Buffet Style Religion – cherry picking

Literalist interpretations of sacred texts are a rarity in serious discourse in the United Kingdom. Bible bashing would be a sign of no serious argument as much as resorting to ad hominem ignoring what the discussion is about.

Video above from “The West Wing” a great bible rant about the need to cherry pick for a humanist religion

President Josiah Bartlett may have been in the back of the mind as Neal Donald Walsch’s article Buffet-Style Bible Believers about reactions to Boy Scouts of America decision on allowing membership to openly gay youths. He uses different bible quotes regarding killing rebellious offspring, killing brides that have no virginity, women avoiding the groin in a fight, the stoning of adulterers and homosexuals.

So with respect, I ask you to excuse me, Pastor Reed, if I am not totally convinced that humanity’s infallible answers will be found in the Bible. You may not agree with all of the above verses, either. But if we are going to be Buffet Bible Believers, rather than a Literal Word of God Believer, than might you please tell us which verses of the Bible we are advised to ignore, and which we should apply to the letter?

Thank you, sir. That would be very helpful. We would not want to be called hypocrites for citing some verses of God’s Word when they support our personal prejudices, and ignoring others when they do not, now would we?

In my post about Islam I mentioned concern with cherry picking verses in Koran and Hadiths – not because I and others may be misrepresenting the true nature of Islam as believers live their faith – but because extreme radical Islamic political ideologues use those same verses to legitimise their wanton acts of coercion either through the state or by means of terror.

That is a different thing to respond to. Spin those verses were for a particular context that do not exist today, that they were one off commandments not applicable now, other verses make clear not right thing to act on in the way they do.

Tied down by parchment, the need for revisionism and winning with your interpretation becomes the battleground of ideas. Over a millennium later it really is a matter of life and death how Iron Age texts are read. That private belief can be enforced on the populace to deny their own pursuit to happiness while living a good life.

Whether you believe in God or not, this is a rather sorry state of affairs for humanity to still find itself in.

Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog

Follow @JPSargeant78

Apostasy Project

I hope that you will consider supporting the Apostasy Project that has recently started in the UK. The idea is providing a resource for those looking to leave their faith but needing help, advice and support to do so.

As part of that Alom Shaha (author Young Person’s Guide to Atheism) encouraged me to submit my story of leaving the Jehovah’s Witnesses as a child, and Casper Melville (Rationalist Association) edited my story from two parts to a manageable one.

Thanks to both and the Rational Association for bringing that account to a wider audience and making the Apostasy Project a reality.

You can read my apostasy story here.

If you have come here from reading my story, the blog here covers atheism, secularism and religion – and occasionally other things that provoke my interest, fury and sometimes both. Have a look round and if you like what you see do subscribe.

Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog

Follow @JPSargeant78

Audio: Hitchens on Metaphysics and my conversation about

Christopher Hitchens reading from “God is Not Great” his chapter on metaphysics.

Part One:

Part Two:

My post on the pope and original sin led to an interesting conversation between myself and Rory Fenton, whose apostate story on leaving Catholicism can be read here.

The view on original sin of Jehovah’s Witnesses (with whom I studied with as a child into adolescence) is very similar to Catholicism. Good works are not enough, Christ needed to die to redeem mankind.

Where we did differ was whether metaphysical claims should bother atheists with the olive branch by the pope. A robust but good natured debate followed, and our differences could in large part be based on how our respective religions view apostates. Providing Rory leads a good life, and does not become a satanist his actions (not belief) would be enough for salvation and Catholics would judge him on his works. On the other hand my knowing the truth and rejecting makes me an apostate in the literal biblical sense – no Jehovah’s Witness can talk to me, and demons may make use of me to make others fall away from the faith. As Rory rightly says, I’m fucked.

The apostasy project is not just about helping those with doubts about their religion have a non judgemental place to discuss their feelings to leave their faith – it also helps to explain the nature of what apostasy means for different people.

John:
Why the pope saying atheists are redeemed from original sin is actually offensive to us [blog post]

Rory:
I don’t get your argument. Seems to say “yeah he said something nice but he’s still catholic so it doesn’t count” What do you mean?

