Posts by Pete Zahut

11

'Parents' magazine cover with JW.org cartoon kids

by undercover in

jw
friends

making the rounds on facebook among jws is a photo of a 'parents' magazine cover that shows the cgi jw.org kids on the cover, and an article headline about how wonderful the teaching tools on jw.org are.

(i don't have the time or the desire to hunt the photo and post it - sorry).

i immediately suspected some bored and naive jw doing some photoshopping.

Pete Zahut

I wonder if there's a way to email this in to Parents Magazine?

81

Elders and Attendants sing, clap and turn backs on Street Preacher after Duluth RC.

by ToesUp in

very strange behavior by the attendants and elders after the duluth, ga, rc.

on the first link the attendants start to exit the arena, then line up and turn their backs on the street preachers.

(around the 6:00 mark).. elders and attendants after duluth rc.

Pete Zahut

I'd say from the waistlines of most of those fellows, they need to lay off the Cheese Danishes and quit sitting around for days on end at these assemblies. In the first video, did you see the pair of hips on the guy in the grey suit? They practically took up the whole screen on my iphone. Good thing the "race for life" isn't a literal race...just sayin'.

29

"Inactive" non Attenders, how much power do the JW's have over YOU ?

by Phizzy in

i was thinking about this because of the constant reminders we get in posts that we inactive non attenders have to be careful what we say to jw's, and what we do that they may learn about etc, if we don't wish to be before a j.c. the power they have is limited by what we give them.

now, i do not wish to be declared df'd of da'd, it would kill my old mum i think.. but i refuse to live my life looking over my shoulder, that, in my opinion, is giving them too much power.. i openly vote, i openly donate blood, i enjoy the odd cigar etc etc.. how much power do you allow them to have over you ?.

Pete Zahut

They have more power over my life than they would have if it were up to me. Unfortunately, my wife's family, even though they know we were wronged, are one misapplied scripture away from shunning us and she doesn't want that to happen. Consequently, we have to filter our facebook posts, censor ourselves when talking to them and pretty much let anything they say just slide on by. This irks me to no end because I'm the type who can't stand playing other people's games or pretending to go along with things I don't agree with. This is especially difficult when they make condescending remarks about non JW's or use some shortsighted JW form of logic that has more holes in it than Sponge Bob.

40

NEWS 5 INVESTIGATES: Sex offender going door-to-door

by OrphanCrow in

http://www.koaa.com/story/32799137/news-5-investigates-sex-offender-going-door-to-door.

by carlos vergara, investigative reporter.

colorado springs -66 year old waymon ivery is re-living a nightmare that happened more than two decades ago.

Pete Zahut

I'm sure Mr. Ivory granted an interview just to get the media off the elders backs. I'm sure, being a JW may have had a positive effect on his circumstances just as it would have if he belonged to any group that had a strict set of guidelines to follow.

I know he committed a terrible crime and the damage to the child can't be undone but still....part of me feels badly for Mr. Ivory especially since he's taking the heat all alone while the elders and the Governing body hide in comfortable homes and at world headquarters. Mr. Ivory seemed like the type who would comply with what the elders advised him to do. I want those who told him it was ok to go from door to door, to do the talking on camera or at least be there for him. As usual, the lowly Publisher gets thrown under the bus.

One thing that didn't work in Mr. Ivory's favor was his initial denial of the offense and his initial denial to grant an interview. However I can only imagine what I would do if I had someone suddenly stick a camera in my face and demand answers from me regarding a deeply shameful part of my life such as Mr. Ivory is carrying around. I'm always glad when the JW organization gets it's comeuppance in the media but somehow these local reporters always come off as sleaze bags, in my opinion, when the do this ambush style reporting.

25

Blood card

by Inabunker in

hi new to forum and first post!

i have been reading posts on and off for years.

still fighting my "doubts" and struggling internally, my family is active and the wife knows nothing of my late night website reads here.

Pete Zahut

Welcome to the forum Inabunker.

I talked about this in another post but I thought I'd throw I'd in here as well in case it is of interest to you.

My son's girlfriend recently graduated with a masters in nursing. She was hired immediately by a well known University medical hospital. During her first few weeks of training at the hospital, there was an entire section devoted to handle JW's and the blood issue. She, knowing our son's background paid particular attention to this and asked us a lot of questions afterward.

