by AlanF 57 Replies latest jw friends
Thanks for everyone's comments. As Amazing pointed out, this was a parody of the July 1, 1943 Watchtower article "Righteous Requirements". The original is, if you can believe it, a lot longer and is incredibly full of bullpucky. It's virtually a study in how to coerce people with propaganda tricks. If anyone is interested in a dissection of the tricks, look here: http://www.geocities.com/osarsif/think.htm#tec
AlanF
That's the first WT article I read that I just didn't want to end; so reasonable, so scriptural. Hasn't everyone heard some WT lunatic saying something like 'give me the word, just one word, and I'd kill those apostate with my own hands'. I have heard it more than once.
Thanks Alan
Nice appraisal Susan.
philo
It's a shame that you used up so much creativity to paint such an unlikely scenario. Your message doesn't advance any argument and is obviously meant to entertain Watchtower bashers.
There is enough REAL stuff to attack!!!
Did you do this for extra credit? Or what...
I think you entirely missed the point, proplog2. The message certainly does illustrate a point: How easy it is for Watchtower writers to justify any position they please simply by plastering it with standard catch phrases.
As for the "kill apostates" call being an unlikely scenario, I disagree. If JWs can be convinced by mere words to shun even their closest flesh and blood based on nothing more than the latter's disagreement with JW teaching, and if the Society teaches that disfellowshipping is the Christian counterpart to Israelite stonings (cf. a 1952 WT article) and is almost wistful in seeming to wish that it could practice real stonings, and if JW leaders teach that obeying them is equivalent to obeying God, and if JW leaders find themselves cornered by bad publicity sponsored by "apostates", how easy would it be for those leaders to issue a "call to action"? Very easy! I don't think it will happen because I think that in a practical manner the fanatics within Watchtower will soon be booted out, but my point is about the potential for violence that is evident to careful observers of Jehovah's Witnesses. In that sense, I think that the "kill apostates" scenario is not far fetched at all, since it's a function of the mindset of rank & file JWs that needs only a trigger from fanatical leaders to set it in motion.
AlanF
"Let us seek out apostates in our territory and deal scriptural with them."
I feel sorry to those trying. Not a change. They are to bad prepared to do that. No weapon is able to turn down truth in the long run.
beroea
Proplog
How can you say that WT propaganda is not "real stuff" that should be attacked? Wake up, it doesn't get much more real.
philo
I appreciate parody but you REALLY indicate your motives when you try to defend the possibility for JW's carrying out violence. With most religions you don't need a parody. The history books are full of the horrible acts of violence on the part of the traditional religions. World wars, jihads, slavery, torture, are typical behaviors of the mainstream religions you seem to feel are superior to the Watchtower "cult".
I view the "blood" policies of the Watchtower as a tragic mistake. But it is like a pin prick compared to the barrels of blood that have needlessly soaked the worlds battle grounds.
Even if JWs never did turn their hands to God's work as Alan described, the fact that JWs have been taught to hate, taught to regret that 'superior authorities' prevent them stoning apostates today, and arguably, are taught to view them as SUB-HUMAN - regardless of the 'likelihood of the scenario' such teaching deserves attention. YOu want us to talk about the Arabs and Jews or something????
philo
Philo:
Hate is not necessarily bad. Love is not automatically good. Context is important and the two things are relative. Actually, hate emerges in the child as he develops a sense of individuality. The expression of a preference for one thing or option means the rejection of everything else. You can't move in more than one direction at a time.
Do you allow free entry to your home to any transient who passes by? Do you teach your children to be cautious of strangers and especially strangers who are a little too friendly?
If someone is actively trying to undo what you believe to be good work it makes sense to kick them out. Jehovah's Witnesses have a policy of occasionally contacting those who have been disfellowhsipped to see if there is a change of heart. Doesn't sound like "stoning" to me.
I don't like everything the JW's do but there is a tendency to exagerate on this forum. I hate a lot of what is done in the United States but I'm not about to leave this country. There are over 6,000,000 people who find some degree of their spiritual needs satisfied by associating with JW's.
