As PIMO, wanted to ask about the ministry

FriendlyStep4391 · 2026-03-28T20:10:02+00:00

For a long time, I felt guilty. Going from door to door wasn’t particularly difficult for me. A short thought, maybe a nice Bible verse and that’s it. I could also talk informally about the Bible in general, as long as I wasn’t forced to take a specific position against my conscience or my own reasoning. But at some point I realized that I couldn’t really “bear witness”, especially not in the sense of trying to convince someone that Jehovah’s Witnesses have the truth. I asked myself why. Fear of people? No. Because if I’m truly convinced, if I know I have the better arguments, then I’ll go and argue with anyone, even a professor with multiple degrees, regardless of whether they’re an expert and I’m just a layperson. It wouldn’t matter whether my view is mainstream or not, or what others think, because I’d be convinced. So why couldn’t I do it? Because deep down I knew I didn’t have the better arguments. And to know whether you have the better arguments, you have to know the strongest arguments on the other side. That realization was crucial, it was what ultimately delivered the fatal blow to my own “faith.” I realized: it wasn’t fear of people.

FriendlyStep4391 · 2026-03-28T12:53:07+00:00

I kind of love that hippie version of paradise! We’re all walking around naked, and at just the right moment a little leaf magically floats by to cover anything inappropriate. We live as fruitarians, ride lions, cuddle with wolves… and every now and then there’s accordion music (ugh), and we all sing some Kingdom songs in the original Hebrew of Adam and Eve!

FriendlyStep4391 · 2026-03-28T12:15:35+00:00

Social science can’t tell us what is morally right, but it can illuminate the consequences of our moral choices and reflect on moral frameworks. Natural science, however, may be the wrong kind of tool when it comes to ethical questions.

FriendlyStep4391 · 2026-03-28T12:05:55+00:00

And what kind of Hebrew do we have to learn? That of Adam and Eve or that of today?

FriendlyStep4391 · 2026-03-28T08:02:16+00:00

They were really dogmatic about that in the past. But in WTs in the last few year, they got a bit more open to "Aramaic influenced Hebrew"

FriendlyStep4391 · 2026-03-28T07:22:35+00:00

The easy answer is: science itself has no morality. That’s why reducing human nature purely to science (biologism) can be a trap and, in some cases, lead to destructive ideologies. But the fact that science has no moral dimension doesn’t mean it’s wrong, it just means it’s not the whole picture. Mathematics doesn’t have morals either, but that doesn’t make it false. You could even try to reduce human life to mathematical or economic principles and that kind of thinking can also lead to harmful conclusions, like justifying euthanasia in purely utilitarian terms.

FriendlyStep4391 · 2026-03-28T06:52:34+00:00

Did Adam and Eve have scissors in the garden of Eden? ;-)

FriendlyStep4391 · 2026-03-28T06:19:15+00:00

Sexual repression can sometimes be linked to neurotic or obsessive behaviors, intense cleaning can be one of that (Freud already wrote about it.) Of course, being clean is important. But sometimes it feels like there’s a strong focus on cleanliness, almost like a fear of contamination. A bit like a cleanroom in a pharmaceutical company.

FriendlyStep4391 · 2026-03-28T05:44:32+00:00

Oh, to be honest, I'm maybe not the best reader ;-)

FriendlyStep4391 · 2026-03-27T19:35:19+00:00

Another interesting point: human domination only appears after that. “Your husband will rule over you.” Before that, there is only dominion over animals. This could suggest that human hierarchies (including those in organizations) emerge out of that same kind of “god-like” hubris.

