Posts by OutsiderLookingIn

39

It's official - the G.B. has replaced the Holy Spirit!

by The Searcher in

the watchtower november 2016, page 16, par.

"some may feel that they can interpret the bible on their own.

however, jesus has appointed the ‘faithful slave’ to be the only* channel for dispensing spiritual food.

OutsiderLookingIn

Thanks, Searcher. Just a question: is this from the secret study edition or what they have on the carts? If the latter, I'd love to ask the cart attendees about John 14:26 and what exactly happened in 1919 to override the Bible. If the GB still call attention to 1914/1919, it makes it harder for JWs to get away from it and the fact that nothing has happened in over 100 years of the kingdom.

14

The Last Supper

by Teddy in

i have been studying with the jw since june of 2016 and they say only the ones who make up the 144.

000 and can partake of the bread and cup.

is this true?.

OutsiderLookingIn

Hi Teddy,

I wasn't sure if your question was whether it was true that that's what JWs teach or if that interpretation is Biblically sound. It is true that JWs teach that only 144,000 should partake as they are the only ones going to heaven to rule with Christ--and this number partaking today should be decreasing with time, not increasing. But it is not Biblically sound.

It is based on stringing very distinct topics together. For one, the reference to little flock is only to his 12 disciples (or would it be 11 as they've somehow concluded that Judas had already left?) yet somehow they extrapolate based on nothing to get to the 144,000. The number is only mentioned twice in the entire Bible and both times in Revelation (ch. 7:4 and 14:1) and I find it interesting that those verses suggest they would be on earth NOT heaven. For instance, chapter 7 discusses the 144,000 being sealed before harm occurs to the earth and sea. Oh, the way they claim it's about those who will rule with Jesus is based on something the 144,000 don't even say (Revelation 5:8-10). And as freddo mentioned, the number is supposedly literal even though the reference over four verses to the distribution over the 12 tribes of Israel is purely symbolic.

What the Bible does say is that it's something to do in remembrance of Jesus (Luke 22:19-20; 1 Corinthians 11:23-26) and that those who don't take the bread and cup (eat his flesh and drink his blood) have no life in them (John 6:51-56). You should ask whoever is studying with you. I remember this was one of the issues that absolutely shocked me when I learned about it. You gather once a year to pass the symbols of Jesus's sacrifice for virtually no one to partake?? Exactly what is the point? And then there's logic: in the nearly 2,000 years since Christ died, there haven't been 144,000 faithful people? There's so much to this onion and the more you peel it, the more it stinks. But that's a start. Oh, and I've never been a JW so you can say this is apostate-free information

Also, all the verses that Searcher specified are spot on. ANYONE who receives Jesus becomes a child of God.

12

Gods' name removed in Silver Sword?

by AmyWatson916 in

does anyone have an explanation about why the silver sword edition of the nwt removed god's name at exodus 34:14?

that verse is now different than the 1984 and 1970 versions of the nwt.

odd for an organization who believes that "god's name is of the utmost importance" as it says on page 195 of the bible teach book..

OutsiderLookingIn

Wanted to revise my above comment as not all jealousy is based on a *legitimate* claim --> Jealousy implies a claim over the object of jealousy. Envy is malicious feeling from wanting what's not yours..

60

New Here ... Just woke up

by Sevan in

jw
friends

hey all, .

this is my first post.

i haven't been out in service or to a meeting in over a month.. i realize now that i've been having serious questions for years and many articles and talks have greatly disturbed me over the years.

OutsiderLookingIn

Welcome, Sevan! Thank you for sharing your story. You seem very thoughtful about things that others just accepted because the GB told them to. Take things one day at a time. I hope your fade goes well.

12

Gods' name removed in Silver Sword?

by AmyWatson916 in

does anyone have an explanation about why the silver sword edition of the nwt removed god's name at exodus 34:14?

that verse is now different than the 1984 and 1970 versions of the nwt.

odd for an organization who believes that "god's name is of the utmost importance" as it says on page 195 of the bible teach book..

OutsiderLookingIn

Clearview: I'm not sure if it says he is "jealous" in any other part of the bible, but part of their reason for changing the wording could have been to lessen the HUGE contradiction that is: Love does not get jealous, so if god is love, how can he be a jealous god? i think the way they worded it is an attempt to erase that contradiction, probably among other reasons.

Actually, 1 Corinthians 13:4 says love does not envy. I know we often use jealousy and envy interchangeably, but jealous generally suggests an offense to expected exclusivity (like a jealous husband, which God is described as to an unfaithful Israel going here, there and everywhere). Jealous implies at least some basis of a legitimate claim over the object of jealousy. Envy is malicious feeling from wanting what's not yours. (And a quick look at a lowly non-NWT translation--New King James Version--describes God as jealous or Israel driving God to jealousy in Deuteronomy 4:24 and 32:16, and Paul is jealous with a godly jealousy in 2 Corinthians 11:2...those are the examples from a very limited concordance).

