For me it was when I was trying to show my baptist friend that the bible says we will live forever on a paradise earth. There was no scripture stating that. And trying to prove the star of Bethlehem was from Satan. No scripture saying that either. I then wondered what else had I been taught wrong!
What was the "logical straw" that broke your camel's back?
by Pacopoolio 35 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
kaik
I think for me was the book Revelation It's Grand Climax At Hand . I could not mentally agree with all the nonsense. We studied it around 1992. Things were not making sense, were disinterpreted and skewed.
-
Aurelius
For me it was the the May 2007 WT Question from Readers article which null and voided the teaching that the 144,000 were sealed in 1935. The explanation behind the 1935 date was that the Holy Spirit must of been operational in setting this date because the emphasis of the preaching work had changed from the gathering of the Annnointed to the gathering the the great crowd.
Then in May 2007 all of a sudden this 80 year old doctrine was dropped.
So obviously the Holy Spirit did not direct this doctrine so who did? Man set the date and fooled us all into believing it!
From this point forward I have critically examined and viewed with suspicion all doctrine which is not stipulated in the scriptures. This of course puts accepting 1914, blood transfusion band, 144,000 being a literal number although the Revelation 7 criteria being figurative, etc, etc all at serious risk.
-
Xanthippe
There were lots of things but for me the most obvious question was, if God is love and the main quality of Jesus' true disciples is love why are the JWs so unloving, cruel and full of hate?
-
quellycatface
The paedophile scandals.I was horrified by the way the BOE treated victims.Bunch of sick bastards.
-
happy@last
For me it was the account of god allowing an innocent baby suffer for days before finally dying in order to punish his father David. No 'loving father' would ever allow a child to suffer even for a minute let alone days.
-
tim hooper
Even as a JW kid I felt the women in subjection thing to be wrong.
I always felt that disfellowshipping was wrong.
Finally, at a group meeting of all things, we were studying some book that dealt with the prophesies of Ezekiel. Wheels with eyes in the rims? At that point I suddenly saw how ludicrous the whole thing was. What did some old guy's ramblings have to do with me? I immediately ceased attending meetings and despite much pressure from family, never went back.
-
Fernando
Rejection of "imputed righteousness" by the "ruling religious clergy class" (aka "elders", CO, DO, ZO, GB).
-
Bugbear
For me there were several things during a long period of time. But the straw of the camel´s back was one: The Philosophical logic fallacies that are obvious in two major issues.
1./ According to the Soc. Jehova God is loving, merciful, forgiving and kind. And he should never ever let his human child burn in a hell. But if you don’t become a JW soon, he will destroy you and all the rest of humans in a total disaster, the BIG A….soon…soon
2./ God sacrificed his one borne son Jesus Christ, so that everyone who believes in him should have eternal life. And the son of God comes down to earth, he is loving careful, merciful, and teach us how to live and how to behave against one another. And we kill him, betray him, humiliate him, put him on a cross, spit on him, and when he dies god takes him back again, and then suddenly everything is forgotten.
Most religious people are totally perplex, when you start to question on these matters
Bugbear
-
sir82
For me, I think it was the series of geologic proofs that it was absolutely physically impossible for the entire earth to have been 100% under water just 4400 years ago. The particular point that stands out in my mind is the evidence coming from arctic ice cores. You can build a record of weather tracing back 10's of thousands of years based on thse ice cores - nothing in them even remotely suggests the earth was a "paradise", then covered by water, so recently.
And, as with many of the points related above, if Genesis can't be counted on as literally true, then there was no Adam & Eve, no original sin, so "corresponding ransom", etc. etc. The whole line of dominoes falls.