Perhaps you suggest a study of the "Proclaimer's" book?
I'm sure there's all sorts of information in that book that can "springboard" the discussion into what things were taught in the past. Then maybe you guys borrow some older books from the hall, if yours has such a library.
there's a wide cross section of thinkers on this board, representing christian belief and non-belief and points in between, the agnostics.
there is most definitely a minority, mostly silent, of devoted jehovah's witnesses present, too, but their contribution to the dialogue and dynamic of the board is minimal.
that small minority aside, it can be said the people who venture into here to communicate with one another share a common paradigm, and that is the watchtower is built on a foundation of clay.
I personally think Peter Gregerson's argument is a very good one:
1. First point out that really the only doctrine of Jehovah's Witnesses that needs to be considered is the idea that the WBTS is God's one and only, spirit-directed organization, and has been since Jesus selected it in 1919. If this teaching is not true, then all other doctrines of JW's are meaningless. Get the other person to acknowledge this.
2. Pose the question, "What would be the criteria on which Jesus would base this decision?" The answer of course is, he would base his decision on what the JW's were teaching at the time.
3. Point out that there were only two "messages" being preached at the time. One was the "Millions Now Living Will Never Die" talk; the other was the book "The Finished Mystery."
4. Get the Witness to do some research into what kind of ridiculous nonsense was published in those two books, or provide them with the info yourself. And then ask the question, "Does it make sense for Jesus to have chosen this organization based on THIS?"
That's what finally got me out of the Borg mentally. I had slowly started to see the organization's faults, but after reading some passages from "The Finished Mystery," I said "There's no way in hell Jesus would have selected the WT based on this garbage. That's an insult to Jesus."
Another factor that undermines the Watchtower's claim to be directed by the Holy Spirit is their doctrinal changes. Of course a Witness will immediately counter by misapplying Proverbs 4:18 as they've been trained to do. But this logic falls apart when you consider their interpretation of the "superior authorities" in Romans 13:1. All you have to do is ask, "Why would Jehovah lead his people to understand that this refers to earthy goverments in Russell's time, then under Rutherford change the understanding to "Jehovah God and his Christ," and then revert back to the original understanding under Knorr?" And all the while "Christendom" has had it right for 2000 years?
i can't - don't even try anymore.
just a few to chew:.
man then beast?
Rydor, the thing about the time of Jesus' death really shocked me when I read Bart Ehrman's book. For me, this was the final nail in the coffin as far as supposed bible inerrancy. I don't know how the writing department manage to write on this subject without thinking 'WTF?'
Funny you should say that, it was the final straw for me too, and this was just two months ago... even though I've been out of the Borg for 4 years now. I never before appreciated how hard it is to change beliefs that you've held your whole life.
I also read Bart Ehrman's book, "Misquoting Jesus." Earlier this year I thought I'd try to make balanced investigation of my faith, so I read that book and Lee Strobel's "The Case for Christ" at the same time. Ehrman's book struck me as being the product of years of scholarly, impartial investigation. It was very informative and an enjoyable read. "The Case for Christ" however, didn't have the same ring of truth. He only interviewed scholars who were already Christian, and I just got the sense that I was reading apologetics, not the product of earnest research. I made it about three-quarters through the book and then just lost interest.
i can't - don't even try anymore.
just a few to chew:.
man then beast?
I always laugh to myself when people, in attemping to explain away Bible contradictions chalk it up to a "copyist error." Well guess what? A copyist error is still error! Error in a supposedly infallible book! Or would you have me believe that the God who went to so much trouble to inspire a book so vital to our salvation, didn't bother to preserve it free from corruption?
It's true that for every contradiction you find in the Bible there's an eager apologist falling all over him/herself to show you why it's actually not contradictory. (The manner of Judas' death, for example.) But here's two that, for me at least, are indisputable:
Matthew 27:9,10: "Then that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: And they took the thiry pieces of silver, the price of the one whose price had been set by the sons of Israel; and they gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord directed me."
