Welcome, NGU. Yep - coming out seems to apply to the church doors as much as the closet doors.

welcome to the most un-judgemental family around :D

Hugs
Rob.

But should they be swayed by the holy leader who appointed his successors? Shunning lapsed members of the put forth by Paul in his letter to the Corinthians. It wasn't an invention of Russell or Rutherford. From the King James Version (1 Corinthians 5:9-13):

Now, you all know that I think the Bible has all the holy help of a 12-pack of Charmin' toilet paper. But complaining about modern people doing stupid stuff in the name of god is odd when most of them were instructed 2000 years ago.

Uhm, having re-read my post thoroughly, I can find no reference to 'modern' in it- simply the expression of dismay that anyone (past or present) would do this, or allow religious leaders to coerce them into it. This certainly applies to past, present and future religions, such as Catholicism, Islamicism, Mormonism, etc.

Ok. I assumed you weren't considering Jesus an ass, but if he is fair game for the label as well, then I rescind.

I guess I don't have you PM you think link now, NGU. ;)

Welcome to the free world. ;) While I was still considering making an attempt at remaining JW, the gay thing was a big hang up for me. With all the evidence that the homosexuality scriptures are misinterpreted and the evidence that most gay people are born gay, it was hard to reconcile the church's beliefs with my own. I had a discussion with my sister about this once and she compared it to alcoholism. With God's help it can be overcome. She didn't get it when I compared it to Down's Syndrome (not in the retarded aspect, just the genetic one). So I would have had to lie about my stance about that as well as a few other things anyways. (Wifely submission anyone? Hurl.)


While I get what you are saying, didn't Jesus eat with sinners? I can't really recall Jesus doing anything assish. I haven't combed through or anything though. Considering that a great deal of the epistles were written over several centuries by many different authors, I'd say that most of the stuff in them doesn't have a great deal to do with Jesus.

Not that I place any stock in such things anymore, but if there actually were a god watching everything we do, and Jesus actually was his son, and following him meant anything, if people actually followed only what Jesus said and not what a bajillion other self inflated leaders wrote down after he came, religion would look different. I actually like Jesus. He seems cool. I think he's mostly legend, much like Buddha, but cool nonetheless.

I agree Wendy. It's amazing how much people let others have control of their lives. I think that's the appeal of religion for most though. It takes away the uncertainty and the obligation to think for yourself. And to some extent, the weight of your decisions. Not for all religious people, of course. JW's are indoctrinated three times a week, plus whatever ministry they do. All their publications are written very persuasively. If you only read JW stuff, it's easy to believe that everything that authorities say has the weight of God behind it.

On a brighter note, my sister talked to one of her elders about the whole situation, and he told her that as long as I hadn't written in a letter saying I wasn't JW then I was A-OK to talk to. One time religious authorities worked in my favor I guess. :rolleyes: She's become pretty depressed about the whole thing with me and my other sister though and has stopped talking to most people. If this has any benefit to her at all then I hope it makes her a bit more relaxed.

And my other sister told my dad, which I wasn't planning on doing, but I guess he said he figured that a long time ago. He's cooler than I gave him credit for.

Well, he self-appointed himself a holy leader. I consider that assish.

And the teaching of Paul was not to not eat with sinners (which would be pretty impossible for an evangelical religion), but to not eat with those who are a member of the faith but lapse.

Glad to hear about your sister. As I said when you first posted it, I expected you'd find that people weren't quite to rigid about it as you feared. If there is one thing the religious are good at* it is rationalizing that which they were going to do anyway. Religion is rarely an impediment to the life people wanted to live anyway and when it is, they just form a new religion.




* The non-religious are good at it to, they just don't have to frame it within religion.

With "God's help" one can stop drinking, but the alcoholic is still - and will always be - and alcoholic. A gay person can stop having sex with those he or she is attracted to and become a non-practising gay person, but they are still gay.

Let me rephrase this. I was responding to wendybeth saying she can't believe how much people subvert themselves to the teachings of self-appointed religious leaders allowing themselves to be coerced into things she takes to be bad.

I assumed, erroneously, that she was talking about modern "self appointed religious leaders (such as Russell, Rutherford, and the current leadership of the Watchtower Society). So I was pointing out that this particular teaching goes back to the earliest "self appointed holy leadership" of the Christian faith.

To the extent that what the modern "self appointed holy leadership" does is assish* for being self appointed and telling others what to do, so was Jesus Christ, and the church structure immediately following him.

To the extent that this particular element of Jehovah's Witness doctrine is bad and coercive, it was so 2,000 years ago. Unless you reject that this was a teaching of Christ as passed on by Paul. But once you do that, the Bible becomes worthless as a vehicle for passing on the teachings of Christ.



* wendybeth did not use this word, or necessarily this sentient. I introduced it to the conversation. Though it seems apt for describing the behavior of self-appointing yourself a holy leader and then coercing others to do bad things.

This basically sums up my feelings of the bible. Not that I believe in a Jesus as God or God's son either. If you look only at what Jesus is quoted to have said (which could be highly inaccurate, as Jesus himself didn't write anything down), then he has extremely little dogma. He professed himself to be son of God and to have insight into his kingdom, but I'd hardly call him a religious leader. Perhaps a leader of faith? Didn't he replace all laws before him with, and I paraphrase, "Love God with your whole mind, heart, and soul, and love your neighbor as yourself"? Sounds simple and dogma-less to me. If I could find it within me to believe in god, I could get on board with that.

The reconversion efforts have been high today from my mom, who thinks she can restore my faith in God by asking how everything got here and what the point of my life is without God. This discussion gets us nowhere, of course, because the theory of evolution makes about as much sense to her as lions flying helicopters would. I did find it comical that she thought she could get me to admit the bible is true by getting me to reject the Q'uran. Nice try, Mom. :rolleyes: