My Jehovah's Witness broke up with me :(

by jws 28 Replies latest jw friends

  • jws

    A few months ago, the JWs came knocking on my door (see thread).

    This discussion continued and the next time she brought a man along with her. I told them that I'd study with them if they could prove to me god exists and the bible was his book. For our next visit, only the man showed up. By this time, I had compiled a document over 50 pages long of contradictions and other silly stuff from the Bible. Places where it contradicted itself, places where it didn't match science, and places where there was just no logic to it.

    He didn't want to look at it. But believed the bible was in perfect harmony, but curiosity got the best of him and he asked for a couple of examples. Man, it was fun watching him try to twist and contort his mind. Every time he tried to suggest an explanation to make it make sense, I'd point out that no, it still didn't. That explanation was still flawed.

    For instance, does god punish people for what their ancestors did (Ex 20:5,6, Ex 34:5-7, Num 14:18) or does he judge each person on his own merits regardless of his ancestors or descendants (Duet 24:16, Eze 18:20). In some verses, it says god will punish people and their descendants to the 3rd and 4th generation. In other places, it says the father will not be held accountable for the sin of the father, nor the father for the sin of the son. It clearly states both. They cannot both be true. And the first (punishing children for what their ancestors did) is just plain wrong by any sense of justice. Should have seen him squirm.

    He finally, from context, read that when god said he'd punish to the 3rd or 4th genertion, it was when the Israelites really pissed him off. So he must have said that in anger. That just made me laugh out loud. So when god gets angry, he blurts out things that he doesn't mean? I thought all his words were true? But that's the best explanatioin he could think of.

    There were some other things. Like when Jesus met Simon Peter that are related differently. He didn't seem bothered by the inconsistency.

    Then we got side-tracked by a discussion of the "divine name" in the Greek Scriptures. The guy kept getting confused. He kept on bringing out that the Septuagant has it and quoting things that says that it uses it. Fine. That is the Old Testament in Greek. It is NOT the New Testament. Even your own books say there is no Greek Scripture manuscripts that contain the tetragrammaton. I semi-agreed that if they at least had an argument for putting the name Jehovah in when the new testament is quoting the old and the name Jehovah was in the old. But that's only like a third of the cases. The rest are not legit and are pure speculation.

    I guess where it started to go wrong for me may have been when I mentioned that I had an ex-JW friend. I think red lights went up in his mind. I did happen to mention that my friend told me they were members of the UN. He said they'd never join the UN and he'd like to see evidence.

    As one of our first conversations started with a Watchtower asking the question "Is God Cruel"? I left him one day with a verse to think over. Genesis 22:2: Then God said, “Take your son, your only son, whom you love—Isaac—and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on a mountain I will show you.”

    I told him that difinitively answers the question. How could anybody not consider that cruelty? You're a father as am I. People might say "oh, god can give him another son or resurrect him". I love my son. If something happened to him, another son wouldn't help the sorrow. I love the boy and who he is. You can't just substitute people. And as for resurrection, Abraham didn't know this was even a possibility. When in the Bible was there ever a resurrection prior to this. Any animal sacrifices he did do always wound up charred husks. So Abraham went into this knowing he was going to lose Isaac forever.

    And to make matters worse, his son was not only going to die, he had to do it himself. It would be bad enough for me if my son died, but to force me to kill him? That is beyond sick and twisted. And the worst part is it did not need to happen. Isn't god supposed to be able to read our hearts, our innermost thoughts? He'd know how loyal Abraham was. God would know he'd do such a thing if asked, so there's no need to submit him to the mental torture of actually asking him to do it. God is a cruel, sick bastard.

    Oh, and by the way, there's another biblical contradiction. Isaac wasn't Abraham's only son, there was also Ishmael.

    So he looks at me and says "so that settles it in your mind, god is cruel". Definitely I answered.

    So I left him with that. Maybe that got him thinkinng too much and he didn't like that.

    On our last visit, we discussed the use of Jehovah in the New Testament again. And in the end, agreed to disagree. He could see where I was coming from, but accepted what the WBTS did in adding Jehovah to the text.