But this is a quote from Zechariah, not Jeremiah. Nothing about "30 pieces of silver" is found in all of Jeremiah. Apologists like to reason that Matthew was partially quoting Jeremiah too in this passage, but the claim doesn't hold water. The closest reference is an account in Jeremiah 32 that speaks of Jeremiah buying a field at Anathoth for 17 shekels of silver (not thirty). However the context shows that this was to prophetically illustrate that, following the period of Babylonian captivity, "Houses and fields and vineyards will again be bought in this land." It had nothing to do with the burial of a betrayer. And it wasn't called the "Potter's field" either.
The other one is found in the gospel of John. The three synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) all say that Jesus was crucified after eating the Passover with his disciples. (See Mark 14:14 for example.) But I was shocked to realize that in John's gospel, Jesus dies before the Passover meal, not after.
In John 13 we see Jesus having a meal with his disciples, yet it is nowhere referred to as the Passover. In fact John 13:1 places this event "before the Feast of the Passover." Later on in chapter 19, Jesus is before Pilate. John 19:14 says "Now it was the day of preparation for the Passover; it was about the sixth hour. And he said to the Jews, 'Behold, your King!'" Yes, here we see Jesus executed on the "day of preparation for the Passover," that is to say, before the Passover had happened!
At this point apologists will try to play word games to try and show how the phrase "day of preparation for the Passover" surely must mean something other than what a casual reading would suggest. But there's one other verse that, for me, is the clincher. If we back up a bit to John 18:28 we read: "Then they led Jesus from Caiphas into the Praetorium, and it was early; and they themselves did not enter into the Praetorium so that they would not be defiled, but might eat the Passover."
To this I ask, "Why were the Jews worried about being unable to eat the Passover, when (according to the other three gospels) they supposedly ate it not twelve hours earlier?" It seems clear to me that, according to John, at the time of Jesus' death the Passover was a then-future event.
one of my best friends with whom i grew up (and pioneered) with has been disfellowshipped for the past 6 years.
his parents are still witnesses and, though they've been grieved over the fact that he's not a jw, they've always treated him well, and he pays them regular visits every month.. well he just informed me today that "the watchtower came out with stricter rules... my parents flat-out told me in person they can barely have any contact with me from now on.
" he's pretty depressed about it.. of course, the position on the disfellowshipped has largely been, "if they're out of the org, they're dead to you, family or not.
One of my best friends with whom I grew up (and pioneered) with has been disfellowshipped for the past 6 years. His parents are still witnesses and, though they've been grieved over the fact that he's not a JW, they've always treated him well, and he pays them regular visits every month.
Well he just informed me today that "The Watchtower came out with stricter rules... my parents flat-out told me in person they can barely have any contact with me from now on." He's pretty depressed about it.
Of course, the position on the disfellowshipped has largely been, "If they're out of the org, they're dead to you, family or not." But I was wondering, have there been any recent Watchtower articles dealing with this subject? Or is it more likely that his parents just received a special elder visit? Either way, it's terrible... but sadly all too common.
i'm really curious how many of those df'd have ever received a yearly visit........ .
A few months after I was DF'd in 2006 the elders called me and had me come to a meeting in which they essentially told me they screwed up and shouldn't have disfellowshipped me. But by that time I had already got me a wordly girlfriend and so, of course couldn't come back. Thank God for that, it bought me enough time to finally learn the "truth about the truth."
I haven't been contacted a single time since then.
sorry for the long title.. i don't belive this will happen for a second.
but its an interesting question.
there you are at armargeddon, and god asks you " why you left the jw's?
I was just following Deuteronomy 18:22...
some questions....feel free to answer any or all of these.
have your views of gay people changed over the years?
do you have or have you ever had gay friends?
