Jerry Scott Fisher’s Weblog

My 2 cents,

If there is a God who can be bothered with our individual actions then I believe it is less concerned about whether you search for it than doing right by those around you. It seems foolish, unless you feel lost, to search for something that requires faith.

The only things that keeps me from buying into the conventional Christian idea of God is the hypocrisy of a large portion of its followers. The old saying “practice what you preach” rings so true when applying it today the evils of organized religions. Until organized religions in their near entirety begin to represent their God in an acceptable manner I will continue to be forced to question its existence.

I’m left to acknowledge the possibility of an omniscient God while continuing to live as though God is really just the grasshopper on my doorstep; not all-knowing, but a miracle never-the-less.

Good stuff and thanks for sparking a good discussion. My views continue to evolve. I think that we and programmed to explore and ask “why” about the world around us. And as we grow up that turns into a search for real meaning. I also think that all people at some point in their lives want to love and do right. We feel best when we have been a good friend Now as our individual situations and upbringings changs us we attach these intrinsic qualities to either a religion or lack of religion. Or maybe to some other life purpose. In the end i do think we often attribute too many human qualities to God (emotions, plans and purposes, etc.) and instead believe God operates or rather “is” outside of these constructs. I think all the different specific religions are just different tellings of the fundamental way God created us. So to simplify my views. I think when we act in love we are being true to ourselves and that is “God”. When we respond in fear that is the devil or better said as not-God. And by the way that fear is often used to scare people into one religious tradition vs. the next (ie the salvation hoax).

God is not complex and at birth we have every tool to live in truth and to know ourselves. Anybody or any religion that demands more is just acting as a middle-man between you and the real God.

I am not saying wisdom from elders, peers, books (including the bible and others) are bad at all. But they should be taken at face cLue and with descenment not as a reflection of God himself.

Sorry for all the typos. Blogging from an iPhone isn’t as easy as a PC!

Thats good insight and so true about where Jesus walked. I think his example is truely one to live by. That’s the real challange for me know is living like I talk , putting what wisdom have into action. That’s what is so impressive about Jesus.

First off, I thoroughly enjoyed your posts and the insightful comments of your friends.

Rather than diving into the question of God’s existence, which is clearly a weighty discussion of its own, I’ll start from the premise that we’ve concluded there must be at least one powerful and intelligent designer (but to ease phrasing allow me stick to the singular ^^) who is responsible for endowing humans with innate curiosity. Such a being would unquestionably be beyond the scope of human comprehension, and could clearly choose to remain hidden from its creation should it choose to do so. As you observed, we have an exceptionally small window through which to view the world, even from a strictly physical viewpoint. But if the physical realm were created, the creator would clearly exist outside it, and we would have no window at all … other than what the creator chooses to provide. Therefore, any search for God should recognize from its outset that we can only find answers to the big questions (Why are we here? Why is there suffering? What happens when we die?) if God wants to answer them. But why would he create intellectual curiosity and spiritual consciousness, with no intent to satisfy it? (Note: I’m aware that switching to the masculine pronoun is somewhat anthropomorphizing, but I’m just following the biblical precedent; God clearly wouldn’t have human-like gender.)

At the same time, if God could choose to remain hidden, he also could choose to reveal himself openly, and that obviously hasn’t happened. Hence our search. However, I get the impression that you feel that the continued search is key. You endeavor to discern God’s will, whether expressed through scripture or the inner workings of the heart and mind, and live in harmony with it, but with no apparent expectation of finding satisfying answers, at least not in this life. This implies that you’ve concluded that God has intentionally hidden himself, not only from those who selfishly choose their own path, with no regard for him, but from those who seek him with honest hearts. You seem resigned to accepting hints and principles, but no real answers. To arrive at this conclusion, you would have had to have examined all the claimed sources of divine wisdom, and concluded that they were all lacking. As you well know, I ardently believe that the Bible stands up to scrutiny, not merely as a book of history and men’s accumulated wisdom, but as the word of God, carefully prepared in such a way that it only appeals to the hearts of those who are humble, honest, and hungry for spiritual truth (Matt 5:3).

You have studied the teachings of Jesus, as evidenced by your comments, and you say want to “abide in the wisdom and way of Jesus.” Do you accept all of his teachings? Or do you feel that the gospel accounts have been altered through time so that are not trustworthy? This has an important bearing on how you view the entire Bible. Jesus frequently quoted from OT scripture. When he said at John 17:17 “Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth”, what word was he referring to? When Satan tempted him in the wilderness, how did he respond? He quoted scripture, saying each time “it is written …”, and quoting from the OT. There are scores of OT prophecies which were fulfilled in Jesus, many rather explicitly, with attention even being drawn to this directly in the gospel accounts. Was this narrative actually a brilliant fabrication that wove together dozens of writings authored over the span of more than a thousand years into a heart-rending motivational tale? I don’t think you believe it’s just a big deception. But what does that say about the rest of the scriptures?

Anyhow, the comments section of your blog is probably not the place to wax at length about the divine authenticity of the Bible, but getting back to the topic of searching, I think it’s important to carefully examine why you accept some beliefs and reject others. I don’t see how you can formulate a belief system extolling the wisdom of Jesus without accepting that the scriptures teach truth. If there are parts you have trouble swallowing, I would be interested in discussing them. That was something I never really understood from our discussions.

In closing, just a few scriptural thoughts …

You rightly wrote of the need for humility. Jesus praised his father for hiding wisdom from the intellectuals: Matthew 11:25

God may have showed love to us first (1 John 4:19), but a personal relationship with him requires action on our part, to which he reciprocates (Jas 4:8-10). Does that sound like a distant, abstract being who wants to see how we respond to an unsatisfying search?

God invites us to search for him, but significantly, he says he will let himself be found: Jeremiah 29:11-13

Searching for God involves searching for knowledge and wisdom. An understanding of who God is and exactly how he wants us to live is the point. Knowledge of God’s qualities is what enables us to draw close to him. And with regard to finding satisfying answers, it would follow that, if we are created beings, any concept of meaning in our life is connected to the will of the creator. (Proverbs 2:1-10)

Sorry for the length, but I know you understand that big subjects take lotsa words. Incidentally, I do envy your ability to express thoughts so poetically. My style is too much like documentation. ^.^

oops. missed a few closing links there. sorry. please edit if you can. thanks

Hey Jerry. At the last minute my work decided to delay my return to the U.S., so I can stay up into the early hours of the morning writing a response.

Do you believe if a person seeks God (in sincere humility, honesty, and thirst for spiritual truth), he will be led to your religion without fail?

Let me ask you this: What do you think God would want for a person who is seeking him in sincere humility, honesty, and a thirst for spiritual truth? Don’t you think God would want that individual to understand the truth? Wouldn’t God want that person to be able to see through all the lies and confusion and have a real basis for faith and hope, a personal relationship with God based on accurate knowledge?

I believe the account you linked to in Acts makes this point quite well. Cornelius was described as a “devout man … that feared God”, gave to the poor, and whose prayers were listened to and answered. He was not a Jew, and so, unlike Jesus’ apostles, he did not have a knowledge of God based on scripture. Yet, while his fellow Romans worshiped a pantheon of mythological Gods, it would seem that he perceived the qualities of God by some other means, perhaps through careful consideration of creation and human nature, and he was motivated from an honest heart to act in harmony with divine principles.

How did God respond? He sent Peter to preach to him, and after Peter acknowledged that God accepts people from every nation, he proceeded to teach him the good news of peace about Jesus. He told him of Jesus’ death and resurrection, and in vs 42-43 explained: “He commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one whom God appointed as judge of the living and the dead. All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.” (Acts 10:42,43 NIV)

So the short answer is yes. Just as honest-hearted ones in the first century (and there were many other accounts, including the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts were led to the Christian congregation, God’s spirit today would lead sincere individuals to the congregation through which truth about God and the good news of the kingdom is being taught.

Do you feel that all the faithful of the world are being gathered to your organization?

This is somewhat more blurry. In the first century, would all sincere people who lived around Jerusalem and who saw Jesus in person have been gathered to the congregation? I would say yes. Would people who lived in Korea at the time have been gathered? Not likely. Today the preaching of Jehovah’s Witnesses is being done throughout the earth, but this does not mean that every individual is necessarily in a position to receive the message. Certainly that would be true in the strict Muslim countries of the Middle-East, or in atheist China or North Korea. But perhaps others are smothered by oppressive family or economic situations, and it would be exceptionally difficult for them to hear and respond.

And yet, while I would make allowance for such circumstances, I have read countless cases where people overcame incredible obstacles and even painful opposition to take up a course of true worship, because their desire to please God was strong enough, and because they were convinced they had found the truth. Of course there are experiences of faith and sacrifice in other churches (hey, Buddhist monks set themselves on fire), but I think an honest examination of the historical steadfastness of Jehovah’s Witnesses in the face of trials would be worthwhile. What other religions have successfully motivated their adherents to always maintain a course of peace and neutrality even at the expense of their lives? Some people think it’s cultist brainwashing. I’m convinced that I and the millions of other Witnesses who would face death or imprisonment rather than take up arms do so out of a love for God and neighbor, and a true commitment to following the footsteps of Jesus.

Do you feel that those who don’t feel the calling or leave your organization were displeasing to God?

Displeasing in the sense that God is angry with them? No. Disappointed? Yes. How each individual would fare in judgment would depend on personal circumstances and on what God sees in their hearts. With greater knowledge comes greater responsibility. The Bible shows that some in the first century caused divisions over doctrinal matters, and this was described as ‘wandering from the truth.’ (2 Timothy 2:16-19). Paul encouraged Christians to “agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought.” (1 Cor 1:10) So it would appear to me that God is quite interested in maintaining truth and purity within the congregation, and that he would therefore be disappointed when people reject that.

As you may guess, I suspect a Buddhist who shows true love, purity and sacrifice is serving God just as faithfully as a Christian who shows true love, purity and sacrifice.

If God sent his son to die for us, and states that everlasting life results from putting faith in that sacrifice (John 3:16), how can you think that God would be pleased with the worship of someone who doesn’t even recognize his existence (Buddhists don’t acknowledge a personal creator)?

Also, I’m curious just how familiar you are with Buddhist worship. It seems to be popular in western culture to highlight the peace-oriented teachings and calm introspection, without really examining what Buddhism teaches. Have you ever been to a temple here in Seoul? I visited the one near Coex mall. There I observed people ritualistically kneeling before idols (I’m told it often lasts for hours), and leaving trinkets and food before little idols of Buddha. A mural on the wall depicted a scene not at all unlike Christendom’s hell, with demons presiding over a fiery realm of enslavement, while Buddha floated nearby in his traditional meditative pose. There was a bank on-site, and all the little hanging lanterns provided visible recognition of people’s donations. If you look at history, you find Buddhist warrior monks involved in plenty of bloodbaths. All these things are quite similar to the teachings and behaviors associated with so-called Christianity.

So, as already noted, I believe that God sees the good in the individual, and judges accordingly, but the worship of someone who believes in lies and doesn’t know God is not as pleasing to him as the worship of someone who understands and loves him as he truly is. What God would want for that sincere one is for them to gain knowledge and a genuine basis for faith.

I am unconvinced that a particular religion would entirely enable or preclude one from channeling that grace (wheat/tares type of thing).

I’ve never argued that a particular religion would prevent a person from acting in harmony with God’s spirit, but I hope you can understand why I feel that religions which teach lies about God actually pose a barrier to having a deep and meaningful relationship with God. You seem to find satisfaction in the notion of a mystical, intangible spiritual connection with God, which could happen for any honest person in any religion, but I think an examination of the Bible, throughout its entirety, reveals a very different picture. It depicts God as a person with whom we can talk, who loves us individually (and loves all people, even those who reject him), and who wants every individual to know the truth about who he is, what his Son has done for us, and what we should do to be in harmony with his will. And this is why we preach.

You haven’t yet responded to my thoughts regarding God’s desire for us to know truth. So let me ask you directly, what is it referring to at 1 Ti 2:4?

