Posts by JuanMiguel

88

To all you apostates out there - aka failed JW's

by donnye in

by opening this post, you are admitting that you are failures - well done!

lol.

i must say, i have had so much fun on this site - some real laugh out loud moments for my friends and i to enjoy.. no need to respond - i am busy pioneering from tomorrow, so will no longer have time on my hands to sit at my pc enjoying laughing at your pathetic comments.

JuanMiguel

Yes, I am a failed Jehovah's Witness.

I did not succeed in compartmentalization, the keystone to life as one of Jehovah's Witnesses.

I came to realize that it wasn't doctrine that appeals to so many who join and stay in--because that doctrine changes so suddenly and is but secondary to obedience to the Governing Body which today can say something is so and tomorrow demand that we not put any more faith in such a thing...

No, I failed because I don't have a need to compartmentalize religions and doctrines and people into groups of "all good" and "all bad," as Jehovah's Witnesses do.

I failed to have the need for having simplified answers to all life's problems and to believe I was 100% right about everything I believed, thus feeling more enlightened than my neighbor.

I failed because I realized I was not being educated well-enough to discuss religion and the Bible with others by the Watchtower and those associated with it. I failed because I began to learn Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, Latin, and because I began to read and study the writings of the Church Fathers.

I failed because I learned World History--the real thing, as well as learning the scientific method to take no one's word as authority but to be able to test theories and put things to the test to see by my own hand if things were so.

I failed because as I learned about God I also learned that those who had different views were not evil or lesser humans, that they were deserving of dignity, respect, and even love for whom and for what they really were. Because I could see that God did not deny anyone air to breathe, sun to warm themselves, or any of the things needed for life--even to those who denied his existence--I saw your judgmental ways as wrong.

I failed because I had no desire after leaving the Jehovah's Witnesses to be an "apostate," to beat my "former" brothers, and to speak ill of them. While I do hold you incorrect about a lot of things, I don't view you as a former brother or former sister as you probably now view me. I fail at judging you worthy of Jehovah's destruction merely because you do or don't adhere to certain teachings. I fail at being a judge of others in that way entirely.

Regardless of how incorrect a doctrine might be that one holds to, I fail because I still think you are worth greeting when I see you...

of having you in my life as a friend regardless of your creed or lack thereof.

I fail because I refuse to shun you, regardless of what you choose to believe. (This doesn't mean I will be accepting of those who believe it is good to murder or cause strife in the world by robbing others of their peace or rights or anything of that nature. But I fail because if there truly is a God, I cannot see him shunning anyone today because of what they do or don't believe about him.)

I put the world on notice today, that I am a failed Jehovah's Witness because I fail to see you as a failure regardless of your choices. You might make a mistake, choose a way that later you regret, but a failure? No. Never.

And if that makes me a failure, then so be it.

61

The Bible as inerrant and complete, or sufficient.

by dgp in

i think we will agree that the wt holds it that the bible is the inerrant word of god.

this is an idea that i just learned from a blog.. the idea is very, very simple:.

the bible is considered "inerrant" and "sufficient".. meaning, it contains no errors, but it is also all you need for salvation.

JuanMiguel

Terry, I was not saying anything along the lines of what you illustrated. I was only speaking in the context of an axiom (see--that's how I use the term).

For example: "Terry doesn't think people should put faith in the Bible."

Hopefully I got that right, Terry, and let's say that pretty well sums up your view on Scripture.

If we thus both agree that the example statement is true, then we can use various ways to illustrate it.

To most people on this board you speak in terms that they can understand. They're adults. But what if we needed to speak to someone younger or not well-versed in many of the subjects discussed here. We would employ different language, terminology, words, etc. in such a way that the target audience would comprehend the meaning of "Terry doesn't think people should put faith in the Bible."

Even if we used an illustration that we made up, with talking animals so that we could get some of your reasoning across to, let's say, a younger audience, despite the fact that animals don't talk or that the illustration is just a fictional story doesn't change the facts you are presenting through the illustration.

That is all I was saying.

I used the point of view of those who believe in the Bible, yes, but when I do things like that it doesn't mean I personally subscribe to what I'm talking about. I don't like talking about an embarrassing problem to a doctor, but I do what I have to, even if I don't agree with it. That's how I write.