Have your views of gay people changed over the years? Do you have or have you ever had gay friends? Did the Organization impact your views and interactions with gay people? If you are no longer a Dub, what do you think now?
I think my views are pretty much identical to Bizzybee's.
When I was a JW, I believed the Bible to be the inerrant word of God. So I did view homosexuality as a sin. My view was essentially, "Homosexuality is sinful, but I'm sure God understands the situation, and he can help people change." I never had any gay friends as a JW, so I'll never know if I might have treated them differently.
After leaving (in 2006) I got to know a gay man through an online game, and more recently I've done work for a family counselor who is gay. I've since learned that homosexuality is not a choice. Every gay person I've talked to so far has told me that they became aware of their same-sex attraction at an early age. One thing that really opened my eyes was reading Mel White's autobiography "Stranger at the Gate," in which he details the struggle between his faith and his homosexuality. Over the course of 30 years Mel tried everything to "cure" his gayness: prayer, faith healings, hundreds of thousands of dollars in therapy, isolation, drugs, electroshock therapy, exorcisms, and none of it worked. He was even driven to attempt suicide multiple times. After reading it I became convinced that sexual orientation cannot be changed. It can only be surpressed, and doing so takes a disastrous toll on one's spirit.
That's essentially the reason why my faith in the Bible is just about gone. I'm trying to reconcile three facts: 1.) Homosexuality is not a choice. 2.) Homosexuality cannot be changed. And 3.) In the Bible, homosexuality is a capital offense. Death by stoning in the Old Testament. Eternal annihilation/torment (depending on your theology) in the New Testament. No, I just can't see a God of love working that way.
I'll certainly agree with the other posters. How beautiful it is to look at those around you without making "Us/Them" distinctions. I just see people.
please answer the question(s) which corresponds to your current belief, if you believe in a. the bible and god.
b. just god, but no bible c. neither (atheist).
i'm asking for mutual benefit, in my quest for the truth (still a work in progress), some of the things i've run into you may want to think about, and in your answers will show if anything i haven't thought of or checked into yet, as well as all readying this.... (all the hours you've spent, vs just my own, having many combined may bring up a few good things for us all from everyones answers ).
EOM,
In one of your posts you mentioned something about the "end" taking a long time to come. Have you ever investigated the preterist view of the Bible? At this point I'm convinced that, if the Bible IS of divine origin (highly suspect), then this view makes the most sense.
Basically preterists believe that either most or all of Bible prophecies have already been fulfilled, and that when NT writers spoke of the imminent "end" they were referring to the end of the Old Covenant system and the destruction of Jerusalem. Actually, the book of Revelation is viewed as one big prophecy of judgment against Jerusalem (in the same way Jeremiah was). Many preterists believe the "harlot" of Revelation corresponds to the nation of Israel, and there's surprisingly strong scriptural evidence for this. (Compare, for example, Revelation 18:24 with Matthew 23:34,35. Also compare Revelation 6:15,16 with Luke 23:28-30)
This view makes sense to me and explains why Jesus could say "I am coming quickly" nearly 2000 years ago. It also explains why the first chapter of Revelation says the events will occur "shortly" and that the "time is near." I still can't speak of the Bible as being the infallible word of God, for reasons I mentioned earlier. But I still found this interpretation fascinating.
For more info you can visit http://www.preterist.org/whatispreterism.asp
You can also check out this compelling lecture by Dr. Kenneth Gentry, presented in series on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkhtW-W9KpI His presentation is clear, well-thought-out, and his delivery is refreshingly-free from dogmatism, unlike the believe-us-or-die attitude of the Watchtower org.
please answer the question(s) which corresponds to your current belief, if you believe in a. the bible and god.
b. just god, but no bible c. neither (atheist).
i'm asking for mutual benefit, in my quest for the truth (still a work in progress), some of the things i've run into you may want to think about, and in your answers will show if anything i haven't thought of or checked into yet, as well as all readying this.... (all the hours you've spent, vs just my own, having many combined may bring up a few good things for us all from everyones answers ).
