Throwing Away the Keys

[TrueTomHarley]

It is almost painful to see the critically-minded exploring biblical passages and, as though by design, discarding every key they come across. Time and again, you find yourself saying, ‘Not that one, don’t toss that one, you will need it, that one’s a keeper!’ Heedless, they say, ‘We are wise and learned adults, far too clever to be sold Adam and Eve (or whatever). What’s next? Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck? We will opt for a deeper meaning’ that isn’t accretive.' So reliably does this happen that one almost suspects some sinister power at work manipulating the wise to destroy every useful map, that they may wander forever in the critical wilderness, with nary an oasis in sight.

Elaine Pagels writes a book (Why Religion? This one is her autobiography) in which she wrenches apart her soul, chronicling her unrelenting anguish at the deaths of both her infant son and, several years later, her husband. She is an excellent researcher and author, and her documentation on her own ordeals is as expressive as anything I have read. It is enough to make one ashamed at better weathering similar trial, except . . .except for the reservation that, through her training, she systematically threw away any key that might have helped her. Untimely death, though still horrific, is infinitely more bearable to one entertaining the Bible’s resurrection hope.

You cannot throw away keys you never had, one might point out. If her education served to keep those keys shrouded, that is hardly her fault. Her only prior taste of Christianity was with the brand that spins the death of an infant as God picking flowers for his beautiful heavenly garden—who wouldn’t be repelled by that?—thereafter leaving her tastebuds for Christianity permanently seared. Consequently, though Pagel’s life work of religious legend and textual scholarship makes a fascinating read, both her education and religious experience have prejudiced her to overlook the keys. She never had them.

Though it has long been a staple of preachers, the analogy of God picking flowers is nowhere found in the Bible. However, there is an analogy parallel in all respects except the moral at the end. It is found in Nathan’s tale to David, the tale of the rich man who slaughtered and prepared for his visitors the sole lamb of a poor man, sparing his own abundant flock. That man did not receive praise from David, but rather instant wrath. “As surely as Jehovah is living, the man who did this deserves to die!” the king said. (FN) Likely, Pagels picked up on the contrast between David’s wholly understandable response and the evangelical model that holds God behaves just like that cruel man. Preachers make a horrific mess trying to extract themselves from the moral corners their doctrines unfailingly paint them into—in this case, the doctrine that the soul lives on and can never die.

 

One person who, unlike Pagels, did have the keys and did throw them away, all the time imagining she was taking a step forward, even when she desperately needed a certain key, is a woman praised to high heaven by an (one can only assume) atheist professor of theology at Harvard. Something is greatly off-base about the New York Times review (FN) of Amber Scorah’s book, Leaving the Witnesses, and it is not Amber. It is the reviewer, C. E. Morgan, who goes about her task with a humanist fervor that merits a review in itself. One wonders what she could possibly teach at that Divinity School or what might be the outcome for students who attend her class—students who likely went there because they wanted to learn about God. Her lavish praise of Ms. Scorah’s book: “She teaches us how integrity is determined . . . by enduring the universe as we find it—breathtaking in its ecstasies and vicious in its losses—without recourse to a God,” surely should give those students pause—are they truly in the place they thought they were? Or did they somehow get shunted off into Atheist Academy?

Ms. Scorah herself, as presented by Ms. Morgan, is more conventional. Hers is one of the oldest stories of time—of someone disillusioned with her present life, so she reaches out for another, which upon seizing, she finds exhilarating. It is a coming-of-age story. It is a staple of literature. Since she is “leaving the Witnesses”—Jehovah’s Witnesses, one must at least consider how the Witnesses themselves might have phrased her departure, perhaps similar to the words of the apostle Paul addressed to Timothy: “Demas has forsaken me because he loved the present world.”

Ms. Morgan cannot be expected to put it as did Paul, but since she teaches at the divinity school, one might at least expect her to be cognizant of that point of view. Instead, Amber’s departure is a tale of pure heroism for her—that of escape from an “extreme” religion—even worse than a “fundamentalist” religion, in her view—and it is “most valuable as an artifact of how one individual can escape mind control.”

It would appear that any denomination of Christianity that has not interpreted away into oblivion the resurrection of Christ would be fundamentalist in Ms. Morgan’s eyes. “The anti-intellectualism of these [fundamentalist] authoritarian movements, their staunch refusal to cede ground to reason and empiricism, often confounds nonbelievers,” and it seems she counts herself as Chief of the Nonbelievers—never mind what her teaching title might suggest. “How can people devote the totality of their lives to the unseen, the unevidenced?” she laments, seemingly unaware that such is the very fabric of faith, of those who interpret “evidence” differently, and who will say, akin to Jesus addressing the Pharisees, “Do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have evidence as our father.’ For I say to you that the devil is able to raise up evidence from these monied and agenda-driven stones.” (FN Matthew 3:9) But she will not say it. “How can faith subsume thinking?” she complains instead. Her frustration could not be more clear—‘We have fired everything we have at them and yet they keep standing!’

