Hello You Know,
Thank you for your interesting comments.
I said :
Do you concur with the WTS present definition of an apostate as being someone who’s views, even privately harbored, are divergent from the body of teachings of Jehovah’s Witnesses at any given moment in time.
I intersperse your comments with my own, if you feel that I have misunderstood your point please let me know.
You say:
In matters of law there is what is known as the principle of intent. God's spirit inspired word is said to have the power to "discern thoughts and intentions of the heart."
Yes, this is called motivation.
Unfortunately men are not always able to discern the intentions of the heart.
This surely You Know, is the point at issue with many who turn their backs on WTS thinking. Many do not indulge in behavior which can be viewed as unchristian behavior, some would actually testify that they now have a stronger, more honest faith in God and Christ outside of the WTS theology, yet they would be classed by the WTS as apostates ‘who do not like preaching the Good News’ and were impatient in waiting for Jah to ‘adjust’ his people, Armageddon fodder to feed the crows This is patently utter nonsense.
However, human judges can judge motive based upon an outward manifestation and pattern of behavior.
According to Matthew 25 when Christ manifests himself and judges the sheep and goats, then the judgment of theological motivation takes place. What man has previously judged Christ will judge again. He made this very clear in his statements cautioning judges, that he would judge the motivation of their judgments. How any person could read these words and claim to understand them as does the WTS and then seek to judge through the establishment of 'one rule for all' theology is tragic. Incidentally, Matthew 25 is always of great interest to me as Jesus seems to indicate that those who expect to be given life are shocked not to receive it and conversely those given life are shocked to have received it. This true humility is sadly lacking in the theology of the WTS who are convinced that the only JW’s, and then only those with strong faith in the WTS theology will survive.
The Society recognizes that not everyone is an apostate that has views divergent from the accepted body of teachings.
This is simply untrue You Know. I served as an elder specifically used to sort out the ‘apostate’ from the ‘non-apostate’ in appeal committees for some while in a European country during the hysteria of the early 80's. It was during the period that Jahs 'balanced channel of communication' behaved like psychotic limbo-dancers, seeking to squeeze beneath the narrow space of misunderstood scriptures and their own personal paranoia. I can actually describe to you techniques that I was asked to use to ‘out’ potential apostates, a sickening litany of ‘worldy reasoning’ that the CIA would have been proud to have designed. Even a recent WT, describes any who harbor ‘private views about the Bible’ as being immature. By this definition You Know, that is how a person like yourself is viewed by his masters, as immature, yet obviously from the ability that have to think for yourself this cannot be countenanced as a reality. Can it?
There is a measure of tolerance and indulgence, as can be evidenced by the fact that many who share their differing views and interpretations with the Watchtower are not automatically branded as "apostates."
As I previously mentioned to you You Know, if you have divergent views to the WTS you are classed by them into two specific categories. 1) As a person with one brick short of a load. In this case you would be humored, even loved as an eccentric. 2) As a danger and to be silenced. As I mentioned before, they obviously have you categorized in heading 1) but if you would like to test this, I will give you some questions that you may include in your next correspondence with the WTS which would quickly have you placed into the other category.
It should be self-evident from the fact that no advanced understanding would ever take place unless someone initially broke from established dogma on occasion.
I entirely agree with this point
Where the principle of intent comes into play is how the one with divergent views conducts himself. Invariably, those judged as apostates are not content to simply share their views privately with the brothers responsible for overseeing the doctrine and teaching of the brotherhood. Instead of deferring to the Society to make adjustments, as Jehovah sees fit, the true apostate will become an opposer and accuser of his brothers and will draw away from the brotherhood and set stumblings blocks for others
Though I do agree that some have behaved irresponsibly with ‘divergent’ information and perhaps wish they had handled things a little differently, perhaps if you were to read some experiences from this Board you would realize the ethical invalidity of your statement. To begin with, many here talked to just one person, an elder, a trusted friend, a CO, about some misgivings and before they were aware of what was happening to them found themselves on this Board. This smacks of an unhealthy desire to control far too much in individuals lives. While a national system of control cannot be denied in the OT, I do not see it in the NT. In fact it seems that Christ liberated Christians from this type of thinking. This centralization that even desires to monitor peoples thinking,closely resembles the Judaic model of religious thinking. The WTS needs to decide and very quickly, whether it is an Judaic or Christian faith. Trying it both ways just produces a hybrid that devours innocence and I am sure that you have noticed that when the WTS is against the wall on an issue of control and policy, it always appeals to the Pentateuch to validate its theology. The Law died with Christ, he fulfilled the Law and the prophets and yet the C1st Judaisers seem to be alive and well and basking in splendor in Brooklyn.
Thank you for an interesting discussion -- HS
