Posts by AllTimeJeff

33

Modern Bibles - Atonement - Part VI

by Perry in

atonement over the years since leaving the wt, i have found the doctrine of the atonement to be one of the major litmus tests for determining christianity and apostate christianity.

the roman catholic church has transsubstantiation and the sacraments for salvation (among other things) and the wt simply rejects christ each year formally at the memorial.

the wt spin on the ransom negates the need for an actual exchange to take place with our savior.

AllTimeJeff

Perry

Your sincerity aside, (and please know that I do not begrudge you at all your beliefs) I asked a question about the need for atonement. To get back to my original question, there is no need for atonement if sin is not committed. I found your response more apologetic in the traditional sense.

With all respect, I found your answers unsatisfying. For the simple reason that there is no evidence to back up your claim. You said for example that it is impossible that conviction of the need for atonement/accepting Christ could be a mere emotional experience as opposed to other religons of the world who are as convinced as you. I will let your own words talk for you, but that isn't a good enough reason to believe that I need Christs shed blood to be forgiven. Do you have photographic evidence for your belief? A recording of some kind? Your heart being spoken to by holy spirit isn't good enough. It is unquantifiable, subject to interpretation, and unreliable. Millions if not billions have heartfelt faith. Not good enough. Sorry.....

Jeff Said

And again, why all of the ploys? Can the most powerful being in the universe not do better then a 2000 year old book and the emotional conviction of his followers?

Perry's Response

What ploys? We have verifiable proof of our own guilt...by any standard. I would like to point out that eye witnesses are strong evidence in a court of law.

Guilt? We learn guilt. The other times we feel guilty is when we violate a natural law. (i.e. I rob you, lie to you, and possibly stick around long enough to see how I hurt you) If I was never taught that a sexual "sin" offended god, I wouldn't feel guilty. For example, Romans 7:7 says: (Revised Standard)

What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet, if it had not been for the law, I should not have known sin. I should not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, "You shall not covet."

Here, Paul makes my point. He wouldn't have the need to feel guilty over coveteousness if the bible didn't tell him that it was offensive to god. I maintain that other "sins" fall into exactly the same category. To this day, despite Vatican I and II, many old time Catholics feel guilty over eating fish on Friday. I had a fish fillet sandwhich yesterday (Friday) from McDonalds. Who sinned yesterday? Who sinned before 1960? Guilt is a poor measure to go by. It feeds mental illness. The anxieties sin and guilt cause have to be alleviated, and need to be "covered" by a blood sacrifice that supposedly occurred 2000 years ago. Fanciful. And yes, you have to be taught that this sacrifice is for you. It's not like you can experience it. You have to find out about it the same way you have to learn about what happens to Frodo at Mt Doom. You need to read an old book. One is fiction. The other isn't? Why not? Because someone says it isn't?

As far as your responses about my questions on sexual sins, toward the end of your response, I am more then happy to leave that as it is and let your answer speak for itself. We both had our say. For anyone else, they can read and determine for themselves what they are comfortable with and what makes sense.

65

Breaking News - Ramblings of the Governing Body

by Edward Elder in

if you're still unsure about the hotline to heaven (aka fds), then have a laugh at this truly pathetic story being circulated by the dubs - comments from stephen lett of the groaning body - see below.. to summarise lett's mind-control ramblings:.

angels are directing jws in the ministry - of course!if you don't answer the door - god will kill youif you don't listen to us - god will kill youbrainwashing of minor children is a real winnercalling on empty houses may seem like a waste of time - but to dubs it's the work of angelsfor the bethel drone monitoring this post - wake up and smell the coffee, before you're made to leave your cosy brooklyn office and hack the streets calling on empty houses.. you can be sure lett will be right behind you!.

ee.

AllTimeJeff

The GB's illustrations make me ill.I can see Lett's animated face moving in 1000 different directions saying this crap.

The GB usually feel they have free reign to mention doctrinal points they bring up from time to time in their meetings but as of yet haven't gotten the magical 2/3rds support to make it inspired of Jehovah. It has happened since Freddy Franz, and will continue as long as their BS arrangement sticks around.

48

Are You Content Within Yourself?

by AK - Jeff in

jw
friends

leaving the borg of jehovah presents a somewhat lonely existence for many of us fallen angels.

for a time we may seek to find an entirely new body-associate.

many may find that after so many years in a controlled environment like the watchtower that they have a hard time finding a large group of friends again.

AllTimeJeff

I am not content at all. I never have, I tend to be restless. The good results of this part of my personality is that I was able to not accept at face value the teachings of the borg. Being content would have been horrible. I would still be in a cult.

