Posts by garyneal

32

Books about early Christianity

by EdenOne in

i've just finished reading two (imo) great books:.

"a history of christianity - the first three thousand years", by diarmaid macculloch.

"misquoting jesus", by bart ehrman.

garyneal

Cool, I was given a list of books from my philosophy professor back in college. I haven't read any of them yet but plan to. Marking to add the books listed here to my list also.

38

Interesting Religious Conversation with my Daughter...

by garyneal in

yesterday, my wife was getting ready for the kh and told the kids that they had to get ready too.

i figured, oh well, they're heading to the hall at least i can get the time i need to catch up on some house work and what not.

before i know it, the wife gave up and allowed the kids to stay.

Yesterday, my wife was getting ready for the KH and told the kids that they had to get ready too. I figured, oh well, they're heading to the hall at least I can get the time I need to catch up on some house work and what not. Before I know it, the wife gave up and allowed the kids to stay. Apparently, she is not trying to force them to go to the hall for she figures (and perhaps rightly so) that they would rebel later on when they become teens. I check in with her to ensure that they did not have a special guest at the hall or if there were any other reason why she insisted at first that the kids go. I even offered to go with her as a family if this was the case. Nothing special and she did not seemed too concerned with us going so she left on her own.

Hanging out at the house with the kids, the day kind of got boring for them as the weather did not permit them to play outside. They earned some money cleaning up so I took them to spend it at the store. On our way there, we talked about Halloween and the holidays and why mommy does not celebrate.

"She chooses not to celebrate because she believes that by not celebrating she is pleasing God," I said.

Of course I do celebrate and so I told her that I did not feel the same way. We talked about how different people of different faiths practiced their faith differently even though they are pleasing the same God. I asked her if she remembered the invitation she got from her Mormon friend to attend her baptism. She did so I told her that Mormons feel that they please God by not drinking coffee or sodas because of the caffeine nor do they smoke. They feel that by abstaining from these things, they keep their bodies clean and please God. "So you mean no more Dr Pepper's?" she asked. "If you and mom were Mormons I could not drink Dr Pepper?" "That's right," I said, "if mom and I were to try to raise you up as a Mormon, no soft drinks for us and no coffee for mom." She questioned about how different people's religions have different rules when they are all trying to serve the same God to which I responded, "Yeah, it does all seem a little man made, doesn't it." By then we were entering the store and the girls went to the toy section to get their gifts.

We then got lunch and they wanted me to take them to the new Goodwill that was just opened nearby. We went there and stayed for a short bit and left for home. On our way out the store, we passed by this muslim couple and my child, being 8 and naturally inquisitive began asking, "Why is that lady wearing a mask and only her eyes can be seen?" To which I replied, "Well, remember what we talked about concerning rules and pleasing God? People of the Islam or Muslim religion believe that women should remain covered from head to toe so as to show respect to their husbands or fathers and in so doing, please God." "Mom does not do that," she said. "I know, same God different rules," I replied.

Hours went by before my wife returned but shortly after her returned I told her of our conversation. She was less than pleased and was visibly upset. She tried to say that the God of Islam is not the God of Christianity (they are). She felt the need to later school our daughter on why she does not celebrate Halloween and how it was started by pagan customs and then judge and criticize the churches that held the trunk or treat like the one we went to last week. I think she is concerned that I am trying to make our daughter an atheist (I'm not) in spite of the fact that she believes in God (as do I). I told her that I have NO interest in making my children think my way (that's what religious people do) and instead I just simply present things as they simply are to the best of my knowledge.

49

A QUESTION FOR JW'S who say, "The brothers were overly zealous" about 1975

by Terry in

"what was the actual significance of that year, then?".

if jw's were overly zealous, what was the exact amount of zeal encouraged by the wts for a non-event which took up.

over 7 years of every jw's time?.

garyneal

marked

38

The Present Truth is the Truth and the Old Truth is the Truth, even if they contradict.

by garyneal in

that is the conclusion you must accept if you are a jehovah's witness as my wife tries to explain to me that even if what they are teaching today contradicts what they were previously teaching, they had the truth then and they have the truth now.

the difference is, they (the witnesses and the governing body) simply believed that what they were teaching at the time was the truth but when they discovered new information they adjusted their thinking.

so since they formerly believed it to be the truth, they were in the truth.. an example she gave involved people who once believed the earth was flat.

garyneal

stirred: "Oh well, we all make mistakes......said the trapeze catcher."