Proplog2, it's obvious that you're not understanding what you're reading in my posts:
: I appreciate parody but you REALLY indicate your motives when you try to defend the possibility for JW's carrying out violence.
Oh? Just what motives do you "REALLY" think my posts indicate?
Are you really going to claim that Jehovah's Witnesses are not taught to hate those who criticize them? If so, on what basis?
I will now prove that the potential for declaring open season on "apostates" exists within the JW organization:
According to the Bible, an apostate is one who has abandoned God. According to the Watchtower Society, the statements of JW leaders are equivalent to God's pronouncements, and one who has abandoned the Society by repudiating its claim that JW leaders comprise a "faithful and discreet slave" that uniquely speaks for God has also become an apostate by virtue of repudiating the ones who "speak for God":
*** w86 4/1 30-1 Questions From Readers ***
Questions From Readers
O Why have Jehovah's Witnesses disfellowshipped (excommunicated) for apostasy some who still profess belief in God, the Bible, and Jesus Christ?
. . .
Obviously, a basis for approved fellowship with Jehovah's Witnesses cannot rest merely on a belief in God, in the Bible, in Jesus Christ, and so forth. The Roman Catholic pope, as well as the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury, professes such beliefs, yet their church memberships are exclusive of each other. Likewise, simply professing to have such beliefs would not authorize one to be known as one of Jehovah's Witnesses.
Approved association with Jehovah's Witnesses requires accepting the entire range of the true teachings of the Bible, including those Scriptural beliefs that are unique to Jehovah's Witnesses. What do such beliefs include?
. . . That there is a "faithful and discreet slave" upon earth today 'entrusted with all of Jesus' earthly interests,' which slave is associated with the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses. (Matthew 24:45-47) That 1914 marked the end of the Gentile Times and the establishment of the Kingdom of God in the heavens, as well as the time for Christ's foretold presence. (Luke 21:7-24; Revelation 11:15-12:10-12) . . .
Paul wrote about some in his day: "Their word will spread like gangrene. Hymenaeus and Philetus are of that number. These very men have deviated from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already occurred; and they are subverting the faith of some." (2 Timothy 2:17, 18; see also Matthew 18:6.) There is nothing to indicate that these men did not believe in God, in the Bible, in Jesus' sacrifice. Yet, on this one basic point, what they were teaching as to the time of the resurrection, Paul rightly branded them as apostates, with whom faithful Christians would not fellowship.
Similarly, the apostle John termed as antichrists those who did not believe that Jesus had come in the flesh. They may well have believed in God, in the Hebrew Scriptures, in Jesus as God's Son, and so on. But on this point, that Jesus had actually come in the flesh, they disagreed and thus were termed "antichrist." John goes on to say regarding those holding such variant views: "If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, never receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him. For he that says a greeting to him is a sharer in his wicked works."-2 John 7, 10, 11.
Following such Scriptural patterns, if a Christian (who claims belief in God, the Bible, and Jesus) unrepentantly promotes false teachings, it may be necessary for him to be expelled from the congregation. (See Titus 3:10, 11.)*** "Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock", Kingdom Ministry School Textbook, 1991, p. 94 ***
Apostasy includes action taken against true worship of Jehovah or his established order among his dedicated people. . .
Persons who deliberately spread (stubbornly hold to and speak about) teachings contrary to Bible truth as taught by Jehovah's Witnesses are apostates.
Far more quotations could be cited to prove who the Watchtower Society labels "apostate", but the above is sufficient to prove my point. Note that according to the above, "apostates" would include those who had never been JWs but who speak against or otherwise criticize "God's anointed".
Next we note how rejection of "Jehovah's organization" is equated with "intense hatred for Jehovah":
*** w93 10/1 19 "Search Through Me, O God" ***
What if some people show intense hatred for Jehovah?
