The JEHOVAH game (a modern fetish) (page 2)

AllTimeJeff

Terry

I agree with almost everything you have written here. I am curious as to your opinion on "sprituality".

My take is that there is a part of each of us that longs for a purpose in life and to have meaning in it. It sounds like we both agree that organized religion has hijacked an individuals ability to discover that for themselves. Indeed, it would appear that most organized religions demand that they have the right to define your "spirituality" to you.

You will note that I use quotes on that, because I understand my use of the word spiritual and spirituality is different then most. In context, I am specifically referring to the quest most, if not all of us undertake to find a purpose in our life. To me, that is why people go to church or worship Jesus or Jehovah in the first place.

Hope you can work with this. I will be happy to clarify anything I didn't make clear.

Terry

All Time Jeff asks:

I am curious as to your opinion on "sprituality".
Hmmm....
Words interest me. Or, more accurately, the way people use them. Sometimes they hide more than they reveal.
My own take on the use of the word Spiritual is that it is a way of describing yourself without making a committment.
A moving target is hard to hit, after all.
I think primitive humans made guesses about the natural world according to what appeared to true.
For example: what was coming out of a person's mouth when they were breathing? It was invisible!
It was reSPIRation. Spirit came to mean a vital living component invisible to the eye. What happened to a person when the died?
The Spirit went out (stopped) and no life remained!
A simple explanation would be the SPIRIT left your body!
This "theory" was not testable, after all. It was mysterious and metaphysical and seemed to "explain" an important phenonmenon.
Gradually, the basic idea of what a SPIRIT was became attached to anything related to invisible power and vital forces.
GOD must be a Spirit.
People interested in things of God must be spiritual by extension.
It seems to say something without really commiting to anything specific.
Today, if you don't want to belong to a refutable group or espouse refutable doctrines you can remain interested in invisible and vital phenomena by self-describing as SPIRITUAL.
That's my take on it. Sort of a weasel word at worst or an innocent ambient adjective at best. You might say a ruler with elastic increments can measure anything.
Terry

rmnnoute

So... Rutherford wrote the King James Bible? JEHOVAH is in there, in big letters.

Regardless of what we call our superiors, the Bible shows that God wants us to call Him by name.

That's probably why He caused it to be there nearly 7,000 times.

Terry

Regardless of what we call our superiors, the Bible shows that God wants us to call Him by name.
That's probably why He caused it to be there nearly 7,000 times.
This "bible" you refer to. Where is it?

Paralipomenon

So... Rutherford wrote the King James Bible? JEHOVAH is in there, in big letters.
Regardless of what we call our superiors, the Bible shows that God wants us to call Him by name.
That's probably why He caused it to be there nearly 7,000 times.

So important that they inserted his name into the "New Testament" in place of LORD. To be fair, more modern copies of the scriptures had replaced and then subsequently removed the name "Jehovah" from their translation of the NT.

Therein lies the beauty of it all. The bible has been so throughlly altered, mistranslated and corrupted over the years that you can just cherry pick whatever ancient text you like the most and form a religion with a nice solid foundation.

Terry

The Watchtower places itself diametrically opposed to Christendom.

Yet, Christendom's scholars have made much greater progress in clarifying the Divine Name!

Most of Christendom's scholars in their writings refer to YAHWEH which is more accurate than JeHoVah.

What is the Watcthtower response?

They refuse to use the more accurate pronunciation!

Stop and consider the IRONY here....!!

After decades of representing themselves as the champions of the Divine Name they won't budge on getting it right.

What is the lame argument they employ to deflect this criticism?

They allow Christendom's practice of saying JESUS instead of Yeshua to set THEIR OWN standard!

In other words, they have it both ways......and.....in each instance, take the WEAKER side of the argument!!

In neither instance does the Watchtower come down on the side of greater accuracy, clarity, precision and scholarship.

Maybe they are simply too proud to change their own name to Yahewh's Witnesses because this would be a public admission THEY WERE WEAK on scholarship and Christendom was more objective.

Food for thought....

PSacramento

One thing I need help with.

I agree that Jehovah is incorrect and that Yahweh or Jahweh is at least "more correct".

But where does that leave the name "Jesus" ?

Terry

Whatever a JESUS actually was in the 1st Century, we may never know.

Everything ever said about him has been tampered with by successive generations with an axe to grind, an argument to hone, a doctrine to enforce and a debate to win.

I'll give you a contemporary example of this at work.

Ronald Reagan.

I was alive during his Presidency and saw him and read about him and watched him on TV.

It is now years later.

A revisionism has been at work for many years concerning Reagan.

He has been elevated in stature, foresight, competency, historicity and importance by ideologues who need to use him as a standard bearer of Conservativism.

The current picture of Ronald Reagan does not match the actual Ronald Reagan.

Why?

Filtering and revisionism over time by "interested parties".

This has been at work concerning who JESUS (or Yeshua) was and what is message was and what his role (if any) may have been.

We just CAN'T know.

There are no ORIGINAL writings left in existence.

They either wore out, were destroyed or never existed.

We just CAN'T ever know.

PSacramento

Terry,

Fact is, using your logic (rightfully and one that I agree with) we don't have an accurate picture of ANY historical figure.

Terry

we don't have an accurate picture of ANY historical figure.
No, but, Jehovah's Witness parents don't stop medical treatments from saving a dying child because Napoleon isn't properly represented by historians.
The Crusaders didn't burn synagogues full of screaming women and children because Agamemnon was misquoted.
The contrast between other historical figures and Jesus is beyond comparison when it comes to the Power of the Quoted Word written in a non-existent book!
I'll repeat.
Quoting the bible IN THE NAME OF JEHOVAH or JESUS is a fetsh simply based on an outrageous assertion.....an UNprovable assertion.
We don't have those ORIGINAL writings to detect CORRUPTION in transmission.
Too many hands have tampered for too many partisan motives for us to trust the copies.
The BIBLE is unique in having set in motion death, corruption and mind-control upon planet Earth.
Not knowing the correct details about Spartacus or Davy Crockett can't begin to compare with Jesus and Jehovah.
In modern times we have the BOOK OF MORMON.
Very recent by any standard.
If you can obtain a photostatic copy of the "original" writings from Joseph Smith you'll see that even THEY have been redacted to cover up his outrageous spelling and syntax errors betraying severe editing and revision.
This is recent!
Compare that to 2 thousand years worth of tampering!

The JEHOVAH game (a modern fetish)

Share this