Thanks for sharing the article. The opening paragraph is great - "conscientious cussedness" - that's one I'll remember!
Armageddon, Inc (1940) - The last critical article there was on JWs!
by VM44 43 Replies latest watchtower scandals
-
-
Schizm
Thanks for the article entitled Armageddon Inc., as it's the first time I've seen it. I must say, however, that whoever re-typed the article was less than 100% accurate in their attempt.
For example, this is from the first paragraph:
We, they say, have got" it" coming to us, and "if as they can triumphantly prove by the Scriptures is due almost any time now.
Punctuation marks out of place, and/or some missing, leaves the sentence unintelligible for me. Oh well, who expects perfection out of anyone these days! BTW, I'm wondering whose site it is that hosts the article on the Internet?: http://www.reachouttrust.org/articles/jw/jwarmag1.htm Anyone know?
Under the subheading The Biggest Source of Conscientious Objectors:
In the event of war, they are sure to furnish the largest quota of conscientious objectors, and, perhaps, the most troublesome. In this near-war period, no other group so boldly condemns not only the current patriotic trend but patriotism, specifically and in general.
Yes, the Watchtower Society is to be commended for the stance it takes regarding patriotism. In contrast, the Church of Christ goes so far as to supply chaplains to the Armed Services here in the United States. Who do you suppose that God and Christ would approve of on this issue?
In the photo, below, are seen the cars of JWs which have been overturned by fanatical patriots. Again, who do you suppose that God and Christ would approve of on the issue regarding the flag salute?
.
-
Schizm
Is there not at least one person here who isn't afraid to address the questions I've asked?
Just in case there's someone here with half a spine and who might've overlooked the questions, here they are again:
Yes, the Watchtower Society is to be commended for the stance it takes regarding patriotism. In contrast, the Church of Christ goes so far as to supply chaplains to the Armed Services here in the United States. Who do you suppose that God and Christ would approve of on this issue?
In the photo, below, are seen the cars of JWs which have been overturned by fanatical patriots. Again, who do you suppose that God and Christ would approve of on the issue regarding the flag salute?
Where are you, Gumbastard? Quit hiding, and answer up! Or howz about you, Uncle Bruce? You got any guts? (Note: As far as AuldSoul is concerned, I won't read it even if you do post a reply. Just can't help myself, you turn me off like nothing else can.)
Schizm (the taunter)
.
-
Confession
Hello, Schizm. I don't believe we've had any exchanges before. First, I understand your comments about the inaccurate retyping of that article. Some are just scrupulous when it comes to details, some aren't. So, like you, I find myself willing to overlook these things, despite the difficulty it might cause in understanding. I'm sure whomever did it did not do so intentionally.
You write...
Yes, the Watchtower Society is to be commended for the stance it takes regarding patriotism. In contrast, the Church of Christ goes so far as to supply chaplains to the Armed Services here in the United States. Who do you suppose that God and Christ would approve of on this issue?
As one whose family has been JWs for four generations, I can understand why you write what you do. But, as one who has come to believe that the Watchtower Society is not what it purports to be, the above mindset does not carry the same sense it used to for me.
With all due respect to JWs and those who believe all war is ungodly, I submit something written by C.S. Lewis in his book, "Mere Christianity."
Does loving your enemy mean not punishing him? No, for loving myself does not mean that I ought not to subject myself to punishment-even to death. If you had committed a murder, the right Christian thing to do would be to give yourself up to the police and be hanged. It is, therefore, in my opinion, perfectly right for a Christian judge to sentence a man to death or a Christian soldier to kill an enemy. I always have thought so, ever since I became a Christian, and long before the war, and I still think so now that we are at peace. It is no good quoting 'Thou shalt not kill.' There are two Greek words: the ordinary word to kill and the word to murder. And when Christ quotes that commandment he uses the murder one in all three accounts, Matthew, Mark, and Luke. And I am told there is the same distinction in Hebrew. All killing is not murder any more than all sexual intercourse is adultery. When soldiers came to St. John the Baptist asking what to do, he never remotely suggested that they ought to leave the army: nor did Christ when he met a Roman sergeant-major-what they called a centurion. The idea of the knight-the Christian in arms for the defence of a good cause-is one of the great Christian ideas. War is a dreadful thing, and I can respect an honest pacifist, though I think he is entirely mistaken.
You also write...
In the photo, below, are seen the cars of JWs which have been overturned by fanatical patriots.
Unfortunate, yes, we agree. But I notice you did not comment on the other photo on precisely the same page you are referencing. It is the picture of a man, apparently in great pain, with his head wrapped in bandages. The caption reads...
Martyred by martyrs. Dennis Ryan's head was bashed by Witnesses' canes in a riot at their anti-Catholic rally.