So it seems like a paraphrase to say "exclusive devotion", but the words actually say His name is Jealous. Why is the "one true religion" pureeing the spiritual food? I'm with Mephis; I think it's about not wanting to confuse their claim to fame as the only ones using God's one and only name.

19

Need Suggestions/examples: Guide to helping family & friends break free

by LisaRose in

jw
friends

i was going through my copy of steve hassan's combating cult mind control and it occurred to me that it would be great to have something like this specifically for us ex jehovah's witnesses.

while this is a great book, the examples he uses are mostly from people that were moonies, as steve is a former moonie and many people that have contacted him for help were relatives of moonies.

while cults all work basically the same, it would be nice to be have some ideas on things that are specific to jehovah's witnesses.

OutsiderLookingIn

This is a nice list. I have tried most of these, even without knowing it. Building trust is key, but it takes time and can't be faked. Not a rush job, at all. Also, living your own life well is a powerful anti-witness. And seeming disinterested in their ultimate decision ("I'm not interested, but if you want to do it, consider why as well as the consequences") lets them make their own choice but shows that you won't cave to peer pressure on the issue. I'm not sure of the success yet, but I feel hopeful when I hear a comment like, "I never thought of it that way" or see the cult personality come into direct conflict with the authentic personality and/or what the person knows to be true. Thanks, Lisa Rose.

Edited to add: success, meaning actual renouncing the JWs

240

Introduction - Any Believers?

by Believer in

i’ve been reading it for a few of years off and on, but have been a little too ... maybe ... timid to join.

i left the watchtower organization almost 20 years ago but never abandoned my faith and belief in god.

i knew the gb/organization didn’t represent god, so when i lost my faith in them, i managed to keep my faith in an all wise benevolent creator.

OutsiderLookingIn

Okay. I think we've reached the limits of this discussion because it's getting redundant. My comments on the subject however imperfect and imprecise are spread throughout the pages of this OP. Cofty, I'm glad that we were finally able to agree that you're judging from a 21st century standard. And I can say that I got my very first dedicated meme from Outlaw, even if it is calling me stupid. Maybe an encore after this post? I bid you all a good night.

240

Introduction - Any Believers?

by Believer in

i’ve been reading it for a few of years off and on, but have been a little too ... maybe ... timid to join.

i left the watchtower organization almost 20 years ago but never abandoned my faith and belief in god.

i knew the gb/organization didn’t represent god, so when i lost my faith in them, i managed to keep my faith in an all wise benevolent creator.

OutsiderLookingIn

Sheesh, guys! That statement was sarcasm--and clearly not a mandate from God. Sorry to have offended; I'll speak more plainly going forward. My thinking was that a month very likely diminished the immediate aggression associated with warfare. It wasn't instant gratification or the heat of passion. And the guy might think twice if he had to provide for her as a wife instead of only using her for sex.

David Jay, I'm not sure how what we're saying is so different. I agree that God didn't tell people to rape and pillage or to keep slaves. I have said that the Law was tied to the culture and that it governed their interactions with other people in a more humane manner--for that time. The Law was along the lines of "if you're going to do X, don't be completely awful about it," or a guide for living in a fallen world. That's been my point all along, but it was called cultural relativism. Would you say something else? My mention of dietary laws and animal sacrifice was just to say it's not applicable for Christians because of the NT, not that the Law exalted Israel above anyone else.

Wayward, no I wouldn't; I wouldn't want it for myself either. All I'm saying is it was a very different world then. Even with arranged marriages today, I don't quite understand it. Maybe you meet once or twice before the marriage and hope you like each other? Or learn to? We're not under the law. We don't live in that world. I'm very glad for that.

240

Introduction - Any Believers?

by Believer in

i’ve been reading it for a few of years off and on, but have been a little too ... maybe ... timid to join.

i left the watchtower organization almost 20 years ago but never abandoned my faith and belief in god.

i knew the gb/organization didn’t represent god, so when i lost my faith in them, i managed to keep my faith in an all wise benevolent creator.

OutsiderLookingIn

Diogenesister: Considering god ORDERED Hosea to marry a hooker

Yes, that's true, but Hosea wasn't a priest; he was a prophet. Priests could only come from the Levites and the high priest could only come from Aaron's line. Only the priests were subject to these limitations. Other men could marry whomever they wanted. Priests and prophets had different roles--priests bring the people to God (presenting their sacrifices) and prophets bring God (His message) to the people. Hosea and his wife is an allegory of Israel's repeated unfaithfulness to God.

Re Jephthah's daughter, that is one popular interpretation. His vow was to sacrifice whatever came to meet him as a burnt offering. And that perhaps with the surrounding pagan influences, he didn't see anything wrong with it. It's clear he didn't think he would see his only child there. I've thought about this before (maybe too much #nerd lol) and also consider that God was opposed to human sacrifice, that the girl went away for two months with her friends and that the text twice mentions that she would never marry, not that she was killed. When Hannah dedicated Samuel to the Lord, it didn't mean she would kill him--only that he would be in God's service all the days of his life. So as soon as he was weaned, he went into the house of the Lord. It's definitely something to think about, though. Thanks.