I’ll close by quoting from a wonderful sentiment regarding love and knowledge. My prayer is the same:
“For God is my witness of how I am yearning for all of you in such tender affection as Christ Jesus has. And this is what I continue praying, that your love may abound yet more and more with accurate knowledge and full discernment; that you may make sure of the more important things, so that you may be flawless and not be stumbling others up to the day of Christ.” (Philippians 1:8-10)

I just keep getting longer and longer! Sorry. ^^

P.S. On second thought, that was a bit presumptuous of me to attempt to redirect the discussion away from your site. I just got a little too frazzled by the format limitations, probably compounded by not enough sleep . Please consider it only as a suggestion, but I completely understand if you would like to keep the current discussion on the this page so it doesn’t lose context. However, perhaps future topics could be initiated in the forum format. Thanks … Dan

“So it would appear to me that God is quite interested in maintaining truth and purity within the congregation” Although this sounds good one must be careful that an Inquisition type mentality is not employed. It’s always important to research the history of a church as well. No one would want to buy a Ford after only hearing what Ford and their marketing group had to say. A good example of being careful in this regard would be Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Scientologists they are groups that feel only they are right to an extreme case. Crisis of Conscience by Raymond Franz is a great book for anyone considering any of these churches.

It’s nice to see someone else join in.

@Apache: I agree that those in the congregation with the responsibility to shepherd and maintain its holiness have to be very careful to reflect God’s love and mercy in their dealings. I will not argue that in some cases, imperfect men have had a tendency to over-apply a legalistic approach to things, at times overstepping the bounds of their responsibilities. This is quite the exception, however, particularly these days. For the most part, I’ve found the spirit within the congregation to be very kind and loving, not at all an “Inquisition type mentality”.

And while I agree it’s good to get an objective, outsider’s opinion of the church, I’m not sure Raymond Franz would be a good candidate, seeing as he had a bitter falling out and has since made criticism of JW’s a major focus of his life. Some may argue that his “insider” knowledge is what makes his viewpoint valuable, but I can attest firsthand from many other “insiders” that Franz’s accounts are very one-sided, as one would expect from somebody upset with the organization. Additionally, his presentation of individual flaws within the leadership of the organization is only damaging if one had a naive, idealistic view from the start, which admittedly, many JW’s do. Having worked at the headquarters myself for five years and spent much time researching and observing how things work, I have a bit more realistic expectation than some, and yet, if anything, this awareness of the human limitations of the leadership has only strengthened my faith that the work could not have been carried out without God’s spirit, because these men are not capable of creating a unified, peaceful, loving brotherhood on their own. But I don’t want our discussion to verge off down that path at the moment. That will make a good topic for discussion later on.

@TheTruthWillSetYouFree: Heh. Feel free to bring it to my attention if I use circular reasoning at any point. In my 15+ years of preaching I’ve never employed the logic presented in that picture. ^^

*** g84 11/22 p. 4 An Open or a Closed Mind—Which Do You Have? ***

Why People Have Closed Minds

A closed mind may indicate lack of knowledge. We may know so little about a subject, or have information so distorted or incomplete, that the facts necessary to reach proper conclusions are missing. For example, if you are living in Germany and are so sure that everyone from Berlin is a loudmouth, ask yourself just how many people from Berlin you know. Enough to judge several million people accurately? Perhaps more careful thought will lead you to the realization that you have met more loudmouths from Hamburg, Frankfurt or Munich than you ever have met from Berlin.

A closed mind may betray a lack of interest in the subject or a reluctance to look into the matter. In fact, it could even be a sign of uncertainty or doubt. For example, if we are unable to defend our religious views, we may find ourselves lashing out against those who challenge our beliefs, not with logical arguments, but with slurs and innuendos. This smacks of prejudice and of a closed mind.

A closed mind may also indicate a selfish desire to retain certain advantages that an open mind might cause us to lose. In some countries racial groups have been suppressed so that other groups can enjoy certain privileges. Unwilling to share these with others, the privileged groups retreat to the prejudicial position of “we are better than you,” closing their minds to all evidence to the contrary.

Are you open-minded enough to consider the possibility that you may not be? It will pay to find out. Whereas an open mind can serve to your advantage, a closed one will almost certainly serve to your detriment.

“I can attest firsthand from many other “insiders” that Franz’s accounts are very one-sided”

Have you read the book? I would have to say this is a demonstrably false statement. The book is one of the most well researched and balanced books I have ever read.

Dan what do you say? Can we continue this discussion at your site?

Yes, of course he gives his subjective view. To say otherwise would not even be reasonable. But if you read it you would see the ring of truth in his writing.

But if for some reason you have an issue with the author there are many great writings that are applicable to high control religions. For instances there are many ex-mormons who have written books describing the same thing.

If one reads about WWCofG, Mormons, JW’s, Church of Scientology, you will see the same aspects at work. For instance if you were associated with WWCofG and felt Mr. Armstrong was God’s prophet you might not feel comfortable reading books by ex-members. You would may feel more comfortable with something describing the experience of someone from the Church of the Later Day Saints.

You could relate, but in a more prospective way. You would know that they were not trying to ‘attack’ Mr. Armstrong’s works.

And sorry Jerry, but please understand my hesitancy. I want to have an honest and open discussion of ideas, especially one which is encouraging and helpful to the goal of searching for god. I’m quite happy to defend my beliefs when challenged. You know I enjoy that. But I’m not interested in diving into an argument with those who make it their aim to “enlighten” others to the dangers of Jehovah’s Witnesses, which is why I questioned how they got here, even though it goes against my grain to make an issue of that. I’m honestly having second thoughts about opening up the discussion to a public forum, but I’ll reserve judgment on that for now, if it’s alright. However, when I find time in the next couple days I’d definitely like to continue with the discussion at hand. I’ve got a couple of pages of notes I’ve written, and none of my arguments require that you accept any notion of one-true-religion. ^^

Jerry,

I just realized I called you “Jeremy”, above, once. Then I started using Jerry. Sorry.

I would like to just move on, but I feel it’s necessary to respond to a couple points …

I don’t think the answers to those questions are relevant to whether or not JWs alone have spiritual truth.

That’s true. They are relevant, however, to whether or not I’m interested in continuing the discussion.

As best as I can discern, a JW gives himself permission to dismiss any factual information that comes from an “opposer” or an “apostate”.

No, but we all know that “factual information” is quite subjective. The manner in which information is presented, such as which details are withheld, greatly influences how it will be perceived.

For instance, you made the statement regarding Crisis of Conscience that Franz “never encourages anyone to leave the organization in his book. Nor does he say that JWs are not Christians.” That may be a factually true statement. It is also disingenuous. A book which argues that Jehovah’s Witnesses are a cult, and that they have a legalistic system of control that inhibits Christian freedom, would obviously be encouraging individuals to leave. This is a typical example of the difficulty that arises in this sort of a discussion, and why I do not wish to engage in a debate with you over these matters.

Moreover, the Watchtower organization actively encourages JWs to “hate” former members. I’m sure you can appreciate that.

Absolutely untrue. We are encouraged to shun apostate teaching. We are never encouraged to hate people. Quite to the contrary, we believe that someone who has left, for whatever reason, is endangering their own relationship with God and their prospect for everlasting life. If I love someone, wouldn’t I want them to avoid that outcome? Wouldn’t I want them to do what was needed to stay in God’s favor? However, if such a person has not only made this decision for himself, but is actively trying to convince others to follow the same course, my loyalty to God and love for people would move me to avoid their reasoning. There is clear scriptural backing for this viewpoint.

It’s obvious that my argument is faulty if leaving the organization is not a danger to one’s relationship with God, which gets back to the discussion of whether or not Jehovah’s Witnesses are the only religion that teaches truth. There is obviously more to be discussed in that regard, but to argue that we are taught to hate people because we follow Biblical guidelines based on love, and then present that as a fault, is circular. Our actions toward those who have left is only problematic if we are wrong about what the Bible teaches.

I support freedom of religion and the freedom to practice religion without being coerced or threatened with the emotional abuse of shunning.

I understand that the practice of disfellowshipping has caused pain to many affected by it. I will not go into a debate here about why this is actually a demonstration of love both to the individual and God, how it is based on scripture, and how it is designed to bring people back into a healthy relationship with God while keeping the congregation clean and unified. I know you don’t accept those points, but I would be glad to discuss them with Jerry later.

Dan, if you can point out anything that is untrue on the page below, I am willing to listen.

I can understand and even sympathize with some of your concerns, but as noted, I am not going to enter a debate with you over these issues. I think the information presented on that page is a perfect of example of how the presentation of arguments is so important. Consider the approach Satan used when he asked Eve “Is it really so that God said you must not eat from every tree of the garden?” God had really said “From every tree of the garden you may eat to satisfaction. But as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad you must not eat from it.” So Satan’s statement was technically correct, but clearly misleading. I feel the same way about the arguments presented on that page. I would be happy to discuss them in private with Jerry or others who are sincerely searching, but not with those who search the internet for conversations about JW’s so they pass along negative information.

To Jerry,
You state in connection with Dr. Pecks ideas.
“I am a little reluctant to group people into such categories.” “I still think it’s a bit belittling to people who tend to gravitate towards the earlier stages”

I agree 100% in fact ‘grouping’ people can be the root of a lot of hate and distrust.

All we have to do is read where this thread could have gone untended. It’s easy for people to develop an us vs. them mentality.

I seldom buy into everything, or dismiss everything someone has to say. I would be lying to say that some groups don’t scare me because of their trusting only one man or group to tell them right and wrong. This can be seen in past and present religion and government.

But that said I think he made good points. At least in my personal case he really nailed me. I grew up in a Stage II household, my parents grew up in a Stage II household. In my parents case they were thinking people but never really took the time to find their own spiritual path.

It’s just so great to see people doing so. This may sound a bit cliché but it really think it’s not where you end up as much as the path you take that matters.

I am very happy to have had different stages. It helps me relate to others. For instance I can see where both Dan and Truth are coming from. I appreciate that they are probably both great people. If was not on a spiritual journey I may be quick to dismiss either of them as nuts, cults members, anti-God or the like. But I know their human and on a journey too.

Jerry & Dan,

I would like to apologize if some of my comments have seemed harsh or rude. This is certainly not my intent. You are correct to assume that I am emotionally invested in this topic. Please also know that my concern for my fellow man motivates me.

@Dan

Dan wrote:
“They are relevant, however, to whether or not I’m interested in continuing the discussion.”

Fair enough. JWs are instructed to quit talking with people at the door that will not accept their message as true.

Dan wrote:
“For instance, you made the statement regarding Crisis of Conscience that Franz “never encourages anyone to leave the organization in his book. Nor does he say that JWs are not Christians.” That may be a factually true statement. It is also disingenuous. A book which argues that Jehovah’s Witnesses are a cult, and that they have a legalistic system of control that inhibits Christian freedom, would obviously be encouraging individuals to leave. This is a typical example of the difficulty that arises in this sort of a discussion, and why I do not wish to engage in a debate with you over these matters.”

NEVER, in Crisis of Conscience, does Ray Franz refer to JWs as a cult. I remain puzzled how you can criticize Ray’s book, having not read it. The book is an eye-witness account from the top level leadership of your organization. Watchtower has never printed a refutation of anything in Ray’s book. The books is filled with photocopies of Watchtower letters, to and from Ray. You’ve served at the Brooklyn Headquarters for five years. You can compare your observations with Ray’s to determine if they have the ring of truth. The counsel in Proverbs comes to mind, in this regard: “When anyone is replying to a matter before he hears it, that is foolishness on his part and a humiliation.” [Proverbs 18:13, NWT]

Dan wrote:
“Moreover, the Watchtower organization actively encourages JWs to “hate” former members. I’m sure you can appreciate that.”
“Absolutely untrue.”

Here are a few examples of what JWs have printed, concerning former members. (Keep in mind, an example of a JW “apostate” would be a person baptized as a JW at age 12, who as an adult came decided to join leave the JWs and join an evangelical Christian denomination, for reasons of conscience.)

*** w92 7/15 p. 12 par. 19 Christ Hated Lawlessness—Do You? ***
Our attitude toward apostates should be that of David, who declared: “Do I not hate those who are intensely hating you, O Jehovah, and do I not feel a loathing for those revolting against you? With a complete hatred I do hate them. They have become to me real enemies.”

*** w52 10/1 p. 599 par. 11 A Strong Refuge Today ***
Haters of God and his people are to be hated, but this does not mean that we will take any opportunity of bringing physical hurt to them in a spirit of malice or spite, for both malice and spite belong to the Devil, whereas pure hatred does not. We must hate in the truest sense, which is to regard with extreme and active aversion, to consider as loathsome, odious, filthy, to detest.

