Note: this a copy of an e-mail I sent to my Dad, (a non-doubting elder) on the subject of the Nov. 2007 Awake: "Can you Trust the Bible". I think The fact that this email was actually quite well received says much about my Dad's maturity, and the sort of relationship I have with him. :+:+:+: a tale of two cherry trees :+:+:+: First off, I agree that the style of the November AWAKE! is somewhat "fresh" and updated. This fits with the overall direction AWAKE! has been going, in style of both prose and picture. The actually content of the evidence is not particularly
new however, and is mostly gleaned from past articles
on the subject. The points are also not particularly
original, seeing as they strongly resemble many other
modern conservative Christian apologetic writings. (You have to understand that Jehovah's Witnesses are
far from alone in their fight to defend the literal
truth of the bible in the face of a persistent and
daunting secular presence. They are joined by many
Conservative and Evangelical Christians, and there is
a significant (though niche) market for books defending
the Bible. I would guess the writing committee is
drawing from this well.) Moving on... The following statement appears in that Awake: "But not once... does the bible endorse ANY
unscientific views or harmful practices." At the moment, I find it difficult to either belive or respect that statement as long as the following issues continue to reside in my mind: At Liv 14, it is clear that a mold-like substance
was occasionally found growing in the plaster of the
walls on a house. The bible says this is "leprosy",
despite the fact the science now knows that mold has
absolutely no connection with the disease of leprosy.
Also, lev 14:49 says that the mold is a incarnation
of "sin" and in order to make the mold go away he must
kill a bird inside a clay jar while standing over
a stream, and dip a piece of wood and reed and red
cloth into the blood of the bird and spatter it in
the direction of the house. A second bird is then
set free to fly away. Or something like that. To me, this is a reaction that resembles superstition,
not science. All of the practical truth in the account
(that mold is bad. That plastering over the mold will
make it go away, but only sometimes) can easily be
explained by common sense and trial and error. (i.e.
people living in a moldy house get sick. Cleaning the
house and replastering helps. Fire kills everything.) My point here is that although there might be valuable
spiritual truth in this ritual, it is clearly not a
scientifically sound practice. I seems that if Jehovah was truly intending to inform
his people of helpful scientific and medical truth,
he would have made it clear that mold was not the same
as leprosy, that it had nothing to do with sin, and
that maybe, I dunno, boiling water might help? Also modern science is increasing of the opinion that
circumcision is a painful, harmful, and unnecessary
procedure. Today, the only real reasons people are
still circumcised are either aesthetic or religious.
Why would Jehovah create a part of the perfect human
body and then ask his people to destroy it in a bloody
ritual? Also, why wouldn't Jehovah enlighten them with some really
beneficial rules that are NOT accessible via common sense
and trial and error, like "do not drink any wine or any
intoxicating liquor while you are expecting a child".
Along with all these other laws he supposedly gave
them for their physical health, why not add a simple
and easy one like that which would effectively prevent a serious birth defect? Why does the Bible, at Deut 22:13 endorse the belief
that a woman who does not bleed and stain the "mantle"
on her wedding night must not be a virgin? If a girl
got married, and on here wedding night did not bleed,
(now medically known be quite common) she would be
STONED to death if the husband pressed the issue.