240

Introduction - Any Believers?

by Believer in

i’ve been reading it for a few of years off and on, but have been a little too ... maybe ... timid to join.

i left the watchtower organization almost 20 years ago but never abandoned my faith and belief in god.

i knew the gb/organization didn’t represent god, so when i lost my faith in them, i managed to keep my faith in an all wise benevolent creator.

OutsiderLookingIn

Yes, Cofty, we're talking about the same passages. You see it as rape; I see it as a protection in wartime as the law of war is "to the victor go the spoils." Is it reasonable to conclude rape and sex slaves if God required a month before marrying the person? A month is a long time to hold off on rape. And not only that, after marrying the person couldn't get rid of them on a whim or even make a profit off of them. The next verse, Deuteronomy 21:14 reads: "It shall be, if you are not pleased with her, then you shall let her go wherever she wishes; but you shall certainly not sell her for money, you shall not mistreat her, because you have humbled her." This is decidedly not the concubine being used up by those men in Benjamin.

As for the Midianite virgins, you have read that into those passages because it doesn't say they became sex slaves. Those women were given to Eleazar as a tribute to God (Numbers 31:40-41). So perhaps it means they would never get married like Jephthah's daughter (Judges 11:34-40). Furthermore, the high priest was holy to God--he couldn't marry non-Israelites or even widows or divorced women (Leviticus 21:10-15; Ezekiel 44:22). But all of a sudden God allows him to have 32 foreign sex slaves? Hmmm.

God recognized the existence of slavery, but Israelites were not mandated to keep slaves. And again, it was more of a free market principle--people could sell themselves into slavery or service to pay debts (Leviticus 24:47-48; Deuteronomy 15:12-17). Crazy, I know. But it wasn't an entirely one-sided transaction like chattel slavery in the Americas.

I know we don't agree nor is that my intention, but the fact is we all inject our bias onto the page. As a world, we've come a long way and I'm so very glad for that, but it's hard to judge a global culture of Attila the Huns when the biggest issue of the day is "what does Brexit mean for my freedom of travel?" This is why I initially told Believer that the OT is so far removed from modern life that we just don't get it nor do we have to. We learn what we can from it and move on. Mainly, the unifying theme of the Bible: love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength and love your neighbor as yourself.

Hi there, Mark of Cane. My point in saying that was actually something different, namely, that a belief in the supernatural is necessarily beyond the limits of human understanding. So for me to say that there are things I don't understand or that the supernatural exists is always beyond the realm of "reason."

To address your points, though, I haven't shied away from the OT; it still is profitable for something. We can learn from what ancient Israel did and didn't do, from their missteps, the ease with which it's possible to slip into idol worship (not just statues but things that take the place of God). I think we can learn from anyone, even if it's just learning what not to do. But those conditions don't exist anymore; it is history, background. That was then, this is now. For instance, there are long, repeated descriptions of the system of animal sacrifice. We don't do that anymore. We don't need it, but the entire book of Hebrews wouldn't make sense without it. There are dietary restrictions that might still be the best for health reasons, but their main purpose was to set apart the Israelites from surrounding nations. The account of Peter going to Cornelius's house for dinner says kosher rules no longer apply (Acts 10). And boy, I am glad because I love bacon. And shrimp! God gave the law to create order and a standard. Then He gave us Jesus. As I said before, the law was a guide for how to live in a fallen world and they were infused with humanity for the times. People turned them into ways to oppress other people.

I would agree that it's harder to defend a pick-and-choose faith. I used to do it but now I'm all in. And that doesn't mean that I'm happy when bad things happen or that I'm reverting to OT tactics when we're called to something else under Christ. I'm not, in JW style, looking forward to Armageddon because I know I've done some things and judgment will start at the house of God (1 Peter 4:17). We will all be called to account. It just means that the Old Testament is there and I don't ignore it.

Lastly, a general comment about the concept of God's love being at odds with judgment. I don't understand. Part of righteousness is justice. The judge in California has been nearly run off the bench for giving a six-month sentence to the swimmer who raped a young woman on Stanford's campus. Yet we conclude that God is wrong or maniacal because He has His standard of justice. We may not agree with the standard, but it doesn't mean it is a contradiction in terms to be love and require justice. I believe in the goodness of God; I also believe He is a consuming fire. He is not to be played with. Says so even in the NT (Hebrews 12:29). That's where being omnipotent comes into play. Revelation 20 says the dead will be judged according to their works, good or evil. So as a Christian, I believe that we're still responsible for what we do (including how we treat people), but our salvation comes through Jesus and we can't earn that salvation; we just receive it.