i have a question for the ex-jw's on this forum after months of reading the forum..... many say how good it is to be free of the oppressiveness of the jw's that they can now enjoy the freedom to... have sex, celebrate christmas, gamble, embrace politics etc.
there are still biblical scriptures and principles in place that if you still followed the bible would mean you avoid these things and yet these are now embraced as one of the perks of no longer being a jw so in my confusion i ask.... if these are what you want, isn't it more correct to say you no longer follow the bible as apposed to just the jw's?.
hi deputy dog
reniaa
As a Christian, you don't really think that Biblical Law is something that you can keep, do you?
You may have to expand on this for me, if you mean jewish law it was very people and time specific,and consequences that you couldn't implement now (It's one thing I always wonder how jews that are still living under the law deal with now?) but as for jesus and principles he set, yes I think you can but I also accept its a striving thing. Is this what you ment?
Reniaa
i have a question for the ex-jw's on this forum after months of reading the forum..... many say how good it is to be free of the oppressiveness of the jw's that they can now enjoy the freedom to... have sex, celebrate christmas, gamble, embrace politics etc.
there are still biblical scriptures and principles in place that if you still followed the bible would mean you avoid these things and yet these are now embraced as one of the perks of no longer being a jw so in my confusion i ask.... if these are what you want, isn't it more correct to say you no longer follow the bible as apposed to just the jw's?.
hi lisaann
Reniaa,
I forgot to answer your question! (Thank you for answering mine.) This may sound strange, but even when I was immersed in the JWs- and I was quite immersed- I never really could bring myself to believe in the bible! Lol the opposite of most everyone else here!
I was very uncomfortable reading the bible because it was such a violent, gory book- when it wasn't really, really boring. Whenever I studied with people I always turned their attention back to the publications because those made sense to me. I couldn't answer their questions about why god permits suffering because nobody could explain it to me sufficiently for it to make sense. But boy could I debate the
trinity, or hellfire, or the gentile times and such. I still have my original Truth book from 1968- I loved that book from the time I was 8 years old. And I really loved the religion. It was the bible that embarrassed me.
hi lisaann, after reading 12 pages of replies you answer is unique so far, lol if I want to get to sleep i just read a few pages of leviticus or deuteromy it's like counting sheep very effective but not revelation or Daniel thinking on them might keep you awake all night :) But I do agree the bible is a hard book, I get the impression it's a love/hate sort of choice. I do wonder at the God sometimes the uncompromising telling of the stories not prettying up the consequences and punishments but for me it makes it more believable. Also I like David he is my flawed favourite after Jesus he was so intelligent and some of the psalms he wrote are a sheer beauty, I wish i could hear them as he would sing them /sigh as you can see I am defo of the bible lover variety but I do still struggle with the harshness of punishments in the bible.
Reniaa
i have a question for the ex-jw's on this forum after months of reading the forum..... many say how good it is to be free of the oppressiveness of the jw's that they can now enjoy the freedom to... have sex, celebrate christmas, gamble, embrace politics etc.
there are still biblical scriptures and principles in place that if you still followed the bible would mean you avoid these things and yet these are now embraced as one of the perks of no longer being a jw so in my confusion i ask.... if these are what you want, isn't it more correct to say you no longer follow the bible as apposed to just the jw's?.
Hello outlaw lets examine the question you want me to answer,
Would you rather follow the example of the Angels in the Bible and celebrate the Birth of Jesus?..Or..A multi Billion dollar Publishing Company(WBT$) that is caught in lie`s on a regular basis and tells it`s followers not to celebrate the Birth of Jesus?
now read the following
Loaded question
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Fallacy of many questions) Jump to: navigation, searchMany questions, also known as complex question, presupposition, loaded question, "trick question", or plurium interrogationum (Latin, "of many questions"), is an informal fallacy or logical fallacy. [1] It is committed when someone asks a question that presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved. This fallacy is often used rhetorically, so that the question limits direct replies to those that serve the questioner's agenda. [1] An example of this is the question "Are you still beating your wife?" Whether the respondent answers yes or no, he will admit to having a wife, and having beaten her at some time in the past. Thus, these facts are presupposed by the question, and in this case an entrapment, because it narrows the respondent to a single answer, and the fallacy of many questions has been committed. [1]
Firstly you are presupposing that by celebrating jesus birth by celebrating christmas I would be following the example of angels, and as I've already said I do not agree with you on this one, they were just rejoicing at a one off event,
Now lets look at your second presupposition that the company is lying and you say birth of christ again even knowing that Dec 25th is proven not to be the birth of christ.
Basically I reject your whole loaded question as a logical fallacy therefore will not answer it and that Outlaw is the only answer you will get from me till you stop asking loaded questions with a view to tricking people!!!!!!