15 Regarding them, the psalmist said: "Do I not hate those who are intensely hating you, O Jehovah, and do I not feel a loathing for those revolting against you? With a complete hatred I do hate them. They have become to me real enemies." (Psalm 139:21, 22) It was because they intensely hated Jehovah that David looked on them with abhorrence. Apostates are included among those who show their hatred of Jehovah by revolting against him. Apostasy is, in reality, a rebellion against Jehovah. Some apostates profess to know and serve God, but they reject teachings or requirements set out in his Word. Others claim to believe the Bible, but they reject Jehovah's organization and actively try to hinder its work. When they deliberately choose such badness after knowing what is right, when the bad becomes so ingrained that it is an inseparable part of their makeup, then a Christian must hate (in the Biblical sense of the word) those who have inseparably attached themselves to the badness. True Christians share Jehovah's feelings toward such apostates; they are not curious about apostate ideas. On the contrary, they "feel a loathing" toward those who have made themselves God's enemies, but they leave it to Jehovah to execute vengeance.
Next we note the wistful tone in The Watchtower regarding the sad fact that "Jehovah's earthly organization" is not now authorized to execute apostates:
*** w52 11/15 703-4 Questions from Readers ***
Questions from Readers
O In the case of where a father or mother or son or daughter is disfellowshiped, how should such person be treated by members of the family in their family relationship?-P. C., Ontario, Canada.
We are not living today among theocratic nations where such members of our fleshly family relationship could be exterminated for apostasy from God and his theocratic organization, as was possible and was ordered in the nation of Israel in the wilderness of Sinai and in the land of Palestine. "Thou shalt surely kill him; thy hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him to death with stones, because he hath sought to draw thee away from Jehovah thy God, . . . And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is in the midst of thee."-Deut. 13:6-11, AS.
Being limited by the laws of the worldly nation in which we live and also by the laws of God through Jesus Christ, we can take action against apostates only to a certain extent, that is, consistent with both sets of laws. The law of the land and God's law through Christ forbid us to kill apostates, even though they be members of our own flesh-and-blood family relationship. However, God's law requires us to recognize their being disfellowshiped from his congregation, and this despite the fact that the law of the land in which we live requires us under some natural obligation to live with and have dealings with such apostates under the same roof. . .
Satan's influence through the disfellowshiped member of the family will be to cause the other member or members of the family who are in the truth to join the disfellowshiped member in his course or in his position toward God's organization. To do this would be disastrous, and so the faithful family member must recognize and conform to the disfellowship order. How would or could this be done while living under the same roof or in personal, physical contact daily with the disfellowshiped? In this way: By refusing to have religious relationship with the disfellowshiped.
The marriage partner would render the marriage dues according to the law of the land and in due payment for all material benefits bestowed and accepted. But to have religious communion with the disfellowshiped person-no, there would be none of that! The faithful marriage partner would not discuss religion with the apostate or disfellowshiped and would not accompany that one to his (or her) place of religious association and participate in the meetings with that one. As Jesus said: "If he does not listen even to the congregation [which was obliged to disfellowship him], let him be to you just as a man of the nations and as a tax collector [to Jehovah's sanctified nation]." (Matt. 18:17, NW) Hurt to such one would not be authorized, but there would be no spiritual or religious fellowshiping.
The same rule would apply to those who are in the relation of parent and child or of child and parent. What natural obligation falls upon them according to man's law and God's law the faithful parent or the faithful child will comply with. But as for rendering more than that and having religious fellowship with such one in violation of the congregation's disfellowship order-no, none of that for the faithful one! If the faithful suffers in some material or other way for the faithful adherence to theocratic law, then he must accept this as suffering for righteousness' sake.
Carefully note that last bolded sentence. It would be easy for JW leaders to apply such sentiment to potential punishment by secular authorities for killing "apostates" simply by redefining "theocratic law". Such sentiments can further be reinforced by appeal not to yield to "the fear of man" but to obey God above all -- of course with the understanding that God's will is expressed through "the faithful and discreet slave" which is the expounder of "theocratic law". It should be obvious also how an appeal to "persecution" can be folded into a call to take one's lumps for killing "apostates":
*** w96 3/15 15-17 Meeting the Challenge of Loyalty ***
5 Loyalty to Jehovah God also involves not yielding to the fear of man. "Trembling at men is what lays a snare, but he that is trusting in Jehovah will be protected." (Proverbs 29:25) Thus, we do not compromise when faced with persecution, but we follow the example set by Jehovah's Witnesses in the former Soviet Union, in Malawi, in Ethiopia, and in ever so many other lands.
