Post script: I want to clarify the "wake up" statement. I don't mean they will all admit that they are wrong. What I mean is that something will finally have to give and they won't be able to ignore this or what is happening to their "spiritual paradise" any longer due to so much loss.
CalebInFloroda
JoinedPosts by CalebInFloroda
-
29
Is It Time to regroup?
by John Aquila inhow much do you want to bet that the organization has already started preparing articles for the watchtower magazines, convention talks, circuit overseers talks and letters to bodies of elders, to refute what is happening in australia?
.
right now the most important thing for the wt to do is protect their image that they are gods visible organization.especially in the u.s. and latin american countries.
-
-
-
29
Is It Time to regroup?
by John Aquila inhow much do you want to bet that the organization has already started preparing articles for the watchtower magazines, convention talks, circuit overseers talks and letters to bodies of elders, to refute what is happening in australia?
.
right now the most important thing for the wt to do is protect their image that they are gods visible organization.especially in the u.s. and latin american countries.
-
-
CalebInFloroda
They will keep quiet for now is my best guess.
But this was a bombshell. I mentioned it on another post that this was like the dropping of the first atomic bomb on Imperialist Japan. No surrender yet despite horrible casualties.
Something else will happen, either related to this or something else that will tip the scale that is already beginning to go down that will act like the bombing of Nagasaki. Then they will wake up, but only because this next strike will add too much destruction to ignore.
-
7
Jehovah's Witnesses Attorney's Keeping Things Secret
by OrphanCrow inthe person who has made this video has done some pretty good investigation into the watchtower lawyers in ny.. this is a revealing 10 minute watch.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2zpxxj_jehovah-s-witnesses-attorneys-keeping-things-secret_news.
hmmm...i wonder what he could turn up on boston college?
-
-
CalebInFloroda
No love for the Watchtower or its legal department, but my best friend when I was a JW is one of those attorneys he highlights. Despite being in a cult, the guy I knew (who is now one of the voice-over readers for videos and the revised NWT book of Galatians, etc.) was not underhanded or connected to some kind of secret society. He was pretty much honest and a good guy. One of the few really good people still lost in that web of impromptu ideology.
I kept waiting for the maker of this video to bring up something or go somewhere with his production. But alas, nothing.
-
16
Back again!!
by Sweetp0985 inback again since about 10yrs ago.
last year attended the international convention in new orleans and was feeling some type of way afterwards.
went to a couple of meetings and then the thrill was gone.
-
-
CalebInFloroda
I've never had the urge to go back, and it's been about 20 years for me too.
For me I have interpreted some of that "comfort" feeling I once had in the Watchtower religion as selfishness on my part. Part of the JW "charm," if you can call it that, is appealing to the ego and making people feel "happy"...or at least teach them to believe that what they are experiencing is happiness.
I took a long look at myself and saw I was being selfish and self-centered, and that this religion was in reality encouraging me to be this way. It "pats you on the back," so to speak, convincing you that your powers of reason are somehow bright enough or enlightened more so in some way as to have equipped you to make a remarkable discovery: The Truth. How clever I was to know how to identify the one true religion. How smart I was to learn the "Truth" and suddenly be more brilliant than the rest of the world (even scholars), and now I was a member of a select few who will ever enjoy a "truly happy and satisfying" life.
The literature we used and the introductions we employed in field service appealed to the self-centered: how can you be truly happy? How can you have life that is truly happy and satisfying? How can you be sure that you are in the true religion and how can you ensure that you will find salvation?
You, you, you! It's all about how "you" can enjoy happiness, find "truth" and make sure you get eternal life. It's about satisfying our needs, serving G-d for a reward, being in the true religion so we survive the doom that is coming...it's all self-serving.
There are no ministries or humanitarian efforts to help society at large. The neutrality issue is an excuse to not put effort to fight for justice on behalf of those who cannot fight for themselves, to seek justice for the marginalized, to ensure justice for the abused. And that religion is a good personal excuse to write others off as unworthy of our care, time, and deep interest.
