this is my first post.
the first portion is my story, and toward the end, you will find the section pertinent to the title of this thread.
(starting with the portion in bold print).
Interested one - Lol, I knew I was spelling that wrong, but it just didn't "click" at the time! Haha.
@knowsnothing - Yes, I come on here precisely because here we are free to think for ourselves and express our own views, rather than have our words circumscribed the way they are in the BORG!
i find it to be frankly disrespectful.
im a father, if my kids were to call me by my first name id find that wierd.
we address judges with "your honor" and various other titles, so why on earth would we call the almighty god by his first name?
@factfinder,
Exactly! I would logically assume the name meant that he causes other things to become..but the society has their own form of logic sometimes. They have a very strange way with definitions. A couple weeks back at the watchtower study, we were asked to define what "calling on the name of Jehovah" meant. Of course all this means is to call upon him for aid in times of trouble, but they gave their EXPANDED edition definition which was a 4 step process. The poor brothers don't realize that the other steps are only necessary steps to take in order to be able to call upon his name, and not part of the definition in any way.
i find it to be frankly disrespectful.
im a father, if my kids were to call me by my first name id find that wierd.
we address judges with "your honor" and various other titles, so why on earth would we call the almighty god by his first name?
@factfinder - Yeah I'm pretty much in agreement with you on the matter. But I still don't understand why the society claims his name means "he causes HIMSELF to become"..the verb is not reflexive, so I don't know where they get this idea that the word "himself" is an intrinsic part of the name. To me, such a definition paints a picture of a "jack of all trades" or "man of many hats" who constantly changes himself. I could just picture him taking a bow and tipping his hat, and saying "come back next time! I'm here every night of the week!". To me the Creator definition is more plausible, but then again I am by no means a Hebrew scholar, so I'm just shooting from the hip here.
i find it to be frankly disrespectful.
im a father, if my kids were to call me by my first name id find that wierd.
we address judges with "your honor" and various other titles, so why on earth would we call the almighty god by his first name?
Yes, without assigning God a personal name, he takes on a distant, impersonal character. The whole "we don't know how it was originally pronounced in ancient Hebrew" argument is rather weak if you ask me. I consider there to be only two logical arguments against using the divine name:
1. - Having to use a "differentia" implies that it is necessary to distinguish him from other gods, as if to acknowledge the existence of rival deities, which could be construed as disrespectful to his exclusive Godship. He is THE God, so there's no need for qualifications.
2. - His name is not recorded as having been used in all the extant copies of the New Testament.
The first is probably the stronger of the two. I believe his name was used by Jesus and the primitive christians for a number of reasons. For one, Jesus repeatedly said that he made his father's name known..surely he wasn't claiming that his father's name was "father" or "abba", as those were merely titles. Also, I believe it was Paul or one of the apostles who said that the christian congregation was the fulfillment of the prophecy whereby Jehovah would "take out from the nations a people for his name" (I'm not sure if that's how it's worded in English). Third, whenever Jesus or the new testament writers quoted from the Hebrew canon, they surely would've quoted their sacred texts accurately, and they would have used the divine name.
I think the reason why it isn't specifically recorded in the gospels that Jesus used the divine name Jehovah, is most likely because of the prevailing superstition of his day in the culture in which he was raised, regarding the use of the name. Maybe he was sensitive to the cultural custom of avoiding the use of the name, and rather than shocking his potential followers or stumbling them, he politely refrained from using the name. Or maybe he constantly referred to God as the "Father" to emphasize that role played by God, that quality of a loving, personal father who we could turn to for comfort, (in stark contrast to the sometimes cruel, violent, jealous and vindictive God of the Old Testament) and to emphasize his unique relationship to him as the only-begotten son of God. He wanted to reiterate how he was the Son of God, a divine being, the firstborn of all creation.
Personally, if I believed in the power of prayer, I would refer to God by his name, Jehovah or Yahweh or Yehoawah, or any other form we might imagine to be closest to the original form. (There is evidence that his name contained three syllables, meaning that "Yahweh" is not a close approximation of his name, but probably something closer to "Yehoawa"). It makes him seem more real, and consider the meaning. If the society's etymological research is anywhere near correct, and I hope it is, then per what I've read, Jehovah is taken from the verb root which means "(to become, or come to be", and it is the causative form of the verb, meaning that "he causes to become"...I personally think this is simply another way of saying "The Creator", as it means "he who causes things to come into existence". So to me, the most probable meaning of the name means "Creator". And if I prayed to anybody, it would only because they created me.
this is my first post.
the first portion is my story, and toward the end, you will find the section pertinent to the title of this thread.
(starting with the portion in bold print).
What is the "BORG"? I've been meaning to ask that. I've deduced that it must refer to the organization, but is it some kind of acronym or what??
this is my first post.
the first portion is my story, and toward the end, you will find the section pertinent to the title of this thread.
(starting with the portion in bold print).
Thanks for all the welcomes.
@sabastious - What you say is true. I don't think I'll ever be able to leave until I move out.
this is my first post.
the first portion is my story, and toward the end, you will find the section pertinent to the title of this thread.
