Posts by David

62

Would You EVER Go Back To Being A Jehovah's Witness?

by minimus in

jw
friends

i could never understand why some people who know the truth about the "truth" ever go back.

once you understand all the hypocrisy and negatives, i would think it's almost impossible to go back!.

David_Jay

I freely and happily left of my own accord. Go back? Why?

14

Asking a Jew about the Name "Jehovah"

by David_Jay in

jehovah's witnesses...that's the trademark of the religion, the use of the name "jehovah.

" if there is anything jws and non-jws can agree on is that this one thing sets them apart from everybody else.. i have only had witnesses come to my door less than five times since i left in the 1990s.

i guess they don't work the territory i live in often, or perhaps after that first time (which was still after the year 2000) they have marked the words "jew who knows a lot" or something in their notes on my address.

David_Jay

Jehovah's Witnesses...That's the trademark of the religion, the use of the name "Jehovah." If there is anything JWs and non-JWs can agree on is that this one thing sets them apart from everybody else.

I have only had Witnesses come to my door less than five times since I left in the 1990s. I guess they don't work the territory I live in often, or perhaps after that first time (which was still after the year 2000) they have marked the words "JEW WHO KNOWS A LOT" or something in their notes on my address. I've never told any of them I have been a Witness nor has any one of them guessed. But none of them leave quite the same, mainly because of asking about the name "Jehovah."

Since I've joined this forum, I have received several private messages requesting I answer some questions about the Divine Name. These questions have been similar to the ones I got asked by Witnesses who came to me door. So with the permission of those who have sent me PMs, I have limited the most frequently questions I get asked about God's Name down to four. They might inspire some new ones, so feel free to ask, but keep in mind I am only presenting the general ideas of Judaism here and how they relate to claims made about Jehovah's Witnesses. For more in-depth information about Judaism in general, I recommend My Jewish Learning, a website that will give you a good overview of the various views of Jewish practice.

The four questions are:

How do Jews regard the Tetragrammaton? Do they see it as a personal name of God?
Is the Watchtower explanation correct, namely that Jews avoid pronouncing the name due to a superstition? What is this superstition?
Has Christendom tried to suppress the pronunciation of God’s name as Jehovah’s Witnesses claim?
Are the Hebrew names for God indicative of theories that the Jews worshipped other deities and then merely applied their names to their current monotheistic concept?

How do Jews regard the Tetragrammaton? Do they see it as a personal name of God?

Unlike what Jehovah’s Witnesses teach, Jews see all the words that they use in their language (such as "God," "Lord," etc.) as “names” for the God of Abraham. As for the Tetragrammaton, what Jews call the Shem Ha-M’forash, it is seen as a self-designation. It’s also a name, but in some respects an “anti-name.”

In the ancient Mesopotamian world, bestowing a name upon something implied you had power over it. The Hebrew word shem actually means “handle” or even “reigns” or “leash,” items used to control or maneuver other things. While the other names for God seem to have been borrowed language from the world the ancient Hebrews lived in, the Shem Ha-M’forash is understood as a revelation. Instead of it being a name the Jews gave God, it explains the way Jews experienced God. God is “Self-designating,” not the other way around.

The “I am what I am” definition so familiar to most Christians is really another way of saying, “I am defined by myself, by what I am. I am not defined by you. Instead, you are defined by me.”

As such it isn't so much of a “handle” as it is the opposite of such. It is God’s “name,” for lack of a better word in English, but it’s not really a name since such implies control over the one so “named.”

Is the Watchtower explanation correct, namely that Jews avoid pronouncing the name due to a superstition? What is this superstition?

No, Jehovah’s Witnesses are not correct when they say Jews have a superstition that keeps them from pronouncing the Shem Ha-M’forash. We don’t pronounce it for two very good reasons.

