The Jehovah’s Witness religion has long been known for its vocal disapproval of the LGBT community. On a doctrinal level it teaches that any practicing homosexuals are sinful and deserve to die, and that very soon God will kill any such person at the upcoming battle of Armageddon.
On an everyday level, whilst it does not press for government action or laws against the LGBT community due to a strict doctrine of total political disconnection, it does directly persecute it’s own members who are LGBT by requiring them to remain celibate for life. Should any of them refuse to do so, the religion demands that they be completely shunned by all their JW family and friends, with the additional threat of shunning for any family or friends who refuse to comply.
So a JW born into the religion and baptised as a young child, which is increasingly the case, and who grows up to discover they are gay, will be faced with a choice: deny their sexuality forever or lose everyone they have ever known.
In recent years Watchtower, the organisation that controls the Witness religion, has released a large number of videos that make strong anti-LGBT statements, and this year is no exception. However, it seems that the rhetoric is on this topic escalating to a worrying degree, as Witnesses are now being instructed to become directly confrontational when encountering gays, lesbians, or others who do not fit Watchtower’s narrow view of approved sexual identities.
One such example of the escalation in rhetoric is the new Watchtower produced video drama, “Remember the Wife of Lot.”
Remember the Wife of Lot.
The official webpage of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, JW.org, has just released a series of videos that will play at the religions upcoming series of 2017 worldwide conventions. One of the videos is a three part drama entitled “Remember the Wife of Lot.” It can be viewed here.
Intended to be a modern day parallel to the Biblical tale of Lot in the last days of Sodom and Gomorrah, Watchtower states on JW.org;
The warning Jesus gave nearly 2,000 years ago is more important than ever. See how Brian and Gloria learn to protect their family from the dangers Jesus warned about.
One of those dangers is, of course, the insidious and sinful LGBT community.
There are two scenes in which Watchtower’s message on homosexuality is showcased, but one of them really stood out to me as requiring more refutation than usual. Not just because of the nature of the teachings themselves; by this point I’m very familiar with the anti-LGBT message Watchtower promotes and sadly it no longer shocks me quite the way it would someone encountering JW.org for the first time. Rather it was the sheer bad manners the Witness characters displayed in the sequence that dropped my jaw.
Let’s set the scene.
Brian and Gloria are two Witness parents, whose daughter has invited some of her workmates back for a meal. One of these workmates is a girl called Tess. During the mealtime conversation, it emerges that Tess is considered to be one of the top interns at the company. The JW wife, Gloria, tells Tess that her parents must be very proud, and Tess replies:
“My Moms are both really proud of me. I was raised by two wonderful women.”
And thus begins one of the most excruciating, clumsy and crass examples of homophobic propaganda in recent Witness history.
The dinner party from Hell
What happens when Tess drops this “bombshell?”
Remember, the Witness characters have been taught that homosexuality is a grave sin worthy of death at Jehovah’s God’s hands when he brings a worldwide Armageddon, which Witnesses believe to be coming soon. Any baptised Witness who is unrepentantly romancing the same-sex is required to be completely shunned by all their JW family and friends.
Make no mistake, in the eyes of the Witness characters in this scene, Tess’ parents are doing something revolting and deserve to die unless they split up, become Witnesses and either marry men or remain celibate.
However, given the fact that Tess is not a Witness and is simply responding to a passing question, it seems like the polite thing to do would be to simply move on and continue the conversation about the internship. Yet instead the Witness characters act like she’s just slapped them all in the face and spat on the table. Their jaws drop, they stammer, and the father Brian gives Tess a stern stare of anger and disgust.
Next, in a display of what I can only describe as social incompetence of the worst order, the Witness character Gloria learns forward with a concerned expression and replies in a horrified tone that she’s just found her that her assistant at work is gay.
Seriously. This is what she does. Watch the video.
Gloria’s tone of voice and expression make it sound like she’s telling everyone that her assistant is a rapist, or has highly contagious mutant space-rabies, or just started their very own Adolf Hitler fan club.
Now, quite why she would say that to a person whose has just casually mentioned they have same sex parents, and in that tone of voice, I have no idea. She’s either deliberately being atrociously rude, or has absolutely no grasp of appropriate social interaction, or perhaps suffers from some unholy and catastrophic mix of the two.
Quite rightly, Tess demands to know what’s wrong with a same sex couple, since its clear her parents are being directly insulted. Incredibly, the video actually presents Tess as being the inconsiderate, rude one for daring to speak of and defend her parents in front of the JW family. Apparently, when asked about her parents, she should have either denied the existence of her loving mothers, or edited their genders so as to coddle the fragile sensitivities of the Witnesses.
The scene continues, with another guest joining the pushback against the JW’s and arguing in support of same sex relationships. Since this is a Watchtower video, the pushback doesn’t go into very much detail, as Watchtower has never been one to give a fair hearing the opposite side of the argument. However, even by the standards of the scene itself, it’s actually the immoral and wicked people of “Satan’s world” who end up coming across as the reasonable ones, and the righteous JW “heroes” who end up looking like they possess all the tact and social grace of a pack of flatulent, drunken hyenas.
For example: at one point Gloria appears to concede that maybe gays and lesbians are born that way, but Brian quickly intervenes and squashes this idea. He gives a lecture about everyone having free will, and outlines his sales pitch for Watchtower’s interpretation of the Bible, which condemns the woman’s parents loving relationship as harmful. Incredibly, he also states that Witnesses “don’t push their religion down anyone’s throat,” despite the fact that he and Gloria have just turned a passing mention of same sex parentage into a lengthly and toe-curling excuse to harangue and chastise the child of those parents!
What if the tables were turned?
Let’s switch this around.
Let’s say that Tess had Jehovah’s Witness parents, and that Brian and Gloria are non-Witnesses.
During the meal, it casually comes up in passing that Tess’s parents are Witnesses. Brian and Gloria react in shock, pulling faces of disgust, and then Gloria replies in horrified tones that she recently found out that her assistant is a Witness. When the other guests point out how rude Brian and Gloria are being, the couple do not apologise but rather they double down, lambasting Tess about how sinful her Witness parents are, and deliver a patronising sermon to try to push their own beliefs.
Can you imagine how rude that would be?
If you are a Jehovah’s Witness reading this, I’m sure you understand how hurt and upset that child of Witness parents would feel. Surely now you can understand how hurt and upset the child of a same sex couple would feel if treated in like manner? Even if you fully subscribe to Watchtower’s teachings on homosexuality, you must surely admit that the way the Witness characters acted in this scene is incredibly obnoxious and rude.
Yet this is clearly the way that the Governing Body wants you to treat anyone who casually mentions their sexuality or that of their loving parents.
How do you feel about that?
Why does JW.org create these videos?
If you are not one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, you may simply pass this video off as a weird bit of badly acted, poorly written, socially backward storytelling, but I’d urge you to understand the following point:
These videos are not simply intended to be entertainment for Jehovah’s Witnesses. These videos are directly intended to be training for all Jehovah’s Witnesses worldwide.
This video is directly intended to demonstrate to Witnesses how to handle a situation where a person casually mentions that they have two fathers, or two mothers. Witnesses worldwide are now expected to hassle, harass, and lecture them. Letting the comment simply go unmentioned is not on the list of options presented here, and every Witness watching the video will understand this.
If you think we’re exaggerating, in 2016 JW.org brought out a CGI children’s cartoon/instructional video explicitly encouraging young Witness children to lecture the young children of same-sex couples about the sinful nature of their parent’s relationship and the need to become Jehovah’s Witnesses in order to avoid death and gain paradise.
The video quite rightly drew worldwide condemnation, not only due to the homophobic nature of the message, but also due to the incredibly crass way it encouraged Witness children to harass their classmates and other non-witnesses in such a rude, unpleasant manner. Sadly it appears that nothing has changed at JW.org, if this latest video is anything to go by.
Now, it has to be said than many actual Witnesses will probably be far too polite to actually take the advice given here (and others might be reluctant to follow this advice from a sheer sense of social self preservation if nothing else) but nonetheless it illustrates how the leadership of Watchtower views the LGBT community and how it expects its followers to behave towards them.
Quite frankly, setting all issues of theology and the human rights of the LGBT community to one side, it appears that the leadership and scriptwriting teams at JW.org are in desperate need of a strong lesson in manners.
For a more detailed examination of the homophobia on display in “Remember the Wife of Lot,” check out the following videos and articles from JW Survey founder Lloyd Evans.
Article in the Huffington Post on the homophobic aspects of Remember the Wife of Lot
You can also watch a more detailed breakdown of the wider aspects of cult manipulation and abusive doctrine in Remember the Wife of Lot as part of this video from Lloyd Evans. The link will take you to the part of the video where the drama is discussed.
Follow me on twitter @covertfade
Follow Lloyd Evans on twitter @cedarsjwsurvey
Follow JWSurvey on twitter @jwsurveyorg
Is there anyone here who would be prepared to hand over
a homosexual son or daughter to be stoned to death?
Unless you are willing to do this, please don’t quote the
Bible as the standard of morality on this issue.
@Ted,
Sorry mate, but I am a Christian. I don’t follow the law given to the Jews. I follow what Jesus had to say, and he didn’t say to stone anybody. So I don’t want to follow your imposed rule here.
Although Jesus didn’t say to stone anybody, he sure as eggs said he was coming back to condemn those not obeying God in the same way God wiped out those practicing sodomy in earlier times (luke 17:29 and 30). Now tell me, do you think Jesus here was meaning the practicers of sodomy might be wiped out again? By him this time?
Hi Ted, No I would not hand over my child. At the same time I agree with a comment Ruthlee made that Bible standards are for our best interests, (not applied according WBTS though). I also except that each person will be judged on their own merit according to what God sees in their heart. While I accept the Bible’s standards on morality, I would not presume to pass judgement on someone else’s free will choices. It’s not my place and I am not privy to why people make the choices they do. I’m not trying to sound self-righteous, I’m just striving to strip off the old personality I got from Watchtower, LOL. The trio of videos for “Remember the Wife of Lot” were unrealistic, cheesy/ridiculous and not in the least bit acceptable as a way to relate to people. And yet I know they’re meant to set a standard. If followed it will not make for good public relations. Perhaps the GB is trying to create persecution for the brothers to satisfy their persecution complex. It will also continue to alienate people so jws will feel they have no place to go and thus keep them captive. Okay my soap box is done. Hope everyone out there has a great day.
Regards
Ricardo,
>>>>”I don’t follow the law given to the Jews.”<<<<
So who gave the following laws to the Jews?
Leviticus 18:22, 29: "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.
For whoever commits any of these abominations shall be cut off from their people."
Leviticus 20:13: "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them."
Ted
I doubt if any JW would hand over their son or daughter to be stoned to death. Mind you, it’d be a quicker death than the slow painful experience of being disfellowshipped and shunned by your entire family and friends.
Isn’t the usual method jw parents choose to kill their children the one where they deny them access to life saving medical procedures??
Ruthlee, that video also tried to make it look like women pressure their men too. The husband kept saying that it was his wife who kept pressuring him to better himself and his family. I also found that to be very misogynistic. There is no way that the video would have portrayed it the other way around with the woman being pressured to move into a bigger house etc. The Society always is going to make the woman appear to be the bad guy so that now women sitting in the audience will be cowering even more under the men they are married to and afraid to speak up.
Nobody should speak up when it comes to judging another person unless they walk in that other person’s shoes. None of us know what it is like to be “born” homosexual unless you were born homosexual. That is the only way we can know whether we were born that way or not. It is as simple as that. Just because sex between two people of the same sex makes us feel uncomfortable, does not put us in their shoes so we that can judge that other person as “bad”. To do that to people is to make them to feel ashamed of who they are and either they have to stay in the closet all their lives so that people don’t judge them as bad or they come out and face the consequences.
Society is beginning to come to that conclusion and are becoming more understanding, that is in western countries. In some areas, those people will be killed and it all has to do with religion and only religion.
Society is realizing that being homosexual is not a choice and the younger generation is becoming more understanding and that is what the Watchtower is so afraid of. The Society will keep reaffirming their stance on the softening of the acceptance of homosexuality until they die because if they change that view, it will mean that they are saying that the Bible’s standards don’t apply to mankind anymore and if the Bible’s standards don’t apply to mankind anymore, then the Watchtower Society will have to close it’s door. That is why the Watchtower Society feels it is so important to stress it’s stand against homosexuality.
Recardo, you are probably too young to know this but the Watchtower Society has changed it’s view of what Jesus was saying when he said that about Sodom and Gomorrah on that day many times. They said that Sodom and Gomorrah would be resurrected and then they wouldn’t be resurrected and now they will be resurrected. You should look it up sometime. That argument has absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality.
In countries where homosexuals are killed are the same countries that the majority of their people are of certain religions that think that people who don’t believe as they do, should still be literally killed for not following their particular brand of religion and it is not just homosexuals. Those are extreme religions and they hate “Christians” because “Christians” don’t kill homosexuals.
Recardo, you keep saying that we need to follow “God’s” standards of morality and I keep asking you and messenger over and over again, just which “God’s” standards are you talking about? If you are following Jehovah God’s standards, then you are speaking about killing homosexuals, women who can’t prove they are virgins on their wedding nights, burning women prostitutes, stoning to death anybody who works on the sabbath for picking up sticks, for sassing their parents, for eating pork, for wearing two kinds of cloth and you would be allowed to own slaves and to kill them but not killing somebody who eats a dead animal (with it’s blood still in it). You would be giving your firstborn to the god of the Bible and you would not boil a kid in it’s mother’s milk (which the Jews still don’t do to this day) and you would kill anybody who doesn’t follow the god of the Bible, Jehovah.
That is the god you worship. You worship the god of the Hebrews, not the law of the Greek Scriptures. You worship the same god that the Islamist extremists follow today. You worship Jehovah. He is supposedly “God” and if Jesus did away with the Mosaic law of Jehovah because it was bad, then you cannot use that as your point of reference and neither can Paul or any of the other New Testament writers. If it wasn’t a bad law, then why was it done away with?
Jesus said that the Jews were worshipping their father the Devil. Do you know for sure that the Devil Jesus was referring to was not Yahweh?
When you read in Job, it makes it look like Satan was on Jehovah’s side. It doesn’t make Satan look bad at all.
When people read the Bible, they see what they want to see. If they want to see Satan as the bad guy, then they will see that but if you read the Hebrew Scriptures, you cannot find even one Scripture that makes Satan look like the killer that the Watchtower Society wants you to think.
The Bible is complicated and hard to understand. If it was from a perfect God, then He should have made it uncomplicated and easy to understand.
It is not inspired and can not be taken literally and you have no excuse for being so arrogant to think that because you believe it to be from the only god of the universe that you have the right to judge as “bad” people who you think are making a choice to be homosexual.
What it all boils down to is this: It doesn’t feel “normal” to you and you are using the Bible as your excuse for being judgmental towards those who go against how you feel. You are prejudiced and you are using the Bible as your excuse just as the Bible was used to excuse slavery.
@Caroline,
Do you find ‘men who practice homosexuality…will not inherit God’s kingdom’ (1Cor 6:9 and 10) too complex to understand? It said there that thieves would also not inherit the kingdom. If homosexuality is okay now, maybe stealing is okay also?
Ricardo what does that scripture mean when it says that men kept for unnatural purposes will not inherit God’s Kingdom because it’s different than men who lie with men?
Also if you go on reading at 2 Cor. 6:12, Paul said “All things are lawful for me; but not all things are advantageous. All things are lawful for me; but I will not let myself be brought under authority by anything. Foods for the belly, and the belly for foods; but God will bring both it and them to nothing. Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord is for the body.”
Paul said at 1 Cor. 7:29: “Moreover, this I say, brothers, the time left is reduced. Henceforth let those who have wives be as though they had none”
If you believe what Paul said there was to be taken literally, then it would be perfectly fine for men to abandon their families for the “Lord” wouldn’t it?
Every religion has the “right” to decide who they can accept into their religion. If Watchtower does not want to accept homosexuals into the congregation, that is their right. Nobody is going to argue with that.
The point of this article and the talks and videos at the assemblies is that Watchtower is trying to reinforce into Witnesses minds that to “practice” homosexuality, nobody can be called a Jehovah’s Witness and get through Armageddon into the “new world”. That is their right to say that and to put out those videos.
The world in general (at least in the West) is not taking the Bible so seriously anymore and Watchtower can not and will not take a “soft” stand on homosexuality. They can’t change their stance on homosexuality and those articles and videos are to make sure that Witnesses do not soften their stance on homosexuality because if the Watchtower softened their stand on homosexuality, the whole religion will come to an end. They are forced to keep on keeping on and the “world” is what Witnesses have to live in and unless they are secluded into compounds where they can’t see anything or talk to anybody in the “world” they are likely to soften their views of homosexuality. That is the fear of Watchtower.
The problem is that the world is changing and labeling anti-gay is starting to be considered the same as hating people for the color of their skin, which is inexcusable and Watchtower is forced to be anti-gay against what the world is beginning to think.