If we can call those who overturned cars as "fanatical," what shall we call those JWs who bashed that man's head with their canes as they held an anti-Catholic rally? Would you call the JWs who bashed his skull those who would "learn war no more?" Just defending themselves? Well some would say that wars are often about defending themselves, wouldn't they?
You next ask...
Again, who do you suppose that God and Christ would approve of on the issue regarding the flag salute?
Again, I understand the JW mindset. I used to believe that saluting a flag meant worshiping it, and I used the account of Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego as my primary reference in so arguing that it was a form of idolatry. But, after looking at the facts--apart from only that which the Society wanted me to consider--I now no longer consider it such.
The four Hebrew men were not opposed to the Babylonian government--nor to anything that might have represented it. They themselves took active positions in the political government of Babylon.
Daniel 2:48 & 49, NWT "Consequently the king made Daniel someone great, and many big gifts he gave to him, and he made him the ruler over all the jurisdictional district of Babylon...And Daniel...appointed over the jurisdictional district of Babylon Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, but Daniel was in the court of the king."
Let's just stop for a moment here... If we are to use this account to prove a point about flag salute as taught by the Watchtower Society, how may we justify their accepting such lofty political positions within government? Would one of Jehovah's Witnesses doing so today be considered proper according to the Society?
But to continue, it was only after King Nebuchadnezzar constructed a large, golden idol that represented Babylonian gods that an issue of integrity to Jehovah arose. Consider: when finding fault with the four Hebrews, did the Chaldeans and the king himself accuse them of an act tied to allegiance to the kingdom? No. You'll find, in Daniel chapter three, that they were accused of paying no regard to the king because of 'their not serving his gods.' Nebuchadnezzar himself confirms this when questioning them...
Daniel 3:14, NWT "Is it really so, O Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, that you are not serving my own gods, and the image of gold that I have set up you are not worshiping?"
Schizm, I don't have to tell you that you are certainly within your right not to salute the flag of any nation, and if you feel doing so somehow compromises your dedication to Jehovah, that belief should be respected. But the bowing down the four Hebrews were asked to do was not simply a pledge of support to a nation. It was very explicitly identified as "worshiping" and "serving" the king's "gods." Can you not see why other genuine Christians might have legitimate disagreement with this?
But here comes the problem. As a JW I did not think that anyone had the right to disagree with the Watchtower Society. But why? Because the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society was the instrument used by Almighty God's sole channel of communication, and the things they said were to be supported--right or wrong. Do you see what I'm getting at?
While you see saluting a nation's flag as an act of idolatry, I see submitting oneself so completely to the dictates of a body of men as a much more obvious form of idolatry.
So I now have a question for you: Who do you suppose God and Christ would approve of? Those who use their own consciences to decide what is acceptable for Christians? Or those who submit their consciences to the conclusions of other men?
I submit the above with all due respect to your personal beliefs.
Confession
-
sf
Geez schizm, how hard is it to simply GO TO THE SITE to find the answer to your question about the site?
http://www.reachouttrust.org/indexlinks/faqsreach.htm
There is a phone number and address.
http://www.betterwhois.com/bwhois.cgi?verification=1444&domain=reachouttrust.org&submitbtn=Continue
sKally
-
Confession
Awaiting Schizm's response.
-
VM44
Hi cabasilas,
You wrote:
"Seems I remember there was an article written after the 1946 Assembly that was published in Collier's (and later abridged for Reader's Digest) entitled: "Jehovah's Traveling Salesman." It has been so long ago that I saw it that I can't say anything about the quality of the article. Perhaps some here know about it?"
Was at the library today and checked the "Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature" and found the reference to the article you rememberd.
"Jehovah's traveling Salesman.", B. Davidson, illustrations, Collier's, 118:12-13 + N 2, 1946
Same abridged Reader's Digest, 50:77-80, January 1947.
Now all we have to do is find a library that has that Collier's issue from 1946!
--VM44
-
cabasilas
I've put this article up on my website along with the scans posted here. Someone has also sent me a larger scan of the first page (a long download but very clear.) It can be seen at:
http://www.catholic-forum.com/members/popestleo/armageddoninc.html
-
garybuss
Here are links to scans of the Post article.Some are rather large. I am a person of extremes. "Armageddon, Inc."
Page One (18) http://www.savefile.com/files/8655027
Page Two (19) http://www.savefile.com/files/6698235
Page Three (50) http://www.savefile.com/files/1387361
Page Four (52) http://www.savefile.com/files/1921361
Page Five (53) http://www.savefile.com/files/9454746
Page Six (54) http://www.savefile.com/files/1601245
Page Seven (58) http://www.savefile.com/files/9993243
-
Rooster
The WTBTS is a product of the devil. What a trap he has set into place.