Jews treat holy things different from mundane things. Just as the Ark of the Covenant was not to be touched and its contents not to be viewed, the Shem Ha-M’forash is not to be pronounced. Mundane names can be used often, just like mundane objects can be used and approached by all. But holy things in the Jewish world are treated in a fashion that separates them from the regular, everyday mundane world. The Self-designation of God is far holier than other names, thus Jews don’t speak it. We often use other names of God, such as Adonai as substitutes.
No one knows for sure how it was pronounced or if it was ever pronounced to begin with. While there are possible ways of attempting to reconstruct the way the Shem Ha-M’forash sounded, there is also evidence to suggest it was meant to remain ineffable. The words “Yahweh” and “Jehovah” were constructed by Christians, not Jews, and therefore these terms have no meaning for us.

Has Christendom tried to suppress the pronunciation of God’s name as Jehovah’s Witnesses claim?

The opposite is true. “Jehovah” comes from Catholicism’s attempt to reconstruct the name. “Yahweh” is a more ecumenical Christian attempt at reconstruction, but it was again the Roman Catholic Church that has made it popular after Vatican II. It was once, in either or both forms, the mainstay of many Baptist and Catholic prayers and hymns.

However, due to the official, ongoing Jewish-Christian dialogue (wherein the Catholic Church is the major player on the Christian side), the use of the name had been dropped from Catholic and most Protestant liturgies by the dawn of the 21st century. The reason is that the idea that “a Jewish superstition” kept the Jews from pronouncing it was discovered to have no basis (with some evidence suggesting this claim came from anti-Semitic propaganda). Theologians of Christianity today side with the Jewish understanding of the Ineffable Name of God as proper, so much so that many churches, including those of the Catholic Church have removed the words “Jehovah” and “Yahweh” from all hymnals and prayer books. The upcoming third revision of the Jerusalem Bible, a Catholic Bible well-known for using “Yahweh” throughout, will have “Lord” or “God” in capital letters as a substitute for the Shem Ha-M’forash in its upcoming version.

Are the Hebrew names for God indicative of theories that the Jews worshipped other deities and then merely applied their names to their current monotheistic concept?

There are hypothetical paradigms created by some which data suggests might support such a view, but they are not at the stage of theory yet.

While it is true that the Jews also worshipped the gods of the nations around them (even the Bible admits this repeatedly), and it is understood even by Jews that we borrowed words from other deities to describe ours (such as the word El), critical analysis reveals a competition of God-concepts and not a single line of evolution from one god to another.

This doesn't mean that the various hypothetical paradigms have no weight, but they do seem to be reconstructions of what current critical theories teach. Currently it appears that the Jewish claim that monotheism was unique and won-out in co-existence with these other Mesopotamian deities matches what disinterested academia can decipher.

Still the other hypothetical models wouldn't change much of anything for Judaism. The monotheistic concept of the Jews itself has greatly evolved over millennia, so much so that it no longer completely matches with the written Biblical views. Christianity cherishes the static view of God found in Scripture, but Jews use it as a sounding and diving board by which they move forward. And unlike Jehovah’s Witnesses who believe the Bible is the basis for Judeo-Christian religion, Jews see their religion and culture as the basis for the Bible. Therefore what it offers can only be a static view of God from the ancient past, frozen in the time it was composed and limited by the views the ancient theologians had so many thousands of years ago.

17

Is a born-in brought up in a JW home like being a child inmate being raised in prison?

by Still Totally ADD in

i bring up this subject because of all the restrictions children have to endure in the jw cult.

they are made prisoners of mind and body.

being forced to do things that are not natural for children to do.

David_Jay

This may have to do more with what your parents were like, and not necessarily if you were raised by Jehovah's Witnesses.

I was originally raised by non-religious parents of Jewish ancestry. Besides for a few cultural earmarks, there was little religion. We were a wealthy family, with all the material things you can imagine. My parents celebrated Christmas and Halloween and birthdays (things you don't always find in a every Jewish home). My grandparents gave me what little teaching in Jewish ways as they could, and their influence was great, but the home my parents raised me in was very different.

My parents were also abusive. I had to be rescued and separated from my parents who put my life in physical danger repeatedly since infancy. I have both emotional and physical scars from the little over 10 years I was with them.