John:
1. we would be wretched things to want original sin to be true
2. The idea of a birth by a virgin without man’s seed is a “purity” I can do without
3. Baptism to get God’s grace is something I can do without, especially regarding being a moral person
4. Original sin is based on an “un-biological tortured zombie fairy story, helped by holy water taken externally.
So no not saying it was nice – it’s not- and it’s invalid not because pope is catholic but because it’s an insult to rationality.

Rory:
Yes but those are arguments against Catholicism, not that when the pope says we can be genuinely good people its a bad thing. Surely it’s extending a hand [of] friendship and humility?

John:
I quote the bit the pope says regarding original sin – not that atheists should be allowed to do good as Catholics do. The concept of original sin to us is not an extension of friendship – it means we need the divine. That we are base, immoral.

Original sin means we accept we need a perfect divine, if you will man born without seamen of a virgin to die for us to be saved. And you really want to say “that’s a nice gesture that in no way insults my morals or intelligence”? That would be my point.

Photo above from here as an example where good works not enough, accepting Christ (and doctrine of original sin) is essential for salvation.

Rory:
It is indeed a nice feature that in no real way insults my morals or intelligence. Beyond the metaphysics the pope is saying “hey, Catholics and atheists can meaningfully work together to make the world nicer”.

John:
You mean work [together] on women’s rights, contraception, homosexuality, safeguarding children, removing guilt, faith schools, blasphemy?

Rory:
Now *those* are practical beliefs where I’ll happily take to arms with you.
I don’t really see the point in getting hung up on metaphysical beliefs. What matters are practical beliefs, how we live.

John:
it is for meta-physical beliefs people think born in sin, need Jesus’ death and resurrection and will not leave their faith for hell.

Rory:
I left Catholicism myself and no one said I would go to hell, since that isn’t a catholic belief. Good people go to heaven, bad people (a very small number) to hell. Belief is not the deciding factor.

John
“only ex-Catholics who will assuredly face judgement for their apostasy are those who know their faith and grasp the truth of it” [Source] We are apostates my friend, and we are dammed. Accept my hell is non existence as a JW

Rory
Ah that means people who believed in God but CHOSE to go against him, eg a Catholic who turned satanist, not a sincere atheist (I guess it’s like the distinction between a conscientious objector and a coward, one sincere rebellion, the other flawed). But yes, as an ex JW, you’re fucked.

John:
if there is a celestial court I think we both will need damn good lawyers ….

Rory:
Ha let’s just hope whoever the god is takes bribes…

Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog

Follow @JPSargeant78

Pope woos Atheists, do not fall for it

My comrades, my fellow anti theists, atheists and contrarians, if you really think this is an olive branch to us with the pope saying:

“The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! ‘Father, the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone! And this Blood makes us children of God of the first class! We are created children in the likeness of God and the Blood of Christ has redeemed us all! And we all have a duty to do good. And this commandment for everyone to do good, I think, is a beautiful path towards peace. If we, each doing our own part, if we do good to others, if we meet there, doing good, and we go slowly, gently, little by little, we will make that culture of encounter: we need that so much. We must meet one another doing good. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good: we will meet one another there.”

“Doing good” the Pope explained, is not a matter of faith: “It is a duty, it is an identity card that our Father has given to all of us, because He has made us in His image and likeness. And He does good, always.” Vatican Radio

Then we need to talk about original sin.

Christ died for the original sin of Adam. That covers all of us, whether we believe it or not. Without that sacrifice we would all be unworthy of redemption. Nothing we could do on earth would recover us from this sin we ourselves did not commit, but was imprinted on us by what took place before the human race begat with a vengeance. Yes the pope said, atheists could do good. However the birth, life, death and resurrection of Christ is what redeems us in the end.

As the Vatican explains:

IN BRIEF

413 “God did not make death, and he does not delight in the death of the living. . . It was through the devil’s envy that death entered the world” (Wis 1:13; 2:24).

414 Satan or the devil and the other demons are fallen angels who have freely refused to serve God and his plan. Their choice against God is definitive. They try to associate man in their revolt against God.

415 “Although set by God in a state of rectitude man, enticed by the evil one, abused his freedom at the very start of history. He lifted himself up against God, and sought to attain his goal apart from him” (GS 13 § 1).