    I managed to print out several articles about the JW involvement in the UN (as I had promised on our last visit) and handed them to him and he skimmed through them. He tried to stick to technicalities. Like, was a signature required. I cut through all that. You claim it's part of Satan's organization. What business do you have being any part of it? And you did not just join for a library pass. You could have had access without joining. And you also sent representatives to religious committee meetings. So you were participating as part of the UN. And when two different PR people were asked why, they gave two different answers. So one or both lied. Isn't lying a trait of the devil?

    He didn't know what to say. He said it was odd.

    Then he explained that he had started with me because it seemed like I might be on the fence as to whether there is a god or not. But he could see that he wasn't doing anything to convince me otherwise and that I held my opinion too strongly. So there's no reason for him to come by anymore.

    I told him he was right. IF the bible is real, then the god described in it is sick, twisted, childish, and stupid. And does not deserve to be worshiped.

    And that's where we left it when he "broke up" with me.

    I don't know whether I did any good or whether the cognitive dissonance just allows all these contradictions to happen and he'll just go back to his JW life, never questioning anything.

    I also think that my postiion is too hard to argue against. If I had portrayed myself as a Christian and was on that side of the fence, then they'd have doctrine we could argue and we could have prolonged our discussions and perhaps I'd do some good. It's one thing to convince him a certain doctrine is wrong and for him to take a step in my direction, but that is much harder when I'm an atheist. A believer fears becoming that. Taking a step in my direction means a step towards where I'm at and that's way too scary. So next time, I might have to act Christian.

    Several years ago, another JW was calling (back then I was not an atheist yet) and we'd argue. He mentioned 607 BC early on and I took that and ran with it and really confused him. He said they needed more people like me who really understood the technical stuff. I found out this guy hasn't been seen in a long time, except for a funeral. Who knows, maybe I did some good with him?

  • Captain Obvious
    Captain Obvious

    I'd say you did some good. Especially since you had some time between discussions for everything to sink in. You can't expect him to suddenly give up a lifetime's worth of beliefs, but a seed had to have been planted.

  • notjustyet


    Can you give me more indoor links to the evidence that the WTBTS sent representatives to these meetings at the UN? I'm not doubting you, I'm familiar with the UN NGO fiasco and had read where they signed up for these reasons and the library card excuse was a lie.

    Also I would think that having some print outs explaining cognitive dissonance and its effects, feeling surreal a bit etc,.. Also that many will excuse their doubts and pigeon hole the evidence since considering it leads to dissonance , etc.

    I think that when we see someone experiencing CD we need to insert some info about it while they are opened intellectually to the experience.

    Hand it to them In a print out so they can take it with them and read it and re read it over and over until they can get it, as it were.

    I would explain to them just after making a mind altering point, me that you can see them thinking, that more than likely they will "put this aside" and eventually forget about it or belittle it until it does not "hurt their mind" anymore.

    Explaining to them that dwelling on these arguments and seeing that they are valid is not beneficial to their idea as to how the world works or how they frame it and that they will have to either forget about it or see it for what it is and they will have to reframe their beliefs to loe the dissonance.

    Of not, they hear and think about CD for a moment and the CD makes them forget about it,..

    Great job and enjoyed your post,.


  • jws


    This is from a record of email correspondence between the author of the Guardian article and a JW PR guy. Towards the end, there is an analysis with further information.

    In the analysis on page 5, it states that:

    As well, the Watchtower's involvement was not limited to library browsing as Mr. Gilllies asserted. A search on the UN website for evidence of the Watchtower's activity at the United Nations reveals quite a number of areas where the Watchtower was involved to a greater degree than they claim. The WTS, for instance, had sent representatives to make appeals at conferences where representatives from many other religions participated on an equal footing. This in itself shows Mr. Gillies words to be a deception.

    By the way, although he looked through the UN stuff, he would not take any of it. I can understand that carrying that stuff with you is very dangerous for a JW and I hope that's the reason. Not just that he was going to ignore it as soon as he left.

  • jgnat

    Goodness gracious, he didn't take it because it was demon-possessed!

  • trebor
  • Billy the Ex-Bethelite
    Billy the Ex-Bethelite

    You've certainly planted seeds of truth for these JWs!

