Posts by Hiemere

52

how can navigate if our desire is for absolute truth...

by Ruby456 in

jw
friends

or do we give in to social constructivism?

to relativity?

or is there a way to be real and then to say whats real that everyone agrees to?.

Hiemere

Ruby456,

I appreciate that you took the time to give me such a detailed answer, but you do realize you didn't answer my question.

I asked,"What's the obsession with finding this thing that give you that objective view? What's the evidence that such a way to absolute truth exists?"

And as for being unscientific, if I am not mistaken, science has no model or theory that teaches that what you are talking about, what you are searching for, exists. Again, what's the proof that absolute truth and having a purely objective view of everything is possible for anyone? If there is absolute truth, what evidence is there that you can point to that source or way to it? And then what proves you would be able to process it and understand it?

I mean, if you were one who thought the religion of JWs was the truth, you don't have the best track record proving you can find and tell if you have "the truth" or not. "I was in a cult for several years and believed it was the truth, but now that I'm out, I'm a good judge of knowing what is true and not." I'm sorry, but how did you suddenly gain the capacity to judge such things objectively when you once failed at it so miserably?

I wouldn't trust a surgeon who killed every patient he had for several years following some pseudo-medicine he believed was "the truth," even if he claimed he had rejected that pseudo-medicine as nonsense now. "Trust me as your surgeon if you need an operation. I won't kill you now."

You are like that surgeon, aren't you? If you were a JW, you once claimed you had life-saving truth and in a spiritual sense "killed" everyone you taught JW nonsense to. Now that you left, you claim that there is still some single path for truth, and you expect me to believe that what you're selling now is correct?

52

how can navigate if our desire is for absolute truth...

by Ruby456 in

jw
friends

or do we give in to social constructivism?

to relativity?

or is there a way to be real and then to say whats real that everyone agrees to?.

Hiemere

Being that I only spent a few years attending the Kingdom Hall with my aunt after my parents' death until I turned 18, never becoming an actual Jehovah's Witness, I can say that I notice a peculiar common earmark to Jehovah's Witnesses. It even seems to be in them after they leave and I have even noticed it in some who were later attracted to the Witnesses. Now there are exceptions, of course, so don't make the mistake that I am talking about everybody.

It seems that some are of the opinion that there needs to be this absolute truth, this panacea-like philosophy, this means to "tap" into whatever holds "all the answers."

When they think they have it, they go all in. They feel the need to not only get totally absorbed in it but baptize others into it as well.

And when they have it, they become intolerant of those who have different views or approaches of life. When they are JWs, they criticize and judge others as lost, ignorant, and view themselves as enlightened. When they leave, many of these (not all, however, not all) act the same way with their newfound convictions. Some of them become atheist and act no differently than they did when they were a religious Witness, criticizing and judging others who are not of their fold as lost, ignorant, while viewing themselves as the only who are enlightened.

Why do Witnesses and some ex-Witnesses have this obsession with finding "the truth"? Nobody else has it. There are no guarantees. Sure, some idiots like the Westboro Baptist Church think they have it. But even my religion, the Catholic Church, acknowledges that there is no exclusive formula for or way for any mortal to possess and know "the answer to life, the universe, and everything," as Douglas Adams put it.

Why do some people have this stuck in their heads, that you can have such a thing, that there is some religion or philosophy or way of life or thinking that will give you "the truth"? I don't want to insult, and I am just asking, but is that why some of you joined the Witnesses, because you believe that an organization or adopting a certain conviction or world view gives you the "correct" vantage point, that such a thing is really out there that humans can grasp and possess? Really?

You know there's no such thing, right? Anyone who says there is, any group that claims that, and any philosophy or world view that promises that is just selling you snake oil. Being religious, agnostic, atheist, or anything else you can think of will not give you the total, final, and unquestionable "truth" you seek.

Except for people who belong to cults, fringe movements and those who like to think that others are ignorant for not choosing the "enlightened way" they have, people normally don't even think it's possible to know or possess "the absolute truth."

If you don't snap out of this, you're gonna fall for another cult or false guru or something like that, I guarantee it. There's no such thing. If someone knows you are dependent upon having "the absolute truth," they will use that need to enslave you. Life is not about nor dependent on having found some one and only "truth."