416 By his sin Adam, as the first man, lost the original holiness and justice he had received from God, not only for himself but for all human beings.

417 Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called “original sin”.

418 As a result of original sin, human nature is weakened in its powers, subject to ignorance, suffering and the domination of death, and inclined to sin (this inclination is called “concupiscence”).

419 “We therefore hold, with the Council of Trent, that original sin is transmitted with human nature, “by propagation, not by imitation” and that it is. . . ‘proper to each’” (Paul VI, CPG § 16).

420 The victory that Christ won over sin has given us greater blessings than those which sin had taken from us: “where sin increased, grace abounded all the more” (Rom 5:20).

421 Christians believe that “the world has been established and kept in being by the Creator’s love; has fallen into slavery to sin but has been set free by Christ, crucified and risen to break the power of the evil one. . .” (GS 2 § 2).

The redemption that spreads much further than loaves and fishes ever could in the economy of salvation.

389 The doctrine of original sin is, so to speak, the “reverse side” of the Good News that Jesus is the Savior of all men, that all need salvation and that salvation is offered to all through Christ. The Church, which has the mind of Christ,263 knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ.

This is no new revelation. You have this imprinted on you, transmitted by descent. It was a problem for humanity for hundreds of thousands of years till a sacrificial scapegoat became the ultimate offering of flesh and blood born without man’s seed of a virgin for double purity. We would be wretched things if we had to believe this.

404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.293 By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.294 It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” – a state and not an act.

405 Although it is proper to each individual,295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin – an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence”. Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

406 The Church’s teaching on the transmission of original sin was articulated more precisely in the fifth century, especially under the impulse of St. Augustine’s reflections against Pelagianism, and in the sixteenth century, in opposition to the Protestant Reformation. Pelagius held that man could, by the natural power of free will and without the necessary help of God’s grace, lead a morally good life; he thus reduced the influence of Adam’s fault to bad example. The first Protestant reformers, on the contrary, taught that original sin has radically perverted man and destroyed his freedom; they identified the sin inherited by each man with the tendency to evil (concupiscentia), which would be insurmountable. The Church pronounced on the meaning of the data of Revelation on original sin especially at the second Council of Orange (529)296 and at the Council of Trent (1546).297

To fully seize this you must accept baptism (my emphasis in above quote). There is a chance for you atheist. Lead a good moral life, pope says you can you know. Just before you push off this mortal coil a splash of water will give you God’s grace. The priest will wait, your whole life if necessary, to help in this final act of salvation. Your moral life would have been a lot easier with a little of the religious cool aid.

I hope if in my last moments of time I do not succumb to invitations to seek the spiritual side, coaxed perhaps by well wishers concerned for all the blog posts I have written. Christopher Hitchens reminded us:

Beware the irrational, however seductive. Shun the ‘transcendent’ and all who invite you to subordinate or annihilate yourself. Distrust compassion; prefer dignity for yourself and others. Don’t be afraid to be thought arrogant or selfish. Picture all experts as if they were mammals. Never be a spectator of unfairness or stupidity. Seek out argument and disputation for their own sake; the grave will supply plenty of time for silence. Suspect your own motives, and all excuses. Do not live for others any more than you would expect others to live for you.

The rational response to the pope is thanks but no thanks. I do not want to be considered worthy and redeemed only by an un-biological tortured zombie fairy story, helped by holy water taken externally.

Follow Up Post: Audio of Hitchens on metaphysics and a conversation on pope’s offer

Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog

Follow @JPSargeant78

Rebecca is an atheist … Even during Oklahoma disaster

Often people make reference to faith at times of natural disaster, see Hemant for that. There is a predisposition also that faith gets people through a tragedy, especially when we use the same language.

I do not how else Matt Frei, who long term readers know is one of my favourite Brit journalists based in the USA, quotes and uses Rebecca mentioned in my previous blog for his article “Big weather fuels big faith in Oklahoma“

“We are so blessed”, Rebecca told me as she was clutching her two-year-old son Anders. He was shoeless and dressed in a girl’s outfit.

It happened to be in the back of her car when she decided to quit the bathtub she had chosen for shelter, get in her car and make a run for it. When she returned to her house after the storm only a concrete slab was left.