    And I'm sorry to hear that he broke up with you.

    ^^^^ The sad picture isn't because of your "breakup", it's because I never met someone like you in field service that cared enough to try to reason with me. LOL

  • clarity

    JWS ... well done, I enjoyed what & how you wrote.

    I thought for a moment you were meaning your lover

    broke-up with you!

    Nice arguments, but that cognitive dissonance that

    kicks in, as NotJustYet mentioned, is a real road block

    isn't it.

    Lets hope that he got over it!.


    I remember that dissonance & feeling like I'd

    been kicked by a mule for about a week ...

    Thanks for posting


  • Mum

    Those scriptures you refer to about God punishing children for the sins of the parents are being misinterpreted by you, I think. I think the verses say that the sins of the fathers will be visited on the sons even to the third and fourth generation. I think that means that when parents don't do the right thing, it has an effect on the children and grandchildren.

    For example, if parents don't work and provide for their families, then they go on welfare. They don't get a good education, and it's almost impossible for them to do any better, and on down the generational line this holds true.

    I'm not disagreeing with you about how you raised these questions for the JW, but I just wanted to point out that some of your arguments may not be as cogent as they could be. I'm surprised the JW didn't explain this problem the way I did. I don't think they know much about the Bible anymore.

  • jws

    Thanks Billy! LOL.

    The ex-JW friend I referred to is actually a real ex-JW friend. We grew up in the same congregation and now happen to live about 20 minutes apart over 1000 miles from "home". But he was just a plot device so to speak. I learned so much about JW scandals (UN, molestation, etc.) through Franz's book and the internet, not my friend. He rarely thinks of JWs and doesn't keep up with any news. He was a convenient way for me to know this stuff without admitting to being an ex-JW myself. And whenever you make up a story, it helps to have some element of truth to anchor it.

    In reality, my friend, though despising JWs, is still very much a Christian and I still have to pretend to be around him for fear of losing a very long friendship.

    I see the same congitive dissonance displayed in him. I'll bring up some very good biblical questions sometimes that he has no answer for. His new post-JW belief system splits the bible into specific sections meant for different people in different times. So some contradictions are explained away as "that wasn't for those people and there's different rules for these people". Kind of like most Christians will have "The Law" and Jesus, Old Testament and New Testament. New rules, replacing the old. I think he has like 7 periods.

    But there are things that just escape that framing. The punishing of children for their father's sins (mentioned above in my OP) for instance. Sometimes I slyly bring things like this up, explaining that I'm confused and need help understanding and does he know why this contradiciton exists and can he help me understand? He has no explanation, but never seems bothered. But then I'll bring it up several months later and he's forgotten completely that I ever brought it up before.

    He either never took it seriously and forgot all about it or his mental guards forced him to ignore it and forget about it.

    Either way, I take it as he doesn't want to hear anything different or be challenged.

    When I was a teenager, my brother and I ran into a guy who really knew about JWs. He told us old books to look at. He told us there are more JWs in mental institutions than any other religion (have no idea whether this is true), but it did stick with me. I had always heard about the light getting brighter, but never read anything showing what was different. I did find one of the books he mentioned in the cong. library. At the time, I left it as "old light". But the thought stayed with me. The more JWs in mental institutions stayed with me for a while. And I looked around the hall and decided there could be something to that. Some of these people were very odd.

    I guess even though I mostly wrote this guy off, things stayed with me, waiting for further evidence. So maybe this JW will hang onto a thing or two like I did.

    Another thing I wanted to mention. We got into this dicussion about the use of Jehovah in the New Testament. The same old JW logic was brought up. That people spoke of God's name, I come in his name, I glorify his name, etc. So God must have had a name that they used. Actually, the Greek word for name, much like the English, can also mean reputation or authority. So glorifying his name could be glorifying his reputation. Coming in his name could be coming in his authority.

    I quoted from several movies and TV shows "Stop! In the name of the law" and asked him what is the personal name of the law? Frank? Bob? George? Or maybe it's a girl's name like Mary or Denise. The police refer t the name of the law so it must have a name according to your logic. What is the name of the law? Not sure that even sank in with him.

Share this