During the training they told her that it is the hospitals policy to visit JW's privately after the Liaison Committee has been there because they have had many cases where the JW just before surgery tearfully begs the hospital staff not to let them die and to give them blood and or young people who don't want to refuse blood but are afraid their family and elders will find. The hospital staff has to take certain legal measures to assure these patients of their privacy and that their personal wishes on the matter will be carried out. She said that in that hospital, most JW's are privately accepting blood.

My non JW father died a horrible death in front of his family while laying in a top notch modern hospital, based on one sided information he learned regarding the blood issue from JW's while he was studying. A few years later, the governing body made the ruling that it was ok to use blood fractions which would have been all that was needed to saved him.

The information below is from a post someone made that helped me see this issue a whole lot differently.

When I was still an active JW and beginnning to have doubts I did some thorough research on blood using only the NWT bible and Watchtower publications. My first clue to a possible problem came from the old blood booklet. I used the Concordance to consider the context of every reference to blood in the bible and finally wrote up my conclusions.

I then discussed it with a fellow elder who resigned and then faded and has not attended a meeting since.

I have referred to it a few times in other threads but I want to give it its own thread for my own reference. Long after I left the borg I discovered that others had came to the same conclusions for the same reasons but at the time I wrote this in 1995 I was unaware of this. I hope it is useful.

Jehovah’s Witnesses view blood as being “precious” at all times and in every circumstance.

An object may be precious for one or both of two reasons. It may have intrinsic value, or it may have value conferred on it by its owner. A gold wedding ring has both kinds of value. It has intrinsic value because of what it is made of but it also has an even greater value to its owner because of what it represents.

JW’s treat blood as if it is intrinsically valuable; it is this assumption that is their fundamental mistake.

In Genesis 6 when god gives permission for humans to kill animals for food. God tells Noah that he is to pour out the blood of the animal on the ground.
A common sense approach to this story would put “life” at the centre of the narrative. God is not primarily telling Noah something about blood but about the value of life. All life belongs to him and he is to be acknowledged as the source of life when an animal is killed for food. In pouring out an animal’s life on the ground, the worshipper symbolically returns the life to god.

The conclusive evidence that god is speaking here about the symbolic value of blood and not any intrinsic value is found in the law given through Moses. In Leviticus 17 god repeats his earlier instruction to Noah to pour out the blood of a creature hunted for food.

10 " Any Israelite or any alien living among them who eats any blood—I will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from his people. 11 For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life. 12 Therefore I say to the Israelites, "None of you may eat blood, nor may an alien living among you eat blood. 13 'Any Israelite or any alien living among you who hunts any animal or bird that may be eaten must drain out the blood and cover it with earth, 14 because the life of every creature is its blood. That is why I have said to the Israelites, "You must not eat the blood of any creature, because the life of every creature is its blood; anyone who eats it must be cut off."

These verses are often quoted by the Watchtower to support their position on blood. However the very next verse is never mentioned.

15 'Anyone, whether native-born or alien, who eats anything found dead or torn by wild animals must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be ceremonially unclean till evening; then he will be clean. 16 But if he does not wash his clothes and bathe himself, he will be held responsible.'

Notice that if somebody kills an animal for food and fails to return its life to god by pouring out its blood they are condemned under the law to be “ cut off from his people ” which most commentators take to refer to capital punishment. But, if an animal is killed by another animal the person who eats it has no guilt. He is “ceremonially unclean” until he bathes and changes his clothes. Remember that an animal that is already dead cannot be bled.

The Watchtower commented on this verse back in 1983 (15/4 p31) and tried to explain it away as “accidental or inadvertent” eating of unbled meat. This just cannot be sustained from any sensible reading of the context.

Exactly the same point about eating an animal “already dead” appears a few chapters earlier in Leviticus 11 in the context of clean and unclean animals.

39 If an animal that you are allowed to eat dies, anyone who touches the carcass will be unclean till evening. 40Anyone who eats some of the carcass must wash his clothes, and he will be unclean till evening. Anyone who picks up the carcass must wash his clothes, and he will be unclean till evening.

So here is the dilemma facing an Israelite on finding one of his sheep dead in the field. Firstly it is physically impossible to bleed it. If he digs a pit and buries it he is unclean until the morning for touching a dead body. If he decides not to waste it and cooks it for the family they are all unclean until the morning. Either way nobody gets “cut off”.

So what’s the difference? If he had killed the sheep himself and ate it unbled he would be guilty of taking a life and not respecting the giver of life by returning it to god through the pouring out of its blood. But, if another animal takes the life of the sheep or if it falls over and breaks its neck or dies of illness there is no guilt. No life was taken, and so no life can be returned to god. The blood of the animal “already dead” has no value and can be eaten with impunity.