My aunt (of no blood relation) raised me after that. She was a Jehovah's Witness. She was kind, loving, caring, thoughtful, honest and dependable. She went to every meeting, assembly and convention, and was even a regular pioneer for some time. I went along to every meeting as well and out in service regularly. I didn't have what I had grown up with materially and had no Christmas or birthday celebrations anymore, but I also had peace, love, and no more abuse at home.

So it depends. The way my aunt practiced her religion was very orderly and exemplary, and this included how she treated me and her children, my cousins. It was a loving home, and from what I saw even then a lot better than even others had it who were also JWs. Some of them had what some here are describing.

And that is because abusive parents come in all denominations (and even without being religious, like mine). So some born into the religion experienced the Watchtower through an abusive environment. Others did not. But just as not all non-religious parents are abusers like my non-religious parents, not all JW families were the same either.

Being raised in a religious home can be abusive IF the parents use the religion as one of their tools of abuse. I've seen this in Catholic and Jewish and Mormon and JW homes. But my parents once beat me with a toy, and that doesn't mean that all children who are given toys will experience being bruised and bloodied by them as I was.

We can all be so greatly limited by our personal experience with the Witnesses that we often cannot see that our own view of Witness life may be unique. If you were abused growing up, you might want to blame the religion before you blame your parents. Being an adult survivor of child abuse, I see this all the time.

If you had an abusive childhood it is because you had abusive parents. A religion can play a part, true, but it can't raise you irresponsibly. Parents can however, and do. A religion can make demands and tell a parent to treat their child one way, and the parent can always say, "No." My aunt did this several times. In the 1970s she made sure all her kids were immunized and took medications when they needed it. She was a nurse, but the Witnesses sometimes frowned on medicine back then (just see the old "Youth" book from my era). My aunt had no problem putting elders and other mothers in their place when they challenged her on this.

If your JW parents did everything by the book, then you may have received some religious abuse that way. But your parents had the option of being brave like my aunt and saying "no." So it all can't be blamed on the religion. My aunt is a second-generation JW too, and she knew the difference between good parenting and going along with the Watchtower blindly.

I was abused by non-religious parents. You may have been abused by religious parents. The constant here? Abusive parents.

Besides, Jewish kids grow up without Christmas, some without birthday celebrations, and some with strict religious-adhering parents...and I know many like this, none of whom claim it was abuse.

Child abuse knows no religion. It comes from people who abuse children, period. So again if you were abused growing up, the Watchtower might have had some fault in it, but you need to take a hard and honest look at your parents too.

40

Is there truth in religion

by bola in

i am asking this questions due to the teachings, beliefs and practices of different religions..

David_Jay

Judaism does not teach that "eternal rest" is guaranteed only to those who practice Judaism.

For instance, when asked if Jews think their religion is the right one, the answer is usually: "For whom?"

Unlike what many of us may be familiar with due to our exposure to Jehovah's Witnesses, Judaism does not agree that religion has an exclusive on truth. At the same time, it neither promotes others to join Judaism nor any religion for that matter. It also promotes no search for ultimate truth or gives "truth" of any type a salvific quality.

Jews see their cultural response to their concept of God as "their religion," but at the same time do not teach that it is the way for others who are not of Jewish origin.

Spiritual and secular paths other than Judaism are fully valid and can be beneficial as long as they conform to the seven basic laws of all humanity, often referred to as the seven Noahide Laws: do not serve idols, do not curse the God of Abraham, do not murder, do not pervert sexuality or blatantly live outside the sexual mores of society, do not steal, live justly, and treat all animals mercifully.

One need not worship the Jewish God or even acknowledge God, so religion is not necessary for those outside of a covenant relationship with the Creator. If there are ultimate truths or axioms, discovering and holding these guarantees no salvation of any type.

If there is a World to Come in which an eternity of bliss awaits, it is open to all who are just, not just Jews. The idea of "truth," however is therefore separate and, again, not a requisite. If there is truth anywhere, it might be found in some religions as well as outside of religion in general. But knowing the truth about anything is very different from being honest, honorable, and just.