Why would Jehovah endorse a such a massively flawed
test based on a medical misconception? Even if it were TRUE that she was not a virgin, the death penalty hardly seems fitting. What about repentance? Where is the compassion of forgiveness? This type of barbaric overreaction was exactly the sort of thing Jesus spoke against. It hardly seems fair to imply that Jehovah was truly and directly responsible for writing such a unjust law that his own son would later decry. Speaking of overreaction, the death sentence was also proscribed for a rebellious teenager who eats to much and gets drunk all the time. Granted, this theoretical son is clearly not the best example of living a Godly life, but how is the death penalty a fitting punishment? And the point of this was so that the rest of the nation would hear of it and be AFRAID. No kidding. I would imagine a stern "Stop drinking all of my wine, get off your lazy bum and do something with your life" would be very effective if the teenager knew that DEATH was the other option. Still, this is conformity through fear, not the sort of sincere obedience from love I hear so much about. (Deut 21:18) What about 2 kings 2:23 where the God's punishment for little children who make fun of his prophet is to send a bear from the woods to tear them to pieces? In duet 25:11, If a woman sees her husband in a fight with a man, and goes to break up the fight, and in the process grabs his privates, her hand is to be chopped off. Seriously??? How can you feel good about giving Jehovah direct credit as the writer of that law? Later in Duet 22:22, the following laws regarding fornication and rape are given: If a man lies with a betrothed virgin "in the city" and she does not protest by screaming (meaning it appears to be consensual immorality, not rape) then they are both killed. Once you buy into the value system that fornication is deserving of the death penalty, this seems to make sense. (As long as you don't allow any room for the fact that the poor girl might have been too terrified to scream) Next, if the same thing happens to an engaged virgin in the FIELD, not in the city, only the man is killed, because clearly it would be impossible say for sure that the girl was a consenting party. By default, the situation is treated as rape: The rapist dies, the girl is considered innocent. Still makes relative sense. Next, a very similar situation is described, with one important difference: This time, the virgin girl is SINGLE. Not engaged. Not already promised to, or "owned" by a man. This time if the man "finds", "seizes", and rapes her, not only is the man not killed, he is made by law to BUY the property he "ruined" and the girl is stuck married to her rapist for the rest of her life! The woman is clearly being treated as a piece of property here, and the death penalty seems only summoned when the woman has been "stolen" from her rightful owner. As long as she doesn't have an owner, premarital sex, even rape, does not appear to be much of a moral outrage, simply a social inconvenience. ---- Moving on to the Bible's relationship with science: I understand that verses such as "the circle of the earth"
and "hanging the earth upon nothing" seem to agree with modern scientific thought. However, to point to those Scriptures as honestly representing the Biblical model of the universe is to ignore almost every other cosmological image painted by bible writers... In conflict with the "hanging on nothing" model (which, incidentally, was JOB telling Jehovah how he did things) are the many other scriptures that talk about the earth: 1 Sam 2:8 has Jehovah placing the earth on pillars. The earth of the Bible has a foundation (prov 8:29) and socket pedestals (Job 38:4-6) and pillars (job 9:6) and has corners (Rev 7:2) and edges (job 38:13) that Jehovah "grabs" in order the shake the wicked off the earth. The earth flatted like clay under a seal (job 38:14) and is spread out over top of the water (ps 136:6) and indeed the ocean goes all the way "under" the earth (Ex 20:4) The bible also says that the earth is immovable. (Ps 104:5)(Ps 93:1)(ps 119:90)(1 Cron 16:30) Unless, of course, Jehovah wants to move it: "He is making the earth go quaking from its place, So that its very pillars shudder." (Job 9:6) while the earth remains fixed and stationary, the sun clearly moves: (Ecc 1:5)(Ps 50:1) except of course, when Jehovah chooses to stop it from moving (Josh 10:13) The stars are actually quite small, and close enough that if the sky is shaken hard enough, they fall to the earth (rev 6:13)(mark 13:25) The Bible also says that if a tree grew tall enough (Dan 4:10) it could be seen by the entire world (the picture only makes sense if the writer thought of the earth as flat) This is an interesting scripture: Ezekiel 32:7 "And when you get extinguished I will cover the heavens and darken their stars. As for the sun, with clouds I shall cover it, and the moon itself will not let its light shine. All the luminaries of light in the heavens I shall darken them on your account, and I will put darkness upon your land " In order to darken the sky, Jehovah must take care of both the sun AND the moon. The moon possess it's own light, Although this makes perfect sense from the perspective of a writer living in bible times, it is simply wrong according to science. I know, I know, all of these verses are explained away by the simple statement: "But this is all POETRY! It's not meant to be taken literally. It's just a pretty and artistic way of talking about the universe" Maybe, but the problem with taking that stance is that the favorite two "scientifically sound" scriptures mentioned at the start are drawn from the very same "poems". They are (sometimes literally) right next to poetic language that flatly contradicts science. How can you cherrypick one fragment of poetry and say "well HERE, the writer stopped using symbolic language for a split second, and stated one scientific fact. He then resumed his unscientific poetry in the next verse." Drawing that line after the fact is simply not very impressive. The fact is that for many hundreds of years a vocal minority of Christians used the Bible to PROVE a flat earth at the center of the universe! The argument for a round earth was thrown out because it was a GREEK idea, and therefore must be pagan. For agreeing with this Grecian world view, Galileo was threatened with death- His findings were in conflict with the current understanding of the bible. All the way up till fairly modern times, conservative Christians felt that denying a flat geocentric earth was a compromise of their faith. No matter what scientific credit we try and give the Bible today, the fact remains that the effect of the Bible on science has historically been dangerous and stifling. Besides all of this, the elephant in the room of the idea that the Bible is in total harmony with science is the long list of miracles including, most impressively, virgin birth, regrowth of malformed limbs, raising the dead, making an iron axe head float, a staff turning into a snake... Yes, I know the faithful belive in such things because God can obviously do whatever it wants, but saying that these things actually happened puts the Bible clearly in conflict with the entire system of physics and biology that all of current scientific thought hinges on. You might say that Jehovah was manipulating some physical laws that we are not yet aware of, but that is simply saying the bible agrees with the science of TOMORROW. That is going to gain exactly no respect from scientists who live in today. It would seem to me that Science and a realistic reading of the Bible can only be in harmony if you are picking cherries from one of them. If you say that the Bible never once endorses an unscientific view, as the November Awake clearly stated, what exactly do you mean by "scientific"? A nebulous "ad hoc" notion called "True Science", which is defined as selected scientific ideas that fit with your preformed beliefs about the universe as acquired from study of the Bible? By that definition, early christens were defending "True Science" when they rejected a spinning, round, old earth. They were saying "We like science, but if it conflicts with what the Bible says, it must be wrong." Christians today have moved the battle line, but are saying the exact same thing. [inkling]
inkling
JoinedPosts by inkling
-
5
a tale of two cherry trees
by inkling innote: this a copy of an e-mail i sent to my dad, (a non-doubting elder) on the subject of the nov. 2007 awake: "can you trust the bible".
i think the fact that this email was actually quite well received says much about my dad's maturity, and the sort of relationship i have with him.
:+:+:+: a tale of two cherry trees :+:+:+: first off, i agree that the style of the november awake!is somewhat "fresh" and updated.
-
-
inkling
-
2
the blurry line between wolf and sheep
by inkling ini didn't intend to bring this up, but i have been thinking.
about a video a saw on youtube a few months ago.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4xykyyefpq.
it is a recording of two elders coming to an apostates door.
-
-
inkling
I didn't intend to bring this up, but I have been thinking
about a video a saw on youtube a few months ago.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4XykyYefPQ
It is a recording of two elders coming to an apostates door
to tell him he is being disfellowshipped.(If you want to form your own opinion about the incident,
watch the video before continuing to read my rant)First off, I would love to know the rest of the story...
Any idea who and where this is? Some have claimed it is fake,
setup with actors, but as a witness I can totally imagine
this scene, and if they are acting, they are VERY good.Next, although I realize the man is trying to garner
sympathy to his side, I don't think he succeeds.I see the elders as being stuck doing a really unpleasant
thing that likely deeply bothers them, and I see them bending
over backwards trying to be civil to this guy, who in response
offers them a repugnant dose of sanctimonious patronization.I realize he likely feels he slighted by the elders, and he
might have a good case, especially if he is telling the truth
about never having received a letter...But the thing is, because of his painfully obvious act of
"playing dumb" I go away with the impression he is LYING about
the letters just to be a jerk.I can't help thinking that this kind of acting out is simply fueling
irrational hated of all "apostates", even those who are doubting
from a place of sincerity, kindness, and honesty.Someone who delights it seeing others squirm in agony on his doorstep
is being far more nasty than those he is trying to criticize.If I am totally misreading this, please correct me.