*** w52 11/15 p. 703 Questions From Readers ***
We are not living today among theocratic nations where such members of our fleshly family relationship could be exterminated for apostasy from God and his theocratic organization, as was possible and was ordered in the nation of Israel in the wilderness of Sinai and in the land of Palestine

*** w61 7/15 p. 420 A Time and Place for Everything ***
When a person persists in a way of badness after knowing what is right, when the bad becomes so ingrained that it is an inseparable part of his make-up, then in order to hate what is bad a Christian must hate the person with whom the badness is inseparably linked.

Dan wrote:
“It’s obvious that my argument is faulty if leaving the organization is not a danger to one’s relationship with God, which gets back to the discussion of whether or not Jehovah’s Witnesses are the only religion that teaches truth. There is obviously more to be discussed in that regard, but to argue that we are taught to hate people because we follow Biblical guidelines based on love, and then present that as a fault, is circular. Our actions toward those who have left is only problematic if we are wrong about what the Bible teaches.”

The whole notion that your organization alone has Truth should give you pause. This is a trademark of an authoritarian, high-control group. It’s a black and white view of the world in which all things Watchtower are good and all things non-Watchtower are in error. In view of the many, many demonstrable errors printed by the Watchtower, can you see the danger in dogmatically adhering to a partuclar human interpretation of Scripture, even when such conflicts with one’s conscience? As an example, prior to the mid or late 1970’s, Watchtower told their members that accepting the blood fraction “Clotting Factor VIII” was forbidden. It was considered a violation of God’s law and anyone taking it would be disfellowshipped. With what result? Hemophiliac JWs died. Later, the prohibition on this particular fraction was reversed. JW hemophiliacs can now take Clotting Factor VIII – as many times as needed — and not fear being expelled from the organization and shunned by friends and family.

Dan wrote:
“I support freedom of religion and the freedom to practice religion without being coerced or threatened with the emotional abuse of shunning.”
“I understand that the practice of disfellowshipping has caused pain to many affected by it. I will not go into a debate here about why this is actually a demonstration of love both to the individual and God, how it is based on scripture, and how it is designed to bring people back into a healthy relationship with God while keeping the congregation clean and unified. I know you don’t accept those points, but I would be glad to discuss them with Jerry later.”

Example: Unwed, pregnant teenage girls disfellowshipped for fornication are being shown love by being cut off from their friends and family at a time when they need them the most? This seems more like punishment to me. I’m familiar with the Scriptures used by JWs to justify the practice of “shooting the wounded”. Why is the list of special sins, worthy of expulsion, not provided to all new potential converts? There is quite a list in the Elders Book, but it’s not complete.

Dan wrote:
“Dan, if you can point out anything that is untrue on the page below, I am willing to listen.”
“I can understand and even sympathize with some of your concerns, but as noted, I am not going to enter a debate with you over these issues. I think the information presented on that page is a perfect of example of how the presentation of arguments is so important. Consider the approach Satan used when he asked Eve “Is it really so that God said you must not eat from every tree of the garden?” God had really said “From every tree of the garden you may eat to satisfaction. But as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad you must not eat from it.” So Satan’s statement was technically correct, but clearly misleading. I feel the same way about the arguments presented on that page. I would be happy to discuss them in private with Jerry or others who are sincerely searching, but not with those who search the internet for conversations about JW’s so they pass along negative information.”

Watchtower publications and the JW door-to-door ministry are comprised, to a large degree, of “passing along negative information” about ALL other religions. The Roman Catholic Church has been the target of much Watchtower derision, historically. You seem to be attempting to dismiss anything I would have to say because I’m saying something negative about Watchtower. Do you see the irony?

Dan, thanks for the discussion.

Jerry, thanks for the cyberspace.

Dan,
You state your views well, and it’s clear how you feel. Please be careful with you sweeping statements about how others feel. “Most atheists see no reason to believe in the existence of anything beyond the physical realm.” I would have to disagree with this statement being and Atheist.

Somethings it’s worth admitting that we don’t have all the answers. You give the impression to others that you feel you have found “concrete truth”. But the truth be told much of what you believe may not be as concrete was what you think.

For example take math. You’re good at math right? Would you say you know everything there is to know about math? Of course not. You know enough to know how complex things get. The same applies to matters of religion, god, and how we live our lives. It only appears simple when we don’t know what involved.

I was doing some research about the boy scouts and come across this forum.
http://www.exmormonforums.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1228
This would be an example of a site worth visiting before joining any church to see if you find too many parallels for comfort.

Dan you mention “I look with eager anticipation to having, not 80 years, but an unlimited amount of time to delve into God’s wisdom.”

No one would disagree this would be wonderful, but the Bible accurately presents a sobering thought.

‘As for the days of our life, they contain seventy years, Or if due to strength, eighty years, Yet their pride is but labor and sorrow; For soon it is gone and we fly away’. – Psalm 90:10

So it’s important to use our time wisely. As of yet there is no evidence beyond hope that people are, or can be immortal. Granted I don’t know of any religion that in one way or another does not present this hope. Heaven, Earth, Planets, or Re-incarnation they all call it something different but in the end no one wants to die. I see no harm in wanting to live forever. But wasting our life away thinking that we’ll get around to something in the next million years is probably not the wisest idea.

A discussion of “truth” and the Bible will be unproductive, unless we are all clear on how Jehovah’s Witnesses view these matters. Below are three quotes from the Watchtower magazine which illustrate this view.

—————

*** w73 7/1 p. 402 par. 4 Praise Jehovah with His People ***

Consider, too, the fact that Jehovah’s organization ALONE, in all the earth, is directed by God’s holy spirit or active force. (Zech. 4:6) ONLY this organization functions for Jehovah’s purpose and to his praise. To it alone God’s Sacred Word, the Bible, is not a sealed book. Many persons of the world are very intelligent, capable of understanding complex matters. They can read the Holy Scriptures, but they CANNOT understand their deep meaning. Yet God’s people can comprehend such spiritual things. Why? Not because of special intelligence on their part, but as the apostle Paul declared: “For it is to us God has revealed them through his spirit, for the spirit searches into all things, even the deep things of God.” (1 Cor. 2:10) Jesus Christ praised his heavenly Father for ‘hiding such things from the wise and intellectual ones but revealing them to babes.’ (Matt. 11:25) How very much true Christians appreciate associating with the ONLY ORGANIZATION on earth that understands the “deep things of God”!

—————

*** w81 2/15 p. 19 Do We Need Help to Understand the Bible? ***

We all need help to understand the Bible, and we CANNOT find the Scriptural guidance we need outside the “faithful and discreet slave” organization.

—————

*** w67 10/1 p. 587 par. 9 Finding Freedom with Jehovah’s Visible Organization ***

Thus the Bible is an organizational book and belongs to the Christian congregation as an organization, NOT TO INDIVIDUALS, regardless of how sincerely they may believe that they can interpret the Bible. For this reason the Bible CANNOT be properly understood without Jehovah’s visible organization in mind.

—————

@Apache: I did a bit of reading on kerygma (the greek word for “proclaim”) and dogma (established doctrine), and I don’t really understand what you’re suggesting. I understood the discussions that revolve around the danger of creating dogma in response to the kerygma of Jesus, but I don’t suppose that would have much relevance from an atheist’s viewpoint.

Also, you took issue with my sweeping statement regarding atheists, and your point is valid. Although I did throw in the qualifier “most”, it would be better for me to be less assuming. In my defense, however, my statement was not coming from a position of complete ignorance. I have had numerous lengthy discussions with atheists, and I don’t ever recall the argument that we should reject belief in a God or gods (the definition of an atheist), yet accept belief in a supernatural realm that transcends our physical reality. Such belief is obviously possible, and is indeed similar to the teachings of Buddhism, where the definition of “God” can become very fuzzy.

Most atheists I’ve talked to (which may not be representative of the group, of course) have argued against the existence of an intelligent designer on logical, rational grounds. There is generally strong emphasis on the scientific approach to establishing belief based on verifiable and testable evidence, and thus it is concluded that the evidence for a God is insufficient. Although I think there are some fundamental flaws with that logic, I can respect their arguments, and honestly find it more enjoyable to talk with a thoughtful atheist than with someone who claims to have faith but is able to provide no support for their belief. But I find your stated position of interest. On what basis do you reject the existence of an intelligent designer (which is just one of several arguments for God) and yet accept that there’s something beyond the physical realm?

@ Dan you state that you’ve had “numerous lengthy discussions with atheists, and I don’t ever recall the argument that we should reject belief in a God or gods (the definition of an atheist), yet accept belief in a supernatural realm that transcends our physical reality.”

This is fair. I accept what you have to say. You have probably talked to as many or perhaps more than I have.

@ fisher0978
Your wisdom exceeds your years. You make excellent and balanced points. Thanks so much for allowing us to use your space on the net and having this great discussion.

@ Dan you raise a very valid point about not harping on .01% (JW) and getting back to the real discussion at hand. I would love to hear what you all have to say. Being an Atheist I obviously haven’t come up with any striking answers to the quest for spiritual truth via a deity. I do prefer to live in reality over having an imaginary friend. The imaginary friend can and does comfort many, and is very, very, real to many, and I wouldn’t want to deny someone this if it is what they prefer.

Dan to answer your question about my view of the supernatural realm. I often see two views of the supernatural. The fundamentalist Christian who not only believes in the supernatural or paranormal but insists that he totally understands it all and his little book the Bible explains it all. The other view is often rejection of the little book completely and rejection of any paranormal, or supernatural at the same time.

I call myself an Atheist because I see no scientific evidence for God. I see no evidence that the Bible is inspired of a higher source. Although much of what it has to say is very wise, for instance it’s balanced view of money and material possessions. Just because I have seen no evidence for a deity, does not mean I am going to insist that there is nothing out there. That is a pretty arrogant statement to make if you ask me. How the heck could any human possibly know? When was the last time we visited another galaxy? We are just now finding possible life on mars. Its one thing to deny there is anything beyond what we can see and feel, and it’s another to think you have it all figured out. I am not insisting that you feel this way. You comments reflect a definite humility, but you see where I am coming from. I can insist I know Jerry’s foot size, or I could deny he has feet. Both would be an ignorant view for me to have, having never even seen his feet.

@Jerry: Would this be a fair understanding of your views?

Your description was fairly accurate, yes, but of course I wouldn’t describe it quite that way. Let me suggest, however, that if we were living a few years after the death of Jesus, you could replace every instance of “Watchtower” or “Watchtower organization” in your statement with “first-century Christian congregation, directed by the apostles,” and it would be substantially the same. The apostles, and later other older men, took the lead in guiding and directing the congregation, forming doctrine, issuing decrees, and so on. The apostle Paul was clearly responsible for interpreting and explaining the meaning of scripture, showing how this would impact their belief, faith, and actions, and yet, even he deferred to the authority of the group of apostles and other older men in Jerusalem (Acts 15:1-2,22-29).

Dan wrote:

“The apostle Paul was clearly responsible for interpreting and explaining the meaning of scripture, showing how this would impact their belief, faith, and actions, and yet, even he deferred to the authority of the group of apostles and other older men in Jerusalem (Acts 15:1-2,22-29).”

The scriptures say that the older men in Jerusalem met a SINGLE time with Paul and Barnabas over an issue brought up in the far away Antioch congregation by two rogue Jewish brothers who visited and insisted that all Christians must keep the Jewish circumcision tradition (see Acts chapt. 15 and Gal. chapt. 2).

Paul’s account of this meeting (Gal. 2) shows that it was by revelation that he went there apparently to CORRECT these older men on this issue – not the other way around. The meeting ended and an apology letter was drafted and sent with two representatives to accompany Paul and Barnabas back to the Antioch congregation. Other than this letter written specifically for the Antioch congregation (also shared with congs. in Syria and Cilicia), there is not even a hint anywhere in the scriptures that a Governing Body or a group of apostles with special authority existed or had anything to do with what Paul or Timothy, or Philip or many other individuals were doing as representatives of Jesus.

Galations 1 shows that it was 3 years after being appointed by Jesus himself that Paul finally ventured to Jerusalem and during his 2 week stay with Cephas he saw “… no one else of the apostles, only James the brother of the Lord.”

Galations 2 shows that 14 years later Paul again went to Jerusalem with Barnabas (and the uncircumcised Titus) as a result of a Revelation to set the older men straight on the circumcision issue that the “…false brothers brought in quietly, who had sneaked in to spy upon our freedom…” had brought up in Paul’s home congregation in Antioch. Paul operated for 14 years independent of any Governing Body or group of apostles.