It was selfish. It was about saving me, not really saving others. And everybody else who was there was after the same thing: saving número uno! If you get in their way they will push you aside. If there's even a chance you are "questionable," you are shunned. They cannot wait for the world and its inhabitants and their children to die and their lifeless bodies to rot. They look forward to that day because it is a selfish religion.
It made me just as selfish, just as self-centered and self-concerned. It made me believe that the goal of religion was to have a happy life. It gave me an excuse for not contributing to society while demanding that society give me freedoms and right I wanted and believed were owed me. That is the make-up of a bad person. I was this bad person.
Some of the people in the org may be kind, and we might miss their company and those friendships. But if that is the only or main reason to return and be a part of this destructive religion, then that shows we are being selfish. Even their disfellowshipping arrangement is made to make people think selfishly: I miss the people, I want their company, me, me, me. Serving G-d for me and because I want to be happy is not serving anyone but me.
I can't say your experience is the same and that I am speaking for any others. But I knew that remaining there or ever returning would keep me the same self-centered person that religion encouraged me to be. I don't miss that person I was, so I never looked back.
-
104
Do you feel vindicated by the exposure of the WT Society in Australia? It seems like a feeding frenzy on here! I love it. You?
by Wasanelder Once inare you pleased with the exposure of the society in australia?
do you feel personally vindicated by it?
do you think it gives you credibility with others now that all the things you said were going on, actually are documented?
-
-
CalebInFloroda
While I am happy that the Watchtower is being shown up for what it really is and that this should help many wake up or avoid them, I am horribly disgusted and saddened by it all.
I feel for the victims and that it has taken so long for them to be heard and given a voice.
I am angry at the Witnesses who won't even listen to the news reports though they know it is going on.
I hate the fact that even these events may not be enough to stop this juggernaut of hatred and peodophilia.
And I am frustrated because I know that something even worse must happen to the JWs before things come to a screeching halt.
I think this may be the Watchtower's first "atomic bomb" that hits them. Like ideological Imperialist Japan, they will refuse to surrender, to admit they are wrong even now. A second event is coming that will be like Fat Man hitting Nagasaki. Only then will it be over.
But the cost to them? I know these elders and pedophiles who are criminals deserve an adverse judgment, but what will become of their own families, their friends, their children? What will happen to the JWs once the Governing Body does surrender and it all comes grinding to a halt and millions of people must live with the shame that they have been part of one of the greatest most infamous cults of all time, that all they believed and sacrificed was for naught?
Don't get me wrong. I say "down with the Watchtower! Let not a brick be left standing in its former place!" I will be happy to see it gone.
But I am frustrated because it is even now nothing but a wide void, and it will painfully shock millions once the scales from their eyes are forcably removed and they see that they have been standing not in light but dark shadow for over 100 years! Even once it is gone it will still be hurting people in some ways. The scars can run deep. And that leaves me feeling a bit frustrated about it all.
-
189
How much was Christ's ransom sacrifice? Equal to Adam?
by jonathan dough inhow much was the ransom?
gods justice did not require an exact equivalent man-for-man sacrifice between the first adam and jesus, the second adam.
gods gift required more.
-
-
CalebInFloroda
Despite my personal convictions as a Jew, I do want to stress and make very clear that I think it can be a very healthy thing to leave the religion of the Watchtower and freely embrace a new path.
As long as one does it with their eyes open and uses an intellectually honest approach, open to testing, that the path of embracing Christianity can be a valid and productive way of life.
While I have a ready supply of answers and replies for each and every challenge raised, I have to make clear that I am not one of Jehovah's Witnesses anymore, neither do I think or feel like them.
I don't care to attempt to prove myself right or others wrong about Jesus. And I don't believe it is right to constantly challenge another's convictions as long as there is evidence that they are freely exercising their conscience. As Jehovah's Witnesses we have had enough of being stifled from exerting freedom, and I am not about to do that here with those that choose to believe Jesus is the Messiah.
I am someone who has worked for years shoulder-to-shoulder with Christians to help make Bible translations clearer, more accurate and useful to the public. I probably know Christian theology better than most Chrisitans do. If there was a chance that Jesus was the Messiah hoped for by my people, that all Jews are wrong, that we don't know our culture, our theology and our sacred texts as well as Gentiles do, that we as Jews are blinded, I have learned not to act as ignorant or proud as I have when I was a Jehovah's Witness and I would have embraced that by now, some 20 years out of the Borg.