If you want to believe in the Bible’s condemnation of homosexuality, that is your right but keep your opinions to yourself when it comes to expecting the whole world around you to shun homosexuals just because of your belief in the Bible.
If you really want homosexuals to make it through Armageddon by believing in the Bible God, Jehovah, then you have an uphill road ahead of you if you think that you can defend the god of the Hebrews to me and never forget that if the Hebrew Bible fails, so then does the “Christian” Greek scriptures because supposedly Jehovah (the god of the Jews) is Jesus’ father.
It all comes down to if the Bible is actually from God, doesn’t it? If you can’t prove that the Bible is from a perfect God, then you are only using the Bible to uphold your prejudice against what you think is abnormal and something that they (gays) chose to be, without any evidence at all to prove your point.
You think that gays want to be homosexual and that is how they were “washed” clean. That is the only explanation for a scripture like that.
Ricardo
Why would anybody who is a passenger on ‘The Love Boat’ i.e. a member of the only true religion Jehovah’s Witnesses ever ‘need’ to steal? Surely the worldwide brotherhood cares for the congregation enough for their sheep never to go cold, naked or hungry? I remember many examples given from the platform where brothers and sisters have been in dire need of financial support to pay bills, buy shoes or clothing to enable them to go on ministry or be in want of a square meal for their family only to find an envelope of money posted through their door…even parcels of food and clothing have miraculously appeared on their doorstep! Yes, Jehovah makes sure that his people never go without the necessities of life. Unless of course their basic human need is to be in a loving relationship with a member of the same sex…if that’s the case they’re at best, out in the cold, naked and hungry without any friends or family to turn to-at worst they may as well be dead! If I had to choose which basic human need to fulfil I’d find stealing a lot easier than a life forever alone and would completely disregard anything written in the bible. Given the circumstances, I’d fare better being judged by the law of the land than facing a judicial committee of GB appointed elders. Just saying.
@Imagonaburn,
I find the cynicism in your reply quite appealing. I must say that I agree with the spirit of what you wrote. And I think we would all fare better being judged by the law of the land than facing a judicial committee of GB appointed elders.
Your reply didn’t quite cover the point I was making, but your point is well made.
“…..it emerges that Tess is considered to be one of the top interns at the company. The JW wife, Gloria, tells Tess that her parents must be very proud”
just another evidence of the WBTS heads’ bourgeois ideology!
@Eyesopened, Thanks for giving a direct answer to my
question. I would have to disagree somewhat that all
Bible standards work for our benefit, I believe that half
the worlds population “Women” have been denied their
full potential by the constant theme of submissiveness
to men.
Regarding our current topic, in fairly recent times many
gay men were jailed and some ordered to be chemically
castrated, resulting sometimes in suicide. This was the
cruel fate of Allen Turing who helped to win world war 2
with his code breaking skills. –>
Discrimination, castration, stoning to death, all inspired
by Bible standards, /. Thanks again for taking the time to
reply, I fully respect your right to hold your own opinion ,
you are not a judgemental person and I would not presume
to judge You.– Ted
@Ricardo, G,day mate nice to hear from ya, you’re a right crafty
bloke. You accuse Randy and Outandabout of squirming then
you go and do exactly the same.
You avoided giving a direct answer to my question, you threw
the Hebrew Scriptures straight down the dunny, the same
scriptures that say gays have to be killed. Then you take refuge
in the fact that Jesus didn’t say much about gays, but don’t think
that gets you off the hook. –>
Jesus said he was at one with his father ( In complete agreement)
Joh,10:30, so if father wanted gays stoned , so did Jesus even if
he didn’t directly say it. Now if you’re in complete agreement with
Jesus you’ve got to accept the Hebrew sanction against gays.
So answer the question, would you hand over a homosexual son
or daughter to be stoned to death? Yes or No, no squirming now!
Bizarrely! While having hinted that Jesus is cool about gays, you
then claim he is coming back to croak them all. What’s even weirder
even highly amusing. You retrieve the Old Testament out of the
bog and quote Sodom & Gomorrah to back up your claim.
I’m in stitches Ricardo. Have a g,day mate, Ted.
@Ted,
I threw the Hebrew Scriptures straight down the dunny because they are not the law which Christians follow. Thus the scenario you present has no relevance for me. Nowhere in the Christian Greek scriptures does it tell us to persecute homosexuals, call them names, kill them or even tell them when they visit our house that they have wrong conduct. But personally we can have the same moral principles as Jesus’ disciples had, and we can certainly uphold that stance before detractors who misrepresent what the Bible says.
Thus, there is no squirming for me as I am not trying to twist the words of Jesus or Paul or Peter or Jude to say something they weren’t trying to say. They said it quite clearly without complexity: the Christian standard is that homosexuality is gross sexual immorality and a perversion.
By the way, Jesus returning to mete out justice was
supposed to happen a long time ago during the days
of his contemporaries Matt, 16:27-28. So if I was gay
I wouldn’t be too worried.
Hi Ricardo,
I see one of my comments is still awaiting moderation. In regards to morals and the Bible it has been my observation some atheists respond by subjecting the Bible to ridicule. Leviticus 20:13 easily works for this approach since how many modern Christians would really suggest that it was ever okay to kill male homosexuals? Perhaps one of the most famous quotes along these lines was said by Richard Dawkins where he describes the God of the Old Testament as petty, unjust, vindictive, etc. Each word and small phrase in his quote can be tied back to an OT Bible quote.
After thinking about this for several years, both before and after I left the faith, I decided that Bible ridicule may be fine for some, but it just isn’t where I want to be. Most run from fire, but firemen run towards the danger, they say. In some ways I feel that way about the Bible. You’ve suggested I might squirm or choke on certain scriptures that would be opposed to my current view. I can assure everyone it is just the opposite — some of the passages of scripture that would seem most difficult for an atheist, gay-rights-supporting individual to chew on I most enjoy reading and reflecting on. Really trying to understand context and nuance of these passages — determined not to take away or add anything. But, yes, allowing myself some room for musing and speculations.
I recall walking with my wife shortly after we left the faith. One of the questions she put forward was, “If you don’t believe in God, how will you teach our girls about what is right and wrong, especially in regards to sex?” There was much depth to her question, because, it really touched on how we were both feeling at the time — extremely disoriented and uncertain of everything. If there was no Watchtower Library we could reference for answers and the Bible was not a book of absolute right and wrong guidelines would we not be lost?
The definition of morals concerns “holding or manifesting high principles for proper conduct.” When the US Supreme Court ruled in favor of gay marriage, my view is this is moving the moral character of the nation in the right direction. That is, it is not a high principle to express undo concern about the private sexual behavior of consenting adults, to the extent of depriving such couples of rights we extend to opposite sex married couples.
In this fight for gay rights several see the Bible as book to be avoided or ridiculed. Thus there is a temptation to throw it away. To me though, that is tossing out the baby with the bath water. To me the Bible is a book of wisdom seekers expressing what they often felt was inspired of God. Do I think they got it right in all cases? No. Certainly I don’t feel it was ever justified to kill two males simply because they had sex. And now we know this is most likely aligned with their DNA predisposition. If, rather than avoiding Leviticus, we read it, we might notice the male-only concern. This in turn can tell us something about how heterosexual males feel about homosexuality. That is, they are not as concerned about homosexual behavior among females as males.
Millions of JWs will be reminded at their convention to remember the wife of Lot. There will certainly be a focus on end-of-days, moral-decay and homosexuality. I have no problem understanding such a focus. But if one takes up that as the sole focus they may miss other details. The earth is threatened by meteor impact, like the Chelyabinsk one over Russia in February 2013. Could such an event like this been the basis of this account? When Lot and his daughters escape to Zoar they have sex with their father and this results in birth of Moab and Ammon. While it is impossible to know the exact motivation for how this story is written, to me, it does not seem like too far of a stretch to suggest this was an intentional swipe at the sometimes-enemies of Israel?
If we throw away the Bible, we miss out on seeing this. On the other hand if we fixate only the homosexual element of the story we likewise can miss out. And… if we don’t miss out we just might think about how easily humans divide up into groups and nations that wind up in a them vs us mindset. Moab and Ammon were related to Israel, how much better that they treat each other as such, rather than enemies?
If however, one has the mindset that the Bible is the word of God and should not be viewed in the way that I view it, I would say, that is certainly okay. There are many former JWs who may have lost faith in the organization but nonetheless retained belief in the Bible and God. Certainly, Raymond Franz would be one of the most famous in this category.
Cheers,
-Randy
@Randy,
When you decide yourself on which moral principles you accept, where are you going to stop? Where is the line which cannot be crossed?
If two brothers are homosexual but love one another, is that relationship okay? What if three brothers love one another? Is that 3-member relationship okay? They all love one another. Something which the West seems to really, really hate is poligamy. But how about it? A man having 4 wives, is that all right? He loves his wives, his wives love him? Should be okay, right? How about 5 wives? Is that okay? 10 wives? Is there any number of wives where you would say, “That’s too many”?
As long as they all love one another, it should be okay, shouldn’t it? So when does the limit get reached?
Hi Ricardo,
You have raised some very good questions. Alas, I’m a bit rushed, so I’ll just have to drop off this quick note. I would suggest no one gets a free pass. We all have to decide for ourselves to a certain extent, even if that involves looking to some form of religious authority such as the Bible, Quran or Bhagavad Gita. Since leaving Jehovah’s Witnesses in 2007 I joined Unitarian Universalist. The UU faith is guided by “Seven Principals” derived from “Six Sources.” The article on Wikipedia does a pretty good job of explaining the details.
UUs are welcoming of LGBT members and visitors, often directly saying so at the start of the worship services. They also welcome atheists, so they are one of the few faiths where I would feel at home.
Cheers,
-Randy
Randy I’ve been off the site, so I admit I have not given your comments a thorough viewing, Nevertheless I’ll express a view on what I’ve read. Make believe to put your mind (not belief) in a certain place to understand my point. First forget about WT as if it never existed. Imagine God does exist and the Bible is true. To bring about a system to work in a way that God wants he teaches and sets boundaries. If the boundaries fail, God’s systems fail.
I believe that’s part of Ricardo’s belief, but not all governing his comments to you. The belief that God promises to restore boundaries to better benefit all his creation is another part of Ricardo’s belief, as is the decision to accept God by indivuduals is a choice, allowed by God to intelligent creatures.
If Ricardo is correct accepting his way is the most intelligent choice. You have agreed boundaries must be set for the benefit of all. Ricardo and I believe the God of the Bible is real, therefore it only makes sense to accept his boundaries. Anything else would make us rebels against proper authority.
Hi messenger,
[If Ricardo is correct accepting his way is the most intelligent choice. You have agreed boundaries must be set for the benefit of all. Ricardo and I believe the God of the Bible is real, therefore it only makes sense to accept his boundaries. Anything else would make us rebels against proper authority.]
My doubts about my JW beliefs started with the account of Noah’s flood. As Witnesses we believed this event had happened in our recent past, just 2370 BCE.
I say this, not to kick off a creation vs evolution debate, but rather to explain some of my struggles leaving the JW faith and how it might relate to both you and Ricardo, even though it seems we’ve landed wide apart. I believe it is not as far apart as one would naturally assume.
When I left the faith, I was pretty thrilled to tell people I was an atheist. This was my “coming out”, since I had suppressed all my doubts for so many years. So one day at our Arizona state fair, I chatted up a man handing out Christian literature. When I told him that I was an atheist, he said, “hmm… you don’t look like a ‘fool'”. He was likely referencing Psalms 14:1 (or Psalms 53:1), which says in the KJV:
The fool says in his heart,
“There is no God.”
I actually agree with the spirit of this verse. Of course I believe the author, who wrote down, “Jehovah,” literally means belief in the external existence of a creator being named YHWH.
Here is the context (NWT):
The foolish one says in his heart:
“There is no Jehovah.”
Their actions are corrupt, and their dealings are detestable;
No one is doing good.
But Jehovah looks down from heaven on the sons of men
To see whether anyone has insight, whether anyone is seeking Jehovah.
They have all turned aside;
They are all alike corrupt.
No one is doing good,
Not even one.
Thus to me, Jehovah, is a stand in for “proper authority” if I can borrow your words. The proper test of our belief system should show up in things like having insight, doing good, avoiding corruption, etc. I also believe, at a minimum, God does exist within the mind of the believer and as a shared concept among a group of like-minded believers. To us the La’aka doesn’t exist, but to the Kwaio she is as real as anything on our world.
Understandably a homosexual could be upset by Leviticus 20:13. In the same way Psalm 14:1 could offend an atheist. Especially if friends and family used these references to brow beat them, suggesting they were detestable or foolish. However my argument is, don’t discard the Bible so readily or more importantly family and friends who hold religious views. On the flip side, it is all too easy for an atheist, such as myself, to engage in brow beating via technical arguments from the world of science.
My journey out of the faith involved a lot of research on the subject of evolution. It took me some time to appreciate that my wife was leaving the faith with me, but for entirely different reasons. The subject of evolution was not an area of interest. From her I learned just how guilty and worthless the JW faith made her feel. Sadly I probably contributed to that.
Cheers,
-Randy
All this banter from you squabblers is my point exactly. if we agree with gods law or not is not the point. The point I was making is that god deemed sodomy as a deviant behaviour and there would be consequences for it. People do not just accept it as an alternative especially when it involves younger boys. Not everyone is accepting of alternative lifestyles. In the bad old days and in certain countries today a man who practices sodomy will be killed , that is the consequence of his action because. Not wether it is right or wrong but people want to stamp on the behaviour. This is where the bible in all its antiquated wisdom cannot be mocked people will take action against homosexual behaviour no matter what the liberals or scientists tell us. Like many comments I find some of the mosaic law really hard to fathom and glad not to be under it. But those people back then seemed to need laws to spell out what they could or could not do. They could not even rest but would have worked themselves to death for money and acquisitions so they need a law from their god. They were a greedy lot and had to be told to tithe. The list goes on and on. I do believe that although we are not under mosaic law there are still consequences from deviating from it. Maybe not life threatening but as a society we have lost something. All this freedom sexual or otherwise does not make people much happier. And as far as sexual perversion is concerned I would rather they kept their practices private. I am probably being too naïve . I think the watchtower want to address this issue but they are not being courageous or truthful so in effect they cause offence . The world my children inherit will be one that you will be odd if you want to be with one life partner of the opposite sex and have children in the old fashioned way.Is that progress?
Ruthlee, you say the Israelites were greedy and had to be told to tithe? Why does God need money?
Ruthlee-As you know I have seen plenty of evidence to the contrary which proves to me that ‘all this freedom sexual or otherwise’ DOES make people happier. In fact, my gay son would never have been ‘happy’ had he remained a jw facing a life of imposed celibacy, dictated by a rule book written by men.
Homosexual men and women have committed suicide and have been murdered because of their sexual orientation! This isn’t a consequence of their behaviour- (don’t blame the victim!)- It’s borne of the predjudice of those that consider their actions a ‘sexual perversion’!
Imho, Freedom, in all of its forms, does bring a measure of happiness. So, with respect, I have to disagree with you on this particular subject.
It’s true that it’s possible to override attraction to members of the same gender. Some people have been able to rely heavily upon the power of prayer/meditation to overcome the temptations attributable to a life spent alone but I doubt THEY are happy.
A heterosexual jw can always hope that one day they may meet someone of the opposite sex to marry/share their life with but that isn’t the case for a homosexual. The best they can hope for is that post Armageddon Jehovah will ‘cure’ them of their ‘affliction’ and change them into a completely different person! How tragic it would be to sacrifice your whole life without the intimacy of sex and the close companionship of a life partner for nothing.
Why would a loving all powerful creator allow anyone to have homosexual desire in the first place? Why is it celebrated to love someone of the opposite sex but love between same sex couples be condemned? The Bible commands that we love our neighbour but what if our neighbour is homosexual?-are we to stone them instead? Maybe we should be prying into what goes on in their bedroom and piously instruct them on the ‘proper’ way to engage in sexual relations. If our neighbour is heterosexual then a little instruction on how they shouldn’t practise oral/anal sex might be in order. However, If our preference is that the practise of the general populations consensual sexual proclivities remain private then surely we must desist from dictating to them what is right and wrong?!