[inkling]
-
8
Jehovah's Witnesses Meet The Truth Fairy!
by anewme ini just saw an awesome video on you tube!
a funny spoof of the typical door to door experience with jws from the householder's perspective.
this bold and funny gal (exjw) created an educational video exposing some of the weird ideas the witnesses promote.
-
-
inkling
If you are having trouble finding the video, The exact title
is: "Jehovah's Witnesses Encounter Truth Fairy". I'm not sure this video is entirely fair... every witness I know would readily admit that the cross was once used as a symbol. It's in the PROCLAIMERS book for goodness sake. When encountered at the door with this objection, no JW well-read in their own literature would claim it was an "apostate lie" that the cross was used. The shunning thing... Well, I guess some witnesses might be dense enough to deny that disfellowshiping = shunning, but when pressed, I think they would admit they are effectively the same, and agree that "not talking" to a DF is Org policy, not a personal choice. The video makes some very valid points, and even a few funny ones, but overall, I find the video slightly bitter and uninformed, with an unpleasant aftertaste of the pedantic and preachy. I LIKE parody. I think the absurdity of Witness thought and behavior is a rich well of mostly untapped humor, and I very much enjoy a well done and witty expose of such absurdity and the underlying nasty ego required to be loyal witness... However, for parody to work, it has to be insightful. I guess living 25 years disconnected from the witnesses has left the maker of this video with only a tenuous grasp of the nuances of witness thought, and what is left is a caricature shell of lingering anger and injustice. I hope making this video made her feel better, becuase I sure don't. [ink] -
9
feeling for the edges of apostasy
by inkling inno matter where at the end of this journey i actually end up spiritually andphilosophically, one thing i am sure is that family ties are worth fighting for.
i distinctly want to avoid being disfellowshiped for any reason, if at all possible.
and, (since i am not about to go on a hedonistic crime spree) my biggest riskof being disfellowshiped is on the grounds of "apostasy", i am assuming.
-
-
inkling
No matter where at the end of this journey I actually end up spiritually and philosophically, one thing I am sure is that family ties are worth fighting for. I distinctly want to avoid being disfellowshiped for any reason, if at all possible. And, (since I am not about to go on a hedonistic crime spree) my biggest risk of being disfellowshiped is on the grounds of "Apostasy", I am assuming. How many here ARE disfellowshiped, and was it for Apostasy? If so, what did you ACTUALLY do that held up in JC court well enough to get you DF'd? I apologize if this is too personal, but if possible, I really need to know what land mines to avoid. Tact and charisma only go so far. [ink]
-
14
call me inkling
by inkling ini am witness, "in good standing", and (at the.
moment) technically still a ministerial servant.. even as a child, i asked far too many questions.
for my own good, doing much to bewilder and .
-
-
inkling
Welcome and good luck! You may not need it though...
You now know there is no going back to those comfort feelings of the old days.
I have had, and will need "luck". My biggest stroke of it was choosing the right girl
to marry, and the fact that she (also a witness since childhood) is on the same page
and turning them at about the same rate strikes me as almost miraculous.I'm betting your dad may be an elder too?
Yup, how did you guess?
You now know there is no going back to those comfort feelings of the old days.
I know. I am starting to be ok with that. It's really a grieving process... like losing a beloved pet.
I'd like you to find SOMEONE you can be yourself with.
I have, to a certain extent. Besides my wife, I have found a select group of true friends,
inside and out, that are in a similar place as me, or can at least understand where I am
without freaking out. As far as a GROUP... no, no sign of that happening yet. But I have hope. -
14
call me inkling
by inkling ini am witness, "in good standing", and (at the.
moment) technically still a ministerial servant.. even as a child, i asked far too many questions.
for my own good, doing much to bewilder and .
-
-
inkling
ah, Dexter. Indeed I do.
(nice catch)
[ink] -
14
call me inkling
by inkling ini am witness, "in good standing", and (at the.
moment) technically still a ministerial servant.. even as a child, i asked far too many questions.
for my own good, doing much to bewilder and .
-
-
inkling
Obviously the rules are unfair, and the deck is stacked...