47

Has the Bible been redacted so that YAHWEH can be promoted to EL's position as Almighty God?

by I_love_Jeff in

for background, read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/yahweh, the section, "iron age i: el, yahweh, and the origins of israel.

" "el and his sons made up the assembly of the gods, each member of which had a human nation under his care, and a textual variant of deuteronomy 32:8–9 describes the sons of el, including yahweh, each receiving his own people.

"el, the kind, the compassionate,' 'the creator of creatures,' was the chief of the canaanite gods, and he, not yahweh, was the original 'god of israel'—the word 'israel' is based on the name el rather than yahweh.

David_Jay

I think there's one thing that David and I can agree on and that is religious writtings go back thousands and thousands of years and have been changed redacted changed and changed again to suit the purposes of the people in their area of the world and in their time and belief system.

Actually I have not revealed my personal views on the matter here. I have been giving a very detached, objective view based on a combination of others, from Orthodox to Conservative, Reform and Chabad, including critical analysis.

Jews don't hold the view that the Scriptures "have been changed redacted changed and changed again to suit" purposes that don't agree with their original intent, and this isn't my personal view either. We understand the end product has developed by means of "redaction," meaning an editing process, mostly of interpolating various narratives with similar ones and fitting them together into what we have now. This does not, however, imply that even the view of critical analysis among Jews is that the texts have been merely transposed from other religious texts and fitted to Jewish needs. I haven't said that either.

I have come to the conclusion that some people don't change much in the way they process information, discuss matters, and hold on to their convictions after they leave the Watchtower. This might be because the way Jehovah's Witnesses stand in their belief system differs little in some respects with many others.

Once some believe that they have made sense of something, they discontinue efforts for searching for the answer. People become satisfied that they have made "all the pieces of the puzzle fit," and begin efforts of debunking anyone else's views while protecting their own. What they should be doing instead of this is to attempt the exact same with their own personal views, subjecting them from the point of continued skepticism. Especially upon coming out of a cult, people should be far more cautious with what they personally decide to accept as valid, reminding themselves: "I was duped before, and this is likely a tendency of mine that I can't ever take for granted."

When ex-JWs come on sites like this, they post their opinions, their views, their understanding of things, their new beliefs. They also make the big mistake that everyone else is doing the same. Maybe they are, just about. But I am not.

These are not my personal convictions I am writing. I am merely stating things based on material I've learned, like producing an encyclopedia entry with facts I may have some or no investment in. Some points I might accept fully, others I don't. My job however is to merely give the information, not express my personal view.

In an attempt to "make sense" of the world once outside the Watchtower we must all find our own way. But we are subject to make the same mistakes we did when we were in the JW religion, born-in or not. We can be just as guilty of confirmation bias and motivated skepticism as we were when Witnesses, maybe more so. Now we don't have a cult behind us to tell us we're right. Now we are on our own. So now we might be even more determined to cherish what we have, to feel relief that "the pieces finally fit" or "make sense."

The truth is, there is no guarantee any of us are seeing things correctly even now that we are out of a cult. What is happening here is that many are looking for people to encourage their new set of convictions, to which they will offer no argument. The moment they get no confirmation from another, they argue and fight and even insult. I have had people PM me to apologize for lying to me in their comments during such an exchange on here due to getting "heated" and suddenly "losing control" when I did not write something they found agreeable.

No, Crazyguy. We do not agree. You cannot say we do because I never told you what I personally conclude from all this information. Your points are comparable to Jewish critical analysis and even some traditions, but they don't match it. You are not incorrect or wrong, but you are definitively not precise either. You views also do not match with the academic conclusions that employ the historical critical method.

But you are a very good thinker, and at least you have your eyes open and the courage to try to find ways of making the puzzle fit. In my opinion (yes, here it is), you need to subject yourself to twice the skepticism you give others, and it should come not from fellow ex-JWs, but from others who have no investment in your convictions or stand. You will be even wiser for it (and you are not far from that now, in my opinion).

