Posts by Jim Penton

70

Lust For Glory Alienating The Majority?

by Englishman in

if i had ever been a victim of abuse, and the offence had been perpetrated by a member of the jw religion, then silent lambs would be the best thing ever to appear, both on tv and in person.. if i had a close friend or relative who had gone through the same trauma, then i would feel almost the same emotion.. now i do not know, obviously, what percentage of persons on this site have been victims of abuse by jw's, but my guess is that this percentage is relatively small.

so whilst most of us feel very empathetic to abuse victims, not that great a proportion of us have experienced it personally.. however, i do know that many of us have suffered trauma because of other forms of abuse by this organisation, including disfellowshipping which has caused many to be rejected by their loved ones.

whilst it is not possible to measure this form of abuse against that of child abuse, it is nonetheless a type of abuse that most of us are familiar with on a personal level, it's also a type of abuse that is still going on for many who post here.

Jim Penton

I haven't posted for days and will not participate on most threads because of the harsh and unkind language. However, I felt it worth while here because many of the comments were so solid. I understand Englishman's concerns and thank him for his kind remarks. When Bill Bowen started, I was all for him. However, I was shocked at his comments about Ray Franz and found my personal exchanges with him some of the wrost I have experienced in my life. But it is not personal anger or concern about his language that upset me the most. It was, rather, that I believe he is out in left field with his attack on the Watchtower. If one looks at the Flock book, it is obvious that the two or three witness rule as stated by the Society is not the primary problem. It is the failure to implement that policy properly in the way that they usually do with respect to other sexual misconduct. It is, quite simply, that they are corrupt and deal exactly like the Inquisition did. After all, judicial committees are inquisitions in a legal sense.

Beyond this, I am deeply concerned that were Bill to be put in court, his lack of moderation would allow Watchtower lawyers to have him for breakfast. For example, there is no way that anyone can prove that there are more cases of pedophilia among Jehovah's Witnesses than any other religion. We don't have the data, and all the shouting and screaming that Bill Bowen and people like Hawkshaw and his tribe do will not make it so. How could anyone do a study, not only of Jehovah's Witnesses, but of other religions as well? So what I fear is that (a) Bill will make such a jackass of himself that he will discredit silentlambs completely and (b) he and those like him may well set some very bad legal precedents. Finally, and this is not particularly relevant to whether he is doing good or bad, I think he is on a terrible ego trip that has alienated many, many serious ex-JWs. In other words what I am saying is that Bill Bowen is acting too much like the late, unlamented Senator Joe McCarthy of Wisconsin who saw Communists under every bed and homosexuals in every bed in Washington.

Jim Penton

48

The Bible - inerrant word of God?

by Mr Bean in

the deeper you look into, clearer picture is emerging that god had not any input in these writings at all.

there are many verses, even whole passages which exist in some editions and in some they do not.. he evidently didn't supervised writers or copyists and we have plenty of evidences of that, his name in nt included.. since gospels of peter or thomas are not regarded as valuable and important documentations of jesus' life, only one conclusion comes to my mind.. as a moral guide the bible is an excellent book, written by... men!.

highly recommended!.

Jim Penton

Grumby,

Your language is offensive and your thinking childish. Would you tell the American government to "kiss your arse" for killing 500,000 men, women and children in Iraq during the last ten years? Please take some tums!

Jim Penton

48

The Bible - inerrant word of God?

by Mr Bean in

the deeper you look into, clearer picture is emerging that god had not any input in these writings at all.

there are many verses, even whole passages which exist in some editions and in some they do not.. he evidently didn't supervised writers or copyists and we have plenty of evidences of that, his name in nt included.. since gospels of peter or thomas are not regarded as valuable and important documentations of jesus' life, only one conclusion comes to my mind.. as a moral guide the bible is an excellent book, written by... men!.

highly recommended!.

Jim Penton

I would agree with much of what RWC has said, although I am certainly not a Catholic. When someone attacks the Bible - more a library than a book - on the grounds of "common sense, " I have to ask what common sense is and whose is it? When someone throws a statement like that out, I wonder if the person in question isn't assuming that his or her knowledge is superior to others. If so, my reaction is that that is a case of hubris of the worst sort. I had hoped that the effects of the European Enlightenment and the "reign or reason" had gone by the board in the 21st century. But I see it has not--at least here.