Dan wrote:

“are you suggesting that the apostles did not have authority over the congregations? Are you prepared to defend that assertion?”

I’m suggesting that there was no first-century Governing Body.

I have little interest in discussing doctrine. It’s all based upon a unique interpretation of Scripture. All faiths see it differently.

I’ll just say that I see nothing in the Scriptures that would lead me to believe there was a Governing Body in the fist century.

Notice the points below from a Gilead Graduation talk delivered by Fred Franz, on September 7, 1975.

(An MP3 of the talk is available. I’ll try to find a link to it.)

“And then, all of a sudden as he [Paul] was serving in Antioch, in Syria, not in Israel but in Syria, why God’s spirit spoke to that congregation there in Antioch and said, “Now of all things, you set aside, YOU, this congregation
in Antioch, you set aside these two men, namely Barnabas and Saul for the work for which I have commissioned them.” And so the Antioch
congregation did that and they laid their hands upon Paul (or Saul) and Barnabas and sent them forth . . . and they went forth by the holy spirit operating through the Antioch congregation and they went out on their first
missionary assignment.
So, you see the Lord Jesus Christ was acting as the Head of the congregation and taking action directly, without consulting anybody here on
earth what he could do and what he could not do. And he acted in that way in regard to Saul and Barnabas and they were both apostles of the Antioch congregation.”

He continued, in his talk…

“They went back to Antioch, to the congregation there, and the account says
that they related things in detail to them; to this congregation that had committed them to the undeserved kindness of God for the work they had
performed. So there’s where they reported.
So the record also says they stayed in Antioch not a little time. Now, what happened? All of a sudden something occurred and Paul and Barnabas, they go up to Jerusalem. Well, what’s the matter? What brings them up to Jerusalem?
Well, is it the body of apostles and of other elders of the Jerusalem congregation that summoned them up there and say, “Look here! We
have heard that you two men have gone out on a missionary tour and finished it and you haven’t come up here to Jerusalem to report to us. DO YOU
KNOW WHO WE ARE? We are the council of Jerusalem. DON’T YOU RECOGNIZE THE HEADSHIP OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST? If you don’t come up here in a hurry, we’re going to take disciplinary action against you!”
Is that what the account says? Well, if they had acted that way toward Paul and Barnabas because they reported to the congregation by means of
which the holy spirit had sent them out, then this council of apostles at Jerusalem and other elders of the Jewish congregation would have put
themselves above the headship of the Lord Jesus Christ.”

Then, later in the talk…

“And so as we examine this account of these two most outstanding among the missionaries recorded in Bible history, we find that they were
sent out especially by the Lord Jesus Christ, the Head of the church, a fact which the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society has upheld and
accepted ever since the Society was formed. So, we see how the Lord Jesus Christ is the Head of the church and has a right to act direct,
without whatever other organizations in view, no matter who they are. He is the Head of the church. We can’t challenge what HE DOES.”

@Truth: Thank you for the information. I learned some new and interesting things about the role of the Antioch congregation, as well as how limited our knowledge of first-century organizational structure really is. This led to some additional research, including what other churches teach on the matter. Having investigated, I reached the following conclusions:

1. The argument that there was no first-century Governing Body is not only an argument against Jehovah’s Witnesses, but against every organized “Christian” religion which has a central authoritative body, which is just about all of them.

2. Without digging too deeply or getting into a debate over doctrine, I’d say this argument falls flat for a number of reasons:

a. The Christian congregation was built on the foundation of the apostles. (Ephesians 2:19-22)
b. The accounts in Acts make it clear that the apostles took the lead in preaching and teaching.
c. When Matthias was chosen as a replacement for Judas, his position was described as a “place of leadership”, or “office”, or “office of oversight”. (Acts 1:20)
d. When an issue arose regarding distribution of food, the apostles took the lead in resolving it. (Acts 6:1-7)
e. And probably strongest of all, is the single instance, as you noted, detailing how the circumcision issue was brought before the apostles and older men in Jerusalem. I don’t see how you can read that account and not come away with the conclusion that the group of apostles and older men in Jerusalem had the authority to issue a decree which was to be respected by all congregations.

Now, to be fair, I can understand that there would be questions about the specific functions this central church body should take. As the speaker in your clip noted, the authority of Christ superseded any human man or group of men, and thus the apostles in Jerusalem had no authority to question the assignment undertaken by Paul, as this came directly from Jesus. The elder body in Antioch apparently had authority to make decisions without waiting for the approval of the body in Jerusalem for their every move. However, I don’t see how this account in any way indicates that they viewed themselves as having equal authority to the apostles. Similarly, the 110+ branch offices of Jehovah’s Witnesses throughout the world have a measure of autonomy with regard to their jurisdictions, but they still recognize the central authority. It also seems reasonable to me that the improved speed of travel and communication in our time enables tighter unity than was possible (aside from the direct influence of holy spirit) in the first century, and that this is a good thing.

In any case, while there may be reasonable questions about the manner of operation, I think there’s pretty clear biblical substantiation for the existence of a small group of men who had authority within the church, which Jehovah’s Witnesses call the Governing Body.

Dan wrote:
“The argument that there was no first-century Governing Body is not only an argument against Jehovah’s Witnesses, but against every organized “Christian” religion which has a central authoritative body, which is just about all of them.”

It’s a issue of authority. Within the JW organization, Jesus and the Holy Spirit do not interact with individuals. The Governing Body is the sole channel of truth and information. Individuals cannot form opinions about Scripture/truth that run contrary to what is handed down from the Governing Body. This is most unlike the vast majority of organized Christian religions. In this respect, JWs are almost identical to the Roman Catholic Church.

My previous posts have illustrated that the first century Christians did not have a central authority. If you choose to believe that they did, this would be based upon a unique interpretation of Scripture. It should be noted that the Jews did have a central authority called the Sanhedrin. Christianity was wildly different from the old Jewish arrangement, wich Christ directing things, personally, from Heaven. Christians did eventually evolve into an organization with central authority. That, of course, was the Catholic Church. The Protestant Reformation dealt with this issue of a central authority exercising more authority/control than the Scriptures allow.

Dan wrote:
“Without digging too deeply or getting into a debate over doctrine, I’d say this argument falls flat for a number of reasons:

e. And probably strongest of all, is the single instance, as you noted, detailing how the circumcision issue was brought before the apostles and older men in Jerusalem. I don’t see how you can read that account and not come away with the conclusion that the group of apostles and older men in Jerusalem had the authority to issue a decree which was to be respected by all congregations.”

I do not disagree with you that there were older men in that took the lead, etc. I don’t see how you can read that account and assume that it was not a one-time event, attended by ALL elders, designed to address a specific issue. Moreover, it says that the Holy Spirit revealed these matters to the brothers. There is no evidence that this special meeting was ever repeated. There is no evidence that there was a sitting body of men with special authority.

Dan wrote:
“Now, to be fair, I can understand that there would be questions about the specific functions this central church body should take. As the speaker in your clip noted, the authority of Christ superseded any human man or group of men, and thus the apostles in Jerusalem had no authority to question the assignment undertaken by Paul, as this came directly from Jesus. The elder body in Antioch apparently had authority to make decisions without waiting for the approval of the body in Jerusalem for their every move. However, I don’t see how this account in any way indicates that they viewed themselves as having equal authority to the apostles. Similarly, the 110+ branch offices of Jehovah’s Witnesses throughout the world have a measure of autonomy with regard to their jurisdictions, but they still recognize the central authority. It also seems reasonable to me that the improved speed of travel and communication in our time enables tighter unity than was possible (aside from the direct influence of holy spirit) in the first century, and that this is a good thing.”

Why would the Antioch elders be concerned about their authority? There were being led by the Holy Spirit and by Christ – directly. I cannot assume that a one-time meeting convened in Jerusalem to discuss circumcision wouldn’t have made them think they need to run all other issues past another group of spirit-directed elders.

The Branch offices have whatever measure of autonomy they are GIVEN by Brooklyn. Again, they’re beholden to a central authority, which we haven’t concluded existed in the first century. The authority we agree on in Scripture is Christ. The Governing Body think that when a congregation member obeys THEM, he is obeying JESUS. Here is an example:

To hold to the headship of Christ, it is therefore necessary
to obey the organization that he is personally directing. Doing
what the organization says IS TO DO WHAT HE SAYS. Resisting the
organization is to resist him. [The Watchtower, May 1, 1959, p. 269]

So be obedient. Do Jehovah’s work in Jehovah’s way. It is the way
Jehovah has marked out through his organization. That ALONE counts!
[The Watchtower, April 15, 1956, p. 243]

(When I previously quoted from an older publication, you raised an objection. Please bear in mind that these publications was made available to JWs in recent months, on a CD-ROM.)

Notice the level of control/authority being exercised by the Governing Body. Notice the IMPORTANCE being placed upon this group of men. Obedience to this group of men is put on par with obedience to Christ. In this model of authority, how would Jesus and the Holy Spirit interact with an individual?

Speaking of authority, what do you think would happen, Dan, if you were to give a talk in your congregation and say the things that Freddy said, that run contrary to official teachings? You would likely be accused of apostasy — even though your points are grounded in Scripture. This illustrates this matter of authority. It doesn’t matter what any individual JW sees in Scripture or has revealed to him by Holy Spirit. It all must agree with the Governing Body, or it’s “apostate”, by definition. This is understandable, IF you accept that Jesus and the Holy Spirit do not deal directly with individuals, but only with a Governing Body.

Dan wrote:
“In any case, while there may be reasonable questions about the manner of operation, I think there’s pretty clear biblical substantiation for the existence of a small group of men who had authority within the church, which Jehovah’s Witnesses call the Governing Body.”

This is your unique interpretation of Scripture, which you are entitled to. I don’t see any Biblical evidence that would indicate this was a SMALL group of men. If it was the older men, elders, there could have been dozens or hundreds involved. I do not object to any religion having a Governing Body. It’s the measure of control/authority they have that concerns me.

Dan,
I read your cited articles. The problem with Awake! articles and Watchtower publications in general is that they are very surface.

When they do touch on more involved topics, they often get things wrong, or deliberately misrepresent what was stated. One such example can be found in the book ‘All Scripture Is Inspired’ book published by WTBTS. In it you can research the Bible Cannon and the Greek Scriptures. They quote from the The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (available in on CCEL.org or Google books) and it’s translation of the Muratorian Fragment. They edit it to say exactly the opposite of what it states. They are trying to claim the Catholic Church had nothing to do with the Bible Cannon but the fragment specifically mentions the ‘Church Catholic’.

My point above is not about the Bible Cannon. It’s about Watchtower writer’s intellectual dishonesty and lying. The articles some truths such that much of the historical aspects of the Bible are correct. Of course it’s not unique in this aspect. But it also state that the Bible is “Free of unscientific views”. Even the Catholic Church admits that’s not true. Watchtower always pick the scripture about the ‘circle’ of the earth and it hanging ‘upon nothing’ but the conveniently don’t quote the scriptures that state the earth is square, or that there is another set of heavens and this kind of stuff. Genesis well, I am not even going to go there.

Then it also states ‘Fulfilled Prophecy’. But there really is no evidence that I can find to support such a view. Many so called prophecies are not prophecies at all. Cyrus is a great example of a ‘Prophecy’ that Watchtower points to. Neither the Bible nor most scholars even claim that this is a prophecy. Granted there is a small piece that is a ‘prophesy’ but all that about knowing Cyrus name ahead of time is Watchtower poppycock.

If one is going to put faith in the Bible based on science and fact he must dig far deeper than anything published in the Watchtower magazine.

Just one more quick blurb… Some may see what I have written about Watchtower dishonesty and say to themselves, ‘the writers I know personally are good honest and moral people who would never lie about such things’. This may sound strange but this does not in any way conflict with my comments. Forgive my use of illustrations but in short this is what we call the end justifies the means.

For instance a firefighter rescuing a child from a burning building may tell him what he wants to hear to get him to come to the window. Perhaps the child is waiting for his daddy. The firefighter tells him ‘Daddies with me’. This may be an outright lie. But the firefighter realizes that this is a life or death situation and it is in the child’s best interest to not remain in the building.

Likewise an honest and caring Jehovah’s Witness goes to the door and tells a person ‘I am here to just share a scripture’. This could technically be interpreted as a lie. He wants to start a study with this person, not ‘just read a scripture’. But he feels this is a life or death situation, just like the firefighter.