A stranger’s car she had never seen before was on top of what used to be her bed and the bath tub was crushed and filled with debris. “We would have died, for sure”, she said with a smile on her face, ” had we stayed.”

As mentioned earlier on this blog Rebecca is an atheist as reported unexpectedly on CNN when Wolf Blitzer expected she would want to give thanks to The Lord for her family’s survival. She handled herself honestly and with dignity.

Have told Matt via twitter of the error. Maybe next time you are here in the UK Matt you can buy me lunch.

Atheists Giving Aid – Oklahoma Tornado Relief

UPDATE: 24/5/13 Channel 4 deleted my comment correcting. Please use the link to ask them to correct article.

UPDATE 26/5/13 Matt Frei says that the article does not state she is an atheist or religious in a tweet to me. He does not concede given the article title that it is using her story for saying faith is big in the Bible Belt. That is misleading to readers, and does not acknowledge atheists go through this too, and in Rebecca’s case with great aplomb.

There is an effort to raise funds directly for Rebecca which you can donate to here.

Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog

Follow @JPSargeant78

Video: David Bowie – The Next Day

Gary Oldman and Marion Cotillard in a pop video by David Bowie, which makes sacrilegious use of imagery in a way former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey calls “Juvenile”.

Is that not enough of a recommendation to watch the video?

Enjoy, but if you are under 18 do not watch. Because, just like religion, it may disturb you.

The Catholic Defence League did not live up to it’s name, going instead for an ad hominem attack on David’s sexuality and age. Rather than a deconstruction of the video imagery used. Naturally the more you say how terrible something on the Internet is, the more people will watch.

Yet they also ignore that by wanting salvation they are actually part of that baying crowd wanting Jesus crucified to save them. A perfect man without sin to die for a particular disease of original sin. So we can keep on sinning but have a chance at redemption.

Christians cannot get enough of that doomsday song. The irony Bowie is pointing out is lost on them, as they try to drown out the message by their condemnation. Still, we can remind them.

Hopefully youtube will not pull down again, having mistakingly done so earlier.

Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog

Follow @JPSargeant78

Boston Bombers, Social Media, and Jihadism

With 24 hour news speculation fills air time before confirmed reports come in. Social media is worse, however the sheer scope means following the right people you may get corrections/clarifications before mainstream media do so – and be ahead of the curve in reports flooding in. It is also a chance for people to politicise and make the most absurd renderings out of the carnage.

We had the rants that all Muslims should be killed aka Erik Rush later claiming he was being sarcastic. We know better given he thinks the constitution is allowing Islam to conquer the United States, and immigration reform being put off as people suggest Muslims should be stopped from entering at the border. The typical hard right wing reaction missing these brothers had become citizens. Worse, Russia had expressed concern about one of the brother’s connection to Chechnya Jihadists. The FBI made no links to terrorist groups though his Russian youtube playlists and links had plenty to be concerned about.

Then there was concern on social media that the younger brother was not read his Miranda rights. Despite the public safety exemption being legal, and not unconstitutional. That the police are now hunting a 12 strong sleeper cell suggests that critical time sensitive information needed to be retrieved. [Daily Mirror]

Still one would hope freethinkers would not fall into the hyperbole that appears on social media, recognising that these young men born in Chechnya, living in the USA last ten years. We need the time to piece together how this happened. For me Richard Dawkins spoke well when he said we need to study what made Dzhokhar prepared to carry out such attacks so we can prevent others doing – the death penalty would be self defeating to the public future safety of finding this out from him.

Unfortunately today my twitter timeline revealed we are not immune from crass generalisations:

Whilst the article itself has quotes clarifying not all Muslims are supporters of terrorists (but “most terrorists are Muslim”) the tweet itself falls short of not inflaming tensions that mainstream media are trying to avoid. Comments are taking that tweet and articles quoted to task:

Indeed we can remember the IRA and who was funding them to remember that terrorism is not just Islamic. My school by an army stables practised bomb and fire drills – the difference being we ran further and had to take bags with us (this confused teachers as fire national guidelines said kids should leave their bags; military said this would slow down a bomb search). Being in a town centre when a bomb alarm goes off not knowing which direction is safe to go in is not the family outing you want, and my heart bled when it happened in Manchester 1996. Thatcher being laid to rest this week was a reminder that the IRA nearly did that with the Brighton hotel bomb nearly 30 years ago. Nail bombs on train station platforms. Are memories so short?

