A Call To Deal With Apostates

by AlanF 57 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  proplog2

  Alan:

  You make the following statement as the critical step in moving
  JW's to violence:

  "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".

  Your presumption is that it would be "easy" for JW leaders to
  "simply" redefine "theocratic law".

  The same could be said about any law making body. You fail to see
  the fact that while the words making up a law can be changed
  "simply" - the process involving such a change requires the
  presentation of REASONS for making a change.

  In the 1952 article you quote "God's law through Christ forbid us
  to kill apostates". That's the REASON it ain't going to happen.

  My references to the blood guilt of the worlds mainstream religions
  are important to make my point that you are exaggerating your
  scenario. You take a group of people who would rather be killed or
  imprisoned than actually kill their enemies and try to make a case
  that they WOULD kill their enemies. That takes more than a stretch
  of the imagination. It requires an irrational hatred toward JW's
  to even suggest the possibility. JW's have their faults but this
  simply is off the charts.

  Even their ridiculous policy about blood transfusions is based
  partly on their belief that it is better to die than to take
  another person's life/blood in order to keep living.

  Your ditty was not honest and is an example of the rabid anti-JW attitude in this forum.
• 

  JW83

  AlanF,

  I appreciated your post. Anyone who has studied religion and ideology realises that black and white leads to good and evil. Shunning disfellowshipped people (family members and friends) is treating them as if they are 'socially dead'. This is the same thing that happened to the Jews prior to the Holocaust. It was a short step from 'socially dead' to 'physically dead'. The potential for evil is huge in the borg.
• 

  blondie

  The only thing I have seen that motivates others to kill others, assuming their reality has not been altered by drugs or illness, is fear of being killed themselves. That's what I see motivated people to let the Jews be taken away, fear that they would be taken away themselves if they spoke up. Of course, I realize the strong prejudice that made people view the Jews as less than human. Many soldiers in war killed rather than be killed themselves. Since the WTS compares DF'ing to "cutting off" in the Old Testament and to stoning, JWs are already primed to think that DF'd ones are just fortunate they live now and not then when family members had to stone other family members. Can you imagine it, a pile of rocks in the front of the KH with the family sitting up front and when the announcement is made, the family picks up a rock and throws it at the DF'd family member as the rest of the congregation does the same. And if you didn't toss a stone, you would be stoned too.

  If a person thinks he or she is backed into a corner, that person will do strange things.
• 

  borgfree

  If anyone thinks that all JWs are above killing "apostates" just take part in a demonstration at Brooklyn or one of the WT conventions, that is a real eye opener to anyone who thinks that JWs are all kind, law abiding, wonderful people.

  I personally believe that most JWs are kind, law abiding people, but, I have participated in demonstrations and have witnessed some behavior from JWs that indicated, if they were only given the chance, they would gladly stone us, including the ones of our group who were never JWs, and were there only to lovingly try to show the JWs the error of their beliefs.

  At Brooklyn, during a peaceful demonstration, while I was standing on a corner saying nothing, just wearing a sign encouraging JWs to examine their religion, a bethelite came from behind me bumped me rather hard with his shoulder, I did not even know he was near me and the street was not crowded, this fine example of Christianity then proceeded on down the block without even looking at me or saying excuse me.

  I could tell more such stories about being cursed etc. but I think the point is made. There is no doubt in my mind that some JWs would be very violent, given the opportunity. One time I asked a JW, because of the hatred she was displaying, "don't you wish that stoning still existed?" She replied with an emphatic "yes"

  Borgfree
• 

  proplog2

  Blondie:

  JW's have proven that as a group they are not afraid of threats of death. The attempt to smear JW's as a "potential" evil is itself evil.
• 

  proplog2

  Borgfree:

  I agree with you that like any population, JW's have members that are idiots. You obviously have had some bad experiences. I've known fist fights to have occurred between some members right in the Kingdom Hall. But there is a difference between what an individual does and the institutional violence that Alan would like everyone to believe it is not just a possibility but a very strong possibility.