6 If we are loyal to Jehovah God, we will avoid making friends with all who are his enemies. That is why the disciple James wrote: "Adulteresses, do you not know that the friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whoever, therefore, wants to be a friend of the world is constituting himself an enemy of God." (James 4:4) We want to have the loyalty that King David evidenced when he said: "Do I not hate those who are intensely hating you, O Jehovah, and do I not feel a loathing for those revolting against you? With a complete hatred I do hate them. They have become to me real enemies." (Psalm 139:21, 22) We do not want to fraternize with any willful sinners, for we have nothing in common with them. Would not loyalty to God keep us from socializing with any such enemies of Jehovah, whether in person or through the medium of television?
Coming to Jehovah's Defense
7 Loyalty will move us to come to the defense of Jehovah God. What a fine example of that we have in Elihu! Job 32:2, 3 tells us: "The anger of Elihu . . . came to be hot. Against Job his anger blazed over his declaring his own soul righteous rather than God. Also, against his three companions his anger blazed over the fact that they had not found an answer but they proceeded to pronounce God wicked." In Job chapters 32 through 37, Elihu comes to the defense of Jehovah. For example, he said: "Have patience with me a little while, and I shall declare to you that there are yet words to say for God. . . . To my Fashioner I shall ascribe righteousness. . . . He will not take away his eyes from anyone righteous."-Job 36:2-7.
8 Why is there a need to come to Jehovah's defense? Today, our God Jehovah is blasphemed in ever so many ways. It is claimed that he does not exist, that he is a part of a Trinity, that he torments people eternally in a burning hell, that he weakly is trying to convert the world, that he does not care about mankind, and so forth. We demonstrate our loyalty to him by coming to his defense and proving that Jehovah does exist; that he is a wise, just, almighty, and loving God; that he has a time for everything; and that when his due time comes, he will bring an end to all evil and make the whole earth a paradise. (Ecclesiastes 3:1) This requires that we make use of every opportunity to bear witness to Jehovah's name and Kingdom.
Loyalty to Jehovah's Organization
9 We now come to the matter of being loyal to Jehovah's visible organization. Certainly, we owe loyalty to it, including "the faithful and discreet slave," through which the Christian congregation is fed spiritually. (Matthew 24:45-47) Suppose that something appears in Watch Tower publications that we do not understand or agree with at the moment. What will we do? Take offense and leave the organization? That is what some did when The Watch Tower, many years ago, applied the new covenant to the Millennium. Others took offense at what The Watchtower once said on the issue of neutrality. If those who stumbled over these matters had been loyal to the organization and to their brothers, they would have waited on Jehovah to clarify these matters, which he did in his due time. Thus, loyalty includes waiting patiently until further understanding is published by the faithful and discreet slave.
Note this last bolded sentence carefully. After issuing a "call to action" as shown in my parody, the Society could easily squelch objections by making such a statement. Failing to act on that "call to action" would be viewed as disloyalty to Jehovah, perhaps even as a disfellowshipping offense. One simply cannot know how far fanaticism will take a group of religious leaders when their world is threatened.
Given the above, how much convincing do you think it would take for a fanatically hateful person like Robert King (You Know) to take up the sword against "apostates"?
: With most religions you don't need a parody. The history books are full of the horrible acts of violence on the part of the traditional religions. World wars, jihads, slavery, torture, are typical behaviors of the mainstream religions you seem to feel are superior to the Watchtower "cult".
How you conclude that I "seem to feel" that such vile behavior is "superior to" the behavior of "the Watchtower 'cult' " is beyond me. It is not stated or implied in anything I've written. Why do you have such a bug up your ass? I roundly condemn all such behavior.
: I view the "blood" policies of the Watchtower as a tragic mistake. But it is like a pin prick compared to the barrels of blood that have needlessly soaked the worlds battle grounds.
True, but irrelevant to anything I've written.
AlanF