That being said, Jews don't have the same concept of Messiah that Christians have. The entire concept of Messiah is a Jewish one, anyway, just like kashrut, Mizvot, davening, and a lot of other Jewish words that most Christians don't know. I think we Jews have the right to use our own concepts and define them the way we see fit without being told we are mistaken or even challenged.
If you believe in Jesus, great I say. As long as you don't hold on to the darkness that kept us blind when we were JWs, super!
But an animal sacrifice was always humanely killed before it was sliced and diced and placed on an altar. If you did this before, sliced it or maimed it, and then killed it in a torturous fashion, the sacrifice would not be acceptable. Besides, as Ezekiel states the sins of our parents are not visited upon us. Becuase Jews believe these words, the sin of Adam and Eve has not affected us so there is no need for a sacrifice.
-
189
How much was Christ's ransom sacrifice? Equal to Adam?
by jonathan dough inhow much was the ransom?
gods justice did not require an exact equivalent man-for-man sacrifice between the first adam and jesus, the second adam.
gods gift required more.
-
-
CalebInFloroda
@TheWonderofYou And Lieu
Read 1 Corinthians 8 and 10. Did you notice that the discussion is about "meat sacrificed to idols"? What is that all about?
Did you know that for a large part of the ancient world ALL ANIMAL PRODUCTS including meat was processed via cult sacrifices...even in Judaism?
Most Gentiles get very lost and bored when it comes to reading Torah (and so do Jews). Unfortunately for non-Jews, the Torah gets read in a vacuum without exposure to our customs and history, without Halacha or understanding Mizvot from the standpoint of a people who are absorbed in our complex tradition, day in and day out.
Becuase of this most Gentile Chrisitans go about imagining that Jews were just slaughtering animals at the Temple for the blood, then tossing the carcasses and going on to the next animal to kill it and drain it for its blood.
Nope. That's how ancient cultures got their meat, leather, etc. Ancient Jews viewed animal life as a sacred gift from HaShem. Therefore in gratitude the blood would be offered back to HaShem on the altar, often to beg forgiveness for our errors and sins at the same time (convenience), and the meat divided among the priests (who could not raise their own livestock) and families in order to have food to eat. (If you notice offerings were foodstuffs: meat, wine, bread, etc.)
Because food came from G-d, eating was seen as a communion meal with Adonai. In some instances certain forms of thanksgiving required eating meals in view of the Temple, but most of the time this is how food got distributed (and cooked) in ancient societies, especially meat.
After the Second Temple fell, Jews in an attempt to find a way to interpret their customs in the "modern" Roman world and keep Judaism relevant decided that the time for offering sacrifices was past. The sacrifice/food model was outdated. Sins could still be forgiven by living up to the Law. Meat could be obtained in different ways. The altar of the Temple was soon replaced with our altar of our home tables.
Other cultures still got their meat this way in the first century, and Christians had to find a way to deal with this fact. They even saw Holy Communion as a meal like that once enjoyed at the Temple, but instead of eating actual animals they would teach that they were eating Christ's flesh and drinking his blood, but in a sacramental manner. All this stems back to the fact that the sacrifices were not about just pouring blood out for forgiveness. That is what the Jews attributed to their "meat processing" of the Temple era.
This is why Jews don't sacrifice animals today. We can obtain forgiveness without slaughtering an animal. We can give thanks without pouring out the blood of a beast. We can go to the market for our meat. It's not about Jesus. It was about eating.
-
10
DOES "ABSTAIN FROM BLOOD" really mean "Do not murder?"
by TerryWalstrom in20:28 - jesus' shed blood, thus related to murder.
with the words of augustine firmly in mind we now ask this important question:.
abstaining from blood(shed) preserves life!
-
-
CalebInFloroda
But I should add that the Apostolic college at the time did not see the Mosaic Law as lifted from Jewish Christians.
On the contrary, this resolution and the Pauline epistles that existed by this time must be read in light of Acts 21.17-26 which clearly states that neither the elders in Jerusalem nor Paul meant to suggest by such teachings that Jewish Christians were not free to pursue mizvot (obedience to/observance of the Mosaic Law).