  I should clarify that Alan didn't say it was probable that JW's will institute a policy of violence but that it is more than a mere possibility. My posiition is that when you are predicting you need some sort of trend-line. When you are predicting you start with "possibility". Just about anything you can imagine is possible. But after you pass "mere" possibility you need to start making a case for some percentage of "probability".

  In a civil society you must have strong reasons for alarming people that an organization is dangerous.
• 

  blondie

  Proplog, I don't keep statistics, but the cowards fade away thus are no longer counted as JWs. The ones that remain are not afraid of "worldly" people because they know if worldly people kill them they will be resurrected. But to turn around and be asked to kill former friends and family based on secret judicial meetings, that would take a great deal more conditioning that I have ever seen at the KH. Fear is the overwhelming motivator, fear of rejection by family and friends, fear of dying at Armageddon for many. "If we don't preach, we will die (or our minor children will die)." Not, "if we don't preach, these strangers will die."

  I grew up in an abusive household...I know how fear is used and how you can think you have no choice. I learned in school that "We have nothing to fear but fear itself" corny though it may be. Where fear lives, there cannot be love.

  Believe me I know that emotional, verbal, and spiritual abuse is more deadly than any physical or sexual abuse as least from my experiences. That's why I don't think physically killing "apostates" will ever be viewed as necessary by the WTS. The current techniques of shunning and demonizing work too well. Most people I see coming here have merely read the WT publications and seen inconsistencies or seen actions at the KH that don't match the words from the platform rather than listening to an "apostate" or reading "apostate" literature.

  I always remember how the Jews refused to execute Jesus themselves, because the Romans kept that right for themselves, to execute criminals. But not long after these same ones were so angry they stoned Stephen to death. I never underestimate how some at the KH through fear or hate can be manipulated.
• 

  AlanF

  To proplog2:

  : You make the following statement as the critical step in moving JW's to violence:

  : "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".

  : Your presumption is that it would be "easy" for JW leaders to "simply" redefine "theocratic law".

  It's no presumption -- it's a proven fact that it's easy to redefine "theocratic law", because "theocratic law" is whatever Watchtower leaders say it is. See below.

  : The same could be said about any law making body.

  Right. So what?

  You've inadvertantly brought out an important point, proplog2: JW leaders are not technically supposed to be a law making body, but are supposed to tell forth God's laws as written in the Bible. According to the Bible, humans cannot properly change or fail to obey any of God's laws, and adding to them makes one guilty of the sin of presumption. So when JW leaders change "law" to suit themselves, they're guilty of gross presumptuousness.

  : You fail to see the fact that while the words making up a law can be changed "simply" - the process involving such a change requires the presentation of REASONS for making a change.

  Since when have Watchtower writers ever failed to give a 'reason' for making a change? In the 1920s they gave a 'reason' for banning vaccinations. In the 1950s they gave 'reasons' for rescinding the ban. In the 1940s they gave 'reasons' for banning all forms of blood transfusion; in the 1950s they gave 'reasons' for viewing a person who took blood as a sinner; in the 1960s they put teeth into the ban and gave 'reasons' for DF'ing people over the issue; from time to time since then they've given 'reasons' to ease up on fractions one at a time. In 1967 they gave 'reasons' for declaring organ transplants a form of cannibalism; in 1980 they gave 'reasons' for saying it ain't so. In a few years they'll give 'reasons' why transfusions are not something a Christian can judge another about.

  Sometimes the 'reason' given is simply that "the faithful slave", in it's position of God-given spiritual authority, has decided upon something.

  Of course, we all know that sometimes the 'reasons' are pure bullshit. And that's the point about the 'reasons' the Society might give to "kill apostates".

  : In the 1952 article you quote "God's law through Christ forbid us to kill apostates". That's the REASON it ain't going to happen.

  Wrong. That's the 'reason' it hasn't happened so far. Can you foretell the future? No. So you have no idea whether they will ever issue 'reasons' to "kill apostates" or not.

  But you keep forgetting that I'm not making any predictions about what will happen. I'm talking about the cult mindset of Jehovah's Witnesses that would make it easy for an unscrupulous leader to put in place a "call to action" that, without directly saying so, would convey the message "Go! Kill apostates!" to JWs who are properly attuned. They would, in effect, say that "new scrolls have been opened and this is what they say: ..." They would never issue a direct command to do so, but would leave it up to the individual to put it into practice. Peer pressure would, in the usual fashion, be effective in influencing individual actions.