47

Has the Bible been redacted so that YAHWEH can be promoted to EL's position as Almighty God?

by I_love_Jeff in

for background, read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/yahweh, the section, "iron age i: el, yahweh, and the origins of israel.

" "el and his sons made up the assembly of the gods, each member of which had a human nation under his care, and a textual variant of deuteronomy 32:8–9 describes the sons of el, including yahweh, each receiving his own people.

"el, the kind, the compassionate,' 'the creator of creatures,' was the chief of the canaanite gods, and he, not yahweh, was the original 'god of israel'—the word 'israel' is based on the name el rather than yahweh.

David_Jay

So the earliest stories the gods were resting for killing off most of mankind and in time it got changed to a day of rest for mankind.

The Jews may not have not derived their Shabbat from these precise ideas, though you are correct that Jews ascribe the origins of the day to their pre-Abrahamic Mesopotamian ancestors. There isn't definitive consensus yet from academics, historians, or Jewish theologians, but you are not far off that there was probably Babylonian influence as well, not to forget to mention the Jewish idea ascribing its origin to Egyptian times (though academics have argued that there is no empirical evidence for this coming from actual Egyptians themselves) .

So while Crazyguy has a workable hypothesis, it isn't the final word. But it also isn't new.

What surprises me is that most people don't bother to ask Jews about the historical origins of the Sabbath. They assume, based I can only suppose on their limited exposure to Western thought (which was largely formed by Christianity) that Jews take the Biblical narrative about the Sabbath (and other aspects of our culture/religion) at face value. Those that have this impression and then are surprised at learning something they think is "new" merely belie the fact that they had been informed in the first place.

Case in point, when Cecil B. DeMille filmed his 1956 remake of The Ten Commandments, he includes a scene where Moses, as the Prince of Egypt, gives the Hebrew slaves of Goshen "one day in seven to rest." I recall JWs scoffing at this scene from the film "because the Bible doesn't mention this." But the truth is that Jewish history and tradition do. And that's where DeMille got the idea for this scene from.

DeMille really did his homework when creating this revamped version of his earlier 1923 silent classic. He included this part of Jewish historical tradition that, while may or may not be historically definitive in itself, is an example of one of the Jewish admissions that the Sabbath didn't come about as written in the Bible. The 1956 film is quite famous, and I know of no Jehovah's Witness that failed to see it. Perhaps many here merely "poo-pooed" the scene away as poetic license on behalf of the DeMille when they were Witnesses, but it isn't.

And here's the thing: that film was released back in 1956. The history of DeMille's intense research "to get things right" for this remake are a well-known part of movie history too. How people missed this one example of a Jewish admission that we don't accept the Biblical narrative as the origin of our traditions, I will never understand...especially Witnesses who then go on to act surprised at hearing that the Jews don't use the Bible's narrative as the definitive origin of how Shabbat came about! It is all quite curious from my vantage point. (No insults implied. It's just funny that here is one example that has been staring people in the face for generations.)

This is but one of several ancient traditional explanations too. There is another that claims Sabbath observance actually came from Sarah, the wife of Abraham (the legend of which implies that Sarah's ancestors actually had this traditional practice for generations before). And some Jewish scholars have suggested that it was influenced by assimilation during the Babylonian exile, adapted from the Babylonian lunar calendar (though most academics have doubt it was this late in Jewish history).

The first archeological mention of the Sabbath is found inscribed upon the Mesad Hashavyahu ostracon from the 7th century B.C.E. The Hebrew etymology of the word doesn't seem linked to other languages (though again there isn't anything to outright contradict Crazyguy's views). The word in Hebrew means "cessation" as in cessation of the act of labor.

So while it may be new to others who were once Jehovah's Witnesses that the origins of Hebrew customs didn't come about as written in the Bible, it only shows the ignorance the Governing Body keeps the people under their control in. Jews don't accept the Biblical narrative as the historical origins of their culture/religion, as Vidiot has mentioned, and this isn't "revisionist" Judaism either.