Finally, I also consider that the vast majority of people who fall in love and get married do so with the hopeful expectation that their union will be a life long commitment. I don’t believe that such an aspiration will ever be deemed ‘odd’. X
Thanks imgo and caroline points taken I justdon’t know where I stand on many moral issues because our indoctrination by watchtower has skewed my judgement I am sure. I have tried to read the bible with fresh eyes and have found it more black and white than even the jdub interpretation. I cannot condemn or condone what people do but the conclusion I came to was that god gave these laws for a reason for mankind because they could not have come up with them for themselves. I don’t know why he imposed a policing and shunning structure to stop people having free will . All I can see is that any deviation from what god imposed has consequences for society. I cannot conclude if that is cause and effect or god just saying I told you so nah nah nahnah nah . God does not need anything sheep money land but mankind does need to occupy himself whilst in existence good or bad. What our rotten religion did was impose its own interpretation on what god said and policed our actions instead of pointing out what they saw and left it up to the individual to decide. And all of that was to do with going door to door and keeping up appearances. All a load of trash and lies. I hope I did not offend you imgo not my intention, just my take on god’s laws. Cheers Ruthlee
Ruthlee,
No offense taken my friend. If I read something that’s written by someone that hasn’t experienced the struggle and heartache involved in coming to terms with sexuality then I’m compelled to comment upon the matter. I usually go off on a rant that’s never aimed at an individual but at a mindset.
It’s already been said by Caroline that before we can make a clear judgement on certain issues we need to ‘walk in their shoes’ that true clarity only becomes apparent with personal experience. I have that experience and I am willing to share it with others just in case they have to face it themselves.
It wasn’t a surprise to me that my son was gay. I had at least 10 years to consider the possibility whilst watching him grow. I didn’t shut it out of my mind I made a decision long before he came out that I would stick by him. My son has Aspergers Syndrome so I had many many conversations with medical therapists about his behaviour. I was often asked how I would deal with it as a jw if my son was homosexual. No prizes for guessing that Psychiatrists and mental health counsellors/ practitioners are well aware of the shunning policies of JWs!
My response was immediate. I instinctively thought I would stand in front of him to protect him and walk beside him to support him.
My son has a high level of intelligence and a sharp mind. I’m exceptionally proud of the way he’s managed his anxiety these past few years. He starts university in September studying Micro Biology and Genetics. I have every confidence in his ability to succeed and actually make a difference to the advancement of scientific discoveries to enhance our quality of life. He would have left the religion and pursued his dreams. I’m so glad he never wanted to get baptised but the thought of how different things would’ve been for us if he had gotten baptised really struck a chord with me. It wasn’t really the fact that he’s gay that cause don’t me to leave the religion- it was the fact that I’d be expected to ditch him if he were to get disfellowshipped. If you want to debate something that really matters then try justifying the casting aside of a beloved family member who no longer chooses to believe in the same things you do.
You can’t pick and choose what you believe is right and wrong in the same way that you can’t choose your sexuality. People have tried and failed for centuries. I can’t pretend that I still believe all the doctrines of the jw religion..I just can’t. Just like my son couldn’t pretend to be straight.
The whole debate about the rights and wrongs of sexual orientation is just a particular bug bear of mine. When it comes to consenting adults it’s nobody else’s business what you do in your bedroom or which gender you are drawn to. It’s not the sexual act that defines us it’s the acts of humanity that we demonstrate to others that reveal our true self.
Talk about straining out the gnats and gulping down camels?!!
There are several factors that demonstrate the true identity of the wtbts. Where is their humanity when it comes to protecting their children from paedophiles? Where is their love when they sacrifice their lives and the lives of their children on the operating table? Rather than sorting out their own house they’re running around like Chicken Little pointing at acts of terrorism and the injustice of Putins ban screaming about how the sky is falling and demanding that their congregants sever all ties with anyone on the ‘outside’ because the time left is reduced and us outsiders are soon to be destroyed by their ‘God of Love’
….oh dear… I told you I’d end up ranting eh?!
Not offended by anyone ..I’m just being a mum lol
@Imgonnaburn, everything you said I totally agree with and Ruthlee, no offense taken from me either. I love your comments.
Imgonaburn, I agree with every single word you’ve said so well. Only who has been there can truly understand. The story of my gay son does not have a happy ending.
Isn’t it amazing how quick to judge those who know nothing on the subject, nor the essence and true meaning of the scriptures?
I wish your boy the best this world can offer and with his effort and your help and love he is sure to win.
@Imgonaburn,
I want to ask you about some situations that are purely speculative, so please don’t be offended. You probably don’t know how you would react because it hasn’t happened, and you have probably never thought about it.
@Imgonaburn,
I deal with teenagers with Aspergers Syndrome almost every day, some who are very smart, some who are very remote, but all of them having needs including especially people who understand and support them. No doubt your son is fortunate to have your support.
My comment will not be posted unless it is short? 2Bcontinued
@Imgonaburn,
I want to ask you about a situation that is purely speculative, so please don’t be offended. You probably don’t know how you would react because it hasn’t happened, and you have probably never thought about it.
Please take Situation A: you have two sons, both of whom turn out to be homosexual. In fact, they are in love with each other. So they want to start a relationship with one another because they genuinely love one another. Would you be able to accept this?
@Imgonaburn,
Situation B is where your son doesn’t just love another homosexual man, but two homosexual men, and they all decide to move in together. So you don’t just get one son-in-law, you get two. Could you accept this?
Your second scenario re a homosexual 3 way partnership is also interesting. If I’m honest I’d have to say that it wouldn’t faze me. My son is an adult and makes his own decisions about who he has sex with. It’s really none of my business.
I noticed that you commented on how you disregard the Hebrew Scriptures/OT now as you’re a Christian and only believe the Greek scriptures relevant to your faith. Are either of these scenarios featured in the NT?
Multiple wives and incestuous relationships feature strongly in the OT so you have set them aside. If these practices are not condemned in the Greek scriptures then would that mean incest and polygamy are acceptable to you?
Personally I think far too much time is spent questioning the moral correctness of consenting adults.
These sorts of scenarios have existed for thousands of years. It’s not a new modern day decline in standards. It really depends on how much credence is given to the outrage expressed by religious groups at the time.
I’m not a religious person any more so love and sexual matters between consenting adults don’t concern me. Live and let live.
Hi Ricardo.
I could accept my sons loving each other like brothers but unlike Bible characters of old I’m not really into incestuous relationships.
I once saw a chat show where 2 men met and fell in love only to find after DNA testing they were brothers! They didn’t know they were related but it was very sad-Think it made me cry.
Tbh idk how I’d react as it’s never happened and I’ve never considered the possibility. I know two things for sure- I wouldn’t stone them to death and I wouldn’t cut them out of my life.
If 2 of my sons fell in love with each other I would view it the same way as if my son and my daughter fell in love with each other. The only difference being that my daughter could get pregnant!
Maybe that’s the reason the bible is opposed to 2 men having sex? It doesn’t lead to any potential increase in numbers. The tribe would eventually die out.
Mind you, if a religious group is preaching ‘truth’ then that would attract followers and people would join like moths to light.
I’m at a loss to explain why the bible should state that homosexuality is punishable by death. Fortunately for my son he lives in a country where stoning someone to death is MURDER and punishable by law! He will just have to wait for Armageddon to meet his doom along with billions of others who only have to reject the Jehovah’s Witness method of worshipping God. Never mind “Millions Now Living Will Never Die” – Billions Now Living Will Be Murdered! Including babies, children, men, women, even virgins!! If destroying whole races of people on a massive global scale were the evil scheme of some world leader how do you think the world would react?
I remember reading questions from readers in the magazines and one of the questions was ‘will Hitler be resurrected?’ I think the answer involved something about grieving the Holy Spirit. The point is that the society addressed this question as if it were a legitimate concern that such a twisted human being should be given a second chance.
To eagerly await the day when billions of people will die at Armageddon is vile and disgusting and far more ‘perverted’ than homosexuality. I, for one, wouldn’t want to belong to a small group of apocalyptically survivors if they could rejoice in that sort of devastation. If that’s what the Bible is really endorsing then I reject it totally.
@Ricardo, seriously friend your comment is again
contradictory. You say the Greek scriptures don’t
tell us to call homosexuals names, then in your last
sentence you in effect label them as. Gross sexual
perverts.
It’s my opinion, ( and I’m sure at this point in your life
you couldn’t care less about it) that you are still captive
to the Bronze Age mentality fostered by the WB&TS.
your choice! I wish you well, – Ted
@Ted,
Could I make this one differentiation on what you commented: I did not call homosexuals gross sexual perverts. I called homosexuality gross sexual immorality and a perversion.
I know it may be trivial to you, but I am condemning the act, not the person. Like I might say to you, “I think smoking cigarettes is stupid.” You may reply, “Are you calling smokers stupid?” Can you see I am not calling smokers stupid. They may be unaware of the damage smoking is doing to their lungs. In fact, the smoker may agree that smoking is stupid, but he’s addicted and can’t give it up.
A homosexual can be quite acceptable to God and be a Christian by not practicing the act of homosexuality. The person is not wrong. The act is wrong.
Hi Ricardo
I’ve heard it said so many times that Christians/JWs don’t hate the person they only hate the sin. God loves everyone and sent his Son to die for us and so on.
I don’t have a problem with people having a viewpoint on whether homosexuality is acceptable to THEIR god. What I do have a problem with though is the absolute insistence on an individual to claim that their way is the ONLY way approved by God because their own version of truth is superior to everybody else’s that doesn’t agree with them.
How can anyone say that they love the person but only hate the sin when their hatred for the sin prompts them to disown the so called ‘sinner’?
Idk how old you are or your marital status and whether or not you have children but ask yourself this. If you abide by the laws given to Christians (not Jews) how do you think you would deal with a close friend or family member that was homosexual? Would you treat them exactly the same way that you did before learning of their orientation? Let’s set aside the whole OT as you have done, and excuse ourselves of the horrible task of having to cast the first stone at their stoning and ask ourselves…if my son or daughter, brother or sister came out as Gay would I tell them to leave home? If they were baptised Christians then revealed their sexual preferences and refused to live a life of celibacy would I shun them? Would I refuse to accept their calls for the next 15 years or more and never speak to them again until they change their sinful ways? If the answer is yes to any of those questions then you are punishing/rejecting the person not the sin!
I can remember vividly telling my daughter if she ever committed fornication and got herself disfellowshipped I would never speak to her again until she was reinstated! Now with the benefit of hindsight and experience I know that I would never have been able to do that to her.
We as JWs were told to behave this way to restore the erring one to their senses and force them to return to Jehovah. We were told that this is written in the Christian Greek scriptures and that the bible is absolute Truth.
I for one no longer accept the Bible as the word of God. In fact the JWs have ruined me as far as religion goes.
@Imgonaburn,
Goodness, this conversation is like manners. What are good manners and what are bad manners? Why is wearing a hat inside, in the words of a teacher I once heard, the height of rudeness (at least in the West)? It’s not hurting anyone to wear a hat inside, so what’s the prob?
Whether it’s right for someone to say God’s standards are like this just because he destroyed people like that, Jesus mentioned the destruction in a positive way and Jesus’ disciples condemned people like that, well, who knows what God’s standards are? Really?
@Imgonaburn,
I don’t think there is much guessing on this matter. No tricky interpretation of scripture.
The problem comes when we don’t want to hear what the Bible says and so try to find ways of justifying ourselves.
As far as my reaction to family members who may say they are homosexual, well I don’t know. In fact I don’t have any close friends who are. But I don’t worry about shunning them. That is one of the GB’s commandments I find impossible to obey. For the reasons you people have made.
@Ricardo,
[ ” I don’t follow the law given to the Jews. ” ]
So who gave the following laws to the Jews?
Leviticus 18:22, 29: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.
For whoever commits any of these abominations shall be cut off from their people.”
Leviticus 20:13: “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.”
@dee2,
I am sorry, I am missing your point. Does it matter who gave those laws to the Jews? I am not a Jew.
I know who gave the law to the Christians. And I follow that.
@Ricardo,
Yes, it does matter who gave those laws to the Jews – wasn’t that the same person who gave the law to the Christians as well?
@dee2,
I’m still not seeing the relevance. Jews are Jews, Christians are Christians, whatever the source.
Dee…thx so much for the link to the free online Yale courses! I will be definitely learning new things with this website! I can’t say that for watchtower org, they haven’t taught anything new for 50 years really :/ no wonder my brain has been atrophying. ;)
Amanda…there is an app you can download called Coursera. It is free college courses on tons of different topics. And religion is among those topics. Enjoy!
Thank you Shibboleth, I will look into it!
Hi Eyesopened…..My main point was that if homosexuality is evident in animals and other creatures, then homosexuality is god made, so if God hates Fag’s, He hates his own creation.
And Ricardo……all through my life I have witnessed cows mounting cows and bulls mounting bulls down on the farm. I’ve had dogs humping my leg. I’ve never batted an eyelid.
@outandabout, we had a male rabbit that we had to get “fixed” because he was trying to have sex with shoes and beach balls and we even had a girl rabbit and he was driving her nuts but we loved him all the same. I grew up on a farm and I also saw cows mounting other cows and bulls mounting other bulls.
The other day I was watching Rachel Ray and her cooking show and she was saying how she likes eating frog’s legs and I remembered back to my childhood and some friends of ours earned pocket money by catching bull frogs and taking them to their local restaurant where they butchered those frogs to use only the legs to serve to their customers and all I could picture was piles of dead frogs that were killed for their legs and I forever think of that when I think of those people now. I can’t help it.
If we grew up eating dogs and cats for food, we wouldn’t blink an eye but because of how we were brought up, our stomachs turn when we think of eating dogs and cats. We can’t help it. If we grew up with people telling us (from the Bible) that it’s sick and disgusting to be in love with another person of the same sex, we can’t help but have a hard time accepting it as “normal”. It isn’t because we are bad people because of our internal feelings.
For a parent who has raised a child from birth will probably see signs that maybe their child is “different’ or gay from young on and won’t be really surprised to find out later on in life that that child comes out as gay but for the child who has been taught from childhood on that it’s sick and disgusting to be attracted to somebody of the same sex, that person will be afraid to tell their parents their inner feelings and either they have to keep their inner feelings secret all their lives and live alone or they will have to upset all their friends and families and come out as gay and face the fact that their friends and relatives will think of them as sick and disgusting simply for their feelings.
If their families and friends still consider it a perversion and sick then that person will be let go by all those people who are supposed to love them. That is their life. It is such a horrible situation to be in and nobody knows what it’s like to be them unless we are living in that same situation and unless we are born “gay” we can’t say and we can’t know what it’s like for them and it is so wrong to say it’s wrong or a perversion.
Thank goodness the younger generation is more accepting of people who are “different” than them.
When I was young, it was actually illegal for people to be married who were a mixed race. Now I see couples of mixed race all the time but I can’t help but think back 50 years ago and how shocking it was.
We grow and we adapt but if people go by what the Bible (Jehovah the god of the Jews) actually says, then they have to stick to what it says and they have to take sides, either “God’s word” or their family or friend but if they go by what the bible says, then they can’t pick and choose but if God thought homosexuals were to be stoned, then you would also be stoning those who work on Saturday and you would be killing those girls who didn’t bleed on their wedding night and you’d be burning witches and prostitutes but allowing for polygamy.
Remember when David got old that they found the prettiest young girl they could find in the land to keep him warm during the night? That is disgusting but people like to think it’s just to keep an old man “warm”. Go think about it. Would the Society allow for such a thing today but yet David is held up as a great person in the Society’s literature.
The Society has said that even in marriages between heterosexuals, they can’t have sex if the wife is still having any blood from her period and can be disfellowshipped for it and they can’t practice any kind of sex unless it is missionary sex. Why would Jehovah create women’s bodies where they can’t have any kind of sex where they might experience orgasm? There is no way that a woman will experience orgasm with missionary sex simply because of how their bodies are made.
Watchtower loves to pick and chose which of the Mosaic Laws that Jehovah gave to the Israelites and don’t forget, it was Jehovah’s Laws, not Moses’ laws that they will enforce on Witnesses.
Also, remember that under Jehovah’s direction, the Society taught for years and years that it wasn’t adultery for men to have sex with another man and or animals because they couldn’t procreate and the wife couldn’t get a divorce and marry another man without getting disfellowshipped for adultery.
The Bible is sick and disgusting. You can’t pick out the scriptures you like and agree with and disregard the scriptures that you don’t like and don’t agree with and judge other people as bad with only the scriptures that you agree with.
That would make you a hypocrite.
Well said!! I love reading your comments. Xx
Thank you so much for saying that and I also love reading your comments!!!
Hi Caroline, I never comment here as I’m not that well versed at expressing things but I also always look forward to reading your comments, especially about the god of the Jews. I am an ex JW from South Africa and would love to know more. Is there any way I could e-mail you?
Hi Amanda. Thank you for saying that but I am too afraid to give out my email address for fear that I will get exposed and disfellowshipped for apostasy. That is only way I feel free to express myself here is that my email address will never be let out. Can you make comments with specific questions that we can answer here?
I understand Caroline, and thank you for replying. Hopefully one day we will all be able to communicate freely without fear. I was wondering where you had found all the information about the god of the Jews – I thought I remembered you saying that you had studied history/biblical history somewhere after leaving the JW’s but I wasn’t able to find that comment? There is very little information available here in South Africa regarding that topic and certainly no courses that I could find with which to educate myself further regarding pretty much anything that goes against the popular beliefs/understandings about the bible being “the word of god”. I have read the works of Robert G Ingersoll and Thomas Paine and agree with them wholeheartedly, but it isn’t a viewpoint easily shared here in SA. I would love to read more about it and would appreciate any literature you might be able to recommend.