It is clear by a comparison of these verses that the value of blood is not intrinsic but symbolic. Value is conferred on it by god who accepts it as representing a life that has been taken.

It is interesting to look at this from a different perspective for a moment. The Law clearly stated that blood had sacrificial value.

For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life. – Lev.17:11

So what if an Israelite bled his bull without killing it? He could remove a pint or two at a time and bring gallons of it to the altar. It is obvious that such a sacrifice would have no value at all for one simple reason – NOTHING WAS KILLED! The blood only represents the value of life when that life is taken and at no other time.

In the case of blood transfusions the blood that has been donated was not collected at the cost of the donor’s life and therefore has no more religious significance than the blood of an animal already dead which could be consumed without penalty.

Under the Law given through Moses there was a long list of things that resulted in the worshipper being viewed as ceremonially unclean. Various types of animals were declared unclean and therefore unsuitable for food. Everyday activities could also leave a person in an “unclean” condition. Sex, childbirth (especially if the child was female), touching a dead body and many more things resulted in uncleanness. This was not the same thing as committing a sin. The solution for an unclean condition was usually the requirement to bathe, change clothes and wait a specified period of time, most often “until the evening”.

Eating unbled meat of an animal “already dead” is consistently presented as a matter of uncleanness in the Old Testament never as a cause of sin. On the other hand the Israelites were frequently admonished to avoid things that god viewed as unclean whenever practical.

In the book of Deuteronomy Moses addresses the nation prior to their entry to the “promised land” and encourages them to keep the law. In chapter 14 he says,

21 "Do not eat anything you find already dead. You may give it to an alien living in any of your towns, and he may eat it, or you may sell it to a foreigner. But you are a people holy to the LORD your God. Do not cook a young goat in its mother's milk.”

If consuming the unbled meat of an animal “already dead” was a matter of sin it would be equally binding on all nations not just the Israelites. Remember the law concerning blood was first given to Noah. But here Moses tells the Israelite to keep themselves clean by not eating such meat but instead selling it to a foreigner, not because it would be sinful to eat it but because the nation of Israel “are a people holy to the LORD your God.” It is put in the same category as the odd-sounding rule, “Do not cook a young goat in its mother's milk” which has led to the complicated domestic arrangements in the homes of many Jewish families.

Those who served as priests in Israel were especially concerned with maintaining ceremonial cleanness; they were unable to carry out their job while considered unclean. The law contained additional rules directly only at the priesthood for this purpose. Leviticus 21 and 22 lists some of these extra restrictions including this verse in 22: 8,

8 He must not eat anything found dead or torn by wild animals, and so become unclean through it. I am the LORD.

So while the average Israelite could eat unbled meat of animal found dead, this provision was not open to priests, the sons of Aaron who were not even permitted to enter a building where there was a dead body. Centuries later in the bible narrative the same restriction is repeated at Ezekiel 44:31

31 The priests must not eat anything, bird or animal, found dead or torn by wild animals.

Ezekiel was himself the son of a priest and he declared,

14 Then I said, "Not so, Sovereign LORD! I have never defiled myself. From my youth until now I have never eaten anything found dead or torn by wild animals. No unclean meat has ever entered my mouth." (Ezek 4:14)

From this brief summary of Old Testament law two simple facts are inescapable.

1] When an animal was killed for food its blood was sacred and must be poured out on the ground. The rationale for this is the symbolic value of the blood in representing the life that has been taken

2] If an animal was found “already dead” its unbled flesh could be eaten with impunity; this resulted only in temporary uncleanness.

Only by properly understanding this Old Testament background of the laws concerning blood can the key text at Acts 15 in the New Testament and its significance for Christians be properly understood.

A fact often overlooked by modern Christians is that they’re religion began as a Jewish sect. The burning issue in the early church, that almost divided it in its infancy, was whether gentile believers could be acceptable without complying with the full requirements of the law.

In Galatians 2 Paul recounts how tension between Jewish and gentile believers led him to go up to the apostles in Jerusalem to settle the matter. In Acts 15 we appear to have a historical account of what Paul is referring to in this letter. A summit meeting is held involving a large number of believers including some of the elders and apostles as well as Paul and Barnabus.

Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the Law of Moses." Acts 15:2

So here is the problem; it is offensive to Jewish Christians that some of their brothers are ignoring the basic requirements of the law including circumcision. This did not just have theological implications; it was an obstacle to the unity and fellowship of the early church. A Jewish Christian could not, in good conscience, have fellowship with an uncircumcised person.
The solution that was finally adopted was a stroke of genius.