48

"Mother" Teresa—a Fraud?

by Saename in

i often comment in threads that interest me on this forum.

moreover, some of you may know that i study the history of early christianity.

i once wrote an extensive comment on the historicity of jesus' existence in one of the threads.

Hiemere

I am talking about first hand accounts. She taught that human suffering was a blessing. She was a sadist!

Cofty is correct, except that she was not the only one in the Catholic Church that taught that. In fact, it is a basic tenet of Catholicism--but not in the way it is being argued about here.

In Catholic theology Christ turned human values upside down, at least the way Catholics understand Jesus. Instead of being a royal born into the rich and powerful family of Herods, Jesus was born in a very questionable situation to a woman who was pregnant before marriage and was born in poverty. Instead of teaching people that persuading others to accept a particular doctrine was the measure of salvation, Jesus taught that how you cared for the poor, the naked, the thirsty, the jailed and the stranger was how people will be judged for life. And instead of promising happiness from living a pious life of religious ritual, Jesus demanded his followers to take up their cross and expect a life of suffering.

This reversal of circumstances is what Mother Teresa and all of Catholicism teaches: suffering can be a path to life and blessing.

But not universally so and neither is suffering itself a blessing. I am sure if you go back to Mother Teresa's exact words and examine her teachings, she was not contradicting Catholic doctrine and advocating that suffering was a blessing from God. If she had advanced this view, she would be disqualified from canonization. One cannot publicly teach as a representative of the Church that which contradicts Catholic doctrine without being guilty of heresy.

However, this does not mean that Cofty may not have an argument. As I mentioned in my previous post, I myself as a Catholic am somewhat wary of many of the saints canonized up till recent times. It's all been based on money. Mother Teresa had a movement that paid for her status of becoming a canonized saint to be advanced, investigated and approved. She is one of the last of these type of "saints" since Pope Francis has called for an end to such abuse of the Church's sainthood process, but this one got through because it started before Francis became pontiff.

While I cannot fully concur with all that Cofty sets forth, I am one that stands with Pope Francis that "saints" are those who are called such by the Church, meaning the general consensus of the people within and not by a specialized group of clergy that gets money to do so.

Cofty and others have every right to question those who have been raised to sainthood by such an unfair process. It's hard not to be a questionable figure because even if all the critiques are unfounded, because the bottom line is that your status as saint was based on whether you left a group of organized cheerleaders behind who had the funds to see you get your sainthood.

48

"Mother" Teresa—a Fraud?

by Saename in

i often comment in threads that interest me on this forum.

moreover, some of you may know that i study the history of early christianity.

i once wrote an extensive comment on the historicity of jesus' existence in one of the threads.

Hiemere

I am a Roman Catholic, and even I have some complaints about canonization of saints, like Mother Teresa.

First of all, I can say that technically speaking, canonized saints are not supposed to be example of perfect people. In very simple terms they are supposed to be examples of how very imperfect even heavily flawed people can be examples of what it means to follow Jesus, at least in Catholic terms.

In all fairness, the public (including Catholics, I can attest) are often very wrong when they expect canonized saints to be models of perfection. That's not what it is supposed to be about.

However, what Lisa Rose said is unfortunately too often very true in most cases:

The idea that Mother Teresa was not the paragon of virtue that people believed her to be is not new to me. She was a marketable product, packaged and promoted like any other product.

While canonized saints are not necessarily required to be a "paragon of virtue," for too long "canonized saints" have been a real "marketable product" of the Catholic Church, "packaged and promoted" as if they were nothing more than a "product."

Pope Francis has been intervening to stop the current canonization process which is filled with abuses and demands for money. Did you know that for some time now if someone lived a truly virtuous life but did not have anyone to pay the Vatican for their sainthood process after their death, they would not be canonized as a saint, even if they performed great miracles and were truly a "paragon of virtue"? Unfortunately the answer is "yes, sadly, it is true."

Mother Teresa's case is one of the last of the pre-Francis saints to get canonized (her case began at the time of her death in 1997). It costs large amounts of money to pay the Vatican and its investigators to ensure a person qualifies as a "canonized saint." So if a real saint doesn't start a movement while they are alive, they will probably have no one to pay for their canonization process and they probably won't be named a saint--at least in the past. Pope Francis has recently announced that this must stop.