But is that not the case with many of lifes games? How
fair is an academic school class? You can't REALLY be
yourself, at least except in front of very few remarkable
professors. We all filter who we are to avoid distroying
situations that we need to go well.[ink]
-
14
call me inkling
by inkling ini am witness, "in good standing", and (at the.
moment) technically still a ministerial servant.. even as a child, i asked far too many questions.
for my own good, doing much to bewilder and .
-
-
inkling
I am witness, "in good standing", and (at the
moment) technically still a ministerial servant.Even as a child, I asked far too many questions
for my own good, doing much to bewilder and
bemuse my loving and well intentioned parents.Over the course of this childhood, I secretly
disowned some of the dogma I had grown up with,
such as the notion of pre-flood nonviolence in the
animal kingdom, with the literal fulfillment of lions
eating straw. I just could not imagine why a ingenious
and clever God would create so many darkly beautiful
killing machines placed in the complicated watchwork
of a circle of life who's obvious theme is one of death
and rebirth, ashes and Phoenix, pain digging a
furrow for hope... only to scrap it for a stagnant,
glossy picture of a warm and fuzzy world where
spiders eat... acorns? and all animals die peacefully
in their sleep of old age. (what happens to the
carcass? I guess God blinks and they go away)
This is a picture of a world that would have to
be constantly maintained by an endless chain of
interventionist miracles, and that to me was a
picture of a distastefully uninspired Watchmaker.This lurking doubt, this Dark Passenger, became
an increasingly important part of me, for good and
ill. On, the good side, as I acquired critical thinking
and writing skills, the quality of my talks improved
significantly. I became skillful at the nimble acrobatics
required to offer a talk on a subject which my convictions
less than aligned with the party line. This meant that
I expressed things from an angle the congregation had
never been exposed to before, and since I had enough
diplomacy to avoid actually contradicting Current Light,
my talks were well received by many. A few often chided
me for "using big words" and "thinking to much", but I
found that many sincere friends, even those of humble
academic education, found resonance in my off-center
spirituality.Alas, all good things must end, and not too long after
giving my first public talk, I started down a path of
research that would inevitable lead me here. Soon I
stumbled on a horde of stellar books on themes of science,
faith, history, critical thinking, and philosophy that blew
wide my mind to the complexity and countless shades of
grey found in the universe. Along the way however, I
suffered the fatality of my fundamentalism. I am not
sorry, but a part of me does miss the warm comfort that
comes from being absolutely sure of something really big.And so, after years of escalating feedback loops of
cognitive dissonance, I (with the help and resonance of
my brilliant wife) came to face my doubts squarely
and admit to myself that I no longer believe. Maybe
I want to believe, maybe I still believe fragments,
but the fact is, I openly doubted the existence of
God, and the literal truth of the Bible. That is
something a ministerial servant is simply not allowed
to do, at least not out loud.Over the past few months I have had many hours worth of
conversations with my parents, my friends, and the
elders. These conversations have been often frustrating,
occasionally enlightening, and surprisingly honest.I have openly admitted to: doubting in God, not believing
or respecting particular statements in the Watchtower,
not believing there is one true religion, questioning
the name of God, admitting the plausibility of evolution,
denying that a loving God should be held responsible for
the laws found in the old testament, and even to reading
apostate literature, including R Franz.All of this information was volunteered by me, on my terms,
with as much tact, love, and sensitivity to their position
as possible. The results have been surprisingly non explosive.Despite what I had come to expect from the "coming out"
experiences on the Internet, I found the elders to be
understanding, sincere, and kind.Paranoid? Yes.
Vastly ignorant of the issues discussed? Yes.But I simply saw sincere (if narrow) people, trying desperately
to help a wounded sheep. No Big Brother. No Inquisition.