It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell. Acts 15:28,29

So where did the meeting come up with this particular set of requirements for gentile believers? Why no injunction against murder? What about theft, drunkenness and lying? This verse is not a new set of commandments for Christians; it is a restatement of those things that had always been required to maintain fellowship between Jews and gentiles.

The question of how Jews and gentiles could live together peacefully and what was required of non-Jewish residents in Israel was already established in the Law. In Leviticus 17 and 18 these very same prohibitions which could neatly be summarized as idolatry, blood and fornication, are set out as being those things that a foreigner must adhere to while living amongst the Israelites. They were not required to be circumcised, and to stipulate they were to abstain from murder or theft would have been to state the obvious. The crimes that a foreigner were likely to commit, perhaps without even understanding their offensiveness to their Jewish hosts, were these three things, idolatry, fornication and eating blood.

The words of James who proposed the content of the letter sent out to the congregations leaves us in no doubt about the reason for its contents.

"It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath." Acts 15:19-21

How can there be any room for doubt that these things are not about fundamental laws but about how to maintain unity under the specific circumstances of the early congregation?

Finally, the letter requires Christians “abstain from food sacrificed to idols” but in 1Cor 8 Paul explains clearly that a brother who eats food sacrificed to idols commits no sin but does risk stumbling his brother. The language Paul uses there is identical to the wording of the Acts 15 letter.

There are lots of other great articles about blood and the hypocrisy of recent laws on fractions. My only concern in researching the above was the biblical context. For that reason it may be useful to questioning JWs. See JWFacts.com for more information.

20

Can someone help me

by stephanie61092 in

jw
friends

a girl i've known my entire life who supported me from a distance after i was disfellowshipped sent me this message on instagram today: .

let me know when your back... i'm unfollowing you on ig & snap.

i love you.

Pete Zahut

You: Dear _____ I'm not quite sure how it is that you are able to evaluate the level of another persons faith or their relationship with our Creator or how you came to the conclusion that I am indecisive, nevertheless I do understand what has prompted you to suddenly cut me off in this cold and hurtful way. I hope our connection on Instagram etc hasn't caused you any difficulty in the congregation or otherwise.

I want you to know that although you may not realize it, even though we haven't been able to associate freely with one another as we used to, after all that I've been through, the small kindnesses you've shown me up to this point were the one thing that made it possible for me to consider the possibility that the love and forgiveness Jesus spoke about, might still be found among Jehovah's Witnesses.

11

One of the best vid's I've ever seen for debunking and disproving Jehovah's Witnesses

by StoneWall in

as some of you know i'm not a religious person at all after leaving the jw's but there was a link on another site i was on and the link was to a pastor's vid.

(about exposing jw's as false prophets etc)being that i'm not at all interested in hearing a sermon, i was going to just leave the site and continue researching some other stuff but then curiosity made me wonder if he truly knew anything about jw's or was just going to be another religious leader downing jw's in an effort to make his version of the "gospel" sound more appealing.i have to admit i was pleasantly surprised at the extent of his knowledge of scripture that jw's like to use as well as the history behind the organization.

many of the points he brought out we've covered here before and he arranged them in an easy to understand and follow sequence.i'd be interested in hearing what some of you think on the job he did on exposing the jw's(wt)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3o56jwgbjk.

Pete Zahut

Pete, does this mean that you are praying for all people who do not believe exactly what you do to die as all JW are doing? And with that, do you, aside from the false prophesies believe that it is morally acceptable to wish for al people to be burned in Jehovah]s fire.

I don't know where you'd get that idea from my comment but to answer your question, NO I am not hoping praying or wishing for any harm to come to anyone for any reason. I'm not even sure there is a God, and if I prayed to him I certainly wouldn't pray that those who don't believe as I do will die in any manner let alone burned in "Jehovah's fire" (whatever that means).

All I said was that I thought the video was interesting, he made some good points. When it comes to explaining the trinity, I don't believe any explanation of it but I do find the JW explanation the easiest to comprehend. Perhaps this is only because I was raised JW. I liked the video until the end where he began praying and rather than talking to God, he was preaching to the audience and recapping what he had already said in his sermon.

I'm not sure where your comment is coming from.

11

One of the best vid's I've ever seen for debunking and disproving Jehovah's Witnesses

by StoneWall in

as some of you know i'm not a religious person at all after leaving the jw's but there was a link on another site i was on and the link was to a pastor's vid.