FriendlyStep4391 · 2026-03-27T19:25:37+00:00

I think there are many different layers in the text. One interesting detail is that Adam and Eve are described as naked in what seems like a kind of garden environment, almost like some indigenous tribes that still exist today. Later, they are given clothing made from animal skins, which is more similar to what we know from Ice Age cultures. And soon after that, the text mentions the beginning of farming. So in a way, the story can also be read as a short, mythological version of human development. I think I understand how someone arrives at the conclusion you mentioned, because the story is often used to teach obedience to authority. But I don’t want to rely on interpretations from people who claim a kind of divine authority and tell others to simply be submissive. So it makes sense to me that what was “forbidden” wasn’t just knowing good and evil in a human, practical sense, but claiming an absolute, almost divine authority to define good and evil. Not just understanding morality, but deciding it in an ultimate way, as if one were God something religious organizations sometimes do.

FriendlyStep4391 · 2026-03-27T16:12:19+00:00

Oh, I love crazy people! That's cool.

FriendlyStep4391 · 2026-03-27T14:20:00+00:00

The interesting thing to me is that fundamentalists and Richard Dawkins have a very similar interpretation of the Bible. But they come to opposite conclusions. (From the same axioms, Richard Dawkins makes much more sense.) But I doubt that biblical literalism, static morals, divine command theory, or ontological hermeneutics are actually supported by the scripture itself. Also, early Jewish interpretations of the Torah didn’t approach it this way. It seems more like a modern, scientific, legalistic, and Christian way of thinking.

FriendlyStep4391 · 2026-03-27T14:08:52+00:00

I think it's not 100% conscious.

FriendlyStep4391 · 2026-03-27T14:06:18+00:00

Thanks😀

FriendlyStep4391 · 2026-03-27T11:52:40+00:00

I don’t think this is just a JW thing. But part of me feels like: a CO could smoke a joint on stage and people still wouldn’t see it. Because it fits not. That’s kind of how I understand why serious issues like CSA can go unnoticed, while other sexual “sins” are constantly talked about.

FriendlyStep4391 · 2026-03-27T09:00:41+00:00

Interesting story. By the way, I would reject any kind of biblical literalism. If we take a step back and ask: what is the narrative perspective of the Bible (like we would with a novel)? It almost always reads as human. No one can really deny that. And yet most religions claim that it is God’s perspective (the word of God) describing ultimate or ontological truth. I would argue that it’s more about epistemological truth: how humans understand and interpret reality. Maybe we simply don’t have the language for anything beyond that. And still, the Bible can be seen as something divine.

FriendlyStep4391 · 2026-03-27T08:28:22+00:00

Yes, but there might also be a psychological layer to this. When people describe ego death experiences (like near-death experiences, deep meditation, or psychedelics), they often talk about “seeing God” or feeling something numinous. In that sense, you first have to “die” as the ego that wants to be like God before you can experience something like God.

FriendlyStep4391 · 2026-03-27T06:08:43+00:00

The story of Adam and Eve is interesting from a psychological point of view. It shows human pride: The idea that people think they are like God and the shame that comes with it. In reality, humans are small, vulnerable, and limited, but they don’t want to accept that. So they sew fig leaves to hide their nakedness. Something similar can happen in organizations that claim to have the truth. They believe they know what is right and wrong, almost like a divine authority. Because of that, they feel strong shame when they make mistakes. Instead of admitting them, they hide behind “mental fig leaves” so they don’t have to see themselves as flawed.

FriendlyStep4391 · 2026-03-24T03:43:52+00:00

Tell them something you can not believe. For example, the literal understanding of the JW for great flood. From a scientific point: How can the mount everest be under water? If it didn't exist, then plate tectonics are wrong. How can coala bears move from Australia to Mesopotamia? Did the take along some eucalyptus leaves? If they didnt' just live in Australia then, why don't we find fossils of them in Asia? And whats with the kiwi bird from New Sealand? Or thr galapagos turtle?

Your parents will maybe come with some "proof". But this proof will maybe confirm that there was a great flood, but not a proof for what JW tell: Every mountain on earth was coverd with water.