I've made similar points to my wife as yours when I pointed out to her that it is one thing for witnesses to carry on as if the heavenly events that occurred in 1914 actually happened. It stays in their head and has no real impact on their lives. But when it comes to doctrines concerning life and health its impact cannot be ignored. So what about those JW's who lost their lives refusing an organ transplant only to have the WTS rescind the doctrine? How did their family members take it? She attempted to defend them by saying that throughout history people have sacrificed their lives to defend their beliefs. As true as this statement is, how many witnesses would've died refusing organs if the WTS had not told them to believe that receiving an organ is akin to cannabilism? How many witnesses would accept blood if the WTS considered it a conscious matter? How many now take blood fractions (she did during her pregnancy) now that the WTS considers them a conscious matter? Whose principles are these people really dying for?

Sadly, when I lump them in the same camp as the Christian Scientists and the religious nut jobs who refuse any form of vaccinations she winds up defending them along with the witnesses. For I guess to admit that a Christian Scientist who allows his or her children to die rather than receive proper medical treatment is someone who died for a principle that was false would be too perilous to admit if the same thing can be applied to WT teachings.

silent: "What's the point of beating my brains out and putting in tons of hours while digesting meeting after meeting after meeting only for the slim chance that "perhaps" I might make it?"

That statement was what I had struggled with as well as an IFB who believe it or not preached "once saved always saved." They infer that while "once saved, always saved" may indeed be true, backsliding or continuing to live in sin could call into question whether or not you were truly saved. Fortunately, the Southern Baptists were a lot more forgiving by comparison and allow for a more human element which is probably why I found their doctrines more palatable. The IFB's had me constantly questioning whether I was in God's good graces and I did not begin to feel that way again until I began attending the meetings with my wife.

Anyway, back to your topic on truth - if I'm going to surrender myself to an organization and a thought process, it had better be 100% right - especially if they are inspired of God.

I remember feeling the same way back in 2009 when I began this wild journey of mine that took me to unexpected places. To quote Evid3nc3 (a YouTube blogger who posted a series on his deconversion to atheism) following truth became more important to me than following God. That was when the scales began to fall.

But they dare not because it would not only undermine their authority, but can you imagine the backlash if they made a blatant correction about blood transfusions? Holy smokes...their lawyers would be working overtime then!

Hence why they'll never rescind the blood doctrine, their only hope is that medical science comes up with a substitute that can perform the same function as blood. If that happens, they'll be prasing Jehovah for the provision and giving themselves so much credit for standing steadfast on His teachings concerning blood.

ucantnomore: Got it, I have Ray's books as well. Did not read Christian Freedom all the way through but I did read Crisis of Conscious. Good man he is.

notsurewheretogo: impeccable reasoning that is unfortunately lost on a dub.

punkofnice: indeed

magnum: and don't forget those alien encounters, people believe them so they must be real. Same goes for the tooth fairy, etc.

shirley: "I wonder how many JWs realize that their held beliefs about the wishy-washiness of Jehovah™ eviscerates their most cherished beliefs?"

I don't think they give it much thought and if they do, well, they end up becoming apostates.

38

The Present Truth is the Truth and the Old Truth is the Truth, even if they contradict.

by garyneal in

that is the conclusion you must accept if you are a jehovah's witness as my wife tries to explain to me that even if what they are teaching today contradicts what they were previously teaching, they had the truth then and they have the truth now.

the difference is, they (the witnesses and the governing body) simply believed that what they were teaching at the time was the truth but when they discovered new information they adjusted their thinking.

so since they formerly believed it to be the truth, they were in the truth.. an example she gave involved people who once believed the earth was flat.

garyneal

silent: Your comments on what makes a successful witness vs a struggling one mirrors almost exactly what I saw in other churches where I managed to learn how to be a 'successful' Christian after leaving the IFB church and not taking too much of the doctrines too seriously. During my IFB years, I was indeed a 'struggling' Christian as I tried VERY hard to follow the church's teachings and practices. I've listened to other Christians' of other denominations testimonies during their deconversions to non belief and found many of them to be just as sincere and struggled just as much as I did because they took their churches' teachings very seriously also.

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=deconversion+from+christianity&FORM=HDRSC3

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLA0C3C1D163BE880A

In short, be a nominal believer and you will go far.

21

baby or no baby?

by Dudu in

that is the question for the next months ... i am 32 and i will turn 33 on december....i am freaking out!!!

my hubby and i have no children and we are not looking for one right now because im studying a masters.

i will finish subjects in june and after that i will write my thesis (6 more months).

garyneal

I had my children fairly 'late' in life. First one at 29, second at 35, third at 39. Since the first one was not with my wife, she and I have only the other two together (we married when I was 32) and with the other two being girls my wife wants to try for a boy but at 43 I am very relunctant. Do I really want to have a teenager in my house in my early sixties?

I would wait until I at least had my Master's degree finished if I were in your shoes but the older you are when you have them, the older you'll be before they are grown. Sometimes I honestly can't say who is better off, the person who had his or her kids early in life and is now enjoying the freedom of an empty nest in his or her fourties or the person who put off family for college and career and is now saddled with small children in his or her fourties but better able to handle it financially.