Clearly whether the brothers were indoctrinated and groomed by Jihadists or of own accord support Caucasian Chechnyan terror groups which led to committing a domestic act of terror, time will reveal. Till then take the speculation with a healthy degree of skepticism as the hard data comes in and is evaluated.

The Boston bombing is being used as a sounding drum for some people’s pet hates. Let us march to a different beat. Foremost Boston you are in our thoughts as we remembered you at the start of the London Marathon here in the UK.

Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog

Follow @JPSargeant78

State Religion or Liberty of Citizens?

There is a move afoot in North Carolina to opt out of the federal constitution on matters of religion – and generally for states to bypass anything The President of the United States was re-elected on, that they do not like. Here is why it matters:

The North Carolina state constitution disqualifies those who do not believe in God from public office. The provision has been unenforcible since the 1961 Supreme Court decision in Torcaso v. Watkins, which prohibited such bans. [Source]

Whilst there is a rational argument to be had on Statehood V Federal, the latest manoeuvres by Republicans is tit for tat over starting meetings with a Christian prayer at Rowan County. A political civil war is happening – we are going beyond polarised politics to slash and burn raids on principles that were once considered the greatness of the American Nation for others to aspire too.

With an official religion would public office depend on which God, which doctrines, view of the holy sacrament, and your “view” on the age of the earth? Or shall we cling to the democratic principle that what matters is who the people elect, in a transparent manner, and held accountable for their conduct while in office. Rather than a personal belief regarding the cosmos and other dimensions before they even have their name on the ballot?

Oh land of sweet liberty allow citizens of a free republic to think matters of conscience for themselves without the tyranny of the state dictating the rights and wrongs. This does not require concealed weapons to fight off in North Carolina.

A piece of parchment, called the constitution, is enough and as good for the political spectrum.

As ever, Mr Jefferson: build up that wall. A free people require nothing less.

UPDATE 4/4/2013: state religion in North Carolina dead in the water

Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog

Follow @JPSargeant78

Carey On Gays

Lord Carey has criticised aggressive secularism as threatening the benefits of marriage in society by pursuing gay marriage to the point of persecuting Christians who are against such people and peccadillos taking place in everyday life whether staying at a Bed and Breakfast or professing their love in a legally binding way. In the Daily Mail article, he has chosen the weekend of the redemption and salvation of humanity to suggest that we are in danger of societal breakdown as a transmutation of heterosexual marriage occurs if gay people can say “I do”.

Lord Carey was Archbishop of the Church of England from 1991 – the same year that marital rape became illegal in England – to 2002. In that most sacred of unions a husband did not need full consent of his wife to have sex with her – it was a right before 1991 to rape her. I doubt that Carey argued at the time this would change the nature of marriage to it’s detriment. However, consenting homosexuals marrying now apparently will:

As David Cameron knows, I am very suspicious that behind the plans to change the nature of marriage, which come before the House of Lords soon, there lurks an aggressive secularist and relativist approach towards an institution that has glued society together for time immemorial.

By dividing marriage into religious and civil the Government threatens the church and state link which they purport to support. But they also threaten to empty marriage of its fundamental religious and civic meaning as an institution orientated towards the upbringing of children.

How the glue will come unstuck if gay people marry is unclear – it is true that their union may not produce genetically their own children – though as “Milk” says God knows they try. However, this misses another crucial reason people marry: recognition both civically and legally of the relationship between two people. The rights such as to see your loved one in hospital, inherit an estate, if the relationship breaks down legal address. In this sense the recognition of gay long term relationships is about understanding human nature and equality of citizens in legal situations. That supersedes the right of anyone to discriminate on basis of sexuality or moral authority on what nature should be.

Carey wants registers to be able to refuse to marry same sex couples. This misses crucial part of current legislation that allows religious protection (say on serving alcohol) if not part of job description without being sacked or disciplined – I am using that as a real life example in an entertainment leisure setting. If the state redefines marriage than it has changed the legal definition rather than the job description. This is not about creating a new institution – it is about espousing the institution of marriage as the union of two people.