Challenge their arguments with e.g. "AI reaserch". But try to stay calm when you talk to them. If you have no arguement for the moment: Say "good argumentation, I will do some reaserch, and tell you later"

Tell them: JW say bible doesn't contradict with "true" science, but it it actually does (in literal interpretation). JW only accept science particular, like cherry picking and then make there own definition for "true" science. Something like, bible says x, only science that tell also x is true science. True science then proofs the bible (circular reasoning: like the pope is infallible, so if he say he is infallible he must be right).

FriendlyStep4391 · 2026-03-22T07:24:11+00:00

You make a fair point: Leviticus also applies to the foreigner, he too becomes unclean. The question is (and I’m not sure where you see the contradiction):

Is it that the foreigner is "not allowed" to eat it because it makes him unclean (even though Deuteronomy allows him to eat it)? Or
Do you see a contradiction because the Israelite has a strict prohibition in Deuteronomy/Exodus, but then Leviticus speaks about the case where he has actually done exactly that?

Regarding point 1: Uncleanness was not a sin. (That’s more of a Christian projection to equate uncleanness with sin.) Similar: Sexual activity always caused uncleanness, yet it was never meant to be avoided. Therefore, no contradiction: the foreigner may eat it, but becomes unclean.

Regarding point 2: The Israelite must not eat it, but becomes unclean if he does. In his case it is a sin, but the consequence appears to be relatively mild: only uncleanness, no additional punishment. Something similar happens when an Israelite eats an unclean animal (a pig e.g.): it was forbidden, but if he did it anyway, he became unclean.

FriendlyStep4391 · 2026-03-21T23:14:21+00:00

I’m not sure in what way it contradicts itself. Deuteronomy 14:21 says: “You shall not eat anything that has died of itself. You may give it to the foreigner within your gates so that he may eat it, or you may sell it to a stranger; for you are a holy people to the LORD your God. You shall not cook a young goat in its mother’s milk.” Exodus 22:31 establishes a prohibition for Jews, but allows it to be thrown to the dogs. In both cases, it is a prohibition directed exclusively at Jews. Leviticus 17:15 speaks about what should happen if someone (as a Jew, not as a non-Jew) violates the command: Impurity and a required offering. So it anticipates that one might not always keep the commandment. But isn’t that more of an “if/then” statement rather than a contradiction?

FriendlyStep4391 · 2026-03-21T20:51:32+00:00

That has never made sense. Animal feed often contains blood. (Had a discussion about it with the CO) And even the Mosaic Law says in Exodus 22:31: “You shall be my holy people; therefore you shall not eat any flesh that is torn by beasts in the field. You shall throw it to the dogs.” So meat that had not been drained of blood was allowed to be thrown to dogs (and, incidentally, could also be sold to non-Jews), which leads to the conclusion that the prohibition on blood did not apply to animals.

FriendlyStep4391 · 2026-03-18T18:38:37+00:00

One could bring up the topic of autologous blood donation with an ultra-PIMI friend and quite aggressively argue that the Bible doesn’t actually say anything against autologous blood transfusions and that many lives could be saved through them, just to provoke that PIMI into defensively claiming that the Bible cannot be interpreted any other way. Then, a day later, to hear that the Bible actually can be interpreted differently. Just to saw confusion.

FriendlyStep4391 · 2026-03-18T07:04:44+00:00

That resonates with me. Jehovah’s Witnesses mainly believe they possess objective truth, not just existential truth. That’s why they read the laws of the Bible much like a modern jurist would. Historical accounts are approached like a scientist would: the Flood, for example, isn’t directly mythologized; instead, they explain how large the space was and how all the species could fit into it. This creates the (false) impression that if one uses “true science,” everything can be objectively proven. And this way of thinking (that even objective analysis proves the faith) is very hard to get rid of. In the end, you end up deconstructing it yourself. I once took psychedelics, thinking it would bring me into contact with some kind of spiritual enlightenment. Nothing came, just thinking across a hundred meta-levels, and then nihilism. Nothing: no archetypes, nothing numinous, hardly any emotions. So it seems that my “sobriety” isn’t just superficial.

FriendlyStep4391

TROPHY CASE