I'm not sure why, and quite a few times a feel I VERY
narrowly dodged the "Loyalty Test", so I KNOW your highly
negative experiences are true, and I totally see how, with
a slightly different attitude, mine could have crashed and
burned in very similar ways, but that fact remains it did not.The Elders are awaiting a letter confirming my stepping down
as a MS. I am still allowed, and in fact massively encouraged,
to still go out in field service despite not really believing
in the literal truth of The Bible (!), Although my conscience
has not allowed me to go out for several months now.I can, and do, comment at the watchtower study. The "good bits"
that make it through my filter getting smaller and smaller, but
I still manage.I honestly don't know where I will go from here, but I do know
that going out with a bang will solve nothing, and only hurt
those I love the most. I am not willing to let an earthly
organization steal from me my family and remaining friends.If, someday, we have children, I want those children to have
meaningful grandparents, aunts, uncles, family dinners, and
hot coco with marshmellows at grandmas house.I cannot change the Watchtower.
I cannot change my family tree.I am not willing to compromise my own intellectual integrity,
but at the same time the pragmatic part of me knows that if
I am going to salvage anything resembling a Phoenix from the
wreckage of my childhood faith, I am going to have to play
their game by their rules.And so, my dear Dark Passenger... I'm going to have to ask
you move over, buckle up, and let me do the talking.[inkling]
-
3
as clear as ink
by inkling infirst off, i would like to apologize for both the obtuse nature .
of my post- "the quiet sound of old dust falling from new light" .
as well as it's disturbing lack of formatting.
-
-
inkling
First off, I would like to apologize for both the obtuse nature
of my post- "the quiet sound of old dust falling from new light"
as well as it's disturbing lack of formatting.For the formatting part, I just found out I get to blame firefox
(It's ok firefox. I forgive you.)As for the obtuse part... Well, the post was a rather tentative
dip into these waters. I was honestly not expecting even the
response it got, and I sincerely appreciate you caring enough to
try and untangle my thought. Thank you for the warm welcome of
my lukewarm appearance.As many of you figured out, I was indeed talking about the rumor
that I have heard from several good sources (friends who were there)
that at this year's annual meeting, the understanding of This Generation
was "adjusted" to be applied to members of the anointed who will be
alive during the Great Tribulation, End of the World, and all that.This obviously bears very little resemblance to the post-1995
interpretation of This (wicked) Generation.This New Light does, however, bear uncanny resemblance to a teaching
by Rutherford in the aforementioned Watchtower-(W 15. Feb. 1927, p. 62)
Of course, rank-and-file will have no idea of this, having neither
access to a 1927 Watchtower, nor any reason to look.I might try and change that.
(After the New Light becomes official, of course)So regarding that, I offer my thanks to AlphaOmega for preemptively
providing the scans :)...
One of these days I might try to introduce myself and my somewhat muddled
story properly, but until then... Well, until then I hopefully will be
getting some sleep.Why do these things happen at 4am?
[inkling]
-
21
the quiet sound of old dust falling from new light
by inkling ini, an oft lurker, am lured out of my shadows of lurkerness.
by stumbling across a find in this very forum- .
feb 2005 by bennyk:.
-
-
inkling
I, an oft lurker, am lured out of my shadows of lurkerness
by stumbling across a find in this very forum-
Feb 2005 by bennyk:
----
W 15. Feb. 1927, p. 62
Question: In Matthew 24:34 Jesus said: "Verily I
say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all
these things be fulfilled." What did he mean by "this
generation" ?
Answer: It could hardly be said that he meant any human
being living on the earth at that time. He was giving
testimony concerning things that were to transspire
at the end of the world. That was a long way off.
No generation of the human race has ever existed as
long as a thousand years. It follows then that Jesus
must have meant something else. What could he have
meant ? At the Jordan Jehovah started a new generation,
a new creation, of which Christ Jesus is the Head.
Jesus selected twelve disciples, who were with him for
three and one-half years. Eleven of these we have
every reason to believe constitute a part of that new creation.
In 1 Peter 2:9 the apostle, speaking to the church
of course, referred to those who are faithful. The irresistible
conclusion therefore is that Jesus referred to
the new creation when he said: "This generation shall
not pass until all these things be fulfilled." This then
would be a strong indication that some members of the
new creation will be on the earth at the time of Armageddon.
----
Seeing as "new creation" is a ephumism for "anointed",
it would seem that the New Light on "This Generation"
is, in fact, 80 years old.