Back to the intentionally edited quote mentioned earlier. The writer had to know he was strongly misrepresenting the original material in ‘his quote’. But he may have felt this way: ‘I know that the Catholic Church had nothing to do with the Bible Cannon’ ‘What I am stating IS TRUE I am just modifying the ‘quote’ a little bit to more accurately support the TRUTH’. So even though he is technically lying or misrepresenting he feels the end justifies the means. He justifies it because he has the ‘TRUTH’. So I am not attacking JW’s. They are good people. Most of their writers are good people. But good people do bad things at times, especially when they don’t have all the facts. So it is possible that Jehovah’s Witnesses are good people who are mislead and do bad things, and are part of something they don’t fully grasp.

I hope this explains a bit better where I am coming from with my comments.

A few thoughts on control, authority, and truth. A while ago Jerry stated:

If the watchtower teaching really are the only truth, why are the authorities so insecure about any questioning of it? Wouldn’t this only truth burn like an unquenchable beacon in the face of all criticism? Wouldn’t a Jehovah Witnesses’ reading of the ‘apostate’ material only strengthen his/her resolve having seen falsehood? Or are all members seen as vulnerable children regardless of their age, wisdom, and devotion?

Actually, this has been precisely my experience when I’ve examined opposing arguments on certain websites. I could see underlying motives and shallow reasoning, and I came away with a stronger faith in the validity of the organization. It actually made me quite upset to know that some of my brothers and sisters bought into such ideas.

But can you see the problems with this? First, by failing to heed the direction to steer clear of such material, I was trusting in my own spiritual maturity and wisdom to see me through to a correct assessment. Perhaps, with regard to the particular objections I encountered, I had sufficient knowledge and perspective to find them lacking. What if I didn’t? What if I stumbled across an accusation which touched an emotional nerve due to a personal experience? In this case, a negative reaction on my part would not be because the truth failed to burn as beacon, but because my heart misguided me. (Jeremiah 17:9)

Second, if the direction to avoid apostate teachings is motivated by a loving paternalistic desire to protect the sheep, then how can you distinguish who should and shouldn’t be mature enough to handle it? Can you imagine the accusations that would be made about church authority if they established criteria for who is allowed to read dissenting material? Besides, if such opposition really does present a spiritual danger, then wouldn’t that be like establishing who is qualified to do rope-free rock climbing? Sure, it’s not as dangerous to skilled climbers as it is to beginners, but why go there in the first place? If the intent is to help the sheep to maintain a relationship with their heavenly father, simply directing that they avoid such material is not as unreasonable as it might seem on the surface.

Regarding the ‘controlling-nature’ of the organization, I think it’s undisputable that it imposes strict rules of conduct and beliefs. Apostate teachings are shunned, anti-watchtower material is banned, and too much contact with ‘worldly people’ is frowned upon.

It seems to me that the primary issue you have with Jehovah’s Witnesses is the claim of being the only true religion, and I completely understand that concern. We agree that a consideration of the Bible and beliefs is necessary to assess truthfulness, and I’ve suggested that the truth will resonate with honest and humble ones. However, attacks against Jehovah’s Witnesses usually take issue with authority, rather than with primary scriptural teachings. Rather than point out how the Bible does in fact teach that we have an immortal soul, or that the unfaithful will burn in hell, as taught by other religions, those who used to be members instead focus on the “high control” and “brainwashing” of the organization.

It’s interesting how different this view is from the millions of Jehovah’s Witnesses who accept these things. We certainly don’t feel oppressed. I’ve personally seen the wisdom in limiting my association with ‘worldly’ people, and have found myself compromising my principles when I didn’t follow that advice. Far outweighing any concern about a lack of freedom is an appreciation for the freedom I have that comes from knowing truth. It is much as TruthWillSetYouFree described earlier, and as the scripture quoted by his handle describes. (John 8:32)

I am extremely grateful for the guidance I’ve received. So far I’ve focused on this guidance in the form of the teaching of truth, but it’s much more than just establishing correct doctrine. As you’ve seen from the Watchtower and Awake magazines, and at our meetings, we regularly receive familiar reminders which keep our minds focused on spiritual things. In our fallen and sinful state, it’s not enough to just know what’s right. To make wise decisions and resist temptation, we have to be spiritual people, having our thought processes guided by godly wisdom and knowledge. We must put on a spiritual suit of armor, as described at Ephesians 6:11-18. The Watchtower publications and regular meetings help us to do just that.

Of course I don’t expect any snap decisions, but I ask that you please take a serious look at whether or not the fruitage of Jehovah’s Witnesses reflects that of a cult who are tightly controlled from the outside, or that of a group of people who are impelled by love from within. (Matt 7:17-23c, John 13:35)

There are still many points that have been raised that bear discussion. For one, you have repeatedly said that you feel there is good and bad among Jehovah’s Witnesses, just as with other religions. Putting aside the issue of authority for a moment, what else do you find troublesome?

Dan,

Thanks for your responses.

-Truth

You guys may enjoy this one…

“Putting aside the issue of authority for a moment, what else do you find troublesome?”

Paul Grundy sums it up best, for me.
http://jwfacts.com/index_files/wrong.htm

Of course, JWs subscribe (as best as I can tell) to the Divine Command theory. So, if God says it’s OK, then it’s OK.

That reasoning will defeat any objection.

Perhaps they are in WordPress Purgatory, awaiting approval by the admin?

This thread needs a little more humor…

How to Spot an Atheist
http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0503/atheists.html

Jerry,
Best Wishes on your future be it California or wherever you go. Great getting to know you a bit from your blog.

Dan,
I have pretty much said my peace. If you are interested in any of my scans or WT references pertaining to dishonesty I will hold any communication in confidence. But until something changes in your life that makes you question your world view (having children perhaps) I doubt your views will change. You’re a really great guy! Best Wishes as well.

Truth,
It has been fun.

Unless something amazing happens I am pretty much with Jerry on the busy life thing so I am going to check out. – Apache

Interesting observations, Jerry.

I believe the Stage IV individual is more mature spiritually. When a new situation/decision arises, he doesn’t feel uncomfortable. He draws from his own experience, his own faith and even the Holy Spirit to guide him. He doesn’t fret over what other Christians may think if the right decision/choice. Nor does he fear that his decision will make him ripe for derision and scorn by his peers. He will truly believe in how he acts. His faith will be his own, not the faith of another. His will be motivated by things he truly understand and agrees with, in his very soul.

It is my truest wish that all souls will always retain some connection to God.

And it is my truest wish that everyone comes to understand and appreciate the truth about God so that they may have a close relationship with him and experience the blessings that he’s promised, including everlasting life. But I’m sure you’ll agree that our wishes shouldn’t affect the objectivity of our search for truth, correct? ^^

I think you may be framing such a person as creating his own god and following his own whims, rather than an honest spiritual seeker who falls not into concrete dogma but into his connection to grace as best as he/she can understand it.

I’m not sure who “such a person” is that I’d be framing, in this context. I was providing my rather biased summation of Mr. Peck’s theories, in which a Stage IV spiritual person would, practically by definition, be an honest truth seeker. If you mean to say that I would suspect that a person who claims to be at Stage IV spirituality might be guilty of self-delusion, well, I suppose that would be accurate. I think it follows inevitably from my stated views.

I understand and respect your belief that God’s nature is akin to the Jehovah’s Witnesses interpretation of Biblical teaching, and that God has given us rules to live by (which again have been interpreted correctly by your organization) … To suggest that your organization has sole ‘concrete truth’ is an outstanding claim … You feel the watchtower has all of God’s precepts solely in its pockets.

Boy, you sure do like to shine your floodlight on the organizational nature of our belief, the claim of truth, and the human interpretation of scripture. ^^ I think it’s appropriate for these things to raise questions in a person’s mind and make one scrutinize very carefully before reaching a decision, but I wonder if you might not be able to see what’s outside your spotlight as a result?

I’ve repeatedly focused on the nature of truth and the divine inspiration of the Bible. The only time you find me talking about the Watchtower organization is when I’m defending my belief against attack, since such attacks usually focus on the organization and human issues rather than the correctness of primary beliefs based on scripture. When I’ve quoted the Bible to support points, did you really feel like each scripture could be interpreted to say something totally different? Or do you find it easy to dismiss entire scriptural arguments because, after all, the Bible is really just man’s book anyways, and Jesus and the apostle Paul were both clearly exclusionary controls freaks who were way too focused on notions such as truth and purity of worship? I think there is no question that the Bible presents just as clear a picture as I do of the nature of truth and the role that knowledge plays in our relationship with God. It most certainly presents a clearer picture than I have of the need to pay attention to the rules God provides. If you’d like to explore these topics, I’d be glad to.

I totally understand that there are many scriptures which, standing alone, could be interpreted in different ways. But this is not the case with the great majority, and when it comes to many of the major doctrinal differences between Jehovah’s Witnesses and other churches, I believe the Bible is crystal clear when taken as a whole. For example, if you did not have 1600 years of church dogma telling you otherwise, do you seriously think you could read the gospels and come away with even the notion of the Trinity?

So, should you believe in something that you are reasonably certain to be wrong? Of course not. Not to belabor the Trinity example, but let’s take someone in any of the major Christian churches who honestly believes both that Jesus is part of a triune God and that the Bible is God’s inspired word. It’s what they’ve been taught their whole life. In their personal reading of the scriptures, they observe the overwhelming number of verses that show the Son to be subordinate to the Father, while there are just a handful that might appear to put Jesus in the position of God. Their priest tells them it’s a mystery, but they really start to question it. They investigate further into the origin of Trinitarian belief within the church, and their research leads them to conclude that it was the result of a mixture of pagan philosophy with early church teaching, which gradually took form between the second and fourth centuries A.D.

So now what do they do? Whether their faith is shaken in the Bible, the church, or both, their belief changes, right? If they were previously convinced in the rightness of their belief structure, as I am, they are naturally going to resist change, but if they care about truth they will not stop testing their beliefs. (1 John 4:1) Or do you suppose that it was a waste of time for them to begin this investigation in the first place, because after all, the Almighty God surely wouldn’t care whether or not humans knew the difference between him and his Son and the holy spirit (which clearly isn’t even a person!)? And surely Jesus, as God’s representative, wouldn’t mind a bit that he has been exalted to the position of God by billions of worshipers, despite the fact that he consistently and repeatedly directed all glory to his Father. No, they won’t care in the least, as long as you’re kind to one another. I’m sorry for the sarcasm, but can you see why this might just be important? Can you see how this might actually have a bearing on how one comes to have a personal relationship with God?

Of course, you will argue: What about the other honest seeker of truth who is in the same situation, looks at the same information, and concludes that the Trinity is the truth? Or the other person who does this same search and remains undecided, because to his mind the evidence is not conclusive? Perhaps you might feel that, because there is more than one human interpretation, God will gladly accept them all. What is your basis for such a feeling? The scriptures clearly indicate otherwise (1 Ti 2:4, Matt 7:13-14, 21-23). If God is responsible for shedding a little of his light through touches of human inspiration, such as the teachings of Jesus, then why did he allow so much other conflicting and contradictory teaching to find its way into every human holy book? It certainly wouldn’t seem like he places a high value on truth if his approach is to encourage the acceptance of a wide variety of false teachings. That’s clearly not what Jesus taught. Notice how he connected both knowledge and salvation with the search for truth at John 4:22-24:

” You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth.”

I would assume that such a person would strive to interpret the precepts of the Bible just like any JW governing body member would do. Such a person would likely strive to clothe the naked, feed the hungry, welcome the stranger.

Once again, you draw no distinction between truth as knowledge of the true state of things, such as the nature of God, the reason for suffering, and what happens after we die, and truth as knowledge of how we should act during our 70 short years on earth. Nearly every religion in the world teaches moral precepts that we recognize as beneficial. Who doesn’t accept that self-sacrificing kindness is morally superior to selfishness? We also recognize that this superior course is difficult, and that we have to fight against our natural inclinations. What religion doesn’t promote some form of self-moderation and discipline? Regard people of the nations, the apostle Paul said that when they “do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness.” (Romans 2:14-15) If that’s all the creator expects of us, then great, all religions can lead you there.