"In the early church, saints were often made by papal decree or popular acclaim," states an article about this problem from USNews & World Report. "Over the centuries, the process has become far more detailed, legalistic, time-consuming and costly." While the report claims that it can cost around $500,000 U.S. dollars when all is said and done, the Church can spend a lot more in the way some of these canonizations have been handled.

Granted, not everyone is religious or even if they are believes in saints. But what everyone pretty much can agree on is that such a process where the guy with the most money can literally "buy" his sainthood after death is quite disgusting. Still, not everyone is happy that the current pope is turning his attention to canonize as saints those who do not have the money, bringing back a process in which the people of the Church are the ones who basically declare that a saint has lived among us. As you can imagine, calling for an end to the hoary process which was hidden behind doors by those who demand fees for their work is one of the reasons Pope Francis has some very loud enemies in the Church.

While there might be very legitimate reasons why Mother Teresa should be canonized as a saint, the fact that her case began before the abuses in this process were made apparent to the Church shows that the views of many critics is not unwarranted.

Again it is not about being perfect or even nice, for that matter, but I am sure even the most staunch atheist knows of or has even met a person that has given them pause enough to say: "You know, if there is a God, that person is real example of what it means to be a saint." I am sure whatever our experience, we can all point to someone like that, someone the world overlooks, someone who was never in the limelight or sought it, and someone you might even say was a "paragon of virtue," for real. But where is their canonization? If saints are real, isn't that the one you want on your side praying for you?

While I am happy to know there is finally a pope who wants to things the right way, I am very much angry (and often fighting) with those in my Church who won't let go of old ways while holding out a palm and expecting to get paid for their stubborn attitude. The Catholic Church still has too many of the kind of people who care little about doing the right thing and more about protecting their position and power. The good news is that unlike in the Witness religion, you can fight such people and even help bring them down and out. Today, more than ever, Catholics get to decide who runs their Church and who doesn't, but those old cronies are still stuck in their crevices hissing at us as we approach. Even Francis can't do it with all his authority, and he's the Pope!

54

where have the demons gone?

by aboveusonlysky in

jw
friends

does anybody remember some of the sensational demon stories jw's would tell back in the day?

i was a kid in the early 80's and i remember a few times hearing of people having real life encounters with demons.

for example, one sister claimed that before she became a jdub she would regularly talk to demons and they would even fix stuff like her washing machine!

Hiemere

And that's why these people do it. They want to feel special and what better than a) satan and his demons going out of their way to target you and b) god and his angels intervening to save you! Yes, a big cosmic battle all going on over YOU and some junk you bought as a 2nd hand store, that's just how important you are ...
They also serve as a stand-in for evidence that is otherwise lacking. No evidence of god or satan? Invent a story where they slammed a door when you were close to it. But any sensible person knows it's all as credible as the big-foot sightings and people who claim to have been abducted by aliens. Evidence of someone's delusions and nothing else, but the believers always lap it up.

Simon's comment pretty much sums up what I saw going on in Catholic dioceses I worked for.

As some of you might know, the identity of official Catholic exorcists are generally unknown by the public. Depending on the size of your diocese or archdiocese it may have only 1 or less than a handful. Is there some mystical reason why? Not really.

There is, of course, the need to keep things private. Even if a so-called "possession" is nothing more than a case of mental illness on behalf of someone, for the sake of consideration, all things are kept away from the public. That is still a "real" case too, so to speak, as far as exorcism is concerned because sometimes a mentally ill person might believe they are possessed, and performing the actual rite has helped some of these.

There are very rare cases where the Catholic Church ever admits to itself that there is the possibility it is dealing with something "spiritual." There have been cases, like the famous 1949 "Roland Doe" case that inspired the novel and film The Exorcist, but that is not common and even less common that it got leaked out in the first place. Oddly the Catholic Church is not interested in telling people the details of this or other cases as "proof" of demons and evil spirits. There was one home in a nearby perish where the diocesan exorcist was called to and had been working with when I was an office employee, but no one was allowed to speak about it or inquire beyond what their work required. Make of that what you will.

But the real reason you don't know the identity of the exorcist(s) in your nearby parish is that they will get bothered by the "haunted wanna-be's" to the point that they cannot work. Where the identity of an exorcist has leaked out, these people have literally stalked the priest to the point that a new exorcist had to be trained and their identity hidden while the previous one was relieved of their exorcism duties. To quote what one priest told me: "Why they insist, I cannot tell you, but they seem to want to be haunted and want to use their experiences to prove to everyone that ghosts are real. Maybe they believe that getting a genuine exorcism performed will validate them."