Most of the attacks on the Bible are attacks on certain Old Testament passages, and Christians generally have regarded the OT as something given to the Israelites at a particular time and under particular circumstances. Therefore, much of what appears in the OT is culture bound and not acceptable to Christians. The New Testament teaches that the fullness of God's will was not manifested in the Law or Torah but, rather, in Jesus Christ who taught a law of love. Furthermore, if one studies the various books of the OT from the Torah or Law up through the Prophets and writings, he or she can see that there is an evolution towards a kinder, gentler religion leading to Christ.

This development, ultimately through Jesus, led to the practice of a religion that was quite beautiful. It regarded men and women of all kinds as equally worthy or respect and salvation. As Paul said at Galatians 3:28 and 29: "There is neither Jew nor Greek; their is neither slave nor free person; there is not male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Consequently, the earliest Christians practiced a form of religion that certainly outshines what goes on in society today. They didn't believe in capital punishment. They wouldn't even watch the execution of a criminal. They refused to participate in war. They treated slaves as brothers and sisters in Christ. When there were plagues, they stayed to minister to the sick and often died as a result while others fled. They refused to charge interest on loans. They abhored infanticide and abortion. They treated women with greater respect than any, following the beautiful example of Jesus. And all of this was far ahead of the times in which these people were living and quite evidently ahead of the "super-wise" twenty first century in which we are living. And all this is reflected in New Testament, part of the library of Scriptures that a number of you here have felt free to mock without understanding very much about these developments or this history.

Unlike the super wise of our own generation, the early Christians didn't wage war and kill millions while saying "Gott mit uns" as did the Germans in both world wars. Nor did they say "In God we trust" and "God bless America" as have modern Americans while also carrying on unjust wars. So let me suggest that some of you start reading passages from the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew, the Hymn of Love at 1 Corinthians 13, or 1 John. Then maybe you will have a little more respect for the Bible.

Someone asked about other Holy Books. I believe that there is much that is good and beautiful in other religious books. The second century Church Father, Justin Martyr, taught that there was what he called the logos spermaticos in all humans. In other words there was some of the divine reason in all humans, since the word logos in Greek means "reason" as well as "word" or "sermon." This is an concept which seems to be based on the idea that humans were created in the image of God (which means having reason and moral values). Paul develops a similar idea at Romans 1. Therefore, there may be good, Godly ideas in the various religious works, simply arising out of the nature of humans.

However, I believe that in a final sense, the real revelation of God was Christ. I do not like calling the Bible the Word of God. Nowhere in the Scriptures is any book called the Word of God. The Word of God is, however, Jesus Christ, who brought a message of love and salvation to mankind. And that love is expressed by concern for the other, often in spite of the other. "God so love the world (a pretty nasty world) that he gave his only begotten Son." Yet we could not learn about Jesus without the Bible, and his role in the first century would not be clear without the background of the OT.

So I express my appreciation for the Bible and say: Christ had died; Christ is risen; Christ will come again.

Jim Penton

48

The Bible - inerrant word of God?

by Mr Bean in

the deeper you look into, clearer picture is emerging that god had not any input in these writings at all.

there are many verses, even whole passages which exist in some editions and in some they do not.. he evidently didn't supervised writers or copyists and we have plenty of evidences of that, his name in nt included.. since gospels of peter or thomas are not regarded as valuable and important documentations of jesus' life, only one conclusion comes to my mind.. as a moral guide the bible is an excellent book, written by... men!.

highly recommended!.

Jim Penton

I really find this a sad discussion by people who have far more opinions on the subject of the Bible than knowledge about it. Unfortunately, there is no attempt here to understand that it is possible to have great respect for the biblical tradition without taking an inerrantist position on the Scriptures. I find fundamentalist teachings with regard to the Bible simply nonsense, whether promoted by Baptists, Witnesses, Pentecostals or whatever. But I have the greatest resepect for many Catholic, Neo-Orthodox and some few Liberal theologians and biblical scholars who take very different, but positive, attitudes toward Scripture.

Jim Penton

10

Soul vs spirit. How do JW's explain these scriptur

by betweenworlds in

i know there must be a way that they explain these scriptures.

genesis 35:18 and the result was that as her soul was going out (because she died) she called his name benoni.