What I am looking for I call Peace. I don't like the idea that god doesn't exist, but I see no evidence that I should. I would feel better, but feeling better isn't as important to me as what the truth of the matter is, or at the least, what facts are in evidence on any matter.

As far as people go, I am glad that I can accept people for who they are. That is cool. I feel lonely often, but it beats having fake friends.

4

Modern Bibles - The Judgement - Part V

by Perry in

the judgment it is important to realize that we are not now living in a period of time known as judgment day as the watchtower teaches.

by them placing christ's coming in 1914 they can conveniently teach that we have been living in a sort of judgnent day since that time; and of course the judgment is swayed one way or another by how people respond to wt literature.

however, this doesnt mean that there will be no judgment as the politically correct new age do-gooders teach either.

AllTimeJeff

Perry

I can see why you would want to have some of our current discussion on Atonement here on this thread. For the sake of simplicity, lets keep it over there and combine the two arguments. (if thats cool with you...)

I will talk a little more after you respond to my answers to your questions, but the idea of judgement is one that lights the fire's of all religons. I can't accept your premises here about man's culpability to god if you will because again, the 10 commandments were written well after man had shown evidence that they were to die. As taught in the NT, it is Adam's sin that needed a ransom, or atonement, and the 10 commandments came several thousand years after Adam's sin. (if you believe that) Today, the 10 commandments are irrelevant to a Christian. The Sabbath? Paul said that was done away with. Even Jesus (supposedly) said that he came to fullfill the law. So while as many have said before and will say in the future, the 10 commandments have some good points to them, they simply can't be accepted at face value as a standard for conduct.

If the law was made in gods purpose to make sins manifest and as a tutor leading to Christ, then we have a lot of issues that can be raised. Here is Galatians 3:19 in several translations

The Living Bible: Well then, why were the laws given? They were added after the promise was given, to show men how guilty they are of breaking God's laws. But this system of law was to last only until the coming of Christ, the Child to whom God's promise was made. (And there is this further difference. God gave his laws to angels to give to Moses, who then gave them to the people;

American Standard: What then is the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise hath been made; and it was ordained through angels by the hand of a mediator.

Youngs Bible Why, then, the law? on account of the transgressions it was added, till the seed might come to which the promise hath been made, having been set in order through messengers in the hand of a mediator -

My point? Simply that yes, to sin, you need a standard set up by someone. The Jews had one, and the Christians claimed it, tweaked it, added to it and took some away. I am sure that you must get tired of hearing this, but MAN WROTE THE BIBLE. (again, CAPS for emphasis, not trying to be a jerk) You assume that God inspired this. Inspiration or being spirit directed is a claim that the GB of JW's made. Their evidence is just as good as your's to be honest with you. Who invented sin? The standard? MAN. And just like JW's use their own standards of right and wrong and claim it to be gods, so the 10 commandments, or the Pauline letters used "sin" for one purpose. Control. Simply put, you don't have an option to argue the point. You must accept it or you will _______ (fill in the blank; be disfellowshipped by JW's, stoned to death by Jews, or put in hell for some length of time, perhaps forever by Christ.) Control.

I don't mean this to be disrespectful of your personal beliefs. I am sure you don't quite see it the way I do. But that is why sin is such an interesting theological subject for me. I do believe that there are ethics and right and wrong, and these are demonstrated in nature and everyday life. But to attach our so called eternal life on pleasing an invisible deity who is offended by certain conduct that quite frankly, can only hurt the invisible deity's feelings raises questions that require an answer.

33

Modern Bibles - Atonement - Part VI

by Perry in

atonement over the years since leaving the wt, i have found the doctrine of the atonement to be one of the major litmus tests for determining christianity and apostate christianity.

the roman catholic church has transsubstantiation and the sacraments for salvation (among other things) and the wt simply rejects christ each year formally at the memorial.

the wt spin on the ransom negates the need for an actual exchange to take place with our savior.

AllTimeJeff

So am I correct in stating that you personally determine much of right and wrong, by what others have told you? Quite simply you believed them, right? What if your upbringing was different? You might just as likely have opposite views as to what is right or wrong, correct?