The Holy See seems to have been working on silencing priests who have recently talked to the press over the novelty they have found in the rite as well. The rite was one of the last official texts that has been translated into the vernacular from Latin (after Vatican II in the 1960s all rites and liturgy have been rendered into common languages and it has taken some time to do them all). After the new printed edition of the rite in the vernacular was released, some of the priests talked to the press a little more openly then they should have and this lead to a new plethora of movies, tv shows, and interest in the subject (people love gossip). Since then all has been quieted again, but some new priests recently had to get the training because the identity of others slipped out and they couldn't care for legitimate needs due to the overflow of cases from these people who for some reason or other can't sleep unless they prove to world that ghosts are real!

54

where have the demons gone?

by aboveusonlysky in

jw
friends

does anybody remember some of the sensational demon stories jw's would tell back in the day?

i was a kid in the early 80's and i remember a few times hearing of people having real life encounters with demons.

for example, one sister claimed that before she became a jdub she would regularly talk to demons and they would even fix stuff like her washing machine!

Hiemere

I also think OrphanCrow is equally correct in that you can't get a fire going without kindling. The Society supplies plenty of kindling, but my hypothesis was about the actual "logs" of the fire.

Also: My hypothesis only applies if the number of fantastic "demon" stories like those that were circulated around 1980-1985 or so have diminished. If they haven't, then OrphanCrow may be far more correct. I was never a baptized Witness nor do I have any connection with them or have been to Kingdom Hall before the year 2000.

But if they have diminished, it could explain why there are less of them. My thought was: If we look at what else has diminished from the Watchtower we might find an answer.

I also think OrphanCrow may not have taken into account what I meant about the JW's "demonizing" the outside ghost stories, as this means we are both really saying the same thing. I mentioned in my previous post that Witnesses turn all stories about ghosts into stories about demons. This doesn't happen in the churches any new comers come from.

Ghosts have various categories in churches and other groups: there are spirits of dead loved ones, lost dead souls, so-called "recorded history" that plays back without interaction (such as soldiers walking around on battlefields of the past), etc. Very few are considered actual "demons," with these often being labeled as "inhumans" in the paranormal/demonology world of religion.

Because Jehovah's Witnesses do not possess an immortal soul doctrine, they immediately write off as "impossible" that ghosts could be the "dead loved ones" that some reportedly appear to be, etc. Any "paranormal activity" gets lumped into one big pile marked "demon activity."

Now that's what I meant and wrote about. In my hypothesis I included the fact that this aspect of "it's all demons" comes from the JWs, as OrphanCrow mentioned, and it is somewhat of a unique "earmark," if you will, of the JW culture or paradigm. Without this JW earmark, there would be no "demon stories" to begin with. OrphanCrow is correct in that the JW culture has all this in place on its own, and I agreed and stated that. I also added the fact that Witnesses are horrific gossipers, and if you ask me they are quite superstitious and paranoid when it comes to the subject of evil spirits. The expression I found amusing from them was "that smacks of demonism," at least back in the 1980s. A lot of things "smacked" like that, according to them.

Figure in that it was the highlight of the Cold War era and people in general were far more wary of things, not just the JWs. There was no wide use of the Internet, no "ghost hunting" tv shows, no smart phones to look things up, and the Witnesses had just come through the big upset of apostasy at Bethel after the 1975 debacle. There were "apostates" and "demons" everywhere, in everything. In the late 1970s and early 1980s the JWs were quick to get caught up in the Procter & Gambel/witchcraft urban legend which got quickly replaced by the "spirit faces" in the new full-color literature after gossip spread that some of the Bethel artists were apostates and had placed "demon faces" into literature to lure faithful Witnesses away from "the Truth." OrphanCrow is not totally incorrect, as this is what I personally witnessed among the JWs and at rates higher than one would expect from religious people who are generally unafraid "since we have Jesus," as some say.

It was a different time too. You don't hear about these things anymore. The "demons" have seemed to have disappeared. But part of the reason is that those born-ins don't have a source for new outside ghost stories that become demons, and the Society has moved away from large amounts of painted illustrations (it was difficult to produce color photographs until the mid to late 1990s).