Hi Amanda. Thank you for being so understanding about not releasing my email address.
I don’t know how much it will cost for you for shipping but if you can get “The New Testament” by Stephen L. Harris, that is the one I would start with. There’s 8 editions I think and I got the 7th edition from Ebay and it wasn’t real expensive but they can be really expensive because it’s a book that colleges use. There’s so much reading in there but you will find it really interesting.
There’s theological books and there’s scholarly books and the ones you want to read are the scholarly books because they are honest with the history but the theological books only tell you what they want you to believe and are not honest with the real history.
Another good book is “Jesus Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible” by Bart Ehrman. You can get those off of Ebay pretty cheap too.
Another book that is really good is: “God The Most Unpleasant Character in all Fiction”. The reason I like that book so much is that it takes you to an awful lot of scriptures in the King James that show what a horrible god the god of the Jews was and when you look those same scriptures up in the New World Translation, you will see how the writers of the New World Translation changed the ugly descriptive words of Jehovah to make Jehovah not look bad but good instead. The way the writers of the N.W.T. changed the ugly words from real bibles describing Jehovah was deliberate to deceive Witnesses so that when they read the N.W.T. they don’t see the read god of the Bible that they “really” worship and love.
Other books to read: “God & Sex” by Michael Coogan; “Woe to the Women The Bible Tells Me So” by Annie Laurie Gaylor and “The X-Rated Bible An Irreverent Survey of Sex in the Scriptures” by Ben Edward Akerley.
There’s probably dozens of books that are good too. Those are some of the ones that I have bought and read and liked.
Take care and I hope you can get the first one “The New Testament by Stephen L. Harris first because you will learn so much about the history of the Bible that you will never get through a church or the Watchtower.
Hi again Caroline, thank you so much for all this information. Clearly I have a lot of reading to do and I can’t wait to get started! Much appreciated.
Hi Amanda,
Just to add to Caroline’s reply.
Many books, articles etc. have been written by various Bible historians/scholars, you could probably spend an entire lifetime just reading only these publications. Much of this information has been confined to academic circles over the years but the internet has been changing that.
“The Bible Unearthed” is also a good book to read.
You may also find the free online courses on the Old and New Testaments which are offered by Yale University to be of interest:
INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT (HEBREW BIBLE):
– http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/rlst-145
– https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLh9mgdi4rNeyuvTEbD-Ei0JdMUujXfyWi
@Amanda cont’d:
Yale University course:
INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY AND LITERATURE:
– http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/rlst-152#overview
– https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL279CFA55C51E75E0
Knock yourself out!
Hi dee2, I appreciate your input and will definitely be looking into these courses.
What I’d like to know is this – the Bible contains a warrant for trafficking in humans, for ethnic cleansing, for slavery, for bride price and for indiscriminate massacre. There wouldn’t find a christian today who would agree with any of that for obvious reasons. If it’s so easy for religions to turn their backs on Gods word in these instances, why is it so hard to realise that the persecution of homosexuals, created by God, is also abhorrent?
If child sex is perceived by christians as a sin rather than a crime, why are they not outside the jails demanding the release of pedophiles?
I notice that in some christian circles it’s become accepted that species can and do adapt to their surroundings as and when necessary, in other words, they are accepting half the story of evolution. This is how religion has historically operated. They slowly and surreptitiously change their views to remain relevant, or die. Mark my words, christianity will accept homosexuality eventually. It simply has to.
And while I’m at it, lets not forget the scripture in Mark I mentioned earlier. Apparently it’s Gods word that a true believer can take poison and suffer no ill effects, so there’s another piece of Truth that gets ignored for obvious reasons. So it’s not only ‘choose your own god’, it’s choose your own scripture as well.
Somethings wrong with the story.
I would like to add to one of my last comments about it being illegal for people of mixed race to marry. Watchtower said as late as 1973 Watchtower pages 735-736 that where it was illegal for people of mixed race to marry that as “Christians” they needed to follow the law. In other words, until Society (world) made laws making it legal for people of mixed race to marry, Watchtower said it was illegal.
So, in other words, Witnesses could get disfellowshipped for doing it. They didn’t come right out and say it in so many words, but the implication was there but I am sure that they don’t want the younger generation to know what they said in 1973 since Society (the world) has changed it’s view of such prejudices now. They (Watchtower) don’t want to appear backwards but they are forced to appear backwards when it comes to homosexuality because the Bible does condemn it outright.
Hi outandabout,
“The Bible is one book from one author”, so the story goes. Given an early emphasis on doctrines such as soul is not immortal and no hell fire then later the divine name Jehovah, JWs, in particular place an emphasis on the OT. Most other Christian groups tend to acknowledge the OT, but their emphasis is on Jesus and the NT. It only occurred to me after I left the faith that when I tried to prove the soul was mortal and there was no hell fire I tended to reference OT scriptures.
In reality the Bible is a collection of books divided between the OT and NT. For Catholics that is 73 books and for most other Christians there are 66 books. There is no way we can know the precise steps between the original oral stories, first written ones, and final text that was preserved and we have today. No originals exist.
Despite not having access to original works the multiple copies we do have reveal a great deal about the process. For example the idea the Genesis we have today is a redaction and merge of several original sources shows up fairly clearly. If you read from Genesis 1:1 to 2:4 you’ll notice God is called “God”, but at 2:4, “Jehovah” appears and the creation story is retold.
Mark 16:18 has the bit about being able to pick up snakes and drink poison. Since the oldest copies of Mark do not have these extra verses it is likely a later addition to the book. The problem appears to be that verse 8 where the book ends is so abrupt that some decided the book needed a more complete conclusion. Thus you see 9 to 20 as a later addition. To further muddy the waters some manuscripts have short one verse conclusion as a verse 9.
In regards to slavery it wasn’t really all that long ago the the USA allowed for slave owning. The last veteran from the US Civil War to free slaves only died in 1956. So in the case of slavery it wasn’t that long ago many Christians would have had no issue with the practice. Likewise the theory of evolution is relatively new. Charles Darwin and Charles Russell lives overlapped. The authors of Genesis could not have known what was available to Darwin. Darwin had access to a lot of data as well as the scientific method. Yet what the authors of Genesis could observe brought them close to a correct understanding and actually pretty advanced thinking for their day.
Thus you’ll notice, that while Genesis certainly puts God into position as creator, we still see the basics of reproduction within species expressed. Genesis 1:12 even says it was the “Earth” that put forth vegetation.
The major divide between the OT and the NT is a story of nation-focus (Israel) to messiah-focus (Jesus). Christians can speak of catamites (homosexual boy lovers) 1 Cor 6 not inheriting God’s Kingdom, but they can’t proscribe the death penalty. As a small sect of Judaism within the Roman empire, they just wouldn’t have such authority. Thus sins and rewards or punishments tend to get an abstract, after-life focus.
Cheers,
-Randy
Interesting thoughts Randy:
[[ “Christians can speak of catamites (homosexual boy lovers) 1 Cor 6 not inheriting God’s Kingdom, but they can’t proscribe the death penalty. As a small sect of Judaism within the Roman empire, they just wouldn’t have such authority. Thus sins and rewards or punishments tend to get an abstract, after-life focus.” ]]
Not many people are aware of the historical background to Paul’s statements about homosexuality. Homosexual boy lovers were prevalent during Paul’s day. However, sexual relations with the underaged – whether heterosexual or homosexual relations – are not allowed by society today.
Christians invoke the OT writings of Leviticus (Leviticus 18:22, 29, 20:13) when condemning homosexuality yet dutifully ignore the part about murder because society doesn’t allow this.
But never does the OT teach that its laws will eventually be annulled, but indeed teaches the opposite.
After giving each of its injunctions, the OT repeats the mantra:
“It shall be a statute forever in all your dwellings throughout your generations” (Leviticus 7:36; 10:9; 23:14; 23:31; 23:41; also see Numbers 10:8; 18:23).
Not only does the OT never even hint that its covenant would eventually be revoked or replaced with something else, it says flatly that these laws will be in effect forever.
So there must have been some reason why the Christian sect of Judaism deferred the death penalty for homosexuality to the afterlife.
This change/deferral of punishment to the afterlife is one of the great gulfs that separate the two parts of the Bible. The difference between the Old and New Testaments on this and other topics is too great to explain them both as the inspired product of the same god, and thus one can only conclude that at least one is the work of man alone. But if one, then why not both? Isn’t it the same God giving the orders each time?
@Randy cont’d:
There doesn’t seem to be much constancy on the part of God over what is a very short timescale in his eyes yet this is the God who declared: “I am the Lord, and I DO NOT CHANGE” (Malachi 3:6).
Presuming that God is immutable, meaning that he never changes, then God’s commandments in the Old Testament to murder homosexuals are still valid today.
Clearly, problems arise when one attempts to claim, as Christians claim, that both testaments of the Bible were inspired by the same god.
The two testaments do not merge seamlessly together, but clash and conflict in numerous places. If we are not to conclude that God suffers from some sort of multiple personality disorder, the only logical conclusion is that these two testaments were simply written by two distinct groups of people, people whose theologies, whose beliefs and whose outlooks on life were very different.
This is not to disparage the few laudable moral teachings the Bible does contain, but its schizophrenic nature leads inevitably to the conclusion that it is simply the product of its times, the product of human beings.
It is far more reasonable and likely to say that the OT is written as it is because its authors intended that its laws would be all that was necessary for human salvation, and never believed that the terms of the covenant would ever change.
Yet, according to Paul, a perfect God gave a flawed law:
Hebrew 8:7 “For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second.”
It is difficult to understand how the first covenant could have been flawed if Yahweh, the perfect one, had given it to the Hebrews.
Hi dee2,
Indeed, it is important to always remember that the Bible is a collection of books. Besides reading the Bible itself, I’ve been influenced a fair bit by two books. “Who Wrote the Bible?” by Richard Elliot Friedman does a pretty good job of explaining the documentary hypothesis. His conclusion is Jeremiah was likely the final compiler/redactor of much of the OT. He did his work to benefit Josiah. Alas, Josiah dies unexpectedly and this winds up having to be address with some abruptness in the text. “Misquoting Jesus” by Bart Ehrman has informed some of my views about the NT.
Imagine a collection of oral traditions going back far in time. These eventually get written down and preserved by the Jews. However the nation splits north and south. This split allows for independent development of what started out as common traditions. An attack on the north causes a flight to the south and in the south there is a need to rejoin the traditions. Further development and redaction happens as the nation goes away into exile for 50 years. A return to their homeland then sets the stage for the final bits of tweaks and redactions.
For example: Psalms is one book to us, but multiple scrolls to them. Since this material does not require a flow of narrative in modern Bibles one finds Psalm 14 is exactly repeated as Psalm 53. In the Dead Sea Scrolls there is a psalm that never made it into our Bibles.
Bible writing ends just as Alexander the Great takes over the world. The Hebrew Bible is translated into Greek. Copying preserves the text, but Jehovah disappears as divine name superstition takes over.
By the time Jesus arrives, Rome has replaced Greece as the power. Judea is a Roman province. But Greek philosophy forms the backbone of contemporary thought. When Jesus is killed by the Romans, his shocked followers begin to see this in terms of the ultimate human sacrifice. The pantomime of Abraham offering Isaac has been played out in brutal reality. Then the unthinkable! Rome destroys Jerusalem in 70 CE. This creates a religious vacuum for nascent Jews sect called Christians to flourish. Paul, there most prolific spokesman, is an unrelenting Jesus freak. However, neither he nor other Christian writers ever quote the Hebrew scriptures directly. Rather they write in Greek and quote the Greek Bible of their day known as the Septuagint (notice Heb 1:6 quotes Deut 32:43 from the Septuagint, not the Hebrew text, which is a bit different).
As far as we can see, these writers are either unaware or uninterested in the divine name. LORD is good enough for them. But even more, the focus on Jesus as the Christ is relentless. Any NT mention of the OT God, is always in relation to Jesus — usually to identify Jesus as the Son of God. The focus and elevation of Jesus eventually leads to the post-Biblical doctrine of the Trinity.
Did Greek philosophy influence Christian thought? Certainly the main input into Christian writing was Judaism as expressed in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible. Yet one can still see new words and ideas appear. In the NT we read of the 9th and 6th hour (i.e. more accurate time tracking). Plato had talked about shadows cast on cave walls. Interesting to see Hebrews 10 use the word shadow in a similar way. Did Greek views about the soul and underworld make it into Christian thought? Did old Hebrew ideas of physical land inheritance get replaced with more abstract thoughts? I believe much of this happened. I also believe missing this transition causes a particular confusion for JW theology as they’ve attempted to bring back Jehovah after he disappeared around 300 BCE. I also believe this creates confusion in attempts to extract sexual moral law from scripture.
However, all this merely represents where I’ve got to on my journey. If I’ve learned anything, it is to be humble about my current beliefs about how well I understand scripture.
Cheers,
-Randy
Thanks for that, Randy. So so much that Christians are taught to ignore or excuse as irrelevant or are simply lied to about. Religions keep the focus on Jesus and his love as a smoke screen against the horrors they don’t want to talk about, but keep Armageddon, etc, alive to keep the fear level up, attendance high and the coffers full. It’s a finely tuned contradictory balance. One day, Jesus and his love is all they’ll be left with. Fine by me if that’s what people want or need and nobody is being harmed in his Old Mans name.
@dee2,
Is it a case of the two testaments being written “by” two distinct groups of people, or the two testaments being written “for” two distinct groups of people?
As the situation for the Jews, who had their own nation and enforceable laws, was quite different than for the Christians, who were to be spread throughout the world, it makes sense that the implementation of divine law would change.
As for the fault of the first covenant, as has been explained often by WT, any system of laws has the fault that people may not see the principles behind the laws, and the laws do not cover the same range that principles can. And consciences are needed in the implementation of principles.
‘Love God and love your neighbour’ covers many many more situations than any law could cover. But at that time a system of laws was needed for the nation of Israel. The Christian law is different as the principles are written in our hearts, that is, our consciences are needed to be used to implement the principles.
So it is not God who has changed. It is the manner in which the rules are implemented, which was necessary because the situation had changed.
As to the scriptures you mention which say ‘this will be a statute forever’, I have no doubt you know the reasoning behind why this was translated as ‘to time indefinite’ in the original NWT and thus what the original meaning was conveying. If not, there is always jw.org available to research that. But be careful, that site is scary.
Ricardo, you left out a 3rd choice: Is the entire Bible written by the one person (God Jehovah) for all people on the earth, since everybody who isn’t worshipping that god of the Jews will be killed for not worshipping Him? That is what most people believe who are believers.
Ricardo do you know why the Old Testament is called the Hebrew Scriptures? Do you know why the New Testament is called the Greek Scriptures?
It is because the Old Testament was written by Hebrews (Jews) and about Jews (Hebrews) and for the Jews and the New Testament was written by Greeks for the Greek speaking Christians.
The New Testament writers could have looked at the Jewish writings from before Jesus and could have put into their writings all those scriptures from the Hebrew writings that they said were fulfillment of Jewish prophecies about the one who they (the Hebrew Jews) were looking forward to who was going to war against the Romans and restore their kingship.
The Septuagint goes way back before Jesus but when the Romans overthrew Jerusalem in 70 A.D., the Romans destroyed as many of the old Jewish writings as they could find and that is why the Essenes buried those almost 1,000 Jewish scrolls written mostly in Hebrew so they would not be found and destroyed by the Roman soldiers.
By putting into the Greek Scriptures,so-called fulfilled prophecies coming true in the “resurrected” Jesus, that would make the new Christian religion seem “Godly” and more appealing to the masses and would give their new religion more credence.
It would have been easy to do that and there is no way of knowing if that is what happened or not but more than likely that is exactly what the New Testament (Greek writers) did to make the resurrected Jesus their king in heaven instead of dying an ignominious death like he did and not overthrowing the Romans like what the Jews had been expecting was going to happen for all those years that they were under Roman rule, looking for the promised savior.
Ricardo, you should research why the New Testament was written in Greek and not Hebrew? It is very interesting history.
Dearest Ricardo,
I am keenly interested to know if the Jews, for whom and by whom the OT was written agree with your statement:
“As to the scriptures you mention which say ‘this will be a statute forever’, I have no doubt you know the reasoning behind why this was translated as ‘to time indefinite’ in the original NWT and thus what the original meaning was conveying.”