(about exposing jw's as false prophets etc)being that i'm not at all interested in hearing a sermon, i was going to just leave the site and continue researching some other stuff but then curiosity made me wonder if he truly knew anything about jw's or was just going to be another religious leader downing jw's in an effort to make his version of the "gospel" sound more appealing.i have to admit i was pleasantly surprised at the extent of his knowledge of scripture that jw's like to use as well as the history behind the organization.

many of the points he brought out we've covered here before and he arranged them in an easy to understand and follow sequence.i'd be interested in hearing what some of you think on the job he did on exposing the jw's(wt)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3o56jwgbjk.

Pete Zahut

Interesting Video, thank you for posting it.

I hadn't made the connection before between taking on the name Jehovah's Witnesses and wanting to distance themselves from C.T. Russell. Like everything else, they put their own spin on that change.

It's interesting to hear him encourage his audience to do research on the internet rather than telling them to take his word for everything. In the beginning he didn't forbid them from talking to JW's even though he considers them to be false prophets, saying "If you ever have a discussion with one of them". But later he said not to take the literature or greet them, but eventually said to bring the gospel to them.

My JW trained brain won't accept his view of the Trinity. I don't believe anything Bible related anymore and immediately become suspicious when anyone starts stringing together connect the dot scriptures to explain anything, but the JW version of the Trinity seems to be the only one I can wrap my mind around.

To me, he lost all of his credibility at the end of the video.

89

Need advice

by Drwho in

i'm a middle aged man.

i dated a jw lady for 3 months ., we never had sex, just made out , half naked , well everything except underwear .

she has been a jw for 40 years ., was married to a jw but he committed adultery 13 years ago so they divorced .

Pete Zahut

I haven't read all of the comments yet but the first thing that comes to mind is given her history with cheating on her previous husband and messing around with you despite her strict JW beliefs, is whether this woman is someone you'd want to get serious with.

One moment she's messing around with you and the next moment she's trying to get you involved in a cult/religion that condemns such behavior and has punished her for it in the past.

Unless you're ready for a rocky and unstable relationship, I think you'd be best to step away from this until she has her head straightened out and figures out why she was unable to stick to her vow to her husband and to God. Depending on how long she's been a JW, this won't be accomplished overnight.

Getting mixed up with someone so unstable could break your heart and ruin your financial future.

19

Shunned by family

by Ruth in

my fiancé is an ex-jehovah’s witness.

when he was 18 years old, his 17 year old brother was killed in an accident.

his parents having previously lost an infant daughter were understandably distraught and were therefore highly susceptible to an organisation which seemed to be able to supply definitive answers where more mainstream religion seemed to fail them..

Pete Zahut

Should my fiancé have attempted to disassociate himself from the jws prior to being disfellowshipped? Now that he is df, is it too late?

As Geoffery Jackson pointed out in the video, one can formally disassociate themselves by having it announced, which is the que to the congregation to begin shunning, or one can choose to just leave and say nothing. When someone just fades away, they don't typically make a ruling on the person who simply leaves quietly until they want to come back. In view of that video it seems to me your fiance' could point out to his family and the Elders that he shouldn't have been DF'd in the first place and could even threaten legal action against the congregation because of the resulting consequences they've caused .

He was invited to attend, but it would have meant a long interstate journey and as he said to the elder who called, he no longer has anything to do with them, so it was really of not much concern to him.

Even more proof that he is no longer a JW and is not under their jurisdiction anymore and they shouldn't be making rulings on him and involving themselves in his personal life. Since they are HER elders, the only thing they should have done is confirmed to his exwife that she is free to marry again if she wants.

I am not sure that the video alone would be strong enough to sway his parents by itself (even if we can get it to them, which is problematic). Maybe in conjunction with the circuit overseer who initially advised them it was a matter for their conscience?

Maybe he could email the video to those Elders and let them know that based on what Jackson said, they were wrong to disfellowship him and he wants them to reverse their decision .

The annoying thing is that nothing has changed. My fiancé was living (very happily) in sin with me and his parents were allowed to associate with him (they knew although of course they had never been explicitly told). He was then disfellowshipped for the same reason and now they're not allowed to associate with him.

It is so hard to understand how they are persuaded that anything has changed.

It's all about technicalities in JW land, so long as no official ruling is made, lots of JW's are ok with looking the other way.

As a side note: Sorry if I'm getting the wrong end of the stick here but it seems as if you may be more concerned with his family situation than he is. Shouldn't he the one trying to figure out what to do?