No. I use what I have learned as a basis for my adult beliefs. As evidence of this, my resigning from JW's is solely based on personal observation and experience, as well as the non JW willingness to actually think about the dogma to see if it stands up through an analysis of the evidence, among other things. I no longer take anyone's word for it. That is why I want to have this conversation with you about atonement. I didn't read your other essay on judgement, as you alluded to. (perhaps that would have been more appropriate to talk about there. If you wish, we can continue this at the other thread or combine the two here, as they are related.) In any case, judgement is relative to the standard of "sin" and thus the need of atonement to avoid a negative judgement by god. In this case, for me to accept that I need atonement for my sins, I have to be convinced that certain conduct is sinful. I have to be convinced that this said conduct will result in my death unless I stop it. That must be the litmus test, and thus my basic question to you. Why sin? What is sin? And if my conduct is a personal decision that hurts no one, but only offends the heretofore invisible deity, there has to be a clearly stated reason why the conduct is wrong, and not one solely based on inference. Because lets face it, ALL religons have conduct that offends "god". And few if any can really explain why some conduct (sex outside of legal marriage, eating fish on Friday, women in the Muslim world unable to show their faces) is considered sinful to their god other then the fact that they have a SUPERSTITIOUS FEAR OF JUDGEMENT. That doesn't explain why the conduct is sinful. It merely presupposes that the conduct is. (CAPS for emphasis, not to be rude... :-)

You bring up a good point about if our upbringing was different. For the sake of argument, if either of us if we were born in Saudi Arabia, we would be raised as Muslims, to believe in the prophet Allah, and depending on which dogma we were raised on, to believe that Christians and the West are infidels. At the very least, we wouldn't even consider the Christian teaching about Christs sacrifice and the need for atonement. All for the accident of where we were born. I use this as evidence against the need for atonement, as so much is out of our hands. Often, the accident of where we are born, which family we happen to be born into along with their spiritual traditions take a greater hold then one piece of truly incontrivertable stated fact from a holy book of what sin is and why it is sin.

Jeff Said

To me, there is a very real difference between actions that truly hurt others, actions that supposedly offend and hurt an invisible person who has yet to manifest himself, and actions that offend others but are clearly personal decisions to make.I choose sex as a subject on "sin" as opposed to theft, lying or murder, because sex is a personal decision. Lying, theft and murder clearly hurt other people directly, and thus are defintely wrong.

Perry's response:

Well, God has manifested himself to the world on the cross. In addition to that, he has manifested himself to untold millions of people alive today. How do you "know" that sexual sins don't hurt anyone? Who told you this? My experience has led me to an opposite conclusion.

Often in debates, questions are used to answer questions and to make points. So I accept your questions and will answer them. Firstly, remember that you are talking to a SINCERE skeptic. I do have a spiritual side. I can't accept Jesus as my god at this point. If I were to do this, I would be doing the same thing I did when I convinced myself that Jehovah was the true god. I can't do that. So with all respect, your statement that god has manifested himself on the cross is a meaningless statement to me. It is a concept that many Christians state and one that I am more then familiar with, but the proof is in the pudding. I will allow you that Jesus of Gallilee was executed on the cross. Has he manifested himself to millions as you say? Or is it at least possible that this is a mere emotional experience? And again, why all of the ploys? Can the most powerful being in the universe not do better then a 2000 year old book and the emotional conviction of his followers? Lets be honest, Muslims are every bit as convinced about Allah as you are about Christ. They also believe that Allah has manifested himself in their lives? Who do I believe? Shouldn't I try to ascertain some evidence first? Thus, I can't be swayed by emotional conviction, no matter how sincere they may be.

As for the sexual sins part, that is a great point. I think it demonstrates that any action can hurt others. But hurting others isn't "sin" as it is understood. If I break a marriage vow by saying I will be sexually faithful, then I have wronged my mate by sleeping around, that is one thing. But lets take the concept of sexual sins for a moment and give it a face, perhaps thousands of faces. What if two consenting gay or lesbian adults have sex. In fact, lets say that right now that is happening, because it is. Or, lets say two heterosexual people who aren't married are having sex right now, because it is statistically likely that is happening. Is it hurting me? You? Anyone else who is reading this? What is sinful about it? That I would like an answer to. Because in response to the question you asked "How do you know that sexual sins don't hurt anyone", I can tell you right now that any person on this earth at this moment and time who are engaging in a sexual act aren't hurting me. Again, sin? I don't see it. Now if they make an agreement to fidelity to another person, that is another story, but that is something that involves the right and wrong area of lying and keeping ones word. That would be the mistake, not the act of sex itself.

To be honest, the rest of your response from that point forward I take as a testimonial to what you believe, and what biblical points you hold to. I accept that from you, but I am not persuaded by what you said, because it presupposes belief. I don't believe that Christ is god, or that the bible is the holy word of god. I need to be convinced first with evidence before I can accept that. I hope you understand. Thanks, and I look forward to your response.

33

Modern Bibles - Atonement - Part VI

by Perry in

atonement over the years since leaving the wt, i have found the doctrine of the atonement to be one of the major litmus tests for determining christianity and apostate christianity.

the roman catholic church has transsubstantiation and the sacraments for salvation (among other things) and the wt simply rejects christ each year formally at the memorial.

the wt spin on the ransom negates the need for an actual exchange to take place with our savior.