My statements mean that those who believe the Bible to be true "outside the Watchtower" do not subscribe to the JW view that it is a historical document. Those outside have for a couple thousands years now understood that much of Scripture is written in various genre narrative and is not always literal, and thus to them these forms of literary garb, be they fact or fiction, does not change their view on the value of what they perceive are "truths."

To conclude, I am worried that you write like a Watchtower writing department member, Terry. Case in point: "Why should any of us get a warm and fuzzy feeling and simply wave away all the misrepresentation? Why overlook the intellectual fraud and the harm caused to civilization by the church in its pretense to rule our lives from the false authority of heaven?"

This is a known technique taught to the writing department which others call an "argument from adverse consequences." The questions imply that if people don't apply your personal views that they are making themselves subject to "misrepresentation," "intellectual fraud" and that "harm" will insue if one rules their lives differently.

The Watchtower is fond of using this technique, i.e., "Doesn't it stand to reason that those who really embrace wisdom and logic would agree? Aren't we happy to be among those who follow instruction that keeps us from being considered foolish, or worse mentally unstable? Those who follow us will truly never be harmed."

Using such a technique of fallacious arguments might belie your claim that you're viewpoints are valid and that you are secure in your convictions regardless of what others might feel. I don't say that is true, but those who test arguments might in their minds throw out what you say just on that basis--and I for one think that your words are worth taking the time to listen to, even if a person may not agree with you.

61

The Bible as inerrant and complete, or sufficient.

by dgp in

i think we will agree that the wt holds it that the bible is the inerrant word of god.

this is an idea that i just learned from a blog.. the idea is very, very simple:.

the bible is considered "inerrant" and "sufficient".. meaning, it contains no errors, but it is also all you need for salvation.

JuanMiguel

Don't mistake my words for saying that you or anyone else needs to change who they are and adopt the Bible as their standard for belief. It's isn't my only standard like it was when I used to be a Jehovah's Witness. But I do think the more we are open to learn about things like modern academia's take on the Bible and other religious writings, the further we will progress away from what we left behind.

And that's good whatever path you've chosen now. I don't think anyone's an idiot because they have chosen to continue with or reject the Bible in their lives once they leave the JWs.

*****

A side note for Qcmbr: You might not want to use "axioms of truth" as a phrase, because that is a paradox. An axiom is a standard that can be considered a "truth." For example, if you're an atheist you might subscribe to the axiom that "God does not exist."

The reason I use the word "axiom" is that not all forms of logic, secular or religious, Western and/or Eastern, subscribe to "truths" per se. Others refer to axioms as "objective standards" or "objective realities."

In some religious thought, like the Jehovah's Witnesses, moral axioms are separate from nature, the world, and humanity unless it is connected with the Faithful and Discreet Slave. Other religions, like the Orthodox or Roman Catholics, share your view, that morality is an inherent facet of humanity and society in general, regardless of any religious influence, so much so that even people who do not know God or even reject him cannot act against a nature that includes its own moral compass and a conscientious faculty that is able to discern the rights or wrongs of the judgments it makes.

This is an example of two different sets of axioms, one which the Witnesses call "present Kingdom truth" (be cause all "truths" are subject to change--thus there is no "objective standards" for JWs--at least in my days they call it that) and one which the other two often refer to as merely "human nature" or "natural law;" but since it is innate it is not a religious truth to the second group. It's like the law of gravity. But an axiom, nonetheless.

To avoid a word war, I use "axiom" when it fits. But you can't have an "axion of truth" because that means having a "truth of truth." Otherwise I more or less feel the same way you do on many of the points you mentioned.

61

The Bible as inerrant and complete, or sufficient.

by dgp in

i think we will agree that the wt holds it that the bible is the inerrant word of god.

this is an idea that i just learned from a blog.. the idea is very, very simple:.

the bible is considered "inerrant" and "sufficient".. meaning, it contains no errors, but it is also all you need for salvation.

JuanMiguel

I don't know what apologists say, but according to Biblical scholarship when numbers are cited, there are clues in how a number is written as to if the narrative is being used to report something historically literal or if the writer(s) has something else in mind. This is an ancient form of grammar involving numbers quite common in most religious and even in some secular writings contemporary of the Scriptures.