Again OrphanCrow is also correct, but not at the expense of what I am saying. Besides I am just offering a hypothesis. You cannot say a hypothesis has no merit unless you prove that by critical analysis and have your results confirmed and established. Just because you have an opinion or your "gut" tells you something isn't enough.

Unless maybe you're under the influence of "demons!" ;)

54

where have the demons gone?

by aboveusonlysky in

jw
friends

does anybody remember some of the sensational demon stories jw's would tell back in the day?

i was a kid in the early 80's and i remember a few times hearing of people having real life encounters with demons.

for example, one sister claimed that before she became a jdub she would regularly talk to demons and they would even fix stuff like her washing machine!

Hiemere

I associated with the Witnesses while growing up and left in the 1980s. I remember many of these tales.

While I am not sure if you are saying that these types of tales have dropped off these days as I can't imagine what the Witnesses are like today. But I can offer a hypothesis.

There was a great influx of people that became Jehovah's Witnesses in the 1980s due to the release of the "Live Forever" book. Baptisms at conventions and assemblies were made up of hundreds and hundreds of people, the majority being previous members of other religions and from the world in general. I have asked an old JW companion just recently and he mentions that they are lucky to have 20 baptized a year, and almost 100% are "born-ins," at least in the United States.

While not commenting on whether "ghosts" are real or they are "spirits of the dead," etc., the claimed experience or claimed phenomenon is not uncommon. I have worked for two different religious organizations, a Protestant and Catholic group. Apparently a few situations occur that do get investigated and handled by specialists in both groups. (Interestingly, when things prove too hard for any of the Protestant groups, the Catholic Church's specialists were sometimes called.) I can't say what the stories were or how many there were exactly as these things are kept quite confidential, but apparently the majority of churchgoers do believe they happen. The few that are supposed to be "real" don't make it into the general public's immediate knowledge, and these ones that experience such things and help from their clergy don't tend to leave their church to join other groups.

Regardless if they are real or not, people don't shed off all their beliefs overnight. So when large numbers were coming in from the world, the JWs were filled with ghost stories, probably no more than the average church. Because the Witnesses attribute all such phenomenon to demons, the stories got repeated with this "Watchtower demon twist," and they circulated with the rest of the gossip. From my personal recollection, the Witnesses were as gossip-filled as, if not more than, the average church.

There are a large number of what we called in one church office as "haunted wanna-be's." Apparently some people were well known for calling their pastors and priests repeatedly with claims of ghosts. The same were heavy into the ghost culture and read books on hauntings, etc. These types easily got sucked into groups like the JWs.

My hypothesis? The numbers are down. These people are not coming in to the JW religion anymore. Kingdom Halls are filled with 2nd and 3rd generations of born-ins who don't know of anything else. Those who started the stories either left, died, or are too old and have stopped passing them on. No new people from the general public, no new ghost stories. No ghost stories, then no "demons," because to Witnesses all ghosts are "demons."

58

Reading The Bible Again After Leaving

by pale.emperor in

at the moment i dont beleive in anything.

im pretty much an open book, but my critical mind is very alert to bullshit.

but anyway i decided to re-read the bible with a non jw filter.. i researched online first which is supposed to be the best translation out there.

Hiemere

Bonsai,

I totally agree with those statements that much bad has been done in the name of religion and by those who promote the Bible. But it has also true that the same type of behavior has come from atheists and that gets rarely pointed out.

The idea is to show that we, human beings, screw things up. It isn't the Bible or even atheism that kills: people kill. You and I have that capacity. That doesn't mean we stop being atheists or religious, stop going to church or fighting to advance reason and science as a means to find answers.

What I am saying is that humans love to play the blame game: "The Bible is evil because of the Crusades and the pogroms and the Spanish Inquisition," says the atheist. "Atheism is evil because of the horrific mass murders of atheist states and governments that have unjustly slaughtered millions and millions," says the religious. Both think they are enlightened and blame things: the Bible, religion, atheism, communism.

These things don't cause violence or kill or commit genocide. Many church goers and atheists never do such things. If the Bible or atheism was the problem, then everyone who followed the Bible would kill and every atheist would slaughter. Not all do.

We are judging these things on the basis of those who did horrible things with the Bible and atheism. That's illogical. Orange juice is a great way to get your daily allowance of vitamin C, but you don't reject it because people have used it to make napalm (as it has been claimed). If you, the atheist, is gonna judge the Bible by the bad and stupid things people have done in its name, then you should be judged by the horrible things atheists like Stalin did. That's stupid! And every argument on this forum that does that shows how illogical everyone is being who has argued that way. I've noticed this forum is filled with these types of threads.