As I stated above, God declared that he is immutable, unchangeable:
“I am the Lord, and I DO NOT CHANGE” (Malachi 3:6),
yet there are contentious conflicts between the Old and New Testaments given the dramatic changes in the message of the Bible, and the apparent mood of Yahweh.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/sinpars1.htm
Take the sabbath, for example, where the initial commandment in the Decalogue was to not work on the sabbath. The later addendum included the instruction that working on the sabbath was to be punished by death. It should be noted that Jewish scholars in their writings made amendments to this idea, recognising that it was basically impossible to keep. In the New Testament Jesus flips this idea on its head and says “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath” (Mark 2:27)
In doing so he completely undermined the initial commandment made by himself/not himself/part of himself (as part of the godhead) and declared that working on the sabbath is fine. Again, God is supposed to be unchanging and Jesus is supposed to be God, so why give the first command and make it punishable by death if you are just going to change it a thousand years later?
The theologian might explain this as being part of the New Covenant, but doesn’t it kind of crap over all of the people who were subjected to the first ruling before Christ came, many of whom must have been executed for breaking that law? Sadly, most Christians seem to forget about the fact that the people living before Jesus were real people who were actually affected by these laws.
https://thoughtcontrol.wordpress.com/problems-with-the-bible/not-so-progressive-revelation/#_ftn1
Not to mention homosexuals, the subject of this article. What about all of the people who were subjected to the first ruling before the NT era, who must have been executed for breaking that law, yet in the NT era, homosexuals are allowed to live out their days since punishment has been deferred to the afterlife.
@Ricardo cont’d:
If Jesus’ system was better, why didn’t God just enact it in the first place? What was the purpose of setting up all the legalistic Jewish laws only to throw them out a few millennia later?
Jesus said that his two commandments were the greatest of all – so why were they not in the Ten Commandments? Why give Moses all ten when those two would have been just as good or better?
Why didn’t God send Jesus immediately after the Fall, rather than waste all this time setting up a religion called Judaism he only planned to supersede eventually anyway.
Indeed, if, as many conservative Christians hold, it is impossible to please God through good works, through following the law, or through anything except faith alone, then was God not setting up the Jews for failure?
Has it occurred to any Christian apologists that perhaps the Jewish people would have gone astray less often if God had granted Jesus’ life-changing powers to them, rather than leaving them to muddle through on their own?
The only thing God accomplished by teaching the Jews to obey one system and then throwing it out and demanding they believe something else, rather than teaching them the real truth from the start, is to ensure that more of them ended up damned than otherwise would have been. There are enough false religions in this world already without God creating one more!
So you’re back, Dee. I thought you and messenger had eloped or something.
@dee2,
Using this media, it is very difficult to discuss with you, mainly because you give really long posts which require a very long post to answer all your assorted objections, which can be seen to have very little effect because you then accept nothing and answer with another long post.
You asked a number of questions which had a very logical answer, but you were not able to accept the answers. And added were more questions.
I don’t think it is possible to satisfy you. I would hope that if a voice out of heaven were to give you reasonable answers, then you might listen, but I wonder. What do you think you would do if God actually spoke to you to answer your questions? Would you be accepting of his answers?
@outandabout,
I changed my mind at the last minute……Messenger is rather heart broken LOL.
Ricardo, you said to dee2 “I don’t think it is possible to satisfy you. I would hope that if a voice out of heaven were to give you reasonable answer, then you might listen, but I wonder. What do you think you would do if God actually spoke to you to answer your questions? Would you be accepting of his answers?”
Ricardo, you are the one that makes the claim that there is a god so it’s up to you to produce that “voice” to prove that He actually exists. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Just the fact that you “believe” or have “faith” in a god, does not make him exist. That is why there is no such thing as atheists but unbelievers or people without faith.
If I see a hamburger sitting in front of me, I don’t need faith that there’s a hamburger in front of me and I really do believe it’s real because I can pick it up and eat it but just telling me that there’s an invisible hamburger sitting in front of me doesn’t convince me.
@Caroline,
There may be a hamburger in front of you, but you may not accept that it is a hamburger because you don’t wish to. There may be the aroma of hamburger rising from it. It may look like a hamburger. It tastes like a hamburger. But you just won’t accept it is a burger.
@Caroline cont (why can’t I send a long comment?),
So, too, a person may not want to accept something that is real because it does not fit in with our world view. This applies for all of us. Your comments cause people to think, about things they have probably never considered before.
@Caroline cont cont,
We can think about what is put forward here and see if there is any basis for what is said. Whether we agree or choose to disagree, let us be willing to learn from one another. Who knows, sometimes we may be wrong. Or on the wrong track.
@Ricardo,
It is clear that you rather that I just simply agree with you and not question anything.
Yes, I know, JWs don’t like to be challenged (for obvious reasons) so they try to cast the challenger in a bad light rather than address the arguments which have been presented.
BTW, has God ever spoken to you? I would love to hear about it.
Ricardo, I, like dee2 would like to know if God has ever “spoken” to you?
@dee2,
It is not that I wish you simply to accept anything I say. It’s that I would like to see you accept something. Anything. All this time in the comments I see logic presented to you, reasonable logic which you simply won’t accept. Not a bit.
Has God spoken to me? I wish he had. I have so many questions to ask him. But that will come, the scriptures say he is opening his hand and satisfying the desire of every living thing, including our desire for answers.
Got into it with my mother yesterday. The woman is a total PSYCHO. Most jws are socially retarded IMBECILES, especially the “elders” & their wives.
BTW I’m using “Mom”‘s iPad to post this. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
Thank you Sun Tzu.
Stupid jws.
What a load of tossers.
According to Coloss,1:16, Jesus was the first of God’s creation
(trinitarians spin it differently) then everything else in heaven and
earth came into existence through him.–>
So the Israelite nation with all its 600 plus laws, many of them
cruel and some downright silly can be put down to Jesus in his
pre, earthly existence, Joh, 8:58. Sorry but I can’t buy any of it .
As McEnroe would say “You CANNOT be serious”
Excellent points Ted.
– Jesus was right there in the beginning with God:
John 1:1 – 3:
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.”
– Jesus is in complete agreement with his father:
John 10:30:
“I and the Father are one.”
So Jesus is just as capricious, extraordinarily arbitrary, schizophrenic and unfair like his father.
A classic example –
the NT episode of the adulterous woman recorded in John 8:3-11.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/essays/shadow-of-turning/:
The Pharisees bring before Jesus a woman caught in the act of committing adultery, and ask him whether she should be stoned to death as the OT dictates. Jesus’ famous response is, “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her” (John 8:7); when no one present can meet this criterion, Jesus tells the woman to sin no more and then allows her to go free.
While this is certainly a commendable instance of mercy, it must be asked why Jesus decided to save the woman from punishment under a law that he himself had made and decreed, agreed with. If this was a reason to spare people sentenced to stoning, why wasn’t it mentioned in the Old Testament when this rule was initially given?
God was apparently unconcerned about the sinfulness of those who accused and stoned Achan, son of Zerah (Joshua 7:24-25) or of the people whom he told to stone the man caught picking up sticks on the Sabbath (Numbers 15:36). When he said that stoning was an appropriate punishment for blasphemy (Leviticus 24:16) and disobedient children (Deuteronomy 21:18-21), he did not add a proviso that only the sinless could begin the process.
To believe that the Old and New Testaments describe one and the same god, one must believe that Jesus himself instructed the Israelites to stone a man who picked up sticks (thereby breaking one of the Ten Commandments), but then changed his mind and spared from stoning a woman who also broke one of the Ten Commandments!
Regarding homosexuality, the subject of the above article, if God wanted gays stoned, so did Jesus yet their punishment is now relegated to the afterlife once the NT era arrived.
What is the reason for this capricious and arbitrary behaviour? Did God change his mind about the merit of the original law?
What becomes clear is that the writers of the NT force-fit the OT into a new interpretation, ignoring discrepant verses. The contentious conflict between Old and New Testaments reveals theological ideas that were developing and overwriting previous ones. The OT was revised retrospectively to create the NT in much the same way as Christianity and Judaism both developed from earlier religions.
The two testaments were simply written by two distinct groups of people, people whose theologies, whose beliefs and whose outlooks on life were very different. They are simply the product of their times, the product of human beings.
This is not progressive divine revelation so much as it is creative writing designed to keep up with the developing modern philosophies of religion.
EDIT:
Regarding homosexuality……..if God wanted gays stoned, so did Jesus yet their punishment is now relegated to the afterlife once the NT era arrived and they are now allowed to live out their days. Lucky them.
The pre-NT homosexuals just happened to be born at the wrong time.
Well that’s a shame, Dee. ‘The course of true love is never smooth’ as they say……….
‘Dearest Ricardo’, you say…….yes indeed, he’s a fine upstanding guy and I admire him.
LOL outandabout! You matchmaker you!
Never thought of Ricardo in that way but now that you’ve brought it up, who knows what may become of me and Dearest Ricardo.….…..do you know if he is single? LOL.
If you don’t hear from me for a while I could just be off to the land of OZ in search of Dearest Ricky! LOL.
For centuries the Bible has been used to justify racism,
sexism, intolerance, and slavery. Of course apologists
will just quote the nice soothing bits, “God so loved the
world” etc, but they turn a blind eye to the parts that
oppress and degrade humanity. —>
Women are objects, property, Ex,20:17, keep your mouth
shut at the meetings, if you want to know anything ask the
boss when you get home 1 Cor, 14:34.
Don’t enslave your own people get them from any other
nation Lev, 25: 43-46. Oh! And it’s ok to thrash them
within an inch of their lives, providing they don’t die
immediately your in the clear. Slaves, if your master is a
cruel bstd, well just grin & bear it 1 Peter, 2:18
Plenty has been said already about the prescribed punishment
for those who were not fortunate enough to be born heterosexual.
Famous naturalist D, Attenborough said of creationists, “They
always point to the nice things, like humming birds, but forget
about the worm, whose sole reason for existence is get into
your eye and eat it from the inside”.
Or we could mention the eye of the octopus and and squid, both of which have eyes constructed in a superior fashion than Us. One would think a Creator would equip his best and finest with the best technology available, especially in the eye department. If not for our brain and opposing thumbs there’s no way we would have made it this far.
Homosexuality was once labelled by the American Psychiatric Association as a mental health disorder that could be cured. However, psychologists and psychiatrists have come to the conclusion that human behaviour is on a spectrum – this includes sexual behaviour. A percentage of the human population will be homosexual and a percentage will be heterosexual and life will go on.
I was brought up in a country where the Christian culture is strong (that country is yet to repeal its buggery law), so after leaving the JWs, I for a time sided with those who objected to homosexuality. But after hearing/reading about more and more experiences like that of commenter Imgonaburn’s son, I too had to conclude that sexual behaviour is on a spectrum and a percentage of the human population will be homosexual.
I could believe that Dee if not for one tiny fact – my bronze-age beliefs trump yours. I’m immovable on that and I’m staying right here on this flat ‘ol earth.
I reckon volcanoes and geo-thermal activity are created by the sun as it passes under the Earth each day and heats the rocks beneath us. Sometimes it wobbles a bit and gets too close. There can be no other explanation because it comes up in the east and goes down in the west
I’ll try to be brief and to the point.
Sodom, Gomorrah and the other two cities were not destroyed because they were homosexuals.
All pagans were immoral to a degree, so this could not be the real reason.
Abraham offered his daughters to the men that were harassing them.
Who in their right mind would offer a woman to a homosexual man?
He lived there, he knew them. There were families, women, children.
Those who assaulted them were degenerates; they may have practiced gross sexual sins, maybe rape, sex with children and other, who knows?
Ezekiel chapter 16 sheds some light. ( It’s good to read the whole chapter, any translation)
It discusses the “harlotry” of Jerusalem. They were idolatrous.
It says they were WORSE than Sodom. Then in verses 49, 50 it says WHY Sodom and Gomorrah and the other cities were in fact destroyed. It actually had to do with the 7 things God hates:
“Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister
Pride
Fullness of bread and abundance ( materialism)
and the idleness of her and her daughters (lazy, haughty)
And they did not put forth their hand to the needy and to the poor. (Merciless)
And they were lifted up up and committed abominations before me
And I took them away.
They were destroyed because the were
immensely Proud, Materialistic, Lazy, Haughty, practiced and kinds of
abomination and above all Merciless!
No wonder they couldn’t find 10 righteous ones!
The scriptures say the were not half as bad as Jerusalem and homosexuality is not
mentioned among Jerusalems’sins.
Homosexual or heterosexual relations where there is good will, love an commitment
are what we all long for. It is a gift from God. Everyone is what they are.
It’s better not to judge. The God who made this marvelous universe, including the awesome
human brain will surprise all of us. The best is yet to come! (2Sam 24:14)
If we reason on this we can be happy and hopefully now.
What’s wrong with that?
@Ricardo, The hypothetical situation you describe, of 2
homosexual brothers having carnal relations with each
other, I must admit tends to repulse the senses. –>
But no more than that of a father making 2 of his daughters
pregnant, not an imagined case but a very real one
according to the Bible.
Are you repulsed by such actions of a father against his
own children? Or would you call such a man righteous?
What’s your opinion Ricardo!
The interesting thing about the Lot incest story is that the daughters could not have believed that there were no men in the world. They had just come from Tzo’ar where there would have been plenty of men. Abraham, their great-uncle and company were situated about a day’s walk away.
Also the chances of two conceptions by two women on successive nights is very slim so some have concluded that it’s much more likely that these pregnancies were the result of repeated incestuous activity.
@Ted,
At that time there was no command against incestuous relationships. That came later with the Law code. It is law in many countries today probably because the results of incestuous relationships today is often tragic on the children produced. But in a homosexual relationship, no child is produced. So it should be all right for homosexuals, yeh?
Great summary of this material Covert Fade. These videos that the org keeps producing seem more and more insidious as to the overall demand for control and undue influence in the lives of their members.
I have read several of the other comments on this article and see the normal polarization and taking of sides on the issue of homosexuality and gay rights. In general they are the same arguments from the same commenters that I have read on articles of similar topic. I have thought about replying to some of these, but no longer have energy or the interest to engage in the long, circular arguments. It’s too similar to my time as a JW.
But I understand the need for commenting in this fashion as I believe it actually aids in the awakening process and allows folks to develop their own sense of what they believe and stand for rather than what was selected for them by the Watchtower org.
WS
Well said, Winston. Your voice as an ex-elder is particularly important, so keep up the wise counsel.
Hi Ricardo,
“When you decide yourself on which moral principles you accept, where are you going to stop? Where is the line which cannot be crossed?”
In my prior reply I mentioned sources of moral guidance. For me, the seven principals of UU is one such source. In general I agree with Sam Harris, author of The Moral Landscape, wherein he placed emphasis on the health, happiness and well-being of humans and animals as the measure of moral goodness.
I believe in democratic process and rule of law. Thus rape, theft, murder, assault are all designated unlawful. One should not cross these lines and if they do, should not be surprised when civil society takes measures to enforce such laws.
I also believe in the theory of evolution. In this system, social norms that contribute to survival of are “selected for” in animals like us who are social cooperators.
“If two brothers are homosexual but love one another, is that relationship okay? What if three brothers love one another? Is that 3-member relationship okay? They all love one another.”
In general I think it is morally wrong for society to invade the private sex lives of consenting adults. When Jehovah’s Witnesses speak out against pre-marital sex, masturbation, oral and anal sex, they, in my view, are morally wrong. They are assuming they have authority where they should not and in the process have diminished the well-being of many of their members — especially young men and women who in the natural course of sexual development begin to masturbate. “None-of-my-business” is an important principal to me now. And I am now embarrassed that I ever sat on judicial committees and attempted to judged such private matters of life.
Most societies give special status and benefits to married couples. I think this is morally right, because I believe in marriage. I think it is good for couples of same-sex and opposite-sex to take the step of making a public commitment to each other. This is good for the couple and society, so it is right and good to bestow benefits.
However humans and other primates have a natural taboo against incest. In one study it was demonstrated the smell of a male can be attractive to females, and especially so, if she is near the point of ovulation. But… the smell of a close relative, such as a father or brother, was repellent. Even among primates such as bonobos, which seem to have very few limits on their sexual behaviors, show a taboo against incest.
Since real cases of incest often involve victimization, I do think it morally wrong, especially when an age difference exists. If fully adult male brothers engaged in homosexual behaviors I would worry that there may be some harm happening in these cases. If someone told me they were in such a relationship I would suggest they seek physiological help and would not just accept the claim of “love.”
“A man having 4 wives, is that all right?”
In some cases I can imagine consenting adults being happy within such an arrangement and invoke none-of-my-business stance. Polygamy has been observed in nature and among humans for a long time. Less common is polyandry (multiple husbands), although don’t tell that to the spotted sandpiper.
However I believe the evidence we have shows a degree of moral problems with polygamy and thus I am okay with society not granting marriage recognition to polygamists. The polygamist communities near us show degrees of these issues: forced marriage of under-aged girls, expulsion of young men and abuse of welfare benefits.
So, I believe…
“As long as they all love one another, it should be okay, shouldn’t it? So when does the limit get reached?”
while heeding, to a large degree, my none-of-my-business stance, I believe the correct limit is one.
Cheers,
-Randy
@randygalbraith
Hahaha, yes polyandry does not seem to be very popular!