If the number refers to a count of people, like a census or report of those who went off to battle or something like that (as in the verse quoted by villabolo above), but the number is perfectly rounded off, that is the first clue that it is not a literal report of people being stressed. Rarely do we make a count of people in a country or army and have perfect numbers to report back like 1,000 or 50,000, or 900,000, etc. Usually a headcount is something like 14,798,652.

The ancient narrative rule is that a rounded number is used to imply a vast multitude, similar to English idiom when epic films of old use to advertise "a cast of thousands." The advertisement is not necessarily literal in this case and it is not exact. Why not? It doesn't have to be either because it is a figure of speech called "hyperbole."

This is similar to hyperbole when we see this in ancient literature.

However, there is one more thing to note specifically in Hebrew and Christian literature. Certain numbers means certain things in the Judeo-Christian theology. When and how these are used give more than a general meaning to the 'rounded-number hyperbole.'

In this case the common Biblical numbers of "7" and "40" appear. That the Bible writers are purposefully trying to use numbers to tell us a spiritual or religious point important to their theology can be seen by comparing the two texts in question. Note how closely the reports are in 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles. If the writers were intelligent enough to be so exact with the words, why all of a sudden change something in the numerical count, especially since numbers were so important to their religious theology?

Because the writers knew what they were doing. This is a pattern that occurs often in Hebrew literature, common enough to have rules like those employed in Hebrew poetry and proverbial expression techniques. It's not a discrepancy at all. It's a literary clue.

Note how the "7" stays intact with regard to the charioteers, but the writer disregards the rest. According to the Mosaic Law, for an account to be accepted as true there has to be agreement from at least two witnesses. In the two "witness" accounts to this event only the "7" or the number of Divine intervention matches with regards to the first group.

The second number begins with "40." This number appears when God does something holy regarding someone, like sanctifying a prophet by having them spend "40 days" alone in the dessert or cleansing Israel of its sinners by having them spend 40 years in the wilderness so that only their "worthy" offspring enter the Promised Land, etc.

Applying these rules scholars explain that these two verses are expressing how the authors believed that God was behind David's "extraordinary power" in battle, and how the Israelites at the time believed that the destruction of those killed was a "holy" or even "cleansing" work (even though later we learn that just because the numbers were used this way didn't mean that God was indeed behind the person or their actions--it was just a literary device explaining the viewpoint of David's contemporaries in regard to his actions).

Again how an apologist might try to explain the differences or even reconcile them, I don't know. As far as academia is concerned these texts are not meant to be reconciled at all. The differences are a form of literary device, and any attempt to make a literal explanation for them would fail to take into account the original writers' intent.

61

The Bible as inerrant and complete, or sufficient.

by dgp in

i think we will agree that the wt holds it that the bible is the inerrant word of god.

this is an idea that i just learned from a blog.. the idea is very, very simple:.

the bible is considered "inerrant" and "sufficient".. meaning, it contains no errors, but it is also all you need for salvation.

JuanMiguel

Oh, and footnote:

In reference to your claim, Sab, that Jesus' teachings were given for mere individual use and not intended as policy for an organization or church, take note of the only two times the word "church" or "ekklesias" occurs in the gospels, both of which are by Jesus:

"If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector."--Matthew 18:17.

"And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it."--Matthew 16:18.

Matthew 18:17 is indeed policy or direction for a church or group on how to deal with someone who will not repent. And Matthew 16:18 shows that Jesus intended to build his followers into a congregated mass or "church," a group.

This doesn't mean Jesus' words don't have meaning for the individual. But it is apparent that he had more in mind than obeying him alone outside of the "church" or congregation.

61

The Bible as inerrant and complete, or sufficient.

by dgp in

i think we will agree that the wt holds it that the bible is the inerrant word of god.

this is an idea that i just learned from a blog.. the idea is very, very simple:.

the bible is considered "inerrant" and "sufficient".. meaning, it contains no errors, but it is also all you need for salvation.

JuanMiguel

Thanks for the answers, Sab, and I appreciate it. But the questions were hypothetical. I wasn't asking questions because I did not have my own answers to them.