But clearly, not all religions can teach truth. On the other hand, all religious could most definitely teach untruth, or a mix. In fact, if religion were purely the outgrowth of human efforts, one would expect this to be the case. This goes back to the point I made in my first post on this blog. If we are to have insight into the spiritual world, we will only be able to see what God enables us to see. If he has stepped completely out of the picture and was nothing more than an initial cause, then it’s pretty much useless to speculate about his nature. If he wants us have a connection with him, then he will have to provide any available information. Knowledge is a prerequisite to wisdom. Doesn’t it seem possible that God could have provided a source of knowledge and wisdom that would tell the truth in a manner that would be discerned and accepted only by humble and honest truth seekers? Of course, that’s exactly what the Bible claims to be.

I provided links regarding the divine authenticity of the Bible, and I of course have lots of other resources I could share on this topic. Would you care to explain what you find unconvincing?

@Dan,

Regarding your comments about religion, you excluded another possiblity: None of them are teaching the truth. Or, that many of them are teaching truth. (I think we’ve already stated that they are ALL teaching at least some error, because of their limitations.)

Your argument begins with the premise that God has “an organization” today. Further, that this organization is a specific denomination/brand.

Many sincere Christians believe that Christ’s body is composed of persons from many different deonominations. In other words, they reject the notion that membersip in any particular denomination/sect/brand of Christianity is evidence of anything in its self. They point to Jesus’ illustration of the wheat and the weeds. They feel there are Christians and non-Christians within most all groups, etc.

If a solitary man on a deserted island should find a copy of the Bible, they assert that this man could read the book, accept Christ/find God and be a Christian, putting himself in line for life eternal. They believe God’s word has power. “The book works”, as I like to say.

So, perhaps we should delve into the evidence that God “has an organization” today and what evidence there is for this assertion. Because if he DOES have an exclusive organization, this is something we ALL should be concerned with. That is an extraordinary claim. Let’s examine the extraordinary evidence needed to support that claim.

Regarding your comments about religion, you excluded another possiblity: None of them are teaching the truth. Or, that many of them are teaching truth.
I didn’t exclude that. I specifically stated that very point: “Clearly, not all religions can teach truth. On the other hand, all religious could most definitely teach untruth, or a mix.”

Your argument begins with the premise that God has “an organization” today.
It’s true I believe that, but that’s not where my argument begins. In fact, I never mentioned that, and the discussions regarding the divine inspiration of the Bible or what the Bible teaches about the nature of truth certainly don’t require accepting it.

Many sincere Christians believe that Christ’s body is composed of persons from many different deonominations.

This is an interesting point. With regard to the rest of religion, though, Christianity still very much makes the claim of one-true-religion. Many accept a broader interpretation than we do of what that is, but very few Christians would accept that all religion is basically true and acceptable to God. This would be in direct disagreement with Jesus, and the clear biblical message of salvation dependent on faith in Jesus. (John 3:16) As far as choosing from among the various sects, one would assume that a person selects the one they think contains the most truth. They wouldn’t really be truth seekers otherwise, right?

If a solitary man on a deserted island should find a copy of the Bible, they assert that this man could read the book, accept Christ/find God and be a Christian, putting himself in line for life eternal.

Of course JW’s believe this also. We also believe that if he never heard, he would be resurrected later and have the chance to learn in the future. (Acts 24:15)

Worship is about your relationship with God, not about membership in an organization. But this is similar to saying that salvation is dependent on faith, not works. That’s a true statement, but faith will be demonstrated by works, and is dead without works. Similarly, our connection with God is personal, but as seen in the case of Cornelius, he wants that personal relationship to be enhanced by knowledge so that a person may have a stronger basis for faith and be equipped to teach others. In the first century he guided honest-hearted ones to the Christian organization that provided that knowledge.

Because if he DOES have an exclusive organization, this is something we ALL should be concerned with. That is an extraordinary claim.

Since you’re trying to turn the flashlight back on the topic of organization, let me simply point out again that all Christianity is making this claim, as does Islam. In fact, every religion involves holding belief which contradicts other teachings, and in nearly all cases, there is a penalty for the unbeliever. In the case of Buddhism, for example, you’re never going to reach nirvana if you keep choosing Christianity each reincarnation, because the path to enlightenment means moving beyond such incorrect teachings.

Besides, I fail to see how you can argue that the Bible does not clearly teach the concept of an organization. First you had Israelites. Then you had the Christian congregation. Whatever form you might feel this latter organization took, or how accepting of variety it was, it doesn’t make sense to me to suggest that it wasn’t an organization in the sense of a group of people who are organized for a common purpose, the preaching of Christ. They shared common beliefs, goals, and way of life. They associated with each other, they taught each other, they performed the same ministry work, regardless of where they lived.

In any case, I think it will be more constructive to keep the light pointed on the topic of truth and the Bible. We’ve already spent most of the past few weeks discussing the problems you have with Jehovah’s Witnesses, and I’ve already pointed out how this is not particularly helpful for finding real answers. Do you have any insights regarding why we should or shouldn’t accept the Bible as God’s word?

Regarding the man on the desert island, how does he fit into the scenario mentioned in the Watchtower article below?

“Progress along the road to life.” What does that mean? Does a non-Christian who never even hears about Jesus progress on that road? No. Does it mean his life is over? No, as already observed. This progress does not directly correlate with salvation.

The reasoning in the Watchtower is obviously intended to apply, not to those who are stuck on an island, but to those who could associate with a congregation, but choose to do Bible reading on their own instead. Such a person could come to have a relationship with God, to a degree. But just as with Cornelius, the Ethiopian eunuch, and everyone else who accepted the Christian message preached by Jesus’ disciples, spiritual progress depended on their also accepting the Christian congregation arrangement, which has Jesus as its head. Those who thought it all sounded nice but never became Christians, choosing not to associate with the church, would never make spiritual progress, no matter how much they studied the gospels on their own. God wanted them to become part of the congregation. Progress toward everlasting life depended on it.

Once again, you can’t seem to step away from your magnifying glass. Any chance you could comment on any of the other topics? You clearly made a conscientious decision to reject the Christian teaching you received in order to become an atheist. This would require rejecting the divine authenticity of the Bible. If you had accepted it before, I would assume this would involve considerable thought and examination. Would you care to share what evidence swayed you to your conclusion?

I don’t recall identifying myself as an atheist.

Sorry. I mistakenly took your Robert Ingersol quote as representative of your views, but I see now that you simply said you agree with much of what he said.

I’ve corrected what was wrong about what I believed, without evidence.

I’m not sure I understand. How do you determine something is right or wrong without evidence?

Gotcha. The idea that you should not believe something for which you don’t have evidence is perfectly logical. It’s one of the reasons that I respect atheist and agnostic viewpoints, although it is my opinion that the evidence should lead you to a different conclusion.

I just did some quick reading on Ingersoll. You are right about the source of your quote, and it makes for excellent reading, and ties in well with our discussion. Here’s a link:

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/ingag.htm

It’s really long, but filled with profound observations. You’re right that Ingersoll was not an atheist, per se, but he strongly rejected the Christian God and all the associated dogma. I’ve only read the first couple sections, but will read the rest when I have time.

In my experience, there’s little difference between a “weak atheist”, i.e., one who rejects belief in God but does not insist there is no God, and a weak agnostic who feels that the existence of God is basically an unanswerable question, at least with presently available evidence. Both really fall under the umbrella of agnostic atheism. Would I be correct say that this would be a correct description of both you and Robert Ingersoll? Or do you actually believe that there is probably a God, but we simply don’t know?

Consider this passage:

For the first time I understood the dogma of eternal pain — appreciated “the glad tidings of great joy.” For the first time my imagination grasped the height and depth of the Christian horror.

From that day I have had no fear, no doubt. For me, on that day, the flames of hell were quenched. From that day I have passionately hated every orthodox creed. That Sermon did some good.

Earlier in our discussion there was this exchange:

Dan: Religions are providing false teachings which do not help people to draw close to their creator. We’ve discussed some of these, such as the Trinity, and hellfire. We feel such teachings grossly misrepresent God and pose a barrier to forming a relationship with him.

Jerry: In my humble opinion, details such as these amount to mere quibbles in the face of humankinds’ sacred search for grace, redemption, and agape love.

Ingersoll may have been cynical, but he was thoughtful and saw past the surface when it comes to human thinking and behavior. Do you think he would agree that such details are just quibbles?

Dan wrote:
Would I be correct say that this would be a correct description of both you and Robert Ingersoll? Or do you actually believe that there is probably a God, but we simply don’t know?

I don’t personally think my own lifetime will be sufficient to take a shot at the odds that God exists. As such, I couldn’t use the phrase, he “probably exists”. I simply don’t know.

In other words, if I “simply don’t know”, I’m not going to conclude that it’s probably that he exists.

Please keep in mind I’m only a few months into my journey. There are many theists who were once atheits and vice-versa. Moreover, I’ve spoken to a number of Christians that have had very PERSONAL experiences/revelation regarding Christ. I have experienced no such thing. I’ve personally seen nothing that gives me any belief in invisible people/spirit creatures/demons/angels. But, I’m still a young man, so I’m keeping my eyes and ears open.

According to my previous beliefs, I would now be demon-posessed, etc. Well, if so, I certainly cannot tell any difference. As far as I can tell, I simply no longer believe certain things.

Dan wrote:
“Worship is about your relationship with God, not about membership in an organization.”

Please help me reconcile this view with the belief that only JWs will survive Armageddon.

I came across this statement, today:

“Most people don’t believe in time travel, but everyone accepts the possibility.”

So, I suppose you could accurately say that atheists don’t believe in God…yet.

Truth wrote:

Please help me reconcile this view with the belief that only JWs will survive Armageddon.

Well, I attempted to explain the connection between personal worship and organizational membership, but I can certainly understand if my analogy to faith and works wasn’t clear. My point was that faith is key, but true faith is always manifested by works. Similarly, our relationship with God is personal, but moves us to associate with the arrangement God has organized.

If I said that only those who do the work Christ commanded will be saved, some would vigorously protest, saying that the Bible is clear that salvation results from faith, not works. And I’d agree, but point out that true faith requires corresponding action, so the statement remains true. Likewise, our relationship with God is personal, but if God has established a pure Christian congregation, and is leading right-hearted ones to it just as he lead Cornelius and others to the first-century congregation, then it follows that those with a strong personal relationship with God would join that congregation.

Whether at Armageddon or otherwise, judgment as portrayed in the Bible is essentially an individual matter, but influenced by group membership. Certainly, not everyone executed by God’s judgments (the flood, Sodom, Canaan, etc.) was an all out wicked person. But in every case, individuals had the opportunity to align themselves with true worship and be saved (Noah, Lot, Rahab, etc.). It works in reverse, of course, too. I’m sure there are a few among Jehovah’s Witnesses who are in good standing in the congregation, but who hypocritically betray love for God and neighbor in their private lives. Should they expect to receive a positive judgment based on group membership? Certainly not. It’s the personal expression of love for God and neighbor that is key.

Just one quick thought regarding God’s execution of judgments. I think it’s important that we do not presume to know God’s eternal judgments, unless it is specifically stated in the Bible. There is a very big difference between a premature end to our already short lives (something which could happen unexpectedly to any of us, anyday) and eternal destruction, with no hope of future life. While there are definitely scriptures which tend to indicate that various executions of judgment are eternal in nature, I don’t think it’s good to be dogmatic about this with regard to individual judgment. I think the Watchtower has at times in the past been guilty of this. We can learn from the example of Abraham. When God anounced he would destroy Sodom, Abraham asked “Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?” (Gen 18:22-26) God assured him that he would act justly. When it comes to these matters, it’s important to trust that God will do the right thing, taking into consideration all the details which we cannot comprehend.

My point was that faith is key, but true faith is always manifested by works.

ALWAYS manifested by works?

I do not see that in Scripture.

Also, one would need to define “works” for this discussion to have value.

Does one need to “report” these works to others?

I believe rigid religious organizations would be the ones guilty of leaning on pride and concentrated effort rather than the spirit of God working within us. Did the Pharisees not do that and miss Jesus altogether?

Yes, the Pharisees pridefully missed the spirit of the law, but was it adherence to law that caused them to reject Jesus? Paul said that the law should have lead them to Christ. (Gal 3:24) Wasn’t it rather hypocritical selfish motives that blinded them? They were concerned about their power and position. As teachers with self-ordained authority, they had taken upon themselves the heavy responsibility to teach God’s commands, but notice what Jesus condemned them for:

Matthew 15:7-9: “These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.”

Matthew 23:2-3: “Obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach … [They] have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness.”

I think it’s important not to confuse sincere attempts to teach God’s commandments as understood from his word with hypocritical teaching of man-made rules that are not in harmony with more important principles. Read any few verses from the lengthy Psalm 119, and see if you get the impression that we needn’t be overly concerned about God’s laws.

So how can we decide whether or not a religious organization is guilty of pridefully making man-made rules or is simply endeavoring to teach God-given rules? What do you think?

So, no, I don’t place religious knowledge as some royal road to God. I place love and innocence as the royal road to God.

I feel like you set up a strawman to attack when you present it that way. Do we say religious knowledge is the royal road to God? No, we say that love and faith are key, and that if you truly love God, you will want to learn about him and the way in which he wants you to live. When you meet a girl you find cute, you might be drawn to her, but you know it’s not love until you get to know her as a person. As a married couple, the love deepens with knowledge that comes from shared experiences. Knowledge and love are intertwined. Jesus hinted at this connection in prayer to his Father at John 17:25-26:

” Righteous Father, though the world does not know you, I know you, and they know that you have sent me. I have made you known to them, and will continue to make you known in order that the love you have for me may be in them.”

Your idea that love and innocence are the key, independent of knowledge, seems tightly connected with disbelief in the inspiration of the scriptures. If the Bible is not directly from God, to the exclusion of other holy writings, then Christianity could clearly not be the only source of religious truth. There would be some truth and untruth in all religions, and discerning the spirit of God’s will would take on greater importance than the details of what is or isn’t true. I think it’s therefore important to continue to pursue the topic of the Bible’s trustworthiness.

I will study and meditate the specific scriptures you have cited in your comments and see what my soul tells me about their nature.

Thank you for this expression. I don’t expect you to be convinced solely by my logic. If the Bible truly is God’s inspired word, then it will have a greater power for convincing than I ever could. For that reason, I will try to make sure to suppor t my reasoning with scripture as much as possible. I’m sure you understand that it’s a bit more time consuming to find and reference scriptures, but knowing that you will look at and think about them makes it worth it.

It seems obvious to me that humble and honest people will interpret scripture differently. My evidence for this is simply the world around me and all the sincere people who belong to various denominations.

First of all, this precludes the notion that God draws people by his spirit. If God were not involved, and it was simply a matter of individual interpretation, then yes, humble and honest people would probably arrive at different conclusions regarding many details. But I return once again to the experience of Cornelius. God directed him and others to the Christian congregation; he draws people to true worship by his spirit, and they are to be taught by him. (John 6:44,45)

Second, this raises the question of what honesty means and requires. This is what I was attempting to explain with my Trinity illustration, but I think you missed the point …

If I accepted everything you believe, of course this example would illustrate the importance of accurate knowledge. But I don’t. This hypothetical doesn’t break my belief that cultivating love is honoring God.

Clearly, I’m not arguing that cultivating love isn’t honoring God, so that kinda seems like comparing apples to organges. I also don’t see how accepting the point of the illustration requires accepting anything I believe. I was dealing with the topic of intellectual honesty. Truth, Apache, and Ingersoll are all displaying intellectual honesty to assert that you shouldn’t believe something for which you don’t have evidence, or at least a basis for trust (e.g., we don’t have personal evidence that atoms are composed of protons, neutrons, and electrons, but we feel the source of this information is trustworthy). Therefore, if you come to the conclusion that what you believe is wrong, your belief should change.

Would it be easier to swallow if I reversed it and said that someone raised as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses would be obligated to accept belief in the Trinity if, upon doing research, he concluded that it would dishonor the Son to lower him to the status of a created being when he was in fact part of God? Understanding the role of intellectual honesty in the formulation of our beliefs is important. I think careful consideration of this might cause you reevalutate whether or not people are really being honest truth-seekers just because they seem to be kind, sincere, and devout people.

To Apache: I thought your question was totally fair, and I’ll get to it. Just out of time at the moment.

I only have a few minutes, but I’ll make a couple comments.

You said regarding the view of those who feel they are part of a group comprised of mostly ‘true worshipers’:

This world-view is utterly callow and depressing. It disparages a great, great many wonderful people, while exalting the in-group … It betrays a people who are incapable of going out and seeing the spirit of God working within others.

I understand this feeling, but any explanation will require referring to Bible accounts which I’m guessing you don’t accept. For example, Jesus used the flood of Noah’s day as a parallel to what would take place at the conclusion of the system of things. (Matthew 24:3, 37-39) Were there good people swept away in the flood? Undoubtedly. What did Jesus say was the problem? “They took no note.” Paying attention to God’s requirements was critical. The people of Noah’s day needed to discern that he was preaching truth and get on the ark (it wasn’t hard, all they had to do was walk on). Do you find it difficult to accept that a great majority could be found guilty of not paying attention to God’s requirements, even if they were acting in ways that reflected God’s love? I’m sure you know what Jesus said at Matt 7:13-14.

You suppose we must be shutting our eyes to the way God is working through people who belong to other religions. You see expressions of God’s agape love in the relief provided by caring people to those in need, for example. Well, we also see those as expressions of genuine Christ-like love. I won’t even deny that it’s possible God’s spirit could be at work in some situations through non-believers, although we don’t have any biblical support that God’s spirit worked in that manner. All of the miracles, tongues, special knowledge, words brought to mind at the right time … were all intended to bring glory to God, and to help bring people into a close relationship with him, to experience the love that comes through knowing God as does Jesus (John 17:25-26, again).

Moments where Christ-like agape love is manifested are, at best, temporary gestures of goodwill if they do not help people to know God and receive life. (John 17:3)

Well, I’m out of time, but I think we will continue to dance around each other as long as we cannot agree on the role of the Bible in this discussion. I will respond to the points you mentioned about those articles when I can, and hopefully you’ll get a chance to review the other links. I ask that you try to read them with an open mind. Your previous responses were kinda like “ya, ya, read it before, doesn’t work for me,” but I don’t think you’re really chewing on the details. I would appreciate it if you’d try to provide specific reasons why you find it unconvincing. “I’m not convinced” is just a discussion killer.

According to New Testament theology, are all the laws of Leviticus 19 still required for Gentiles who accept Jesus?

Quick answer … No. The entire Mosaic Law was done away with when Jesus initiated the replacement arrangement. (Rom 10:4, (Col 2:13-16 – notice that in verse 16 he specifically comments on not being judged regarding the Sabbath, which is commaned in Lev 19:3).

Of course, since God’s principles had not changed, many of those commandments would still be valid for Christians, but those which were ceremonial in nature (e.g., animal sacrifices) rather than clear extensions of principle (don’t murder) would no longer be binding.

Just as an addendum … those laws would also not be binding for Jews who became Christian, but there didn’t seem to be anything wrong with continuing to keep them to an extent. Even Paul performed ceremonial temple cleansing when he went to Jerusalem.

It may seem like a cop-out but I refer back to my feeling that there are wheat and weeds in every religious organization.

It does seem like a cop-out. In that case, I would simply change the question to “How can we decide whether or not a given rule tought by a religious organization is an unnecessary man-made rule or is legitimately something that God would want us to follow?”

In response to your comments on the linked articles about the Bible’s trustworhiness …

Yes, the Bible is a great book and strikes deep cords within human beings. Does that seem to make it the unencumbered word of God?

To quote the article, “Of course, impressive details and statistics alone do not prove that the Bible is trustworthy.” When I was writing, I initially chose not to link to that article, but then changed my mind. I believe these points are very much relevant if you are going to compare the Bible to other religious works. People often lump ‘holy books’ together, viewing the Bible on equal footing with the scriptures of Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and other religions. In this regard, I think it’s a significant observation that none of these works comes even close to the degree of worldwide availability as the Bible. If we were going to naively investigate the idea that a man-made book might have been inspired by a divine being, these facts would make the Bible the obvious first place to start.

Because some details are historically accurate everything else is 100% true?

We’re trying to establish whether or not it’s inspired by God, right? If so, we would assume that it would be historically accurate, particularly in contrast to other mythical religious works which claim divine origin. Since claims of inaccuracies and apparent contradictions are the first thing the skeptics tend to highlight, I would have to say that archaelogical confirmation of the Bible’s accuracy is quite relevant to its credibility. What has been found doesn’t prove the rest is true, but the fact that we haven’t found artifacts which clearly prove the Bible wrong is important. When a book makes a claim of divine inspiration, it raises the bar for credibility pretty high.

Doesn’t provide any evidence. Even my crappy blog posts have candor and honesty.

Now you’re just getting testy. Your not-so-crappy blog posts also don’t claim to be the inspired word of God. Candor has value for the same reason as historical accuracy. Establishing the trustworthiness of the scriptures is pretty critical when those scriptures are loaded with supposed miracles and prophecies, and make the claim of being inspired by God.

Take the example of Jonah. He provides a first-person account of how he chickened out of his God-given assignment, and then, after being swallowed by a fish and spit out, got irritated when God showed mercy on the repentant Ninevites, proving himself to be a bit of a jerk. Skeptics like to point out how quaint and silly this is, but think about what an odd bit of fairy-tale-telling that is, if it’s not true. The candor displayed in this account by no mean proves divine inspiration, but it helps to set the contrast of what we’re looking at if it’s not true: a very cleverly written piece of deception. Interestingly, however, Jesus didn’t seem to think it was a fairy tale: Matthew 12:40

The problem here is retro-fitting.

Hmmm. I’m not sure I follow your line of reasoning there. The points mentioned in the article were basically 1) A harmonious message despite unique author circumstances 2) Agreement on details, and 3) Reasonable differences. The second and third points fall into the same category as candor, merely helping to establish that there wasn’t collusion on a hoax. If there were, it would be very strange to encounter conflicting descriptions of details that would have been easy to agree on. Of course it’s possible, but then we’re getting back to the idea of blatant and sinister fraud rather than well-intentioned embellishment, and all of the implications that entails (can it be a dinvinely sanctioned force for good if it was also a conspiratoriallly produced fraud?).

I suppose your point about retro-fitting applies primarily to the first point about a harmonious message. I’ll leave that alone for now, and suggest that you be sure to keep this in the back of your mind as you examine the scriptures. Ask yourself if retro-fitting (both by Bible writers and later sources of explanation, such as the WT) adequately explains all the interconnected details we find throughout the scriptures.

Regarding scientific accuracy and prophecy … no problem with a hung jury. But again, it would be helpful if you explained what you feel the problem is with certain explanations. I don’t believe the evidence for every prophecy is unquestionably rock solid, but a few are quite amazing.

Off to bed …

A couple more thoughts; Dan I know your busy and so nothing here begs a response. Just something for Jerry, Truth, You, I and whomever else read this blog to consider. Again Dan, you make a lot of sense. You did say one thing however that comes natural to your environment and upbringing that I feel underscores why Jerry, Truth, and I to different degrees have a concern about view the Witness teachings as truth. You state that you “won’t even deny that it’s possible God’s spirit could be at work in some situations through non-believers,” I got the idea, perhaps wrongly, that you are here referring to anyone who is not a Jehovah’s Witness. Although you may feel these persons are ‘unbelievers’ most staunch Christians may take offence at you calling them non-believers. I think we need to put non-believers in the sense of no faith in scripture in one bucket and hardcore Christians in another.

JW’s take a very strong stance that all other Christians are part of Babylon the Great who God is going to destroy. Yet we find that many of these religions in ‘Christendom’ doctrinally are put together much better than the Jehovah’s Witnesses and have a much better understanding of Scripture. As an example although Jehovah’s Witnesses get ‘all excited’ about the Trinity, most of them don’t even know what it is. Yet they use this as ‘evidence’ of getting something right. The same goes for Jesus dying on a cross or stake. They make a big deal out of it in ignorance. So many issues they get all wrapped about having ‘right’ they have missed the point. The door to door work is something that they even altered the text of the NWT to support. ( I am going to stop here because I know you are not familiar with this, we don’t have time to address all of these issues.)

My point here is just to say please be mindful of how someone may take being called an unbeliever. Even though I am not a believer myself I think calling a Catholic as an example an unbeliever is wrong.

On to the point I really wanted to mention (all that above was just me babbling).

Dan you raise some excellent points about Noah and Jonah. It would certainly seem from a reading of the Greek Scriptures that Jesus felt these were REAL EVENTS. Jerry, Truth do you disagree? I think it’s fair to state that Jerry, Truth, nor I am convinced these ARE real events. If Jesus felt these were real events it would seem hard to reconcile a belief that they were stories with the Bible being inspired. If the Bible is God’s inspired word and they are not only recorded as real events in it, but supported by Jesus confirmation of such. Well it’s a big thought.