I guess it just shows that nobody bothers to ask Jews or look it up from a Jewish source. Some people seem to do anything and everything but that, which is really illogical to me. Apparently some of these have their minds made up that Jews are going to say what they have been taught by second-hand information. It is never the sign of critical thinking to avoid the source.

47

Has the Bible been redacted so that YAHWEH can be promoted to EL's position as Almighty God?

by I_love_Jeff in

for background, read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/yahweh, the section, "iron age i: el, yahweh, and the origins of israel.

" "el and his sons made up the assembly of the gods, each member of which had a human nation under his care, and a textual variant of deuteronomy 32:8–9 describes the sons of el, including yahweh, each receiving his own people.

"el, the kind, the compassionate,' 'the creator of creatures,' was the chief of the canaanite gods, and he, not yahweh, was the original 'god of israel'—the word 'israel' is based on the name el rather than yahweh.

David_Jay

Anony Mous,

These are not my personal opinions and some of the things I wrote are not even views of Judaism I share. You argument is not with me but with Judaism.

Anyone can claim they work for a university. But I will take your word for it. Why not use your education and university credentials and debate those I told you to. If you keep arguing with me it won't do any good for as I told you, these are not my personal views or convictions. For all you know I may have the exact same feelings about these matters that you do.

If you work for a university than I am certain you have the courage to openly tell Jews out in the world, wherever and whenever you meet them, what you dislike of disagree with about their own take on their own cultural and theological views.

But if you just keep on arguing with me, I will believe you are nothing more than a troll, lying about your university connections, and lacking the courage to do anymore than be a slave to that insatiable drive within you to prove your point on an insignificant thread on the Internet.

I'm done with conversing with you since I am not here to defend Judaism, its teachings, or my personal convictions (which I actually share very rarely). Therefore I am not the one you need to be speaking with about your views.

7

Who has had most elders grilling them at one time ?

by Chook in

mine is 5 at a private table .

David_Jay

I had the entire body of 12 elders in my congregation call me into the back room once.

It turned out I had done nothing wrong. An elder who claimed to be of the anointed had a problem with me and was fabricating stories about me. He was the one who, as I've mentioned in previous points, later apologized to me the day before I left the Witnesses, admitting he had been orchestrating all types of problems for me over the years while pretending to be my friend.

To this day I don't know exactly why he singled me out, but he did use the word "jealous" in reference to me in his apology.

This meeting with the entire elder body had a humorous ending. The oldest elder on the body came up to me right after it was decided that there wasn't any real issue or need to counsel me.

This elderly man placed a hand on my shoulder and said to me: "David, I don't know what you did or why I am even here as I've lost most of my hearing and don't know what's going on. But I promise you that if you just apply the counsel the elders have just given you, everything will turn out right."

47

Has the Bible been redacted so that YAHWEH can be promoted to EL's position as Almighty God?

by I_love_Jeff in

for background, read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/yahweh, the section, "iron age i: el, yahweh, and the origins of israel.

" "el and his sons made up the assembly of the gods, each member of which had a human nation under his care, and a textual variant of deuteronomy 32:8–9 describes the sons of el, including yahweh, each receiving his own people.

"el, the kind, the compassionate,' 'the creator of creatures,' was the chief of the canaanite gods, and he, not yahweh, was the original 'god of israel'—the word 'israel' is based on the name el rather than yahweh.

David_Jay

Anony Mous,

...yours and other religions after claim they are the unerring word of a deity on which we should rely for daily guidance on either spiritual, moral or practical matters.

Jews don't claim that the Scriptures "are the unerring word of a deity." Christians do, so you might just be projecting their claim on to Jews. Jews don't teach that.

But the Jews aren't taking credit for these elements
and then in the next sentence...
...since the Tanakh (the Hebrew Scriptures) was written by the Jews, the Jews have a clear claim to its meaning.

We can only claim the meaning behind Jewish compositions like the Tanakh, which is what I said. The Tanakh was written millennia after the Jews took elements from their Semitic world and made them their own. We don't claim we invented the Semitic world of Mesopotamia.