AllTimeJeff

I think a lot of my views of right and wrong come from my upbringing. I was raised with a Judeo/Christian ethic. I was taught that honesty and hard work are virtues, and that lies, theft, etc hurt others.

Without the JW theology before me, there are actions that I used to view as sinful that I no longer view as sinful. For example, I had a brother who was gay. I was taught that this was sinful. (to hate the sin and not the sinner would not be the point on this, as I frankly don't hate either a gay person or if a person chooses to have gay sex. That is a personal choice) I saw the very sad consequences of "sin" in action with the guilt and self destructive behavior it often engenders. In my brothers case, the conflict in him was so serious that he ended up despondant, on drugs and committed suicide. (don't let my brothers death affect this discussion, I use this as an example of what happens with many people. Not everyone with these problems kill themselves. But guilt DOES cause many mental and emotional problems.)

To me, there is a very real difference between actions that truly hurt others, actions that supposedly offend and hurt an invisible person who has yet to manifest himself, and actions that offend others but are clearly personal decisions to make.

I choose sex as a subject on "sin" as opposed to theft, lying or murder, because sex is a personal decision. Lying, theft and murder clearly hurt other people directly, and thus are defintely wrong. Sex is different because as long as it is consensual, it doesn't hurt others. We are taught that sexual decisions matter to the deities, that the sexual organs and their use really belong to god. To me, this would be a good basis to go forward. We also have to be taught that sexual behavior directly affects how god views a community of people, which is why communities from time's beginning view it as their responsibility to enforce the discipline that god demands. (whether that be JW shunning, or other more shocking midiveal types, like execution) Sin, the need for atonement clearly has wide ranging implications beyond the personal feeling an individual may get by feeling "saved".

I hope this starts to answer your question.

Btw, just to clear up any misconception, I am not arguing for stupid sexual conduct. Clearly there are many things to do (sex, eating, etc) that can be harmful and done in unhealthy ways. Again, this is for the sake of this particular argument on atonement.

33

Modern Bibles - Atonement - Part VI

by Perry in

atonement over the years since leaving the wt, i have found the doctrine of the atonement to be one of the major litmus tests for determining christianity and apostate christianity.

the roman catholic church has transsubstantiation and the sacraments for salvation (among other things) and the wt simply rejects christ each year formally at the memorial.

the wt spin on the ransom negates the need for an actual exchange to take place with our savior.

AllTimeJeff

If you feel a little confused about the Christian doctrine of Atonement, don’t be surprised. This is the end game for the enemy: to get you to deny the offer of a pardon for YOUR crimes (sins) so that you will not be at-one-ment with God.

Perry, I agree with you on the fact that JW's totally contradict several important passages and chapters in the bible when it comes to atonement. Only the annointed can have a true relationship with god and Christ, the great crowd can only have a relationship with Christs "brothers" (read: annointed) etc etc etc. But this statement to me gets at the crux of the problems with Christian dogma that holds us all as sinners.

Here are my main issues with this statement. There is confusion because churches don't interpret scripture the same. Is Satan behind this? That doesn't make sense. I know the bible claims that Satan is our enemy. Fair enough. But for all the power god and/or Christ supposedly possess, they somehow can't get this very basic simple "how to" on salvation straight? This means that Satan is more powerful, and it raises serious questions about how serious god and Christ really take mans salvation if it isn't clear how to gain salvation.

I also have very real reservations about sin, or as you put it "YOUR crimes". If sin didn't exist, then there would be no need for an atoning sacrifice. So we need to establish "sin". The Borg defined sin as "anything out of line with God." Is that your definition of sin? Having seen the damage that is caused to believers mentally, emotionally and spiritually because they believe they are offending an invisible being they have never seen and only been told about, I have to say that sin is a concept that is worth questioning. Consider that much depression is caused because people believe that God is ANGRY at them for their very thoughts. That is serious, and the value of having to go through this process (accepting the value of a human sacrifice) must be addressed by those who would promote a "sin atoning sacrifice."

7

Possessing The Qualifications For Eldership Doesn't Mean...

by White Dove in

...one is appointed by holy spirit.

why does the wts think it does?

isn't that equivocation?.

AllTimeJeff

Great example of cognitive dissonance. My illusions were dashed at my first elders meeting where we discussed brothers qualifications. We used WT's more then the bible. Again, my brain deep down was trying to tell me "Evidentally, you were appointed by holy spirit, even though you can never be spirit annointed with the heavenly hope. The WT claims that it isn't inspired by holy spirit though the bible is, yet we use the WT exclusively. At what point do we see evidence that the holy spirit is in action? I mean, we teach it isn't a person, so what is the spirit acutally doing?"