1 kings 17:21 and he proceeded to stretch himself upon the child three times and call to jehovah and say" "o jehovah my god, please cause the soul of this child to come back within him.".

Jim Penton

I do not think that Witness logic on the question of the nature of the soul is wrong. Words in Hebrew and Greek (like English or practically any language) may have several meanings, depending on the context, and it is unfair to pick a few texts and show one possible meaning only. To get a clear picture of the meanings (plural) of nephesh and psyche in the Hebrew and Greek texts of the Bible respectively, one would have to do a complete word study in the context of the various passages that contain those words. Incidentally, if one examines a standard work such as the Encyclopedia of Early Christianity on the subject of soul, he or she will see that most modern biblical scholars (not associated with a particular religion which has a dogmatic position on the matter) agree with the Witnesses on this. Of course, the Witnesses did not originate their idea on this or much of anything else. There have been people who believed in what is called "mortalism," the "soul sleep," "conditionalism, "etc. throughout the centuries. There were debates about this in the early church, in the Middle Ages, during the Reformation, and in the 17th century. In the 19th century the idea of mortalism was popularized in the United Statres by George Storrs, a Methodist minister who became an Adventist. Through him and other Adventists, C. T. Russell picked up the idea. So the Witnesses did not develop the idea.By the way, mortalism is held by most Adventists and many others. If one wants to read more on this subject, he or she could do no better than read Froom's The Conditionalist Faith of Our Fathers which is a historical survey of this doctrine. Froom was a Seventh-day Adventist and may have sometimes been overly zealous in including certain individuals as mortalists or conditionalists, but in general his study is sound.

Jim Penton

41

Ray Franz -some personal recollections.

by Gilgamesh in

this is my first post.

please forgive its length, its bad timing, its preachiness, its prejudices, etc.

it's just one more opinion that i feel obligated to add.

Jim Penton

It's nice to be with you. I fully understand anger at the Tower of Evil. It destroyed much of my health and hurt me very deeply. When I left, I didn't believe it had anything to do with true Christianity, but I loved many of the people associated with it; and to have some turn on me like vipers really hurt. I suffered heart attacks and a major abdominal operation that my physicians said were caused by the terrible stress I felt. Yet today I look back and say that the best thing the Witnesses ever did to me was force me out. I have never lost my Christian faith, but I am free now of an organization that doesn't know the meaning of true love and has absolutely no sense of aesthetics or joy of life.

For Island Woman, don't worry; I'm just another guy and not superior to anyone. But I refer to some as puppies, not because I look down on them, but because they are young pups in comparison to this old dog who has a bit more experince than many of them have. As I grow older I know I have fewer answers. So along with Henry Cardinal Newman I say: "Lead kindly light; lead Thou me on. One steps enough for me."

Yes, I am M. James Penton. I've always disliked my first name and therefore use James or Jim. but because so many organizations insist that I use my first name, I use the M. for official reasons. By the way, I soon hope to have another book published, this time on the JWs and the Third Reich. Examining this history was a shocker. The ordinary Witnesses were very brave, but their leaders in Germany and Brooklyn (especially Rutherford) were real compromisers. To me Rutherford really was responsible for the modern Watchtower organization and he was an absolute monster.

Blessings,

Jim

41

Ray Franz -some personal recollections.

by Gilgamesh in

this is my first post.

please forgive its length, its bad timing, its preachiness, its prejudices, etc.

it's just one more opinion that i feel obligated to add.

Jim Penton

Hi Gil,

I want to add my thanks to that of Carl. Frankly, I cannot think why the attack (and I call it an attack) on Ray ever took place. Most of the puppies who are making so much noise have no knowledge of the good Ray has done or what kind of man he is. Again, mil gracias!

Jim Penton

51

The Two Witness Rule is NOT THE ISSUE

by jst2laws in

the problem.

many here are supporters of the movement to expose the wt society's harmful policies that seem to shelter molesters and punish victims.

a common scenario is there are not two witnesses or a confession to the sin and the "loyal" elders have told the victim and their parents that 'there is nothing more we can do'.

Jim Penton

I had nearly given up on Jehovahs-Witnesses.com after having been on another thread. However, I feel that the first post here represents really good thinking and most of the replies are sane and devoid of the personal ego that I have noted earlier. The author of this thread deserves real credit.