-
10
DOES "ABSTAIN FROM BLOOD" really mean "Do not murder?"
by TerryWalstrom in20:28 - jesus' shed blood, thus related to murder.
with the words of augustine firmly in mind we now ask this important question:.
abstaining from blood(shed) preserves life!
-
-
CalebInFloroda
Terry is 100% correct from the standpoint of with we teach in Judaism and the commentary on this verse as found in The Jewish Annotated New Testament (with NRSV text).
This is also reflected in the very interesting rendering of this verse found in the official Catholic version for the U.S., the New American Bible, Revised Edition (NABRE):
"...abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, from blood, from meats of strangled animals, and from unlawful marriage. If you keep free of these, you will be doing what is right. Farewell."
The rendering of the Greek PORNEIA as "unlawful marriage" demonstrates that the Noahide prohibition on unions forbidden due to close degrees of sanguinity were understood here by the scholars who worked on the NABRE text (which consisted of Catholics and Protestants). The term PORNEIA refers to "illicit sexual union" with the word "illicit" capable of reflecting mores of a pagan or Jewish culture. In this instance the scholars who worked on this translation chose the term to reflect Jewish understandings, and thus the Noahide sanctions against incestuous unions colored this particular rendition.
These disinterested conclusions would support Terry's OP regarding the notion that abstaining from blood in this context refers not merely to its consumption but its being mishandled with disrespect, including its being spilt in murder. The apostolic letter of Acts 15 is not developing a new standard of limited Torah observance for Gentiles, but instead imposing only the Noahide Laws which Jews have seen binding upon the nations since antiquity.
-
40
Is the two-witness rule really unreasonable?
by stillin ini'm picturing a situation in which a savvy 12 year old doesn't like the house rules that mom's new husband has put into place.
or something along that line.
i can certainly agree that protection of children is paramount, but who protects the real victim in those cases?
-
-
CalebInFloroda
The so-called "two witness" rule is a demonstration of how far lacking in Biblical scholarship and just plain logical thinking the JW religion is.
The rule (Deut. 19.15) uses an idiomatic expression requiring not two but "two witnesses or more." It is often repeated in the New Testament as "two or three witnesses."
This idiom is understood in the Jewish list of 613 Mizvot (Commandments) not as requiring at least two people to witness a crime but instructing Jews "not to decide a case on the evidence of a single witness."--Mizvot 227.
Two points of difference exist in how this is applied by Jews that shows how far off the target the JWs are in trying to apply this command from the Mosaic Law.
This commandment means that no judicial case should be concluded or finalized without thorough investigation. The idiom is neither asking for a literal number of witnesses nor is it speaking about establishing the validity of an accusation. It is about settling a case and requiring that justice be done in the sense that regardless of the charge and the opinion of the majority, no one should be judged adversely without due process and sufficient evidence to support any final decision.
In other words an accusation is not enough to decide a case. There must be evidence to support every conclusion made by judges.
Second, any reference to the application of this commandment in the New Testament is merely referring to the principles involved. The New Testament makes it very clear that Gentile Christians are NOT obligated to observe the Mosaic Law or meet any of its demands as a requisite for salvation.
The Greek text reveals an attempt to keep the Jewish idiom intact, often retaining the "two or three witnesses" expression. Again as this is an idiomatic expression, it is not literal. It is a reminder of not running to quick judgment without sufficient evidence. But one thing it is also not doing is discussing how to judge the validity of an accusation of a victim in a case, though sadly this is how it is often used by JW elders.
It's appearance in 1 Timothy 5.19 is evidence that its application is not meant to be taken at face value by Christians. It is stated in a context of applying lessons from two other commandments from the Mosaic Law, with verse 18 making reference to not muzzling an ox and verse 20 referencing the statement in Deuteronomy that carrying out judgment should be enough to strike fear in the hearts of criminals. All three verses, 18-20, are not enforcing the Mosaic Law upon Christians. Instead they are calling to mind lessons from the Law on carrying out justice. Therefore it is not right to impose and enforce a literal "two witness" rule.