This is another example of doctrinal convenience for the GB. For as much as they discredit the holy spirit being a person, they also rely on the holy spirit for everything they hold dear in their house of cards. The fact is that there is NO evidence of the holy spirit that the R&F can see. In steps the GB, handing out their own version of the red and green 3-D glasses, telling us what to see. In effect, they are saying "We know there is no physical evidence of the holy spirit, but because we make the doctrine, prophecies, fullfillment of prophecies and rules, please allow us to tell you how the holy spirit is working in these last days....."

25

"Should the Name Jehovah Appear in the New Testament?" WT Aug 1st 2008

by slimboyfat in

has this new article in the wt been discussed here yet?

if so i missed it.

anyway here are some selected quotes with my own thoughts.. bible scholars acknowledge that god's personal name appears in the old testament, or hebrew scriptures.

AllTimeJeff

This reminded me of a conversation I had over 10 years ago when I was still in. I was defending the bible to an athiest who was clearly better educated on the subject then the cult member he was talking to. (me) Still, trying to be a good borgbot, I defended the bible as totally inspired, saying that surely God would be powerful enough to preserve his own thoughts. I was totally unaware of the gaping hole in that arguement that the man blew open.

He asked me why I believed Gods name was Jehovah. I said because it was in the bible over 7000 times as YHWH. He asked why I believed it was used in Jesus time and in the NT when no Greek MS contains anything resembling Jehovah as it is used in the NWT. I responded that Satan, being the ruler of the world, made sure that to confuse people as to the identity of God and Christ, the Tetragram was removed. At this point, my brain gasped as I was saying it. I sub conciously realized for the first time that I contradicted myself. Not that I had to wait long for the athiest to point this out.

"So, you believe that Jehovah is powerful enough to preserve these 66 books as his unerring word to us, but he isn't powerful enough to keep his own name in the NT? Is Satan THAT strong?" He said this with a smug smile. I was mad. Yeah, I REALLY lost that argument, and I don't like losing. But I was sort of mad at myself. I stammered something that I have faith, and the conversation wrapped up pretty quickly after that exchange.

For years that question came back in various forms "Why, if Jehovah is strong and powerful enough to preserve the bible was he unable to keep his own name in the Greek Scriptures/NT?" You can come to your own conclusions on this question, I know I have.

As far as JW's are concerned, (or I should say, the GB) when you take on the name of "Jehovah's Witnesses", isn't it clear that you have a vested interest in promoting that name? The fanciful, artful, and deceitful reasoning of the GB on the subject is for self preservation only.

I thought it telling that at Gilead that to support the use of Jehovah in the NT of the NWT, the "J" references were highlighted. All 237 occurrences of Jehovah are supported by these references, all of which are from the 15th century on. These references were by people (often Jewish) with their own bent and agenda as to the inclusion of the tetragram in the NT. These translators that the NWT relies on 237 times are hardly authoratative. Their only value to the GB is so that they can say "We aren't the only ones who think Jehovah should be here..."

I still don't have an answer as to why Jehovah isn't powerful enough to make sure his name was included in his own book that he supposedly authored. I can tell you on my own journey that if I ever worship god again, I sure won't be calling him Jehovah.

501

Warren Schroeder from Bethel on Freddy, Kline and the apostate books!

by Dogpatch in

jw
friends

having problem pasting this...

AllTimeJeff

4) Getting drunk in our rooms before some special lunch. Was it the Gilead Grad lunch? everyone got out of work early and went to some private party or another to consume mass quantities of alcohol. I always had plenty of booze and liked to invite new boys over to see them stagger down to lunch. One boy fell down several flights of stairs in the Bossert on one occassion. I know...i am evil.

Oh yeah!! I forgot about this. There were actually a couple of special lunches in 2005. The first one was in June (?) 05 when the Walkill factory was dedicated. Everyone got out at 11:00 to drink! We Gileadites were told it was a Bethel tradition for special occasions. I couldn't tell you how happy I was... lol. My ex and I had a glass of Cab with Lawerence Bowen and his wife and 2 other couples from our class. At lunch, Gerrit Losch presided, AND HE GIGGLED THROUGH HIS ENTIRE COMMENTS!! We were laughing our @$$es off at our table. Naturally, whatever biblical comments that supported wine and happiness were used by Losch. I am sure that Losch took full advantage of that Bethel tradition all day long.

That was one of the few fun days I had at Gilead, and yeah, it took alcohol to get there........