Very well thought out and mindful reasoning, IMHO this is by far the most common stance on the subject that I have encountered from people of all walks of life.
JW.org’s make-it-their-business stance is crucial to them because they need to be seen as delivering some moral value to mankind, this is immoral as you have mentioned.
The incest argument is commonly used by opposers of homosexuality yet they ignore the fact that God made incest necessary by creating just two humans (Adam & Eve) to start off with and later, by killing all humans except Noah and his family (at which time, animal-kingdom incest was just as necessary).
After creation, and after the flood, incest was rife and necessary, as part of God’s plan. So it can’t be bad or immoral, and to condemn incest is the same as saying that God’s plan is evil.
Even if you take the story of Adam and Eve and Noah as myths, their moral teachings imply that incest is OK.
Abraham was rewarded for it.
Abraham married his half-sister. He was one of the most holy men of the Old Testament. God rewarded them for it: “And God said unto Abraham, as for Sara thy wife…I bless her, and give thee a son also of her…” (Genesis 17:15-16, Genesis 20:11-12).
There were other instances of incest in Abraham’s family:
Abraham’s brother Nahor married Milcah, the daughter of Haran, Abraham’s other brother (Genesis 11:26-29). So Nahor (Abraham’s brother) married Milcah (his niece).
Isaac, Abraham’s son, married Rebekah, the granddaughter of his father’s brother Nahor and niece Milcah (i.e., his first cousin-once-removed). And their children Esau and Jacob continued to marry into their own family.
Lot fathered children with his own daughters, with no word of opposition from the Bible, after they took turns to seduce him while he was drunk. Lot is considered favourably by God, was saved by God’s angels (Genesis 19:11-13, 15-17,19) and is described as just and righteous in 2 Peter 2:6-8.
Strangely, incest was subsequently condemned in the OT.
So THAT’S why the Bible says we are all imperfect. Turns out any one of us could have been cast in the movie ‘Deliverance’. Love those banjo’s, man…..diddle ding ding dinggg!
@dee2,
And I am sure you know the reasoning behind that. You mention half of the explanation, to make it seem a strange stance to take, and leave out the half that says why. Deception by omission.
@Ricardo,
The Bible doesn’t provide the reason for the abrupt change in God’s plan for incest so please enlighten us.
@dee2,
If incest was not to be allowed from the start, then the human race would have been very short. That Adam and Eve had grandchildren shows that God’s purpose was for the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve to marry. However, incest was ruled out in the law covenant given to Moses. Why? The Bible doesn’t say. But I am sure you know the reasons put forth by WT.
WT’s answer is logical and reasonable, but no doubt you won’t accept it. As you probably know, it is thought that Jehovah could see that family members getting married would start to cause genetic problems as humans’ bodies became weaker than previously. Such genetic problems can be seen among Muslims in the UK (I have not seen any Muslim countries admit any problems in their own population) who have a culture of cousins marrying, for hundreds of years, generation after generation.
It would be fool-hardy for society to sanction incest given the biological problems associated with it, so the incest argument used by those who are anti-gay is unfounded IMHO.
Inter-breeding two families causes severe retardation, mutation and infertility among other genetic problems.
This happens to isolated human populations even when there are more than two families. The problem increases with severity the longer the inbreeding occurs and leaves detectable dents in the genetic makeup.
“Full-sibling or parent-child incest results in about 17% child mortality and 25% child disability, for a combined result of about 42% nonviable offspring.”
– Donald Brown, ”Human Universals” pp123
The Incest theory is quite interesting, when we had the mutiny on the bounty & the mutineers got to pitkan island they were incestuous to keep making more humans, as the islanders were so removed from white civilization they were able to do so without problems, that is documented fact, so it does make sense that that could have happened in Eden (Even though i don’t believe anyway) as far as being Gay goes, i have 2 children in their early 20’s, they are not Gay, but i have raised this point with other JDubs, what would you do if your child turned out to be Gay, certainly not stone them, but love them for what they are, A lot of Jdubs say don;t hate the person but the practise.
@Whip It,
You’ve raised a very interesting point regarding whether incest/inbreeding has implications for genetic defects, population viability etc. I will be sure to research/investigate further……..you never know what you could learn by participating in a forum such as this.
I’ve always thought the only reason incest/inbreeding is illegal is because of known birth defects as a result of such behaviour?
BTW Whip It,
“Pitkan” – seems you spelt it like you pronounce it……I believe you meant “Pitcairn”?
Respectfully,
dee2.
@Whip It,
Latest research (and it changes all the time) points to little genetic damage to children if their parents are cousins. However, as Muslims often marry their cousins, it has been found in the UK that certain hereditary problems are exacerbated by such pairings, and Muslims have more genetically inherited problems than the general population in the UK due to such pairings for generation after generation.
This may not have been the case on the Bounty because there were several families, and it was not necessarily close cousins marrying one another.
@Ricardo,
The Bible does not provide the reason for the abrupt change in God’s plan for incest so please enlighten us.
@Ricardo, So incest was pardonable, acceptable, until there
was a written law against it! Would the same hold true regarding
murder. In that case Cain should have got a free pass for
murdering Abel.
It’s not gone unnoticed cobber that you’re very selective in your
reasoning, you quote the Levitical Law when it suits your purpose
and reject it at other times. I think it’s called “Confirmation Bias”
Logic is often a poor weapon against belief, I know because I’ve
been there, but the brick wall finally became a door, and I jumped
for joy. Have a G,day mate.
@Ted,
There didn’t need to be a law against it for Cain and Abel, as God spoke to Cain personally and told him not to do what was in his heart. That Cain was punished for this evil deed sent a message to the rest of humanity that murder is wrong. So what’s your point? There is logic there, there is reason. There is also terrible ignorance on your part in this matter, causing you to judge me in an unsuitable light. I am not picking and choosing, Ted, but you are quite free to keep checking so as to keep me honest. I am quite open to being corrected if I am wrong, but please be sure I am wrong before getting on your high horse.
Ricardo, compare Leviticus 19:20-22 in the King James and the New World translation and you will see that the King James (older versions) says that when a man had sex with an engaged girl that is only the girl that is punished by whipping and all the man had to do was bring a sin offering of a ram and he was forgiven. Why do you think the writers of the N.W.T. changed the wording to say that “they” would be punished? Think about it.
Also, if I was being brought before a committee for fornication, I’d like to bring up those scriptures and have the elders explain them to me.
@Caroline,
I did look up the NIV Interlinear Hebrew-English Old Testament, which in English translates it as: “there must be due punishment” and The Interlinear Bible which again does not associate a pronoun to the punishment in English. But in both interlinears the Hebrew word does associate the punishment with the pronoun “her”. I am certainly no Hebrew scholar, and would not wish to suggest how to translate this. But seeing how the NWT, NIV and other translators have seen fit not to tie a pronoun to the word “punishment”, I would think there is a reason for such a decision.
If you were to ask such a question in a judicial committee, don’t hope for a satisfactory answer from our leadership. Even if we were to ask them out of curiosity, they aren’t going to help us understand. They aren’t that deep. Window cleaners don’t do deep.
According to Leviticus21:3, a man could defile his sister as long as she was a virgin and that was what Jehovah told Moses.
Hi Caroline,
>>According to Leviticus21:3, a man could defile his sister as long as she was a virgin and that was what Jehovah told Moses.<<
I might be missing some context. This portion of Leviticus is addressing priests handling a corpse, whereas some of the posts here are addressing incest.
Lev 21:1-3: Jehovah went on to say to Moses: “Talk to the priests, Aaron’s sons, and say to them, ‘No one should defile himself for a dead person among his people. 2 But he may do so for a close blood relative, for his mother, his father, his son, his daughter, his brother, 3 and he may defile himself for his sister if she is a virgin who is near to him and has not yet married.
Thus in context, a priest could not handle the corpse of his sister, unless, she was a virgin at death.
Cheers,
-Randy
Hi Randy. There is a scripture I should have looked up in the Society’s books but I don’t trust any of their explanations but I see other scholars say the same thing.
It’s so funny because I took that scripture to say that they couldn’t have sex with their father or mother or a dead person but they could with their sister if she was a virgin. You can read it that way if you want to. It all depends on how you read it and that is how I read it.
Hi Caroline, Ah, interesting that some see this as necrophilia reference. I don’t think that is correct — just some direction on handling corpses with intention to keep priests, pure and undefiled. Cheers, -Randy
@Shibboleth, re: Do not kill. My NIV Hebrew-English Interlinear and Interlinear Bible both translate that scripture (Deut 5:17) as “You must not murder”, the same way as NWT. You may think this is trivial, but there is a difference between killing and murdering. In my Collins Concise English Dictionary, murder is unlawful killing. As the killing of God’s enemies was sanctioned by God himself, that command was not broken, as it was not unlawful killing but lawful. Similarly, at Gen 9:3 God sanctioned the eating and thus killing of animals. It is lawful.
Thanks Dee2, spelling is not my greatest attribute, i am really starting to be very interested in DNA, why do some nationalities prone to violence, others can’t handle modern civilization, etc, someone a while back said to research Denisovan DNA, with connections to certain humans having Neanderthal DNA, it could blow the whole creation thing wide open, of coarse the Borg will always argue, but a lot of it makes sense & answers a lot of questions regarding human conduct & preferences, have a good weekend all
I’ll write this comment here after viewing some though not most of your comments. There are a lot of comments about the Mosaic law and consequences for breaking it. I think a lot of you miss the point of why that law was given despite that reason is stated in scripture.
THE MOSAIC LAW WAS GIVEN TO TEACH US WE’RE ALL PERVERTED DEVIATES; AND TO PROVE TO US WE NEED CHRIST’S HELP AND HIS FATHERS HELP. Though it included punishment that’s not the reason it was given. It was given to teach us who we are, and what we needed (Christ).
The reason Christ was not in favor of stoning the adulterous woman is because he understood that. Christ knew he came to save us. In a perfect system where reproduction occurs through sexual acts even from a practical viewpoint there would be no homosexuals, because those relationships could not reproduce. Some of you already stated that. There in God’s perfect system homosexuals would not exist. But now we are all perverted from a perfect working system. THE LAW SHOWED US THE RESULT OF OUR CONDITION. DEATH!!!
So, guys and gals. If you don’t believe in God that’s your choice. I’m not going to knock you for that. But you know messenger. I don’t mind knocking nonsense. So, don’t fool yourself that you or your offspring are going to bring about a paradise on this planet. Crap is and has always been covering the planet, from inside the kingdom halls to never-never-land. The crap is thick and you will not remove it-too many perverts in too many ways.
For those of you that have lost faith too bad, that was your one shot. What else is left but this and then the rusty dusty? Oh, God and Christ do exist. Maybe one day one of them will reveal themselves to you.
messenger, just what about the Mosaic Law shows that we are all perverted and that we all deserve to be punished for it and why kill all those animals to show how “perverted” we are?
Why do you always look at being punished Caroline? Whose punishing you now, or ever has except some other person in a world you believe people can fix? Or, do you think you and all here deserve to live forever, because of who you are? If so, do you feel punished for not being given eternal life according to your terms?
As for the killing of animals in sacrifice. Those were just a picture nothing more. They were used as an illustration. They were a picture of how the perverts would kill God’s son, the Christ, when he finally came down to help people. God seeing the future saw that outcome, and had the Jews act it out on animals until the perverts acted it out on his son. God did so to make a point. But if you care for the animals more than the Christ I suggest you become a vegetarian, if you aren’t already.
Leviticus says burnt offerings gave off a pleasing odor to Jehovah. How does this tie into your statement that God had the Jews act out Jesus sacrifice on animals?
@Jennifer,
I do not wish to deny Messenger the chance to answer this, but I think I can contribute: because the offerings represented forgiveness for sins and acts of faith on the people’s part, then Jehovah was pleased. Again, with Jesus’ sacrifice, all humanity was saved.
A lot of people can’t see the forest for the trees. What’s more important, and what gives a more accurate picture, a whole forest or a single tree? Why do you think God had the Israelites sacrifice anything? Did God really care about something burning on Earth? If so, why would he? Everything God did with them (Jews)
was for, among other reasons, to teach both them and us. It all was a lesson. God’s leading us to salvation through lessons. Seeing the future he knew Christ would be sacrificed by letting Christ come down here in a body that could be killed. Because God allowed Christ to die that horrible death, you could view Christ as a sacrifice to God, even though he was not killed by God or at God’s command. But the message Christ delivered brings life. Christ was allowed to be sacrificed to bring life.
Seeing that in advance God ordered Jews to sacrifice animals, and he stated those sacrifices could, in a lesser way than Christ’s sacrifice, bring forgiveness of sins. If Christ was not to be killed as he was there would have been no reason for the animal sacrifices. They only pictured the sacrifice Christ would eventually make.
People who cannot see the forest for the trees get hung up on the animal sacrifices themselves as if God takes pleasure in seeing or smelling burnt animals. Those descriptions are figurative describing God’s approval of the Jews’ obedience and desire to seek forgiveness from God, nothing more.
messenger, “perverts” are people who enjoy killing animals for the “smell” of it burning. You are worshipping a “pervert”. Face it. I am so tired of you labeling people who don’t worship your god as “perverts” those who would allow for polygamy but the stoning to death a prostitute woman. Bring us some scriptures that show what a “loving” god Jehovah is. If you can’t do that, then you are just blowing hot air.
Caroline I answered your narrow minded comment in my comment that is directly above yours. Compared to what anybody would consider perfect morality we’re all perverts, you are surrounded by them Caroline.
If a pervert to you is a person that kills animals what do you think about your countrymen who may have killed millions? Are they perverts? Or, do you value the animal more than humans? Or is there an inconsistency here, with your thoughts?
Actually, vegan is more loving than vegetarian, if we’re talking about caring about animals. And the book of Ecclesiastes says that man and beast are one and the same, they both go to the same place. So, hey, then why do animals die if death is spread thru sin according to Romans 5:12? What did the animals do to deserve death? Just thinking out loud again…
If flies never died, and cockroaches never died, and spiders never died, we would be swamped. But what about plants? Why do they need to die? What did they do wrong? Only humans received the hope of living forever. We aren’t told why. But be sure there are no animals in heaven either.
@Caroline, forgive me for my intrusion. I am not Messenger, but I may be able to contribute an idea here. I think you have misunderstood God in this instance, whether deliberately or not I don’t know. As a loving father, God wants his servants to recognize the need for forgiveness and he wants us to receive forgiveness. Thus, some sacrifices were called atonement sacrifices. When an acceptable sacrifice was made, this pleased Jehovah, as he could see a clear demonstration of faith and obedience by the contributor, and He was glad to forgive the sinner. This is not something evil or perverted on God’s part. It was a loving way for humans to be atoned. The mere fact that we are alive even though Adam and Eve sinned is a huge proof that God loves us. If they had died the day they sinned, there would be no us. Is this answer acceptable?
Ricardo, can you show us any scriptures where Jehovah recognized the need for forgiveness. We know when Jehovah was pleased. It was the smell of burning flesh and the killing of babies like all the babies in Egypt because of the King of Egypt. You saying that killing all those animals and splashing their blood all over the place does not prove to me that Jehovah was not evil or perverted. To me, it shows he was evil and perverted.
Ok now I must add my $$ question…so if one of the 10 commandments says “thou shalt not kill”, why all the killing in the OT of humans AND animals? I mean, those under Mosaic Law and afterward didn’t obey that command, and it wasn’t because they were imperfect. Hmm! Let’s chew on that a bit.
Caroline
Why don’t you ever write about how perverted the people were that killed Christ? And when the next nuclear explosion is detonated within a population what will be your excuse to excuse those perverts then Caroline? Will you blame God for it? He’s not one of your perverts. He only allows them to show their animalistic ways in hopes those lessons can teach you something. Eventually you’ll run out of lessons. Class will be over.
@Caroline, Isaiah 1:18- Come, let’s set matters right. Have your sins forgiven. (my paraphrase) You might like verse 11 too- I have no delight in the blood of young bulls and lambs and goats.Why in this verse is Jehovah having no pleasure in the sacrifices? Because the people are not offering their best, they do not have faith, they are not taking their worship seriously. Kind of blows the wind from your sails, wouldn’t you say? We see Jehovah is not perverted, he wants true worship.
Ricardo, you should have kept going because 19,20 says that if they listened to Jehovah, it would go well for them but if they didn’t Jehovah would eat them up and kill them with the sword. Amos 5:25-27 says: “Was it sacrifices and gift offerings that you people brought
continued: near to me in the wilderness for forty years O house of Israel? And you will certainly carry Sakkuth your king and Kaiwan, your images, the star of your god, whom you made for yourselves. Compare that to Acts 7:43.
@Caroline, a sudden change in topic? Isaiah is not about sacrifices in the wilderness. If the people’s hearts were not toward Jehovah in the wilderness, if not sincere and seeking true worship, then their worship was not really to him, right? But that’s a different topic. But in both topics we can see the need of true worship.
Ricardo
Thankyou for your explanation. As an ex witness that is also my
understanding of animal sacrifices. However, I was wondering
why messenger would say the animals were just a picture,
nothing more?
@Jennifer, it’s like if my dad had the flu really bad and this caused him to fall over and hit his head, killing him. What caused his death? If I said the fall caused his death, am I wrong? The full story is the flu and the fall, but if I said the fall I would not be wrong. Thus, Messenger gave half the story.
He also clarified:God ordered Jews to sacrifice animals, and he stated those sacrifices could, in a lesser way than Christ’s sacrifice, bring forgiveness of sins. If Christ was not to be killed as he was there would have been no reason for the animal sacrifices. They only pictured the sacrifice Christ would eventually make.
Thus we see that Messenger had the whole story in mind, but in the context he was talking he mentioned just the one reason. With his further clarification we understand what he was saying.
@Shibboleth, re: Do not kill. My NIV Hebrew-English Interlinear and Interlinear Bible both translate that scripture (Deut 5:17) as “You must not murder”, the same way as NWT. You may think this is trivial, but there is a difference between killing and murdering. In my Collins Concise English Dictionary, murder is unlawful killing. As the killing of God’s enemies was sanctioned by God himself, that command was not broken, as it was not unlawful killing but lawful. Similarly, at Gen 9:3 God sanctioned the eating and thus killing of animals. It is lawful.
Hmm. Wonder what category slaughter would come under?
my,my, messenger, is that really you?….screaming from the pulpit like that. Are we really all perverted deviates?
Some people have trouble accepting religion, messenger, because it’s just unable to stand scrutiny and has even had laws enabled to prevent critical examination and discussion. Red flag on that one.
I would say that there was at least just as much immorality and lawlessness in biblical times as there is now, so with all the pious god ‘fearing’ since, what has changed? Even in the most pious of times, the murder rate was many many times greater than now. Could the bible just be a reflection of life and attitudes of the time?
All this talk of incest, etc and god not actually condemning it, must it then have been accepted behavior by god and/or society back then? Obviously, the Men writing the bible were ok with incest, hence no condemnation, but, how do you suppose those same men felt about homosexuality themselves? Probably the same as you and I and didn’t like it, and so as a reflection of their own attitudes they have God condemning it as well ,not at all knowing why homosexuality exists at all. We now know why.
Another reason people have trouble accepting religion is because of all this ‘cherry picking’ of scripture. The Bible is either Truth in it’s entirety or it’s no truth at all. Religion must never seem to alter, but it does, slowly, slowly, bending with the times in order to remain acceptable.
At a recent wedding my wife got talking to the minister afterwards and during the course of the day, asked him if he really believed in ‘all that stuff’. In a nutshell, the answer was “no, but I have a service to provide”. Fair enough.
I see you’ve put a large emphasis on death, messenger. Is that what it’s all about? Could religion be no more than the formalized panic about the fear of death? Or was death used as a tool to tame an unruly population.
@Messenger,
I really admire your way of eloquently expressing yourself and the simplicity of your statements. I wish I had that ability. Thank you for stating that so well. Sometimes you hear someone say something and it makes such good sense; somewhere inside a bell rings, saying this statement has the ring of truth. I am glad you made those letters big as well, because that sentence needed to be shouted out for all to hear. Glad to see you share that with us.
Hi messenger,
Your post aligns well with the NT view of OT law. Galatians 3:24 basically says what you’ve said above. However, is Paul’s view the correct interpretation? Or is it a re-interpretation of OT law to justify his views about Jesus being the promised Messiah? This is part of my thesis — that humanity makes moral progress by re-interpreting our past to fit new circumstances. Thus the challenge is not to find some later references about OT law and apply that, but instead to go back to the OT law itself and see if there is a hint by the original authors that the law would someday change or be discarded. Even Jeremiah 31:33 that talks about a new law, written on hearts, is a later re-interpretation.
Thus my argument is, in the light of new information, from both science and philosophy, granting homosexuals rights, such as marriage, is not a regression, but an advance in morals. For much of humanity we now live in better world morally and physically than in OT and even NT times. “Improving world conditions” to flip the JW phrase on its head.
Cheers,
-Randy
Randy, if there is no god you would probably be correct regarding granting homosexuals marriage rights. However, if the Bible is correct and its message true that society will drastically change because of Christ then it has already been considered here those types of relationships, serving no reproductive purposes, would not be ideal (e.g. perfect) as the Bible asserts. The issue is not just a moral one. But let’s focus on the moral aspect. Who decides what’s moral? Should it be voted on? What if God exists; if so shouldn’t he decide?
A lot of folks here seem to recent God deciding. I know God’s decisions are not only based on morality. The main purpose for his decisions are probably similar to ours. He decides what to do based on what he wants and what works for him and others.
As far as morality improving over time? How about the more than 50,000 soldiers who died during the battle of Gettysburg during the US civil war, over 100,000 in Hiroshima, or over 1,000,000 recently in Iraq?
My grown children have never lied to me, but otherwise I’m surrounded by liars and thieves. The Bible and the Jewish law, like all laws prove mankind is corrupt, and will remain that way no matter what laws they pass. Maybe you’re a young person. By the time you each my age you’ll know what I say is true. Something beyond mankind would have to bring about a moral morality on Earth for it ever to exist. Everything here, while workable to the degree it does work is a sham, because, as you alluded to, the hearts of people are a sham. People say one thing but most of the time are primarily out for themselves, even at the expense of others. I look at the Bible as being one work. Jeremiah and the Greek scriptures you referred to quote or comment on Jewish laws. Those scriptures don’t change what the Jewish law is or was.
According to the Bible our whole world, everything in it, is presently used to teach us where we end up without receiving God’s help by accepting his help offered. If you don’t believe in the Bible it’s your choice. There’s really nothing to discuss then, because you’re coming from a viewpoint of nonbelief. Those who don’t believe in the ideas about anything, but seek to discuss those topics, usually do so from the position of seeking to find fault because they don’t believe in the subject under discussion. The arguments I’ve seen presented on this site either have offered false evidence, no evidence, or serious misunderstandings. I don’t like using that word misunderstandings, because its what JW’s use when not admitting they lied.
I don’t see only doom and gloom. I’ve had a quite nice life, and I’m in a relatively good spot now. But present morality is disgusting to me. I’m talking mostly about the liars, although for someone else another immoral action may be a greater problem. I think a lot of us here got disgusted with lies from WT, brothers, or sisters. I’m still going and the crap even on a personal level is thick stink. To me I see no morality but a sham morality.
Hi messenger, I’m sorry you feel as if you’re surrounded by liars and thieves. Should you leave the KH altogether if thats all you see there? Believe me, most people are decent and only want to be good. You should know that from your days of going door to door – where were all the horrible people the WT told you were out there. I see a change for the worse in you during your time here. Take care.
Hi Messenger,
>>Randy, if there is no god you would probably be correct regarding granting homosexuals marriage rights.<>those types of relationships, serving no reproductive purposes, would not be ideal (e.g. perfect) as the Bible asserts.<>Who decides what’s moral? Should it be voted on? What if God exists; if so shouldn’t he decide?<>As far as morality improving over time? How about the more than 50,000 soldiers who died during the battle of Gettysburg during the US civil war, over 100,000 in Hiroshima, or over 1,000,000 recently in Iraq?<>My grown children have never lied to me, but otherwise I’m surrounded by liars and thieves.<>The Bible and the Jewish law, like all laws prove mankind is corrupt, and will remain that way no matter what laws they pass.<>Maybe you’re a young person. By the time you each my age you’ll know what I say is true.<>If you don’t believe in the Bible it’s your choice. There’s really nothing to discuss then, because you’re coming from a viewpoint of nonbelief.<>Those who don’t believe in the ideas about anything, but seek to discuss those topics, usually do so from the position of seeking to find fault because they don’t believe in the subject under discussion.<>I don’t see only doom and gloom. I’ve had a quite nice life, and I’m in a relatively good spot now.<<
That is good to hear. It is big step to leave Jehovah's Witnesses, especially if one was deeply involved for many years. I do think it is a challenge to believe that everyone has inherit worth and dignity, but I think it is worth it. Yes, many people do fail and do lie and it can frustrate us — but I see much in the OT that seems to say, God refused to give up hope with his creation. "Even though your sins are like scarlet, they'll be white like snow…."
Cheers,
-Randy
Hmmm… ^ my post was mangled. I made a few changes and posted again. The format looks good, but is “awaiting moderation” :(
Randy
True Randy, everyone has worth and all should look at others as if they do. My hope is to meet you when we live forever, in a place without troubles we go through here.
Take care brother
messenger
(hmm.. my post got mangled, let me try again…)
Hi Messenger,
[Randy, if there is no god you would probably be correct regarding granting homosexuals marriage rights.]
It not just atheists who view homosexuality in a positive light. Consider the case of Gene Robinson he is a Bishop in the Episcopal Church. He is a Christian and believer in God. What are we to make of this? We might be tempted to dismiss his claims or assert that his understanding of Christ, God or the Bible is flawed.
[those types of relationships, serving no reproductive purposes, would not be ideal (e.g. perfect) as the Bible asserts.]
I have argued in favor of this view to an extent. That is, Leviticus being silent on lesbians, yet calling for death upon gay men, may echo a concern about reproduction and inheritance through male linage.
In regards to the theory of evolution, the opposite is true. The mechanics of evolution “select for” that which leads to survival. However, one must be careful not to make naive assumptions about the survival and reproduction. Humans are social cooperators and as such survive in groups and in this context a certain amount of homosexuals in a population may very well have been a survival advantage.
[Who decides what’s moral? Should it be voted on? What if God exists; if so shouldn’t he decide?]
As far as we can tell, humans do decide, even if they make claims that it really is Jehovah, Christ, Allah or Ganesh. These beings exist within the mind of believers, but as external sources able to provide moral direction — as far as we can be certain — that is only a religious claim without verifiable proof.
Evolution also plays a role in deciding, to the extent that moral behavior leads to survival. The in-group vs out-group we see in humans show this is in play. Being social cooperators we spend a lot of time trying to determine if someone is in “our” group and can be trusted or not. Being moral can help one survive because it builds trust.
[As far as morality improving over time? How about the more than 50,000 soldiers who died during the battle of Gettysburg during the US civil war, over 100,000 in Hiroshima, or over 1,000,000 recently in Iraq?]
Yes, absolutely regrettable! My comment about morality improving over time was a reflection and appreciation for modern laws one sees within constitutions. It can be easy to take for granted things like freedom of religion and speech. Such personal rights and liberties are fairly recent inventions and even still are not world-wide. I have long argued that when we protect the rights of a minority (even one we may not like) we protect ourselves. I am no longer one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, but I still wish for them to have the freedom to practice their religion, because it is that same freedom that has allowed me to leave. In contrast changing your religion in OT Bible times was a capital offense (Deut 13).
As to the large picture, Steven Pinker has written a book entitled “The Better Angels of our Nature.” In it he argues that despite the wars you mention in almost all ways humans have gotten better and are less violent now than they were in the past. Alas, I have not read this book — only reviews of it in Scientific American.
[My grown children have never lied to me, but otherwise I’m surrounded by liars and thieves.]
Or maybe, your children are in a trusted in-group and others are not ;-). The point of course is it is unlikely that your children are highly different in regards to truth telling than my children. The more likely case is the range of truth telling and fibbing is about the same.
[The Bible and the Jewish law, like all laws prove mankind is corrupt, and will remain that way no matter what laws they pass.]
Or the opposite? Certainly in the Bible there is much lament about the state of affairs among humans. God even said he regretted making man was was determined to wipe him out. But… the fact that we still see written laws at all, tells me, ancient authors did desire a civil rule-of-law society. The pleading for wisdom one sees at the start of Proverbs is impressive in this regard. Why reach out for wisdom if everything is going to hell in a hand basket?
[Maybe you’re a young person. By the time you each my age you’ll know what I say is true.]
I was born in 1964.
[If you don’t believe in the Bible it’s your choice. There’s really nothing to discuss then, because you’re coming from a viewpoint of nonbelief.]
I wouldn’t say I’m making a choice so much as feel compelled by the evidence I’ve been able to gather so far. Yes, non-belief in the sense that I don’t believe God exists as a real external entity, but…
[Those who don’t believe in the ideas about anything, but seek to discuss those topics, usually do so from the position of seeking to find fault because they don’t believe in the subject under discussion.]
indeed, many times that is true. While I might find fault with a command to kill homosexual males, however, I continue to believe there is much to learn and appreciate within the pages of the Bible. For this reason, I have never given up regular reading of it.
[I don’t see only doom and gloom. I’ve had a quite nice life, and I’m in a relatively good spot now.]
That is good to hear. It is big step to leave Jehovah’s Witnesses, especially if one was deeply involved for many years. I do think it is a challenge to believe that everyone has inherit worth and dignity, but I think it is worth it. Yes, many people do fail and do lie and it can frustrate us — but I see much in the OT that seems to say, God refused to give up hope with his creation. “Even though your sins are like scarlet, they’ll be white like snow….”
Cheers,
-Randy
messenger,
Mosaic law is a perfect law given by a perfect God. That’s how was and still is understood by Hebrews. I see how sexual relations are regulated in great detail but there is not a single rule to protect children from abuse. Perhaps you can show me where there is a recommandation for the minimal age for a bride? Do you know what age were girls married in biblical time?
When the scriptures say the Law was perfect those mean if people live by those laws their lives would be perfect (a relative perfection) from God’s viewpoint, no disobedient kids, lying, stealing, etc. But they could not live by those laws i.e. the purpose of the law was to show something else was necessary (faith in Christ and his help to attain perfection).
Just because a subject is not addressed in a document does not mean you should insert an interpretation for what is not even presented. So, according to the document you site, the Jewish law, how old did women have to be to marry? You tell us. Also, where does it say children can be abused? You tell us.
@messenger,
thank you for answering to my most, albeit not addressing to my questions.
I was rising the point that (let’s stick to the facts)
1-the bible goes on and on in telling with whom you can’t have sex
2-the bible doesn’t give any indication for the appropriate age to wed a girl
that’s the facts.
Now, if the age of wedding is not addressed in the mosaic law, it means that it is a matter of conscience. That following the custom or the tradition of your nation is fine. There is no instance of giving the age of a bride in the bible, but sadly this is just confirming in what esteem were girls held.
The most conservative figures says that it was customarily to wed 12-13 years old girls. There is ample support for this age by Talmud and authoritative rabbis, as well as historians.
This constitute child abuse, nothing else.
sorry man
According to the Insight #2 under Josiah, Josiah’s wife Zebidah gave birth to Josiah’s 2nd son when Josiah was 14 years old. Nothing is said about how old his “wife” was so who knows old old she was, but she must have been a child also.
thanks Caroline, I secretly hoped for your knowledge about this, I wasn’t completely sure there is no mention of any age of wifes.
Your comments are some of the deepest and most appreciated by me. The list of verses about the condition of women in the OT really touched me.
@tranquillo, where I live it was legal to marry 12 year old girls until the law changed around 1942. So, legalized child abuse? And in England hundreds of years ago when the average life span was in the 40’s children this young would get married also. Child abuse? Or change of fashion? Once this was okay. Now it is not. Once, homosexuality was not allowed. Now it is. This just goes to show that society’s standards change, but God’s view about homosexuality as outlined in the Bible hasn’t changed at all.
Ya’ know its funny reading all these post for and against Homosexuals as laid out in the bible. We need to remember when, these verses were written and why. In the bible days, all the higer ups knew, was that if a man laid with a man, than no babies would come out. If woman laid with woman, again, no babies. If a man used the withdraw method, and made a mess on the mat, no babies. If a man had damaged testicles, yep,no babies.The whole point of it all was to make sure babies come out. This would make the village/congregation stronger and help around the house would be abundant. Thats the real reason why, the bible condemned Homosexuality. Any act that prevented pregnancy, was forbidden. So now years later, there are still some people that think, god hates Homosexuals, because of what it says in the bible. It is only very recently, the Catholic church has relaxed its policy’s on the use of contraceptives. And JW’s to this day, still hold on to the teaching that, if you have had a vasectomy, you cant serve as an elder. Now, what would a mans ability to produce babies, have to do with his ability to shepherd a congregation? The answer..Nothing. JW’s are defending there beliefs on this site, and never stopped to ask themselves, whats the motivation for said law, or condemnation. If JW’s now accept, thats its “OK” to use birth control, or its “OK” to get your wife’s tubes tied (thats how they get around the vasectomy thing) then, they are going against whats laid out in the bible re. making babies. If Gods now ok with getting your tubes tied, then he must be equally comfortable with Homosexuals. This B.S about Adam and Steve, come on. What if it was Adam and Eve, only Eve had her tubes tied? The exact same result would happen with Steve in the picture….No Babies. Its time to end the hypocrisy.
Les, I have been out only 3 years but I don’t remember that the Society has relaxed it’s rules on a woman being able to get her tubes tied unless if she got pregnant again, she could die from it. Do you know for sure that the Society has relaxed it’s rules on that?