As bad as fundamentalism is, however, it is not so bad in her eyes as an “extreme religion” like Jehovah’s Witnesses. To establish that she has done her homework, she relates that from its 1870 inception, the faith “rejected Christian doctrines it deemed extratextual [not in the Bible], including trinitarianism and hell.” You would think she would be happy about that, for it is a distinct step toward reason—Witness leader C. T. Russell was known within his lifetime as “the man who turned the hose on hell and put out the fire.” The Witness description of death, “extinction or non-being,” is exactly the rationalist view, though it will be marred in her eyes by the caveat of a future resurrection from the dead.

The notion that Christianity should return to its default state Morgan finds “dubious.” Yes, of course she would find it dubious, for it freezes religion in place. It halts evolution. It detracts from her authority at the Divinity School to proclaim a new gospel holding that dependence on God is for chumps. No, she wants religion to evolve, as does everything else in her Darwinian world. Witnesses also “actively proselytize, warning of an imminent Armageddon,” she complains, as though it is wrong to even suggest that an earth carved up into scores of eternally squabbling nations might not be exactly God’s dream come true.

In short, she has found people—ordinary people for the most part—who disagree with her, and she oozes disdain for them. Children raised in such religion “experience a totalizing indoctrination that so severely limits the formation of an adult psychology that many don’t ever achieve maturity in the way secular society conceives of it.” Necessarily, this means that she thinks adults of that faith are, for the most part, immature children. None of them will be found among her social contacts or workplace, perhaps barring a support worker or two, with whom she may occasionally exchange a brief word so long as they keep their stupid opinions to themselves.

The patronization is simply too much. Any time someone leaves one culture for another, there is some catching up to do—say, in the case of a person migrating from one country to another. Would Ms. Morgan similarly find it necessary to crow her superiority over the country and culture of emigration, say, where Hinduism is practiced, perhaps, or Spanish is spoken? She would recoil at the thought, but when it comes to religious views that stray from her worldview, it is as natural to her as breathing air. Let her “world” prove itself reasonably “free from sin” before she casts stones on those who have come to see things differently.

Amber ran out on a “loveless marriage,” Ms. Morgan states, and her implication is clear that Jehovah’s Witnesses think loveless marriages are the bee’s knees, since she presents love as the balm that finally wakes Ms. Scorah up. I will take her word for it that Scorah’s book is as she says it to be—an “earnest one, fueled by a plucky humor and a can-do spirit that endears.” And yet it does not completely satisfy the reviewer—it shows too much the “the remnants of a Christian modesty not well suited to the task of memoir.” One can all but hear her plead, ‘Modesty? What’s that?! Come on, SPILL!’ as she redefines “miracle” into “enduring the universe as we find it — breathtaking in its ecstasies and vicious in its losses — without recourse to a God.” Look, if I were a student in her divinity class, about this time I’d be asking for my money back, assuming I wasn’t too brainwashed just then to think of it. I mean, I get it that she’s not going to use her tenure to save souls, but you still wouldn’t think God would be public enemy #1 at the Divinity School.

But, her review has not yet come to the most gripping part. When it does, Morgan foresees another book. “Many readers know Scorah through her viral article in The New York Times about the death of her son on his first day of day care,” she writes. “This, one senses, is her brutal but beautiful route into a new book—a shorter, wiser one, sharp and devastating. Here she reveals a chastened existence, steeped in grief and unknowing without recourse to pacifying religious answers.” It is unbelievable! It is “wiser” to tell God to take a hike! If a religious answer comforts, throw it away! It is as though sawing off the tree limb upon which one has long perched and, as it comes crashing down to earth, whooping for joy at the liberation, like the Dr. Strangelove cowboy straddling the falling nuke!

Scorah must have anguished with the notion that her child might not have died but for the abandonment of her faith—she must have. Pagels thought it—what might she have done differently that might have averted tragedy? Job thought it, especially as his three visitors pulled out all the stops to convince him that he had caused his own downfall. Scorah, too, must have for a time grappled with the notion of ‘retributive justice,’ same as Job. There is no reason to think it is so, but she is human. She must have grappled with it.

She had the key, as Pagels did not. Swayed by the revisionists, she discarded it. She exchanged a backdrop of: “We do not want you to be ignorant about those who are sleeping in death, so that you may not sorrow as the rest do who have no hope” (FN 1 Thessalonians 4:13) for one that urges, “Stay Ignorant. Stuff happens. Get used to it.” Ms. Morgan reckons that exchange an unmitigated triumph of the human spirit! Anyone of sense would reckon it as does Paul, a “shipwreck of faith.” Keep smashing your head into the wall of critical education until you feel better. It is impossible for the biblically-literate not to think of the verse regarding those who, ‘although claiming they were wise, became foolish.’ (FN Rom 1:22)

From the upcoming: [working title]: The Book of Job: a Workman's Theodicy

[BTK59]

What I'm reading is that you have discovered a way to anticipate the devil. Why has no one else, but you made such progress?