38

The Present Truth is the Truth and the Old Truth is the Truth, even if they contradict.

by garyneal in

that is the conclusion you must accept if you are a jehovah's witness as my wife tries to explain to me that even if what they are teaching today contradicts what they were previously teaching, they had the truth then and they have the truth now.

the difference is, they (the witnesses and the governing body) simply believed that what they were teaching at the time was the truth but when they discovered new information they adjusted their thinking.

so since they formerly believed it to be the truth, they were in the truth.. an example she gave involved people who once believed the earth was flat.

garyneal

EdenOne: Nerve racking indeed.

jwfacts: Yes, that has been the point that I repeatedly make when she criticizes other churches. Strange thing is, I don't really attend church anymore and yet I find myself defending them when she makes broad generalizations about them. She claims to be an authority on church teachings and practices though she never actually examined church teachings outside of the WT teachings and have only attended a few services with me when I was attending more regularly. Everytime she attended I recall how she would almost always contradict whatever was being preached. Ironic considering how she and the other witnesses I was studying with expected me to be open minded to other points of view while they kept their minds closed to mine.

38

The Present Truth is the Truth and the Old Truth is the Truth, even if they contradict.

by garyneal in

that is the conclusion you must accept if you are a jehovah's witness as my wife tries to explain to me that even if what they are teaching today contradicts what they were previously teaching, they had the truth then and they have the truth now.

the difference is, they (the witnesses and the governing body) simply believed that what they were teaching at the time was the truth but when they discovered new information they adjusted their thinking.

so since they formerly believed it to be the truth, they were in the truth.. an example she gave involved people who once believed the earth was flat.

garyneal

Terry: Good points all of them.

I recall during my angst when I was attempting to find out what religion is really true, well what Christian religion since I never considered any others, I asked the elder who I was studying with to come to my house to talk about it. Specifically, I wanted to know how he knew the WT religion was the one true religion. The conversation was pleasant and I recall telling him that I used to watch Jack Van Impe Presents regularly and was actually impressed with him for a while. Then I commented that Jack made a mistake that costed him his credibility in my eyes when he attempted to estimate the year of Christ's return being somewhere around 1998 which obviously did not occur. It was then when the elder mentioned 1975 and how witnesses believed the end of this system was going to occur then. My response, "That did not shake your faith for it certainly would've shaken mine?" He responded by saying that it was the overzealousness of the witnesses that caused them to believe that 1975 was significant and nothing that the WT actually did. Granted I later found the WT or Awake article (Oct 1969 I do believe) that certainly gave the impression that there could be something significant about this year though it never actually stated (in print) that the old system would've passed away that year.

The CHIEF CLAIM (those four premises you lead with) were something that I had seen similarly before amongst the Independent Fundamental Baptists churches that I had been attending back in those years I was watching Jack Van Impe Presents. They too, made similar claims that they had the only true teachings that lead to everlasting life and required similar commitments to the church's teachings and practices. They lost their credibility when the preacher's hard line stances began encroaching on things like children living at home past the age of 18 (I was 21 at the time still living at home), preaching urban legends as biblical truths (like P&G being run by satanists or the BEAST of Revelations being a supercomputer in Belgium), or him preaching that visiting other churches that you weren't a member of was the same as committing adultery against your home church. He backpedalled on that one in a most hilarious way when I reminded him of that comment later when he invited me to visit his church after I had left it and joined a southern baptist church.

I guess I can say that being exposed to the IFB's and later seeing through their bullshit helped immunized me somewhat to the witnesses teachings though it did take me some time and research to recover from almost being pulled in by them.

38

The Present Truth is the Truth and the Old Truth is the Truth, even if they contradict.

by garyneal in

that is the conclusion you must accept if you are a jehovah's witness as my wife tries to explain to me that even if what they are teaching today contradicts what they were previously teaching, they had the truth then and they have the truth now.

the difference is, they (the witnesses and the governing body) simply believed that what they were teaching at the time was the truth but when they discovered new information they adjusted their thinking.

so since they formerly believed it to be the truth, they were in the truth.. an example she gave involved people who once believed the earth was flat.

garyneal

Thanks for the responses everyone:

OneEyedJoe: Good for him that he discovered (or seemed to discover) the truth about the TRUTH and was willing to contradict the WT on its hardline stances.

clarity: They make their god out to be an idiot! He just can't get it right.

http://youtu.be/b0Sdh239AII?list=UUt0F0Z8zgodYfIEKMvzXW6w

That's what they do with their ever changing doctrine rather than admit that they are wrong and 'stumble' witnesses who hold the GB in such high esteem. Helps keep them in power for after all if the governing body was wrong about something, what else are they wrong about? If THEY can be wrong about some things, why rely on them for Bible interpretations when I can simply read and interpret it for myself? Witnesses questioning like that are dangerous to the organization. Therefore, suppress it by saying that it was Jehovah revealing his new light and the GB doing research while maintaining that the GB are not inspired in anyway.

http://youtu.be/nTvT7Cdveto?list=UUt0F0Z8zgodYfIEKMvzXW6w

OneLastKiss: I made a similar point when I questioned whether or not truth is simply what someone believes to be true. But, when it comes to the churches of christendom, they must examine and accept the evidence like the witnesses do. Therefore, it is hard to nail down whether or not truth is subjective or objective by her reasoning.

Theredeemer: Sounds a little like confirmation bias to me but from what I gather in the reviews from here of the WT printing stuff that lead up to any doctrinal changes it may be systematically planned and intended by the GB. It is easier for the new light to go down if they have been priming their followers for it in very subtle and subliminal ways. Just my two cents.

Crazyguy: That would've been the gist of what I was leading the conversation to if truth is merely as subjective as she was heading until she pulled that switcharoo when I asked if truth is merely what someone believes. Then she had to throw in the 'follow the evidence' thing for other churches.

Ucantnome: Well, that reasoning can apply to anyone who claims to be a part of the body of Christ. Therefore, perhaps witnesses would be wise to follow Crazyguy's advice and stay home on Saturday mornings since Christians claiming to be part of the body of Christ are also in the 'truth.'

Heaven: So true, and also keep in mind that Charles Russell would even disagree with my title for this thread:

"A new view of truth never can contradict a former truth. "New light" never extinguishes older "light" but adds to it." Charles Russell in Zion's Watchtower, Feb. 1881, p.3

"It is a serious matter to represent God and Christ in one way, then find that our understanding of the major teachings and fundamental doctrines of the Scriptures was in error, and then after that, to go back to the very doctrines that, by years of study, we had thoroughly determined to be in error. Christians cannot be vacillating - 'wishy-washy' - about such fundamental teachings. What confidence can one put in the sincerity or judgment of such persons?" WT 5/15/76 p.298

3rdgen: It does negate its claim to having the truth for any rational person who has not bought into it.

Darth Fader: The whole concept is a laugh riot. Glad you got a good laugh from it.

38

The Present Truth is the Truth and the Old Truth is the Truth, even if they contradict.

by garyneal in

that is the conclusion you must accept if you are a jehovah's witness as my wife tries to explain to me that even if what they are teaching today contradicts what they were previously teaching, they had the truth then and they have the truth now.

the difference is, they (the witnesses and the governing body) simply believed that what they were teaching at the time was the truth but when they discovered new information they adjusted their thinking.

so since they formerly believed it to be the truth, they were in the truth.. an example she gave involved people who once believed the earth was flat.

garyneal

That is the conclusion you must accept if you are a Jehovah's Witness as my wife tries to explain to me that even if what they are teaching today contradicts what they were previously teaching, they had the truth then and they have the truth now. The difference is, they (the witnesses and the governing body) simply BELIEVED that what they were teaching at the time was the TRUTH but when they discovered new information they adjusted their thinking. SO since they formerly believed it to be the truth, they were in the truth.

An example she gave involved people who once believed the earth was flat. Was what they believed true? It was true as far as they can tell, therefore it was true. Now that we know the earth was round, they were still believing in things that were true simply because they did not know any better. After all, encyclopedias that I consult for 'accurate information' are only true as far as the limits of human knowledge. So they are PRESENTLY true.

This kind of nonsense double talk is like nails to a chalkboard to me. The people who believed the earth was flat were not believing truth as the earth was not flat and their believing so does not make it so. If someone believed something to be true and later found evidence that contradicts that belief would be honest by simply saying, "I thought it was true, but I was wrong." That's the whole failure of the Watchtower's Governing Body when they hide behind concepts like 'new light' and 'progressive truth' to justify their doctrinal changes, they never want to admit that they are wrong.

Yet, my wife claims that the Watchtower never proclaimed that what they were teaching is TRUTH even though witnesses use phrases like, "Are you in the truth?" Instead, they are simply seeking truth unlike OTHER churches that wish to wallow in their own ignorance because they LIKE certain teachings even if they are false. I mean, nevermind the stubborness they show by holding onto 1914 CE and 607 BCE when not a single source outside the WT supports those dates due to pesky things like EVIDENCE.

In the end, when she has no more wiggle room to justify her answers she resorts to threats (be careful about how you talk about God), character assassination, and simply saying things like "one day you'll get it if only you allow yourself too." This same maneuvering I've seen in other theists (mainly Christians) when confronting atheists have caused me to call them out for being dishonest as well. It's like nails to a chalkboard for me.