Also, religion is not a way of life by means of a certain "faith." Religion, according to English dictionaries, is a "set of beliefs or convictions centered around a principle, or deity, which often include some form of ritual practice."

Along these lines a certain religion can have a set of "axioms" which it claims and cherishes as objective reality or "truth." This collection of objectives is often called by the religion and its adherents "religious truths."

What Jesus and the Bible offers are not historical or secular facts, but religious axioms or truths held as objectives by Christianity. While these would not be viewed as truth by a Hindu, they are still considered truths by a particular religion, the religion of Christians. That is what the expression "religious truth" means in that sentence, "truths" from the perspective of a religion that makes claim to them and not "truth" in general.

61

The Bible as inerrant and complete, or sufficient.

by dgp in

i think we will agree that the wt holds it that the bible is the inerrant word of god.

this is an idea that i just learned from a blog.. the idea is very, very simple:.

the bible is considered "inerrant" and "sufficient".. meaning, it contains no errors, but it is also all you need for salvation.

JuanMiguel

It's not that simple, and that was not my point.

First, the inerrancy being discussed on this thread has to do more with details, logistics, descriptions, historical connections, etc.; no errors in the sense of "no mistakes."

But--and this is the second point-- that only applies if the Bible is meant to be an historically accurate document dependent on the accuracy of the details used to teach. The evidence within the Scriptures itself is contrary to that. To illustrate: Jesus of Nazareth used various parables or illustrations to teach virtue and what he believed were religious truths. Are such axioms false because the method to teach it included employing a narrative that was invented? Does that take away from the value of what Jesus was trying to teach?

There are some here who say that the Bible isn't true at all because the details employed in some narratives is not accurate history. My point is that such an argument is not logical because there are clearly parts of the Bible that use a narrative device like Jesus parables to teach not history but a religious truth.

There is no proof that what some adopt as an objective axiom, regardless if it religious or non-religious, is invalidated by the method employed to teach the axiom. If the teacher uses details that are not historical or scientifically accurate, does this mean that the point or value intended is lost? If the axiom is not dependent on the details of the narrative garb in which it is wrapped, then I say no.

A truth is a truth, regardless if you use facts to teach it or employ a fabricated illustration to get the point across.

60

How many here have never been one of Jehovah's Witnesses?

by Spade in

how many here have never been one of jehovah's witnesses?

there seems to be a common denominator of former witnesses who accuse the watchtower society of being a false organization.

what they crave is acknowledgment that their way is the best way.

JuanMiguel

As you can see from reading the various response, Spade, much of what you asked just isn't applicable to many people anymore.

Being a part of the "one true religion" and being "enlightened" by it, and having "The Truth" are axioms for the Jehovah's Witness religion. Not all people or all religions see the world according to such a paradigm.

And I personally didn't disassociate myself from the Jehovah's Witnesses because I thought they were a "cult" or because of believing some sensationalized false report about them. I didn't leave to get involved to take up an immoral lifestyle either. Nothing of what you wrote about applies to me in my situation whatsoever.

And while I don't believe the Jehovah's Witnesses have it right when it comes to religion, I don't label them as a "false" religion either. They don't have "The Truth" like they claim, but I also don't see things as black and white as they do, even in regards to them. I'm not an atheist, I don't agree with any of the things you apparently look down upon (how did you gather this data of percentages, anyway--I think you're off on a lot), but I don't necessarily share your view on these various subjects either. I don't see myself reflected in anything you've written here.

Apparently you've never thought outside-of-the-box of other possibilities for the various people on this board. And I am sure I am not the only one on this board that you don't have figured out, either.

If you do, then you can easily explain why I left and what I believe now (because you gave us specific numbers, so somehow you know these things). I'm quite new here, and have never shared any of this. Give a shot.

Not all people who leave the Watchtower are these "evil, corrupt, devil-zombies" that the Watchtower promises you'll turn into if you leave their Kingdom Halls.

61

The Bible as inerrant and complete, or sufficient.

by dgp in

i think we will agree that the wt holds it that the bible is the inerrant word of god.

this is an idea that i just learned from a blog.. the idea is very, very simple:.

the bible is considered "inerrant" and "sufficient".. meaning, it contains no errors, but it is also all you need for salvation.