If only Eve had paused to foresee the deceit of the devil, humanity would be flawless, and cynicism would be unnecessary. Without recognizing the value of progress, one's perception of society might hinder the next generation from embracing change and embracing the idea that the Bible is not an outdated concept.

[Srecko Sostar]

Despite all the apparent delusions that JWs believe, they are still convinced that they alone "possess the Truth". They have deluded themselves with the idea that the abandonment of their own erroneous doctrines, through all the past decades since they have existed, is evidence of a "light that shines brighter and brighter." And that this is how YHVH "purifies" the WTJWorg Organization.

Yes, it is truly unprecedented how it suddenly became important to God JHVH that JWs sisters are allowed to wear trousers and JWs brothers are allowed to wear beards without jackets and ties. A ridiculous and absurd "The New Core Truth". 

[Srecko Sostar]

For several months in Zagreb, as well as in other parts of Croatia, men (Catholic believers) have been gathering to pray publicly on the main square of Zagreb on the first Saturday of the month. They were called "kneelers" because they kneel when they pray.
Since this causes reactions from other people who criticize them and protest, the idea emerged that the "resistance" against the "kneelers" is actually "the persecution of Catholic believers (men) who pray publicly" and compare it to the persecution of Jews during the Nazi era.

Of course, such a conclusion is completely wrong and absurd. But it shows how "criticism" from other people can be misinterpreted according to one's beliefs. JWs tend to declare any criticism within their own ranks as "apostasy", and to declare criticism coming from outside the WTJWorg as "persecution".
That is the fruit of your ideology that you call "The Truth".

 

https://medfeminiswiya.net/2023/09/25/croatia-men-kneeling-in-main-squares-for-womens-chastity/?lang=en

[BTK59]

2 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Despite all the apparent delusions that JWs believe, they are still convinced that they alone "possess the Truth".

What term would you use to describe it when other Christian religious sects deviate from the teachings of Christ?

2 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Yes, it is truly unprecedented how it suddenly became important to God JHVH that JWs sisters are allowed to wear trousers and JWs brothers are allowed to wear beards without jackets and ties. A ridiculous and absurd "The New Core Truth". 

What is the main point that you are trying to convey now, that you were unable to express months ago?

2 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Of course, such a conclusion is completely wrong and absurd. But it shows how "criticism" from other people can be misinterpreted according to one's beliefs. JWs tend to declare any criticism within their own ranks as "apostasy", and to declare criticism coming from outside the WTJWorg as "persecution".

Can Satan manipulate anyone to see his false presentations by exploiting humanity as the weaker vessel?

The other day, I watched a video from Iraq that showed Christians worshipping Christ as God, and I found it quite amusing. They attempted to equate the "Lord" in Psalm 118 with Lord Jesus in the New Testament, despite being closer to understanding the Hebrew and Aramaic languages.

I recently watched a video where a Christian interpreted the phrase "It is Finished," or "tetelestai" in Greek, used by Jesus on his torture stake to mean that all "sin" has been wiped clean and there is no further need to repent for it, especially for those with language impairments. However, with a straight face, the person failed to acknowledge the imperfections of Christianity and the continued relevance of sin in this context.

Returning to your initial question regarding how JWs are perceived, who are portrayed as the false prophets in both examples?

[Srecko Sostar]

On 8/24/2024 at 7:08 PM, BTK59 said:

What term would you use to describe it when other Christian religious sects deviate from the teachings of Christ?

You clearly stated in your question that you consider "other Christian religions" as sects that are a deviation from the teachings of Jesus. Apply the same cut, measure for your religion and you will get the same result. GB is part of the same pattern of deviations from Jesus' teachings. Since JWs unquestioningly follow GB instructions, they put themselves in the position that they, collectively, are a "deviation" too.

The "good works" (honesty, peacefulness, etc.) that are part of JWs worship cannot amnesty them from the reality that shows how they "obey man (GB) more than God".

On 8/24/2024 at 7:08 PM, BTK59 said:

What is the main point that you are trying to convey now, that you were unable to express months ago?

You mean, you were unable to understand, now and in the past?  

On 8/24/2024 at 7:08 PM, BTK59 said:

Returning to your initial question regarding how JWs are perceived, who are portrayed as the false prophets in both examples?

GB and their "Spiritual Food" belongs to that category, with no doubt.  Religious leaders can teach their flock to be good citizens, not to lie and not to steal, at the same time teaching them to believe in the interpretations that are the fruit of their (GB) accidental or intentional dreams and desires. Should we keep quiet about their responsibility?