Reniaa
i have a question for the ex-jw's on this forum after months of reading the forum..... many say how good it is to be free of the oppressiveness of the jw's that they can now enjoy the freedom to... have sex, celebrate christmas, gamble, embrace politics etc.
there are still biblical scriptures and principles in place that if you still followed the bible would mean you avoid these things and yet these are now embraced as one of the perks of no longer being a jw so in my confusion i ask.... if these are what you want, isn't it more correct to say you no longer follow the bible as apposed to just the jw's?.
Hello reniaa,
This reminds me of another discussion in which I recommended a book to you that discusses genres of literature in the bible. If I remember correctly you declined to consider this important avenue of scholarship. Perhaps you would consider reading it as it is relevant to the issues in this thread and you will not learn about this important topic in your bible "study" with Jehovah's Witnesses, whose teachings require that they selectively literally apply certain scriptures whilst ignoring wider context and purpose.
Since then I have seen that it is available online for free:
How to Read the Bible: History, Prophecy, Literature - Why Modern Readers Need to Know the Difference, and What it Means for Faith Today , Steven L. McKenzie
Let us know what you think, particularly about chapter five.
The bible is my main thing that I judge all things by (inc Wts) and i like that i judge it from my own viewpoint if a statement is made using a scripture to back it up then i can judge for myself if the statement is valid or not by reading the scripture and judging for myself, pretty much as billy bethelite does with his notes on wts articles, they are what his opinion are on the wts studies and he has the right to do that! but you are asking me to read some jobloggs opinion based 'How to' book on bible reading I maybe snobbish in this but i'm happy with the way I do it now lol.
comments you will not hear at the 10-12-08 wt study - august 15, 2008, pages 7-11 (maintain loyalty).
review comments will be in red.
wt material from today's wt will be in black.
Hi billy
hmmm not sure i agree with you condemnation of the dumming down bits that smacks a bit of intellectual snobbery, in any article you have to allow for everyone to understand, even on TV shows they have a designated dummy person that asks the questions for the audience to get the explanation.
As to the rest your comment that jehovah never could get a king to be faithful to him for more than a few weeks has me wondering if your available to comment on my " Is it the Jw's or the god of the bible you left thread"?
i have a question for the ex-jw's on this forum after months of reading the forum..... many say how good it is to be free of the oppressiveness of the jw's that they can now enjoy the freedom to... have sex, celebrate christmas, gamble, embrace politics etc.
there are still biblical scriptures and principles in place that if you still followed the bible would mean you avoid these things and yet these are now embraced as one of the perks of no longer being a jw so in my confusion i ask.... if these are what you want, isn't it more correct to say you no longer follow the bible as apposed to just the jw's?.
Hi Rnaiaa
celebrating christmas may seem off topic to you but it is a good example of why I no longer believe. Firstly take a look at Luke chapters 1 and 2. It builds a strong argument for rejoicing with others as one would in a festival or party over Jesus and John's birth.
Particularly Luke 1:14. Regarding John the baptist's birth, the angel said to Zechariah "And you will have joy and great gladness, and many will rejoice over his birth"
Luke1:58 At John's birth Elizabeth rejoiced with her neighbours and relatives
Luke1:46-48 " And Mary said "My soul magnifies Jehovah ...and my spirit cannot keep from rejoicing...For look! from now on all generations will pronounce me happy"
I'm seeing a biblical precedent for people to choose a period to rejoice over Jesus birth . A period in which they can rejoice together as they did when Jesus and John were born, and in their own way, expressing from their own hearts. For the WTS to come along and say that this is wrong is unbiblical imo.
The WTS uses people as a means for publicising itself and does not see humans responding from their hearts in their own way as an end in itself. To me allowing people to do that is the whole spirit of Jesus birth and coming. Don't you get a sense of this spontaneous rejoicing when you read Luke chapters 1&2? To me it is very signifcant that the angel told Zechariah that people would rejoice over John's birth. I see the same rejoicing over Jesus' birth then in that period and now at christmas time.
There may be commercial aspects and conventions to christmas that we personally object to but we are free to do that. The WTS does not allow the freedom to choose whether one wants to take part or not and it does so for its own benefit and to further its own interests and which also tend to oppose what Jesus' birth and life represents as portrayed in the gospels.
ql
I appreciate what your saying but by some of the points you are shooting yourself in the foot. as we don't have a celebration for johns birth which we would if we follow your reasoning. because that means your point that you see the same rejoicing over jesus's birth presupposes that in celebrating jesus's birth annually we are following a pattern of johns but despite zechariah's words that has never happenned. People only rejoiced at his birth and that he was born it has never meant or indeed became an annual celebration to john.
but back to why you left JW's I still think that showing jesus's death has more significance from the JW point of view is a valid argument biblically because the passover to his death is specifically dealt with in all 4 gospels, jesus birth is only dealt with in a very limited way and not at all by the gospel of john. And yet which has greater meaning to average christians today?