There is, of course, something else very wrong with the Witness system. The judicial system, which operates behind closed doors, is nothing but a system of two-bit inquisitions. There is no basis for such a system biblically. It was simply dreamed up after the Moyle trial. Until it is done away with root and branch, the evils of Watch Tower thinking will continue.

I agree fully that what has been done to wives and women generally in the congregations is terrible. I have seen too much myself and have witnessed young girls being questioned about their sexual behavior. In itself, that is almost a form of psychological rape. Imagine a sixteen- year-old girl being asked by men old enough to be her grandfathers, "how far did he penetrate you?" The damage is often quite terrible.

Jim Penton

86

Bill Bowen's unfortunate attack

by Jim Penton in

like carl olof jonsson, this is the first time i have ever written to this forum.

i have decided to do so, however, because i am saddened at what bill bowen has chosen to do in reference to ray franz.

let me say that i given bill full marks for publicizing an issue child abuse and the watchtower cover up of it and for taking a stand that has cost him a great deal personally.

Jim Penton

I just want to make two points and leave this discussion.

The first is that I said "some" ex-Witnesses became atheists and agnostics to do as they want without restraint. I did not say all. I am aware that there are some atheists and agnostics who are quite sincere and simply cannnot accept religion or anything metaphysical, even from a philosophical standpoint. However, as I have said before, I don't believe one can have any idea of good or right without reference to a metaphysic. Otherwise, as Nietzsche said so well, we are beyond good and evil. The world in which we live is a pretty cruel place where millions of people and animals are killed simply because some one or some group decide to destroy them. Therefore, to posit that there is some sort of natural law as held by John Locke that can be observed through human reason is simply nonsense. Every atheist and agnostic that I know takes moral principles from the religious society in which he or she lives. Hence there are Christian atheists, Jewish atheists, Muslim atheists, etc., etc.

Regarding Hawk's diatribe, I find it irrational in the extreme and not worth replying to except in brief form. I did not use hypothetical examples, I consulted lawyers on the issues about which I wrote, I am not a hypocrite because I do not happen to agree with the current fanaticism - and I resent the statement that I that I am. Finally, despite Hawk's statemt, I was not present when Victoria Boer was questioned about her sexuality by the Watchtower's lawyer. I have the greatest respect for Victoria, wanted to testify in her behalf, and think she had a real case. But that does not mean I go for all the nonsense presented by Hawk. Besides that, I have the courage to use my own name on this forum which I see some of my critics do not. It is easy to be nasty when one can hide behind a pen name.

Jim Penton

86

Bill Bowen's unfortunate attack

by Jim Penton in

like carl olof jonsson, this is the first time i have ever written to this forum.

i have decided to do so, however, because i am saddened at what bill bowen has chosen to do in reference to ray franz.

let me say that i given bill full marks for publicizing an issue child abuse and the watchtower cover up of it and for taking a stand that has cost him a great deal personally.

Jim Penton

Hi Carl,

Great to hear from you. The point you make about the Watchtower Society and the two or three witness rule is excellent and shows that Ray was not the author.

I am very interested in doing a careful historical study of Watchtower "legislation" regarding disfellowshipping, judiccial committees, theocratic law, etc. I am convinced that the whole business of closed hearings before courts of servants or elders was a direct result of the Moyle case that cost the Society a good deal of money. Curiously, Watchtower lawyers have had little respect for principles of justice, and I think the whole business of disfellowshipping committees, as they were called originally, was dreamed up by Knorr, Fred Franz and Covington. Like Glen How in Canada, Covington could talk out of both sides of his mouth. He could spout libertarian principles when arguing for organizational religious freedom, but was totally autocratic within the organization.

I am deeply troubled by the ferment among former Witnesses. The psychological effects of having been Witnesses and of leaving, often under traumatic conditions, cause many to go off the rails. For that reason, and for my own mental health, I am less and less inclined to work with former Witnesses or to spend much time on forums. Sometimes the hatred expressed by ex-JWs is overwhelming. Furthermore, I often feel that the retreat of some into agnosticism and atheism is an excuse to allow them to do whatever they want without restraint. So here in Mexico, I am spending more and more time with people who have never been Witnesses. Although the number of real Christians is limited, there are some.

Blessing and keep up the good work,

Jim