  : My references to the blood guilt of the worlds mainstream religions are important to make my point that you are exaggerating your scenario.

  Your references have nothing to do with the point at hand and you have not shown that they have.

  : You take a group of people who would rather be killed or imprisoned than actually kill their enemies

  Here again you're missing an extremely important point: JWs as a group do not avoid killing people because of a moral indignation against it, or because they individually apply Bible proscriptions against it. They avoid such because and only because the Watchtower Society tells them to (of course, this applies in a group sense; many JWs certainly do make independent choices). This is proved with the blood transfusion issue. JWs will let their loved ones -- even children -- die simply because the Society has told them that's the right thing. Until a year ago all JWs would (at least on paper) rather let children die than take a hemoglobin preparation. Now that the Society has told them that hemoglobin is ok, most will not let their children die if this treatment is an option. This proves that even in life and death matters, Watchtower conscience rules over the conscience of individual JWs. It's a minor step to go from taking strong action to allow someone to die in order to obey Watchtower edicts, to taking strong action to cause someone to die to obey such edicts. That this is a minor step in point of general human laws is shown by the fact that a person can be charged with neglect or even murder for withholding certain medical treatment.

  : and try to make a case that they WOULD kill their enemies.

  But you're forgetting that part of the 'reasons' given for this would necessarily include whatever is needed to suppress the general desire to avoid needless killing. You're also forgetting that JWs are not in the least bothered by killing God's "enemies", but only bothered by murder. "Murder" is by definition the illegal killing of a human. By redefining "theocratic law", "killing apostates" would by definition not be murder, just as it was not murder for an 18th-century U.S. slave owner to kill a slave.

  : That takes more than a stretch of the imagination.

  Not so. I've already demonstrated why and how it could be done.

  : It requires an irrational hatred toward JW's to even suggest the possibility. JW's have their faults but this simply is off the charts.

  You're entitled to your opinion. You have not given any good arguments to support your opinion.

  : Even their ridiculous policy about blood transfusions is based partly on their belief that it is better to die than to take another person's life/blood in order to keep living.

  You're half right, but you're distorting the Watchtower position by using "life/blood". The policy on blood transfusions has nothing to do with avoiding taking another person's life; it has only to do with avoiding taking another person's blood. The avoidance of taking a life has only to do with the Bible's command to avoid murder. You're conflating two entirely separate issues.

  : Your ditty was not honest and is an example of the rabid anti-JW attitude in this forum.

  My parody was dead nuts on and is an example of an objective view of what the cult mindset of Jehovah's Witnesses could result in.

  I've challenged several loyal JWs with exactly this scenario of "killing apostates". In every case they've run away from the challenge. This is typical of the way it went:

  AF: You obey the Society as if it were God.
  JW: I do not!
  AF: Yes you do. You would even kill me if the Society told you to.
  JW: That's ridiculous!
  AF: Not so. I'll prove it. Are you up to the challenge?
  JW: Go to it!
  AF: Do JW leaders speak for God?
  JW: Well, as long as they tell what's in the Bible they do.
  AF: Ok, fine. But can you publicly state what you just said and avoid congregational action?
  JW: What do you mean?
  AF: I mean, can you publicly imply that current teaching from JW leaders might not be perfecly according to the Bible?
  JW: Well...
  AF: Come on now, be honest. What happens if you publicly state that a particular teaching is not scriptural?
  JW: Well that would be contradicting the "faithful and discreet slave".
  AF: So could you publicly contradict "the slave" without congregational action against you?
  JW: Well, no, because that would be running ahead.
  AF: So you really must obey "the slave" in everything in order to avoid congregational action, right?
  JW: I guess so.
  AF: You "guess so"?
  JW: Alright, I would have to obey or be disfellowshipped.
  AF: Ok, now consider this: if you are required to obey to that extent, doesn't that mean that you are required to view what "the slave" says as if Jehovah himself were speaking?
  JW: Well, not really.
  AF: What do you mean, "not really"? If you can be disfellowshipped for publicly disagreeing with "the slave", doesn't that mean that "the slave" must be infallible?
  JW: Well, I suppose so.
  AF: And are any humans infallible?
  JW: No.
  AF: Isn't it true that only God is infallible?
  JW: Sure.
  AF: So isn't it proper to conclude that anyone who cannot ever publicly be disagreed with must be infallible and therefore must be speaking for God?
  JW: I guess so.
  AF: So if you're honest you must admit that as a JW you're required to believe and act as if "the slave" is infallible and speaks for God, right?
  JW: I have to admit that's right.
  AF: So if "the slave" tells you today that the Bible says such-and-such, you have to believe and act on that, right?
  JW: Right.
  AF: And if "the slave" tells you tomorrow that the Bible says the opposite of what it tells you today, you have to believe that that is Jehovah speaking, right?
  JW: I guess so.
  AF: Come on! Do you agree or not?
  JW: Ok, I'd have to believe and obey.
  AF: Ok, now what would you do if "the slave" told you to withhold certain medical treatment from your child that you knew would result in the child's death. Would you do it?
  JW: Yes, of course. You know that we do that with blood transfusions.
  AF: What would you do if "the slave" told you that I was an apostate and that you should kill me?
  JW: That's a ridiculous question!
  AF: What's the matter? You said you were up to a challenge.
  JW: The Society would never tell me to kill anyone!
  AF: How do you know that? God told the Israelites to kill plenty of people.
  JW: That was a long time ago.
  AF: But what if "the slave" tells you that "new scrolls" have been opened and that they contain instructions to kill apostates?
  JW: They would never do that!
  AF: How do you know?
  JW: ....
  AF: Well, how do you know?
  JW: I don't know that for sure.
  AF: But Revelation 20 talks about "new scrolls" being opened sometime, and since you're required to view everything that "the slave" tells you as if it came directly from Jehovah, you can't properly disagree if "the slave" tells you about "new scrolls", right?
  JW: I suppose you're right.
  AF: So let's try again: If the Society told you I was an apostate and then told you to kill me, would you kill me?
  JW: .....
  AF: Well?
  JW: .....
  AF: Hello? Hello? Is anybody home?
  .........

  Please understand that the above scenario is not just made up -- it's based on real life conversations I've had with several practicing JWs. They know very well that if the Society told them to "kill apostates", they would have to obey or cease being JWs. They hate to have that realization pushed in their faces, and so in every case they've simply run away from further discussion. Whether or not such a "call to action" actually occurs is irrelevant -- the JW mindset is such that under the right circumstances it could occur. That is a necessary consequence of The Fundamental Doctrine of Jehovah's Witnesses: JW leaders speak for God and must be obeyed as God.

  AlanF
• 

  AlanF

  Here is your basic problem, proplog2:

  : But there is a difference between what an individual does and the institutional violence that Alan would like everyone to believe it is not just a possibility but a very strong possibility.

  You're either extremely stupid, or a liar. I said nothing that indicates anything about the strength of possibility of "institutional violence". I said that it is a possibility, period.

  AlanF
• 

  Faraon

  Proplog,

  How many people do you think were already killed or damaged by the witchpower by having their slaves refusing vaccines or organ transplants?

  How many people have died or killed their children by refusing whole blood transfusions or blood fractions for themselves or their children?

  How many marriages have they wrecked because they want total loyalty and spare time to them instead of their mates/family?

  How many people are now in poverty because they were told not to go to college because the world was about to end in 1914, 1915, 1918, 1925, 1942, 1975, 1984, end of the 1914 generation, etc.

  How many people did not have children because the world was going to end soon?

  How many homosexuals (from lower ranks, not GB) destroyed?

  How many suicides provoked by the WTBS?

  This destructive cult HAS ALREADY KILLED TOO MANY PEOPLE. It continues to exist. One more proof God does not exist.

  Do you think the Watchtower will stop at ordering murder?

  As you can see from above. They have already ordered murders, and they have been carried out.
  'nough said.

  JRP