These could easily be taken as lessons or stories. I feel they are just that. I feel they are stories passed down from generation to generation.

So I have a suggestion and you can all tell me to get lost and quit wasting everyone’s time but here goes anyhow.

We (me included) have spent a lot of time ‘beating’ on Dan because he is a cult member. (Harsh, yes, Frank, yes) BUT!! Dan has raised some EXCELLENT points such as “don’t think you’re really chewing on the details. I would appreciate it if you’d try to provide specific reasons why you find it unconvincing. “I’m not convinced” is just a discussion killer.”

My Opinion: Dan is putting forth a lot of effort in this discussion. We all are. But I think we are spinning our wheels a bit.

My Suggestion: Let’s agree with Dan for a minute and put aside if the JW’s are a cult, or not a cult bit for another time. Let’s focus on something upbuilding and less conformational, something that we can work together on instead of against each other.

Lets discuses the authenticity of the Bible. Dan has made some very powerful points with the Noah’s day and Jonah. What harm is there is discussing what we have found, and why this evidence has directed us to feel this way or that about the Bible.

Feel free to tell me to go jump off a bridge, or that my idea is crap.

Truth,
I am not remotely suggestion that I am a Biblical Authority far from it. It’s just a subject of interest that’s all.

Perhaps it was a had idea after all. ‘One would need to BELIEVE that a naked woman that ate some fruit is responsible for the suffering of billions.’ It does sound like a bad ‘B’ movie from the 70’s. None the less there are plenty of well read people that insist there is something to it.

Honestly if one could show me just three real prophesies in the Bible I would really be taken aback and need to really rethink it.

Then the next step would be to show that these prophetic events support the rest of the book.

But frankly I think finding hard proof of just one prophesy is going to be impossible.

@Apache

Thanks! I really do appreciate your reasonableness.

(I wish we could edit for mistakes.)

Corrections to above paragraph as follows…

Yes, that is exactly what I believe. ANY request beyond Scripture is optional, a suggestion. To bind up the conduct and consciences of others, past what is written, is to become a cult or a high-control group.

Dan,

Please understand that I do not feel that you’re a gullible person. Far from it. Your comments, reasoning ability and Biblical knowledge have been well-demonstrated here. Your love for God and for the Bible are obvious and commendable. Moreover, if I didn’t personally care about you as an individual, I would have stopped posting here a long time ago. I’ve often heard that many JWs view persons who are critical of WT as people who are only interested in “tearing down” and such. I have no interest in tearing you or your faith down. Would that be a positive thing? Surely not. I would like to empower you to think for yourself. I want you to gain a greater perspective on what you’re involved in.

If you’ll read Steve Hassan’s books, you’ll see that people from all walks of life often fall victim to mind control. Being a victim of Mind Control is not a commentary on a person’s intelligence or common sense or gullibility. In fact, for many groups, like the Moonies, the cult leader specifically target highly-intelligent people for recruitment. Intelligent people often make the best members. They are able explain/defend the teachings of the group, better than most. They can make intelligent argumenets for beliefs that are difficult to understand or might be questionable.

Hassan’s work drew from the research of Robert J. Lifton. Please examine Lifton’s Eight Criteria for Thought Reform. His research was done in the 50’s and 60’s. It’s not “apostate” material. It’s a psychological study. Mind Control is different from brainwashing. It’s a slow process in which a person or group of persons gains control of another person’s mind. This is often accomplished through control of four things: Behavior Control, Information Control, Thought Control and Emotional Control. This is referred to as the “B.I.T.E.” method.

With regard to the subject we discussed above, the turning in of a report of your Christian works, thank you for your comments. Your comments are sufficient to illustrate what I strongly object to in a religious setting. You indicate that if your conscience were to compel you to not turn in this report, that brothers would sit you down and give you a serious talk about this. I believe you. I also think you would agree with me that you and I could compose a very long list of non-Biblical requests that would result in a “serious” talking to, if you were to object to them. Some of these non-Biblical rules go further than resulting in a mere serious talk. For example, celebrating a birthday would result in disfellowshipping. Yes, there is no Biblical prohibition on birthdays. So, in this instance, a non-Biblical rule merits the same punishment that adultery does. I know that you see things differently, but please step into an outsider’s shoes and look at this example. Try to see why I’m calling this a high-contol situation. It will allow you to have empahty for me.

Here is another mental exercise that is helpful. Ask yourself this question, Dan, please.

“What would it take for me to leave the Watchtower organization? Could I be truly happy outside of the Watchtower organization?”

Your own response to those questions, may reveal to you, internally, whether or not you’ll blindly follow Watchtower. Leadership tells you, from infancy, that “thinking for yourself” is dangerous, of the Devil, the road to destruction. Moreover, you’re warned over and over that NOBODY is truly happy on the planet, unless they are a JW.

But, here’s the thing. If you don’t think for yourself, how can you say you’re not blindly following? If you’re blindly following, how would that be different from the many, many, other religious groups that you object to?
Put yourself into the shoes of people of these other religions. They 100% percent believe their teachings are from the Bible, from God. Their faith is REAL. They love God. They KNOW that God hears and answers their prayers. They risk their lives for God, carrying out missionary work. They have intelligent Apologoists for their faith. Their organizations have dedicated, educated men to explain their doctrines, beliefs and faith to any who need assistance.

I can see that you’re completely satisfied with your religion. I get that. That is an admirable place to be. My JW relatives are there, too. The look forward to Armageddon happening any day. They look forward to living in Paradise Earth for all eternity. They think that there is a real possibility that they will NEVER DIE, for if Armageddon happen during their lifetime, they’ll literally never die and live forever.

I simply want to encourage you to undertake an independent history lesson of the Watchtower organization. Investigate what Mind Control is. You have been told that looking at the other side of things is “dangerous”, “Satanic”, “demonic”. I’m here to tell you that NOT looking at the other side is dangerous. As you believe all other religions are false, you’re certainly sypmathetic to the reality that BELIEF and CONVICTION and a warm fuzzy feeling about religion do not guarantee truth or correctness. Hence, a healthy amount of skepticism is warranted, in my opinion.

Let me further commend you for having an open mind. This is obvious. Your participation here, is evidence indeed that you have not accepted EVERYTHING they’ve told you at face value. Please keep engaging in this type of discussion with non-believers and critics. Do not let this “bother your conscience”. You owe it to yourself and to your family and future family to have fully investigated matters of life and death thoroughly. Reject a black and white view of “table of Jehovah” or “table of demons” as being the whole totality of knowledge.

Dan, I belong to a large community of ex-cult members that numbers into the thousands. I have literally read hundreds of personal life stories of persons who have left high-control groups. Sometimes, it’s like reading the same story over an over. They relate their fear of leaving the group, thire fear of the “outside” world, the fear of displeasing God by leaving the group — these are common themes. These are real stories. Ex-members go onto live many different types of lives. Many are committed Christians, some are atheist and others have a disinterest in most things religious. Losing faith in WT and losing faith in God and Christ are two different things. Often, one’s faith in God is needed to leave a high-control group. Martin Luther found the Book of Galatians helpful when became determined to speak out against and confront the orthodoxy of his day. Galatians is one of my favorite books. Paul makes an impassioned plea to the brothers to get the sense of no longer living by Law, to not miss the point of Jesus’ death, etc. It’s a remarkable read.

Previously, here, you mentioned that many people had read Ray Franz’s book and left your faith. Why do you think that is the case? I know what Watchtower says about it. They say that this is an “apostate” book, inspired by the Devil. Perhaps those persons had “weak faith” or “didn’t get the sense of things”. Please don’t give a book — an autobiography — too much credit. Please don’t paint all persons with a broad brush, thinking that anyone who left after reading Ray’s book is a robot, without faith, having been deceived. Many people left Watchtower for reasons of conscience and for Biblical reasons, long before Ray Franz wrote a book. (During the last 10 years, more than 1 million people have left the Watchtower organization. Leadership paints these one million as “unreptentant sinners”.)

Let’s reflect on something that Apache said earlier. In your mind, go back to the year 1850. You want to know the meaning of life and you want to serve God. What exactly are you going to do? He’s “always had an organization”. You need to find it! But, where is it? Well, perhaps God is not far off from any of us. Maybe you could open your Bible, pray in the manner that Jesus prayed and have a relationship with a Heavenly father.

So, I accept that this is what being a Christian could have meant in 1850 (and for hundreds of years prior to this). I think that if a person wants to be a Christian — the Bible works. The truth is in there. Allegiance to God comes before allegiance to a man or men. On judgement day, I will not stand before a group of men to answer for myself. I will stand before God. When asks me WHY I did or didn’t do something, I won’t be able to point to another man as an excuse.

Best wishes to all of you and please be assured of my concern.

I am willing to move to Dan’s new site. I will follow your lead Jerry.

Jerry,
To answer. I guess I am a bit of a ball of irony. On one hand I seem most willing to ‘argue’ a topic and on the other hand claim complete ignorance.

I guess you can read into it what you will. It simply comes down to this. I never want to be dogmatic unless I am 110% sure of something. I have strong feelings and I have read a lot, I am not wishy washy or easily swayed. That said I try very hard to be open minded and not judgmental.

So how do I feel about the Bible? I think it has a lot of great human wisdom. I think many aspects of it are scientifically correct and historically correct. But for one thing it’s made of a bunch of different books. Some are better than others. They don’t all agree. Everyone that has done much research at all knows there are conflicts in the gospel accounts. Does this mean they are untrue? No I don’t think their made up. I think there is a lot of strong circumstantial evidence to support much of what they say. I think it’s a great view into mans search for God.

But do I think it’s inspired of God? Well no. The whole concept of a book from God is illogical if you ask me. If we were created by an all powerful or not even all powerful person or God he would put the book in us. I mean everything today people engineer has BIT (Built in Test), it has for years. Most software has the docs built right in (Help, ?, MAN). Why would the creator use some book from the Middle East? Why not put right and wrong in our head? Say something like a conscience? In fact the conscience is to me the post powerful thing to indicate that we may have been created. It makes perfect sense that humans would record the feelings of their conscience in the context of their day. This explains why there are so many clearly immoral unethical concepts supported in scripture. Because genocide of another nation was not considered an abomination in those days. It was our God vs. your God. The most powerful ‘God’ won. Wiping out little children with the sword was ok. Now we all know this is not ok today. Look at the feelings surrounding Israel, the US and other nations that have harmed children in war. No one is like ‘oh those are evils kids that needed to be destroyed anyhow’.

The simple fact that Matthew and Johns version of God are not the same show a problem. I mean there is a reason people have been arguing about the person or form of God for so long. It’s because there are conflicting views presented in scripture. John 1:1 clearly states Jesus is God. This has caused such an issue for some that they have ‘modified’ the text to say otherwise.

The whole idea of inspired of God assumes there is a God with such power to inspire the Bible. Clearly there no longer exists an all powerful loving God. One only has to read the newspaper to see this is an evil lie. That is not to day there is not a creator or lesser God. One that does love us but is impotent. I mean for every really cool thing is nature that begets a creator, there is clear evidence he’s not the worlds best engineer. In fact maybe there are multiple creators, some better than others. Or perhaps the good stuff was engineered and the bad stuff evolved. I am open to all these concepts. But for God to be all powerful he would have to be a real Jerk. If he is all powerful and inspired a book he can –insert expletive here- what sort of cruel evil … well you get my point.

However I am a young man, and I have a lot to learn. I have been wrong before and will continue to be wrong about things. So don’t take my views to mean that I am unwilling to change my views.

The part in the video that interested me, was the portion regarding “what it would take” to get a person to recognize that their religion/faith/organization is not what they thought.

This concept need not apply to just one religion/faith/organization.

He makes the point that if a person cannot provide many good examples of things that would cause them to rethink the correctness of their particular faith, then that person might be blindly committed, etc.

Some folks have this attitude: “I know we’re right. I’ll never leave. Nothing would ever make me leave.”, etc, etc.

They are committed to the idea that they cannot be wrong about their faith. Hence, evidence/facts/truth really don’t have any bearing on the reality of the situation.

Dan, I haven’t seen you display an attitude of being blindly committed. As best as I can tell, you have personally proven to yourself each detail of your faith and you believe it’s true based upon the evidence. Moreover, you are willing to consider/ponder new data, which is an admirable attitude.