Freedom is a concept I come across a lot on this forum as a reason to leave Jw's but not leavng the bible as well, it's one i would like to explore more as a discussion as to the benefits and deficits.
in 1989, when the wt said, "the preaching work will be completed before the end of this century", i believed it.
then when they changed it in the bound volume, i was a little nervous, but i didnt say anything.. but then when i was a missionary, and i personally went to the branch office about a pedophile, and they told me to leave it in jehovah's hands, and that jehovah will erase the girl's mind and to stay out of it, that really bothered me.
i couldnt sleep.
Lets be honest the breaking point of it would be if armageddon doesn't come but christianity as a whole suffers from that, its 2000 years now and nothing! although the bigger christians faiths have dealt with this by ignoring the prophesies and neatly saying your reward comes after death but smaller ones like JWs that are more biblically literal have deal with people going "when?" Newer christians faiths have an easier way of dealing with it by clouding the whole bible using love scriptures and being more social animals, I give it a 1000 years if armageddon doesn't come were the only religions left will be ones that don't give any promises in life maybe making it a testing ground and offer salvation only in the next life, reincarnation probably has a good shelf life.
"don't lose the love you had at first.
" my mum sent me the dvd hoping it will "save" us.
i love how there is always a super spiritual group and a villans group of brothers who end up ruining their lives.
I take it you don't like communism, you comment made me wonder if russians get nostalgic for those boring olds days, now they are in the capitalism grip which is ok for the well-paid and rich but those that end up the despised at the bottom of the heap and fodder for warmongerers.
apparently this didn't post the first time...or my comp is just acting up; sorry if there ends up being two of these.. *************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************.
is luke 23:39-43 the single most damning portion in the bible for the jw, mormon, and other similar 'religions' that profess to believe in the god of the bible?
when did the thief do good works in order to attain his salvation?
i thought the JWs used this one a lot to show all that died will be on a paradise earth and not a heavenly calling, because jesus clearly says paradise although i'm not upto date on thhis.
Also did that thief gain salvation and forgiveness by recognising jesus shouldn't be there, as well as repentence because he recognise he was being justly punished by roman law?
why did jesus say paradise not heaven?
i have a question for the ex-jw's on this forum after months of reading the forum..... many say how good it is to be free of the oppressiveness of the jw's that they can now enjoy the freedom to... have sex, celebrate christmas, gamble, embrace politics etc.
there are still biblical scriptures and principles in place that if you still followed the bible would mean you avoid these things and yet these are now embraced as one of the perks of no longer being a jw so in my confusion i ask.... if these are what you want, isn't it more correct to say you no longer follow the bible as apposed to just the jw's?.
To be fair to you Reniaa, I will answer your original question if that honestly was your reason for bringing this up. I left the JW's, not the Bible. As a matter of fact I feel that the bible has more meaning to me than at anytime I've ever been a dub.
I did not leave for sex - the only person I'm gettin' it on with is my hubby.
I did not leave to celebrate holidays - so many of them are Hallmark-money-making holidays anyway, but I do believe it is my choice and not condemned by the Bible.
I did not leave to gamble - I can find many more satisfying ways of flushing my money down the toilet.
I did not leave to vote - I still retain a healthy skepticism of politics and politicians.
I left because I found out it was not the truth. A deep study of the bible without the WT narrative will uncover that. I left because of all the extrascriptural requirements that did not make sense. I left because I realized that Jehovah's Witnesses are not a 'special people'; they are like every other group of people on this earth, there is good and bad in all.
Most of all - I left because I wanted to be FREE! That is my hope for you, Reniaa.
Take care.
Independent Tre
hi tre, your points make good sense although i think some are covered by bible principle even though not mentioned specifically, Athough something in what you say reminded me of a scripture this whole discussion had brought to my mind In romans 2
12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15 since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) 16 This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.The Jews and the Law
17 Now you, if you call yourself a Jew; if you rely on the law and brag about your relationship to God; 18 if you know his will and approve of what is superior because you are instructed by the law; 19 if you are convinced that you are a guide for the blind, a light for those who are in the dark, 20 an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of infants, because you have in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth— 21 you, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal? 22 You who say that people should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? 23 You who brag about the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law? 24 As it is written: "God's name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you." [b]25 Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised. 26 If those who are not circumcised keep the law's requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised? 27 The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the [c] written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker.
28 A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. 29 No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man's praise is not from men, but from God.
The bit I highlighted doesn't it allow that people can naturally do things in the bible way by virtue of their consciences even if not believers in the bible? that we are made with an ability to do good etc?
