jehovah's Witnesses.

27

PSALMS 83: 18 What is the name of God ?

by william draper in

so many of us have been taught that the name of god is jehovah , if like me many have come to really appreciate god's name .. .

more accurately we , at least many or most love the name of jehovah , or more accurately should i say this pronunciation .

does god care what we call him , of course he does , he had his name written in the bible as yhwh ( best i can do on this computer ) , more than 6000 times .

CalebInFloroda

Hi SimonSays,

I am not sure if your question was for me based on what I wrote, but the concept of holy "separateness" pre-dates the Babylonian exile and the development of the Sadducees and Pharisees. It is custom-based from the norms and basic mores of ancient Mesopotaminan culture, carried over into Hebrew culture.

As to how this may have affected use of the Divine Name, philology estimates set circa 850 B.C.E. as the likely era in which redactions show textual application of this custom. It was at this point that the so-called "Elohist" additions and editorial acts of preservation offered the earliest known substitute for the Divine Name.

By the time the LXX was composed, texts of the Greek Scriptures (such as Wisdom, the Books of Maccabees, Ben Sira, etc.) used even substitutes for the word "God," often using the euphemism "heaven." This custom of viewing even the title "God" as holy and deserving of a substitute is even seen in the Gospels where some writers have Jesus announcing the "Kingdom of God" and others using "Kingdom of Heaven" in the same places.--Compare Matthew 4.17 with Mark 1.15.

As to the Jews being rejected by God, this view of the Jehovah's Witnesses originated with the Adventist movements based on an interpretation of Matthew 27.25 and John 19.15 that originated centuries earlier within the Roman Catholic Church.

After the tragedy of the Holocaust the Christian community, including Adventists took a serious step back and reviewed this theology. Realizing this interpretation actually played a part not only in the expulsion of Jews from many countries like Spain in 1492, the vicious pogroms that littered Europe, and that this interpretation was directly employed as kindle by the Third Reich in its "solution to the Jews," it was almost universally rejected.

Except for isolated groups like the JWs, this view that the Jews are rejected by God because of the rejection of the majority of Jesus as Messiah in the first century is no longer accepted as substantiated by Scripture or reason. Condemned as anti-Semitic, critical analysis now admits that texts like Acts 21.17-26 and Romans 9-11 have been widely misused and even ignored in order to substantiate a view that eventually led to the invention of genocide.

My decision to leave the Witnesses was largely based on their retention of this mistaken belief. Told by the very elder who studied with me that my people as a whole deserved to die in the Holocaust because they were "Christ killers" was impossible to reconcile with my sensibilities. So many of my direct relatives died in the Holocaust that my native language, Ladino, is now considered rare and endangered as Hitler wiped out all the Sephardic communities from the European map.

Harboring vestiges of JW theology such as this view does not immediately make a person an anti-Semite however. It takes time to understand how deeply entrenched certain doctrinal views have become set in us as we seek to renew ourselves and heal from our time in the Watchtower community. But living in an era when even the Catholic Church claims some guilt and responsibility for the crimes of the Shoah due to holding this archaic and destructive belief should give us pause if we choose to perpetuate it in ourselves and others.