[BTK59]

9 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

You clearly stated in your question that you consider "other Christian religions" as sects that are a deviation from the teachings of Jesus. Apply the same cut, measure for your religion and you will get the same result. GB is part of the same pattern of deviations from Jesus' teachings. Since JWs unquestioningly follow GB instructions, they put themselves in the position that they, collectively, are a "deviation" too.

Why do they align themselves with the Pharisee mentality instead of embracing the true essence of Christ's teachings in Christianity?

The present-day governing body is following the same path as those who criticized it during Jesus' time. Back then, they were allied with the Pharisees and played a role in the unjust killing of Christ – a righteous man whom they saw as a threat to their authority. Similarly, apostates today bear a striking resemblance to the modern-day Watchtower Governing Body, but their arguments lack coherence. This is because the Catholic Holy See serves as the governing body for the Catholic faith, yet ex-witnesses mention no criticism regarding its structure.

10 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

The "good works" (honesty, peacefulness, etc.) that are part of JWs worship cannot amnesty them from the reality that shows how they "obey man (GB) more than God".

It's interesting that you mentioned this. There are Christians who are currently arguing that "repentance" is no longer necessary. They believe that Jesus' sacrifice has taken care of "all" the sin associated with mankind's beginning, and they are spreading this message through social media videos.

The apostles did not receive amnesty for their sins, nor did Christ offer it to anyone. His sacrifice served as a solution to the problem of original sin, which is death. While people still experience death, humanity will eventually have the opportunity to exchange that chip for eternal life. However, God's mercy will only be granted to those who are deserving, whether they are righteous or unrighteous. Society has just begun to recognize this truth, even though many of us foresaw this process back in the 60s.

It's "good work" when all the members are on the same page. When new discoveries are made about the ancient world and its writings, new linguistic understanding plays a vital role in the study of antiquity.

10 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

You mean, you were unable to understand, now and in the past?

That is the appropriate task at hand if you have not yet developed many arguments in previous years.

10 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

GB and their "Spiritual Food" belongs to that category, with no doubt.  Religious leaders can teach their flock to be good citizens, not to lie and not to steal, at the same time teaching them to believe in the interpretations that are the fruit of their (GB) accidental or intentional dreams and desires. Should we keep quiet about their responsibility?

Have you ever witnessed the Watchtower GB engaging in deceit, dishonesty, or theft for the sake of the organization, as many mega pastors and religious leaders insinuate, in order to maintain a favorable relationship with "evil" governments? The Nazis manipulated the Catholic Church to retain relevance in Rome.

My perspective on the matter differs from what was mentioned. Be it Germany, Russia, or even those antagonistic individuals in Norway. However, it is worth remembering that Jesus himself spoke about the inevitability of persecution. Thus, the actions of human beings hold no significance in the eyes of a devoted follower of Christ.

[xero]

@TrueTomHarleyWell worth reading your post, Tom.

[xero]

What's odd to me is what value comes to a human gad-fly who flits about pestering Jehovah's Witnesses. If they don't want to be JW's they don't have to be, but why bother JW's? It seems to me there would be more value in bothering islamic jihadists and their supporters.

[BTK59]

Just like Jesus had his Judas, the Watchtower also has its own betrayer, often concealed in deceit. Why target the beliefs of other religions when the devil's true aim is to undermine God's genuine Organization? The treachery is most effective when orchestrated by those in power who are not sincere. Although they claim to be Jehovah's Witnesses and associate themselves with the worldwide community, deep down they secretly harbor disdain for their fellow brethren, concealing their true feelings under a cloak of anonymity. 

[TrueTomHarley]

19 hours ago, xero said:

What's odd to me is what value comes to a human gad-fly who flits about pestering Jehovah's Witnesses. If they don't want to be JW's they don't have to be, but why bother JW's? It seems to me there would be more value in bothering islamic jihadists and their supporters.

Whenever human explanations make no sense, people can be forgiven for looking at superhuman explanations. I am convinced that being ‘no part of the world’ is more than someone fully part of it can abide. They can’t understand it. They can’t tolerate the implied judgment. Whereas, jihadists are easily understood. They are far more reprehensible due to the damage they cause, but theirs is a tried-and-true method of ‘changing the world.’ Reprehensible, perhaps, but easily understood. Changing the world is something people can understand and relate to, even when they oppose a given action. Staying ‘no part from the world’ is something they cannot. It relates back to who is going to rule the earth. Will it be man through nations or coalition of nations? Or will it be God, with his people standing apart from the turmoil or nations?

[xero]

They strike me as interesting and useless as a cicada buzzing it's last on the floor. Poke it with the words "Watchtower!" and it will buzz a little, but other than that, it's dead.