The first sentence was about not claiming we invented certain practices and customs, such as Passover, Purim, or sacrificing animals at a shrine or temple. We got these basic elements from our pagan/heathen past. We infused the practices with new meanings, much like Christians have with Christmas traditions that come from pagan/heathen origins. The basis for the cultural practices of the Jews was the Mesopotamian world, but these were altered over time and during the exile to Babylon were infused with even further meanings for the Jews. The new meanings we invented and wrote into the Tanakh are ours, but not the basis for practices of the ancient Eastern that evolved into these Jewish practices.

The second sentence is when I was discussing the Tanakh itself. The practices the Jews adapted from the Mesopotamian paradigm of which they were a part of had already become fixtures in Jewish life for centuries before the Tanakh was developed during the Babylonian exile. Most of the practices had already been altered and given new meanings over time as Israel grew under its first monarchy. So when the Babylonian exile began, the exiled sages and scribes began altering our history via legendary license, infusing our customs with even more meaning by claiming they were gifts from Heaven.

The resulting composition, the Hebrew Scriptures or Tanakh, is the work of Jewish sages and scribes. It is not the basis of our religion or practices but was a new tool for the synagogue system in which the stories were designed to be proclaimed. It was designed to keep our culture alive through Babylon so we would not assimilate and lose our national identity.

So Jews, being the people who wrote the book, have a claim to its meaning. But the Tanakh is not the origin of the culture or of the religion of the Jews. It was written by Jews to help preserve what had evolved over millennia, a culture like others that had become unique though it had common roots with its Mesopotamian neighbors.

Can you tell us where you got the mistaken idea that Jews view the Scriptures as "the unerring word of a deity" ?

Also, aren't you aware that the Scriptures of the Jews were written after Solomon's Temple was destroyed, after the Jews were forced to leave their land, countless generations after their religious system had evolved from the world from which they came? Where did you get your ideas?

Didn't you go to college after you left the Witnesses and at least take some courses in history to help erase the nonsense they taught? Please don't tell me you just left without at least investing time and money in yourself to at least know what the rest of society outside the Watchtower knows. What I am writing here is basic college history, and even found on Jewish education sites on the web. You mean, you never bothered to check with sources like My Jewish Learning or Aish or Chabad or the Reform Judaism site?

You don't have to live in darkness after the Watchtower. And no bogeyman is gonna get you just because you go to a Jewish source to get your questions about Judaism answered. Stop asking me and start learning from the source yourself. Or take a night course in college or something. If you want to challenge the answers, challenge your local rabbis. Get of your butt and away from a computer screen, come out into the real world and to talk and argue with real people face to face.

Stop challenging me and challenge yourself with an education that will answer all your questions and more, and leave the darkness of the Watchtower behind forever.

44

2017 Convention Video Remember The Wife Of Lot

by pale.emperor in

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0qpoelk2r4.

the dad in this is a total douche.

i dont know if the videos have become more judgemental and culty in the year since i left - or maybe im just noticing it more?.

David_Jay

Someone just asked me privately, asking me to clarify here...

How is Abraham's challenging God's justice a good thing in contrast with Lot who obeys and leaves Sodom as asked?

Several things:

1. In Judaism, it is a good thing to question God, to dialogue with the Creator, to participate as part of the union between God and humanity. While Islam and Christianity promote obedience to God, Judaism is about a partnership with God.

2. Abraham questions God on how just it is to destroy the lives of others. Lot never does this. Abraham is concerned about the lives of people he has never met, and even though they are sinners, argues on the possibility of mercy. Lot merely warns family of the coming disaster but doesn't seem too concerned to argue for anyone but himself and his comfort (as in sparing Zoar, not for the lives there but so he won't have to rough it in the wilderness).

Lot's dialogue with God reveals his own selfishness, while Abraham's dialogue was about sparing the lives of others. And instead of sticking with Abraham and sharing in the covenant relationship with him, Lot chooses to part, showing the the lack of concern that Esau had with his birthright. Lot is not the hero character the Witnesses paint him out to be. Lot is the anti-Abraham.

David_Jay

Posts by David_Jay