We have the capacity to use orange juice for food, but some of us use it for napalm. Stop blaming the orange juice. Oranges don't go around blowing people up. Humans do that. We like to blame the oranges (the Bible, religion, atheism, etc.), but we are the monsters. We don't like to admit that. It's always the Bible's fault, that religion's fault, those horrible atheists. No. It's just us.

But we don't have to be monsters. The first step in doing that is to stop blaming the oranges, not to avoid using them. They're good for you under normal circumstances.

As to what I am doing to make the world a better place? Would you like to call the AIDS foundation I 've been working with? I am also a part of the Catholic-Jewish dialogue and the Catholic fight to protect atheists who are being persecuted in various countries. I have been working for the World Parkinson Comference, and currently am a care giver for a family member with developmental problems. I worked for the UFMCC for four years, and just retired from being a translator for the deaf and worked as a Catholic catechist. You will have to excuse me, however, as I've recently developed narcolepsy with cataplexy and am slowing down as a result.

And you?

58

Reading The Bible Again After Leaving

by pale.emperor in

at the moment i dont beleive in anything.

im pretty much an open book, but my critical mind is very alert to bullshit.

but anyway i decided to re-read the bible with a non jw filter.. i researched online first which is supposed to be the best translation out there.

Hiemere

I think the real problem is that people can’t fess up to the fact that we are all just as violent and unjust as the other person. Religious people are notorious for acting pious while slaughtering and oppressing, but atheists are notorious for acting enlightened while doing the very same things.

Joseph Stalin, an atheist, is responsible for the mass murder of millions, which too often included religion as the target. A death toll of upwards of 20 to 50 million people or more is attributed to him and those that adopted his views.

In the name of atheism, Stalin had churches totally demolished, reducing them from some 50,000 when he took power to just a few hundred by the time his reign of terror ended. In his goal to eradicate religion he had tens of thousands of priests, nuns and other religious tortured and killed, systematically shooting over 100,000 of them in as little as two and a half years, during a period known as “The Great Terror” between 1936–1938. Also known as “The Great Purge,” Stalin targeted and slaughtered more than just the religious. He slaughtered political enemies, persecuted the poor classes, persecuting a total of some 8 million people, of whom a little more than 1 million perished.

Time will escape me and space would run out if I went on to mention the atrocities and oppression of women and homosexuals and the disabled and others by numerous other atheist “enlightened” persons and states: the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, Mengistu Haile Mariam of Ethiopia, Mao Zedong of the People’s Republic of China, etc.

Sure, the Bible says some very horrible things. And religious people have done and continue to do horrible, disgusting things in the name of a holy God, but atheists are no better. They claim enlightenment with hands just as bloodied in innocents.

I’ve been reading a lot on here, and I notice that too many have never shaken off the biggest lie from the Jehovah’s Witnesses: that belonging to something or to have a set of specific convictions or to adopt some school of thought somehow makes you smarter, special or even better than others. And others who do not share these new enlightened views of yours, well--they’re idiots! Let's make fun of them or at least tell others how stupid their way is, right? “I am now a [fill in the blank], and we are not like you others whose views bring hatred, violence, oppression, and death into the world.” Yeah, that’s the Watchtower talking.

You are not more enlightened and immune from being just as prejudiced, hateful, violent or even wrong as you were when a JW, even if you are a [fill in the blank] now. The set of convictions you now subscribe to did not stop others before you who had them from murdering and torturing and killing others. Whether you are religious or atheist, the history of your group is just as sick and twisted and bloodied as that of the other side.

It’s not the Bible or atheism or religion or what-have-you that causes horrible injustices and mass murder and prejudice. You do, because you’re a human. Your poop smelled when you were a Jehovah’s Witness, it stinks now that you left, and if you are religious your poop stinks as much as an atheist’s and vice versa. None of us is immune from being the next Stalin or starting the next Spanish Inquisition. Your religion or atheism can't save the world from you! If you think your new-found belief system or atheism or whatever is going to prevent you from doing this, think again. If it didn’t stop saints and popes and Stalin and Marx from doing wrong, it sure as hell ain’t gonna stop little ole you on this forum who thinks their poop don’t stink!

Don't blame a religion, a holy book or even being an atheist for the world's troubles. These things aren't to blame. They only get blamed for all the problems in the world by those who don't want the light to shine on themselves. Monsters prefer the shadows.

58

Reading The Bible Again After Leaving

by pale.emperor in

at the moment i dont beleive in anything.

im pretty much an open book, but my critical mind is very alert to bullshit.

but anyway i decided to re-read the bible with a non jw filter.. i researched online first which is supposed to be the best translation out there.

Hiemere

I can relate to being "new" at reading the Bible after leaving the Watchtower behind many decades ago, back in the 1980s. I have a little I can pass on about that, but first...

I came online here just now after having two "sisters" come to my door, looking to see if I spoke Filipino. She was African-American and the other was white, and they didn't want to converse about anything more than what language I spoke. Though I knew they were Witnesses immediately, it took a bit of asking to get them to say it themselves and what they were doing (looking to leave off literature only with those who spoke this language). Being so timid and very unwilling to say anything or even give me their current presentation in English (which they clearly spoke) made me wonder: What has happened to these people? These are not the brave, outspoken publishers of so long ago when I was growing up among them. True, I was one of Jehovah's Witnesses a very long time ago. We called it the "Society" and even the "New World Society" back then. So it has been many, many years since I've talked with anyone who was a Witness face-to-face.

So hello, everyone. After having that experience I came on here and started reading to catch up on what has occurred to the Witnesses. "Simplified editions" of the Watchtower? Tele-evangelism? Changing so much regarding the anointed and teaching this unscriptural "two overlapping generations" mess? My, oh my! and shame-shame! Everyone one of the Witnesses who believe in this "updated" religion would have been disfellowshipped as apostates in my day!

And now...Yes, I can relate to what your are going through, pale.emperor. The NRSV is the standard in English-speaking academia, whether you are studying the Bible for religious or secular reasons. Only about 8% of the American religious population actually uses it, even though it will give you the least-biased Christian translation (there was actually a Jewish editor on the board), with the most trustworthy and transparent scholarship behind it. It's also extremely easy to read, putting the NWT down in terms of style if you compare them. Here's something you may want to try in addition:

Read one of the study editions of the NRSV. Use the New Oxford Annotated NRSV or the HaperCollins Study NRSV, especially the Apocrypha editions. The footnotes are the best in critical scholarship, and are interconfessional (made up of Jewish, Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant contributions). You will be surprised to learn how much "Watchtower" is still inside of you if you use the study notes to guide your reading versus just reading the text alone, and this will move you to "unlearn" a lot.
Don't expect to formulate doctrine from reading Scripture. The Scriptures were composed and designed for liturgical reading, both in Judaism and Christianity. Since Jehovah's Witnesses are not even aware of what a liturgy is, and how central this was to the composition and meaning behind the Bible, you will have to study that to get a good understanding of what is being spoken of. These study editions are a good place to start.
Keep in mind that the Scriptures were written by well-established and functioning religious systems with doctrines already in place. Jehovah's Witnesses teach that doctrine comes from Scripture, which is the total opposite. This means you have to stop trying to read the Bible as if it is going to teach you doctrine directly. The Scriptures merely reflect the doctrine of those who composed it.
Learn about the history and process of canonization. The Bible would not be here if it were not for the canonization process. This is not a library of the most popular and widely distributed religious books in Judaism or Christianity. They were selected by the respective religious leaders centuries after these religions were founded. And the whole invention of canonization actually comes from a Christian heretic, Marcion of Sinope who claimed that salvific doctrinal knowledge came from written religious texts (which is the idea behind the Witnesses and their use of Scripture). Again, reading the Scriptures with the realization of an authorized "canon" will shape things considerably for you.

Prepare to be shocked and even fascinated to know that religious people do not view the Bible anything like the Witnesses do. (The only ones who come close are Bible literalists like Fundamental Christians from Westboro Baptist Church or the very judgmental Lutheran Church: Missouri Synod. And the idea that religion is based on Scripture, instead of the other way around, is similar to the views of Mormonism as Joseph's Smith 'finding a book' and basing a religion upon it.)

It will be more than eye-opening to see how vastly different the Bible is understood and viewed by the majority of people. For me it was like being slapped in the face repeatedly until I couldn't breathe anymore.