Caroline, I never mentioned the Society relaxing it views. I mentioned the Catholic Church. I said Elders get around the vasectomy issue, by allowing wifes to deal with it. Cheers!!
@Les Purcell,You make the people living in Bible times sound like morons. How these morons came up with such strict hygiene rules which were only reached by Western societies around 100 years ago must amaze you. That they quarantined those with communicative sicknesses, washed their bodies all the time, and their hands, had their toilets far from their living quarters, goodness, how come these simpletons worked this out when hundreds of years of Western observations couldn’t work it out till relatively recently? And that largely thanks to Pasteur and the microscope.
What dummies! Yeh, they must have seen that homosexuals don’t have babies! And my leg plays jingle bells when you pull it. Are you saying that writers like Paul, Peter and James were condemning homosexuality because they wanted babies to be produced? That is not the moral reasons that they give. It’s only in your imagination.
Wow Ricardo! you need to calm down. I didnt make people living in bible times sound like morons. Not all. Nothing done then amazes me. The fact That Lot offered his to virgin daughters to the crowd of Homosexuals, after calling them “Brothers” Is what amazes me. (i know i know it was a custom-they have customs for that kinda thing) And yes Paul,Peter,and James not only had issue with Homosexuals,but any act that resulted in the loss of an opportunity to reproduce. Perhaps there is another reason why you wont get a vasectomy? You have never asked why you cant? You should. Ask your Elders, after telling them where you found the question, and post your answer.(im sure youve already googled it) Many religions look down, or frown on any type of birth control not just JW’s. Why is that?? Hmmmmm bet it has something to do with Babies. I can just imagine how distracting a jingle bell playing leg would be, at the meeting. I guess only if you pull it though. And to think, you believe I have the run away imagination? 1 year and youll be here beside me. Your already 1/2 way here, I imagination.
@Purcell,
Paul, Peter and Jude did not accept homosexuality, not because of any issue to do with reproduction, but on moral grounds. Paul puts homosexuality in 1Tim 1:9 and 10 in the same basket as murderers, liars and kidnappers. Which is why I say that if you think they condemned it for any other reason, you are allowing your imagination take over reality.
As for vasectomies, I don’t want one. Whether I can or can’t have one is not an issue to me. However, I think that the suggestion to look at the spirit of the law, or principal behind the Jewish law, which WT puts forward, is helpful in knowing God’s view.
@Messenger, Thanks for enlightening us regarding the purpose
of the Mosaic Law. A quick calculation tells me there’s about 40
things I could have been stoned or burnt to death for, I wouldn’t
have made it past my 18th birthday. It really does prove what a
worthless pile of **** I am. —>
Even those oceans of animal blood ( that other gods as well as
Yahweh were partial to) was not enough to make up the shortfall.
It had to be a human sacrifice, and not any old human. No one
with a crushed ball or a squint or flat nose would do, they had to
be perfect in every detail , only gods own son fit the bill.–
But didn’t God give a stern warning about sacrificing children
to other gods, I’m very confused, Messenger, I wish I was an
educator like you so that I could make sense of it all. Anyway
thanks for the lesson. I think!
@Ted,
It seems that you understood those points pretty well and that Messenger has done a good job in his explanations. You picked up the message very perceptively, so congratulations on that. Why did God say not to sacrifice children to other gods? Because the other gods could not forgive sins, and the children were imperfect, being the offspring of Adam. Only Christ could give a perfect human sacrifice, so why should the little children die uselessly? Why not give thanks to God that he shared such wisdom with us? And give thanks to Jesus for giving us the opportunity to put faith in him? And give thanks to God for nullifying the effects of death in Jesus’ case, so that Jesus came back to life, something the other gods could not do with regard to the little children sacrificed to them?
Sorry to go off subject, but has anyone heard that a 55 year old man was found stabbed to death at kingdom hall in Honiton.
It does not seem that big a story yet. But I cant help but feel that this is going to BLOW SOMETHING WIDE OPEN when all of the facts come out. 54 year old Phillip Ryan was found stabbed to death inside of a kingdom hall in Honiton. A 55 year old man named Keith Beviss has been arrested for the murder.
@Ricardo, Are you and messenger the Umbilical bros,
or is it a vent act?
@Ted,
Maybe we both respect the Bible’s standards and try to be Christians.
Ricardo, just which bible “standards” do you follow, the standards of Jesus or Jehovah, the creator of those laws given to Moses? If you follow Jehovah’s standards, you would stone any homosexual to death. If there was anything wrong with those rules, then why do away with them?
Those rules about stoning homosexuals to death had absolutely nothing to do with animals being sacrificed for sins.
@Caroline,
I think we have already had this conversation. And as you know, Christians don’t stone homosexuals. You are purposely pretending to be confused between the source versus the audience. The source can be the same for two very different audiences. Two very different audiences having different situations require different codes. It’s all very simple, logical and reasonable. But no doubt you can’t accept it.
I can’t post anything longer than about 3 lines so I will ask you again and again, what does sacrificing animals have to do with killing a girl who can’t prove she’s a virgin on her wedding night and killing somebody who doesn’t observe the sabbath?
@Caroline, seems like they’ve put a limit on long comments. The Law was to lead to Jesus, remember? Gross sins needed to be nipped in the bud with a rock so as to not encourage sinful behaviour in others. Other lesser sins could be covered for a year by animal blood, pointing to the need for a permanent saviour.
Ricardo, when a man had sex with an engaged girl who hadn’t been bought yet, only the girl was scourged and all the man had to do was bring a sin offering and he was forgiven. The Law was not “leading” to Jesus.
@Caroline,
I see you have clarified that comment elsewhere, and I have answered according to what has been translated by others wiser than me. If you feel there is a problem with their translations (which in English don’t say the girl should be scourged) please explain the problem.
Ya, that’s why we troll aposate sites. Cause we follow bible standards. Lolololol you know how this looks, right?? It looks like you don’t follow bible standards. Like a hypocrite. A hypocrite with a musical leg.
@Purcel,
I think you are confusing Bible standards with WT standards. Speaking for myself, not Messenger who has his own reasons for commenting, I do not find any Bible verse saying I cannot comment on this site. I think it is beneficial for you guys to have someone inject some accuracy into the comments. WT says we shouldn’t comment here, but WT is not my conscience nor my god. I find it helpful to come to this site to find out what is happening in the organization, as anything negative or questionable gets burried by the WT organization and we have no idea what they are covering up. I don’t believe there is any limitation by jwsurvey on current JW’s reading this site or commenting on it, is there? Maybe you just don’t like having your opinions questioned.
Your best most honest answer yet IMO. I have no issues in my opinions being questions, my assumption was you were a JW. But it would appear, you are not. My apologies. I apprentice your comments.
Cheers
I am an awakened JW, in amongst a group of awakened JW’s. Our hope is to live as Christians first, JW’s second. Where there is a conflict between what JW’s believe and what the Bible teaches, we choose to be Christians. We do not just follow blindly like a bunch of zombies like other members tend to do.
Is anybody else having problems posting? the jw survey team hasn’t gotten back to me why I can’t post anything longer than a few lines.
Yes, me too.
Hi Caroline & Ricardo. I have been unable to make longer posts with Firefox. But Chrome has continued to work. This started a few days back. Perhaps threads will longer content confuses the site.
Cheers,
-Randy
at the bottom of your post-hit the tab button,this will take you down to the Post comment.
Yes, I have tried that. There was the same effect. Maybe it goes by how many comments you make. Obviously there is some limiting mechanism.
Oh, I see what you mean. Well, isn’t technology amazing! Thanks for that.
@Ted
You leave a most important idea out of the Bible story and promise. Christ and his Father see the future. Because of that both knew what would happen if Christ came down here in a vunerable position, as a man that could be killed, and spoke the truth about God and his message. Christ said God first sent other messengers and finally sent his son who men would kill. Christ came to deliver a message of salvation. He died in the process. Christ coming despite that eventuality shows his and his father’s love for us. People always focus on the sacrifice, as if something had to be paid. It didn’t. God could have done whatever he wanted to. That’s shown in Christ’s words when he asked his father to remove the sacrifice. But man’s debased morality, full of selfishness, is what caused the death. God did not. God only allowed man to take the selfish act that was already foreseen.
Putting faith in love that God and Christ have for us, and their willingness to help us is what saves. But the people who don’t believe, or don’t care, must seek another way. They have nothing else. God takes no pleasure in killing humans, babies or grown. He never has, despite the false claims presented at this site.
How about Psalms 137:9: “Happy will be that grabs ahold and does dash to pieces Your children against the craig.”
Oh yeah, those babies don’t count because their parents were from Babylon.
Give me a break messenger and Recardo. All you ever do is say that you answer all the questions against Jehovah and say how all your answers makes sense and everyone who doesn’t stick up for the blood thirsty god Jehovah don’t know what they are saying. We bring you scriptures and you have nothing to prove us wrong except empty words. Prove what a loving god Jehovah is okay? We are not talking about Jesus here. It’s Jehovah we are talking about.
Hi Caroline,
Psalms 137:9 is brutal! The NWT renders it:
Happy will be the one who seizes your children And dashes them against the rocks.
Boney M. has put Psalms 137 into modern music, but of course not this verse. The Psalm starts out, “By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat. We wept when we remembered Zion.” It is a clearly a reflection/lament of Jews who had been taken captive to Babylon. Alas, the writer, hits a revenge crescendo by verse 9.
The message seems to be that Babylonians had brutally killed Jewish children — dashed them against the rocks. But… just you wait… “your children” (i.e. Babylonian children) will be taken captive by brutal destroyers all to happy to dash them against the rocks.
Sadly such destruction of innocent life seems to really have happened when Babylon destroyed Jerusalem in 587 BCE. Did the reverse happen, when the Medo-Persian overran Babylon? That I don’t know.
Take care,
-Randy
You look at the Law only as a law. I don’t. I see it a much more. I see it a picture (message) from God of what was to come.
What shows we are all perverted in it? First the fact that we (people) could not keep even those parts of the Law you consider righteous. Lets’ say telling the truth. What else shows we’re perverted? The fact it proved we needed something more than law to help us, and despite that we, the perverted people, killed the one sent from heaven to help us. And why was he killed? Because he did miracles? gained a following? spoke his beliefs? Primarily because by doing those things he threatened the power of the perverted establishment (people). If you think the same type of things aren’t happening right now, all over the world you’re naïve. “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss,” (Pete Townsend of the Who). Christ said if you don’t believe you will die in your (with your) sins.
@Messenger, Christ didn’t give up his life. He was up and walking
3 days later he only gave up his weekend. The pay off is a long
time coming, 2000 years ago the debt was paid “it claims”
but still 55 million people are still dying in agony every year.
“God is not slow” that was Peters get out, to calm things down
about 60 years after Jesus had promised to fix things in their
lifetime. Matt, 16:28. etc etc,
By the way is there a bit of Sockpuppetry going on here?
You and Rickardo boost each other’s comments up all the time
and your attitude and writing style is almost identical. I have a
feeling there’s just one guy, 2 IDs.
If they’re not the same person it sounds like they ‘know’ each other. Maybe they’re brothers who really really like each other! Lol. Only joking they both sound too bible-based knowledgey for those sort of shenanigans. I can’t really knock anyone for stubbornly holding onto the belief that the bible is a letter from God to mankind because I stubbornly hold onto my belief that it’s not -even though I was happy enough to go along with it for 30 years! Sometimes things happen in life that change us. We are what our lives have made us.
Having a different viewpoint doesn’t make us perverted though. It’s the use of words such as ‘pervert’ and ‘deviant’ that prompt a knee jerk reaction because of the sexual implication but that’s the exact reason why these words are used. They’re intended to provoke/offend. Funnily enough it’s the use of the word ‘bible’ that has the same affect on me. Sad really, I’d possibly like to believe in something again but the cult of jw has ruined me for other religions- like a jealous ex lover who wants to prevent me from finding happiness elsewhere.
@Ted,
I am honoured that you should put me in the same league as Messenger. I certainly wish I had the insight and ability to express myself that he possesses. I am sure he is a fine teacher. He has taught me some precious things. I wish we in the same congregation, or even in the same country. But, alas, he is far away from Australia. We will probably meet in the new system. JW’s should be proud to have such a man in their midst. But they probably aren’t. Unfortunately, sincere caring people don’t seem to be appreciated in our org.
All Christians apply that scripture to the transfiguration 3 of Christ disciples viewed. And what about John’s vision of Revelation? That applies also. God and Christ have the ability to show others the future. That’s why Christ said only some of those standing there would see him come into his kingdom. If he had not shown them a distant future event, but one occurring shortly he might have been able to say they would all see it.
@Ricardo, Would you care to point out to us some of the
insightful gems of wisdom in messengers comments.
All I can see is a recycling of the old J W stuff that’s long
past its sell by date.
One of his themes, inherited sin, the reason for all the
suffering and death. From a world view this would have
to include the holocaust, genocide, getting rid of people
who stand in your way, branding them as evil, inferior.
Which unavoidably leads us straight back to Yahweh.
Placing the guilt of one persons crime onto the shoulders
of another and forcing them to pay the penalty is unjust,
unacceptable. Even a child understands that principle.
@Ted, if all you see when you look at Messenger’s comments is recycled JW stuff, you must not be too familiar with JW stuff. WT is not his conscience nor his god also. What Messenger is promoting is for us to look at things through a Christian lens, not through a JW lens. As I try to be a Christian rather than a JW, I find Messenger’s comments insightful. Probably, for you, who are neither trying to be a witness nor a Christian (I am just assuming), you have no appreciation of these things.
A child can see it is unjust to have to pay the penalty of another? Yet children can see how inherited defects are passed genetically from one generation to another: a blind person may well have a blind child. A child can see how behaviour (i.e drug taking) by the mother when pregnant can have an effect on the child (thalidomide babies). In the same way it is not a stretch of the mind for a child to see that disobedience to God’s commands could lead to inherited sin, passed genetically. As a child I could understand this.
Is disobedience an inherited trait, Ricardo?
@outandabout, sin is inherited. It is genetic. Disobedience is a result of sin. That is why there is a need for Jesus’ sacrifice, you know.
you were born a happy, laughing, gurgling baby, Ricardo. Free of sin and free of guilt. You had to be taught you were imperfect, otherwise you would not have known. What if you had of been born in China?
Esklmo to Priest -” if I did not know about sin, would I still go to hell?”
Priest – “no, of course not.”
Eskimo -” then why did you tell me?”
The god you wholeheartedly believe in depends solely on where you where born????
Something is still wrong with the story, in fact, it smacks of total arrogance.
Trying to make messenger see our point of view, Ted is like trying to get a person from another culture to see things our way. He’s on a different path and not only that, he’s only recently woken up to the WT, which is in the same league as suddenly being told as a child that you’ve been adopted.
So Ted, could it be that my real initials might be AM, that I’m a plant to make waves?
@Ted
You are so right. I, for just one, have been the victim of “misplaced guilt” (I believe the psychiatric term is “transference” – e.g. you are calmly, albeit forcefully / assertively presenting your side of an argument, the other person starts getting hot under the collar, then accuses YOU of being angry / aggressive / hostile). I therefore have committed myself to emulating the Chuck Norris toilet paper, which never sold, because it REFUSED to take SH*T from ANYONE.
Well Ted, no one is forcing you to blame Yahweh or keep him in the picture at all. Since you’ve already removed him then why not accept the blame yourself. Maybe you can spread some of it around to other people, including the JWs that deceived you. Your view proves my point. God is not to blame, the perverts are. If God does not exist he is not to blame, correct? How would that be possible? But if God does exist he also is not to blame. Put the blame where it actually is, on people. Either way that’s true.
@Ted, Messenger has helped me to see that we can live as Christians within an abusive organization like WT. He has pointed out that the leadership are similar to the Pharisees, and Jesus told his disciples to do what the leaders say, but don’t do what the leaders do. He has pointed out that there may be others like us in other religions, those who can see the faults but are trying to live as Christians nonetheless. And just as Jesus and his disciples did point out the faults of the Pharisees, and as Paul pointed out the fault of the ‘governing body member’ Peter, so we can point out the fault of those in our org, including governing body members. Although Messenger tends to keep quiet as to the pointing out of faults to the members themselves, it has always been my habit to speak up and tell them, especially if they are elders or COs. However, with Messenger’s explanation, I can do so without thinking badly, as if I am Korah and rebelling against the anointed of Jehovah. Especially with the ARC and our record of child abuse, I am glad not to keep quiet. The most valuable thing that Messenger shared with me is the thought that when we go preaching we do not need to direct people to this awful organization, instead direct them to Christ and the Bible. Thus I have been able to encourage others to carry out their Christian responsibility without promoting this org. And one other thought he shared, asking if God is going to destroy someone forever because they are celebrating birthdays or for some minor fault in understanding. This was important for me to share with the group I mix with, who are similar thinkers as myself.