Hey EndofMysteries,
I actually registered an account just to respond to this post, because I've been thinking about these same issues a lot recently.
I think currently I fall somewhere between category A and B. For awhile after leaving the JW's I simply set aside matters of faith, though I began attending a Christian church with my parents in 2008. The reason for that....well....I can't say that I experienced a 100% bona fide divine miracle, but something very unusual happened that made me think "Hey maybe this God fellow actually is up there." I've since had other experiences which I think are more than mere coincidence. I can elaborate on these in a future post if people want.
Right now though I have serious doubts about the divine authorship of the Bible. Oddly enough, the reason for these is an issue which does not personally concern me at all: homosexuality.
But let me back up a bit. I initially believed, as I always had, that the Bible was word-for-word from the mouth of God. Two scriptures made me reconsider this idea: 2 Tim 4:13 and 1 Cor 7:25.
2 Tim 4:13 reads, "When you come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas, and my scrolls, especially the parchments." The idea that this sentence came straight from the mouth of God seemed ludicrous to me. Imagine God saying, "Okay Paul, what I'm going to tell you next is of the utmost importance, and will benefit Christians for millenia to come: Tell Timothy to bring the cloak you left in Troas. Okay that's enough for today, we'll write more holy scripture tomorrow." It seemed to me that this was a personal remark of Paul's, nothing more. However this begs the question, "If this passage is not divinely inspired, than what other portions of the Bible are not?"
The other scripture was 1 Cor 7:25, which reads: "Now concerning virgins I have no command of the Lord, but I give an opinion as one who by the mercy of the Lord is trustworthy." (NASB) It seems impossible to reconcile the teaching that "All scripture is inspired of God" with this verse here. Paul explicitly says "What I'm about to tell you is not divinely inspired; it's my opinion." He then proceeds to tell the Corinthians that they ought not to get married, since they will experience more tribulation. As I considered the verse this troubling thought occurred to me: Fundamentalist Christians believe that this verse, like all Bible verses, is inspired of God and yet, if the church as a whole heeded this advice, Christianity would die out within one generation.
But as I said in the beginning the issue that troubles me the most right now is the Bible's stance on homosexuality. There are a few reasons for this.
I used to believe that homosexuality was a lifestyle choice, one that could be changed if the person wanted. I thought to myself "If homosexuality is a sin, God can help people change." Well, I've since had to change my thinking. I've since met a few gay people in person and gotten to know them, and I have found out that they did not choose their sexual orientation; rather they discovered they were attracted to the same sex at an early age, like 12 or 13. I also read a book written by a gay Christian called "Stranger at the Gate." In it the author, Mel White, relates how he began feeling homosexual urges at an early age and spent the next 30 years trying to "cure" himself. He tried unceasing prayer, thousands of dollars worth of counseling, faith healings, exorcisms, electroshock therapy, isolation, he was even driven to attempt suicide twice, all the while experiencing emotional turmoil and frustration at the fact that his orientation simply could not be changed, only supressed, and with disasterous results.
After reading this book I thought, "I can't imagine that God of love would sentence his children to live a life of loneliness and misery, simply because they were born different." Even worse is the passage at Romans 1:18-27, which seems to imply that homosexuality is caused by one's own godlessness and idolatrous ways. Oh yeah, there's also the matter of the gay penguins. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_and_Silo) Were Roy and Silo so wicked that God "gave them over to shameful lusts"? At this time I can't imagine a loving God imposing such an impossible restriction on people born gay. It doesn't make sense. What does make sense, however, is that these words were written by a fallible man who knew nothing about the workings of human sexuality.
I think that's all I got for now. I'm in the process of rereading the Bible with a more-critical eye. So far I've come across a good number of things that cast serious doubt on Jehovah's claim to be all-loving. And I'm not even out of Genesis!