Churches do not have to perform same sex marriages, but civil authorities will and there is no opt out for their register employees. Just as there is not if an interfaith or interracial marriage they may disagree with for religious reasons. Some are trying to argue that line of argument is wrong because gay marriage is a new institution; rather as I argue extending legal rights to same sex couples that different sex couples already have, but within an existing institution. Civic officials have no right to refuse citizens what they are legally entitled to. If that is aggressive thinking, perhaps you are being too defensive in being against rights.

The only way to argue gay marriage is so different is to suggest there is something perverse about same sex couples wanting legal means of recognition for their relationship in the way different sex couples can. In the telegraph link above the blogger recognises as I do this is the main point to stress in the debate rather than a direct comparison to interracial marriage struggle in the USA. If you call homosexuality wrong, unnatural, a sin against God, then you have revealed your fascination with this sin makes you want to stop others who rather enjoy it being happy. The pursuit of happiness is a natural right that trumps others’ bigotry preventing.

Perhaps some may want an accommodation made: registers can refuse same sex weddings, not call gay unions marriage but civil partnerships, not give same entitlements (eg pensions and welfare benefits) to gay couples. The crucial point in staying the course is that two people that love one another and want their relationship recognised with legal protections and rights they would otherwise not have, and publicly declare the status of their relationship, should be allowed. With or without giving birth to children.

That Lord Carey did not even try to address that point, or suggest how Christians should feel about the love that dare not speak it’s name, is one reason why he does not just lack the authority of office. Stressing the idea of fertility at this time suggests a more pagan idea to human rights at Easter.

Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog

Follow @JPSargeant78

Life after Jehovah’s Witnesses

Leaving the Jehovah’s Witnesses is more than just losing your religion. When you are prepared to die for something, mentally geared up for the end of the world, it is more than culture shock. The ground giving way beneath your feet as you fall down a rabbit hole is more apt. This blog is summing up that experience with links to further blogs that cover that aspect.

Why people leave the Jehovah’s Witnesses will differ (you can read my experience here) yet there will be similarities in the readjustment to life outside of the Watchtower and Bible Tract Society – hereafter called Society.

The first, and most telling, is you are cut off from the people you would have socialised with 2-4 times a week at various meetings. The conversations and socialising outside the Kingdom Hall and study groups are very different. Plus having been warned “bad associations spoil useful habits” it takes time not to have an inner feeling that you will be led astray if not ever watchful.

That leads on to the habitual energy that comes from being a Jehovah’s Witness. To defend teaching against any line of argument and to think what the Society said on matters is second nature. Always on the lookout for the evil one. This mindset takes time to cast off.

So what to believe now? I remember reading a book that had all the photocopies of old Society publications that proved past prophecies were not only wrong but down right ludicrous. Yet after such excellent source material it tried to convince that the Trinity was true. Attempting deprograming in preparation for another belief system is not what you are after. Ideally you want support to come to terms with your past and how you feel now.

The advice I can give there is within the Society we were taught only everything published by them was true. Their false prophecies made me more skeptical of the printed word. I thus advocate a healthy skepticism of what something really proves, ask how do they know, and what would prove them wrong. This is not a negative outlook, but looking at the validity of claims and counter claims.

Leaving can mean being bereft of company, family members, even perhaps the presence of Jehovah in your life. This is what can haunt long after you have come to terms with the world and what you now believe or do not believe. Talking to those that have gone through the same experience may help. The Internet and social media is a tool, which may give the confidence to actually get back into real life like never before. There is no substitute for a family that accept you, but we have to move on with our lives. We need to recognise that as social beings best not done alone.

Being a Jehovah’s Witness is a full time job in terms of study, let alone how you think and what you do. You cannot just push that to one side. Take your time, and use those study skills to find out about life, the universe and everything.

Above all have fun. Cook yourself a lovely meal, buy that dress, rest on the couch and do nothing without feeling guilty. Whatever helps you get back in touch with yourself, community activism, water painting, or writing a blog, pursue and see where it takes you.

A purpose driven life, that does not involve the end of the world, awaits you. You have the right to find it. All the best on your onward journey.

Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog

Follow @JPSargeant78