JuanMiguel

Yea! for creativity.

But for a board that constantly whacks Bible-believers with demands that they prove themselves for still believing in the Scriptures or God once they’ve left the Watchtower—regardless of how creative Billy has been in his response, it doesn’t float.

“This book is without error.” First of all I don’t remember ever reading that in any text of Scripture.

Did you belong to a religion that taught you that it had to be in order to be true? Don’t blame the book. It still doesn’t say that anywhere.

A lot of things aren’t perfect but still worthy of trust and belief. My parents, old folks that they are—and forgetful a lot more these days—they ain’t the most perfect people on the planet. They’re filled with errors. It doesn’t mean you can’t trust them or they aren't honest.

How many folks on this board walk on water? Not many, I’m sure. We’re not perfect either. Does this mean that for all our errors and inconsistencies people shouldn’t believe us or trust us? If that is how we’re supposed to judge matters, then not a thing on this board is worth the time reading…

I mean, how can any of what we’ve written be right if we like all other people are filled withn inconsistancies and errors?

Now don’t mistake what I’m saying as “poo-poo on you for not believing in the Bible.” There are plenty of other reasons I am sure not to believe in the Bible or some other holy book of your choosing. It doesn’t make you a moron for not believing, but it doesn’t mark you as a genius either. Our IQ scores don’t rise if today we believe in the Bible and tomorrow we don’t.

If that was true, I would have kicked the Bible out before my last WASI. Would have improved things a lot.

Non-Witness Bible scholars teach that the Bible is not meant to be taken as historically literal. This is not a new invention either as if it were a loophole to cover over something just discovered. This is a very ancient understanding. Scholars have taught for ages that the Bible is not a book of facts, but rather it is a book of truths.

You can use all sorts of made up things to illustrate a fact, right? Just because the illustration is something imagined doesn’t mean the illustration can’t teach something that is real.

Aesop used talking animals to teach moral truths. The morals aren’t any more or less true if the animals are people and the fables are historical because the details don’t matter. It’s what’s in the pudding that makes it taste good, not the name on the box.

Inerrancy is in the eye of the beholder, and that's the problem. It's not one of the promises of the Bible.

61

The Bible as inerrant and complete, or sufficient.

by dgp in

i think we will agree that the wt holds it that the bible is the inerrant word of god.

this is an idea that i just learned from a blog.. the idea is very, very simple:.

the bible is considered "inerrant" and "sufficient".. meaning, it contains no errors, but it is also all you need for salvation.

JuanMiguel

Hello, newbie to the forum here, but been out of the JWs since 1998.

While I very much understand from experience where Qcmbr is coming from, I do have to suggest that such views are still pretty dependent on the Watchtower being correct in its interpretation of Scripture.

In other words, for such views as Qcmbr to be valid requires that one accept the F & S theology as valid representation of the meaning behind the Bible. It is the Watchtower that interpreted the sacrifice of Christ as something demanded by God's justice. Such words do not appear in Scripture and such a view of Jesus' death is not taught by Protestants, Orthodox, or Catholics.

It took me about ten years or so to finally comprehend that what Christians outside were saying about Jesus death as a sacrifice was not what the Watchtower says. The words are similar, often the same, but the meanings attached to them outside the Watchtower don't mean anything close to the concept you are speaking of.

Now I'm not saying abandon your current set of convictions, no! Merely pointing out something does not mean I subscribe to it or support it or believe it. Learning the accuracy regarding what the rest of the world understands about Jesus' death in comparison to the so-called "requirements of Jehovah's justice" paradigm that the Watchtower has drawn up (and learning that the guys on the F & S are way off in left field about it) doesn't mean you're going to suddenly worship God and accept the Bible's every word. But it will mean you can't be accused of only knowing one side of the story or holding your current convictions based solely on what you learned from a shoddy religious group (which would mean your views are not well-founded).

What I am advising is don't be so sure that what you've rejected applies to anything outside the Watchtower. Accepting the Noachin Flood as a literal account or that the God Jesus preached of considers you unacceptable without a sacrifice is JW-speak, not Biblical concepts and interpretation as understood by non-Witnesses.