(starting with the portion in bold print).
As a follow up to that last post of mine, I wish to comment on the two witness rule. Often, the bible establishes a rule used to adjudicate an issue or to provide a guiding principle for decisions. For instance, in the levitcal law allegations about a woman's having not been a virgin prior to the consumation of her marriage was settled by the evidence of her hymen rupturing or lack thereof. This is a good general principle to follow when it's the woman's word against the man's, but many women rupture their hymen prior to having sex. Those poor women were condemned to die for something they didn't do.
Or what about the issue of allegations of rape? Again, without modern forensic evidence, it was a case of her word against his. So, they used the simple guiding principle of - if she screams, then she was raped. If not, it must have been consensual. Well, what if no one in the city was around to hear her? Most rapists are calculating perpetrators who often try to avoid detection. I imagine if someone was going to rape a woman or a young girl, they would try to silence her by gagging her or covering her mouth, or threatening to kill her with a knife if she screamed. Again, this is a case of a generally reasonable principle, which doesn't necessarily work well in all cases.
The same thing applies to the two-witness rule. It's a good idea to have the two witness rule so as to protect innocents ones wrongfully accused. It's designed to prevent slander and its consequences. Yet, there are some cases, - such as rape or child sexual abuse - where there will never be a second witness to the crime. In such cases, other evidence must be taken into account so as to outweigh the rule. But the bible makes no allowance for exception, or at least it is not explicity stated in the bible..so witness again strictly adhere to this rule, even if it means countless children suffer, and evil men are allowed to get away with committing heinous crimes.
this is my first post.
the first portion is my story, and toward the end, you will find the section pertinent to the title of this thread.
(starting with the portion in bold print).
@Gltirebiter - Thank you!
So, it's presumptous to pray for changes to God's plan, or to ask that he intervene in human affairs? Then why do several scriptures in the New Testament implore Christians to pray for their brothers and sisters? Apparently the early Christians believed that they should pray for God to do something to help others, and they believed that this made a difference. Again I'm faced with the dillema - either the witnesses are right, or the bible isn't the inspired word of God. Now I know many of you have joined other churches and believe in the bible still, but most of my doubts about the JW organization arises from the myriads of contradictions and scientific impossiblities in the bible. So much of what they believe and do and force on other people results from their stubborn insistence on literally interpreting the bible and adhering to its every word, even if doing so violates all reason and a mountain of contradictory evidence. For instance, they reason if the bible says that two or more persons must witness a sin in order to validate an accusation, then by God that is what we must follow! Even when this applies to allegations of child sexual abuse. What? There wasn't another person present when this man was unmercifully raping this seven year old girl to testify to the validity of her accusation? Gee, oh well. Perhaps the seven year old girl is making this up, because you know, kids often make up these things. It can't be proven then. The man must be presumed innocent, and we musn't notify the authorities so as to continue to project an image of moral perfection to the outside world. There must be two witnesses. The bible says so.
i have always been very hardcore about my aversion to blood and have never even considered the possibility that this was merely a dietary restriction.
i always bought into the analogy of a doctor telling a patient to abstain from alcohol... it wouldn't matter whether this individual drank the alcohol or took it intravenously... it would all be in direct contradiction to the doctor's orders to 'abstain' from alcohol.. or the other analogy is to an apple pie... if you weren't to eat the pie, it would not be okay to separate it out into the main parts (or 'components)... ie.
the flour, the apples, the sugar or the cinnamon... if they were taken from that pie, you were eating the pie.. so maybe you can see where the questions popped up for me.
Headisspinning - Although I don't have children, I am having the same exact thoughts as you. What do I do? Do I go out and enjoy life, have sex with women, celebrate Christmas and birthdays like everyone else? I don't want to though. I would feel dirty, unclean, ashamed. It's all been so deeply ingrained in me - the guilt, the fear. Like you, my head is spinning, and I feel like the world is spiraling out of control.
this is my first post.
the first portion is my story, and toward the end, you will find the section pertinent to the title of this thread.
(starting with the portion in bold print).
@zeroday - my sentiments exactly.
@listener - Thank your for your caring response. As for my father, I have not seen him since I moved out of state 6 years ago. He lived with my mother and, not as my mother's husband, but more like a roomate all my life. He was a drug addict who frequently refused to work, was in an out of rehab, and not a very good father. The elders refused to grant my mom their blessing for a divorce, and told her to remain in subjection to him, even though he refused to "take the lead" in any sense. She suffered 15 years of loveless marriage with him, and was often the one supporting him financially. The elders finally granted her permission to divorce, on the grounds of "willfull non-support". Now as a woman in her 50s, her prospects for remarriage are slim to none. I hate to admit it but I loathe my father.
As for the Raymond Franz book..I would like to read it, but I can't. I live in my mother's home, and I can't keep the book in the house anywhere for fear that she'll discover it. It's a disfellowing offense to read apostate material. I was hoping to find a free pdf version of it online, but the most I've ever seen are the few excerpts that amount to only a few pages out of the book.
