Joseph served as Zaphenath-paneah in Pharoah's government [Gen.41:45]. Daniel served in Nebudchadnezzar's as Belteshazzar [Dan.2:26, 48]. Both were part of God's way of looking after his chosen people. So was Hadassah, who served as Queen Esther [Esther 2:7, 17] under King Ahasuerus. So there is precedent, if it were to be God's way now.
JW's participate in Government talks with other religious bodies!
by Atlantis 40 Replies latest watchtower scandals
-
-
Spirit Axal
Hmm, after reading everything. I dont know what the "above" reply ment, but it doesnt look like its on the same subject
I sure hate where im at right now, its all grey in here i thought it would be White... /shrug
-
Fred E Hathaway
If Jehovah wants representation on behalf of His people, he has His way of getting doing it, whether it's having a JW in government, such as Joseph, Daniel, or even Queen Esther, or whether it is in another way such as with Jesus, Stephen, or the Apostle Paul before the authorities of the day.
-
Gill
Storm Gods are perfectly capable of representing themselves
Just because a particular nation considered itself to be 'chosen' by this storm god and wrote books about it, doesn't mean that everyone else has to follow their bizarre mythical fantasy.
Therefore, when we get a book publishing company that bans its 'slaves' from attending other churches, reading material from other churches, getting involved in politics etc on pain of Disfellowshiping and shunning, it should ring alarm bells when the same powerful book publishing company does exactly what it tells its slaves NOT TO DO!!
It raises the same concerns when one finds the same book publishing company, that claims to be god's only mouthpiece on earth, owns shares in a tobacco comany and a manufacturer of armaments.
-
greendawn
Given what they say they shouldn't be participating in such events, they are dealing with the beast, with a part of the world wide political authority just as Babylon has been doing, according to them. Had they not imposed upon the R&F to consider world politics as satanic there would be no objection to such a participation. Whatever happened to "you must not be part of this world".
-
undercover
Good thread.
What does it mean to remain politically neutral?
Eduardo has some good points and is technically correct, but the WTS goes to great lengths to ingrain into their followers to remain completely neutral in political things, to the point of not even having an opinion on anything remotely political.
We gave up our liberties because we were told that we had to gain Jehovah's favor. So we gave them up and tried hard to not have an opinion, even in local government where the decisions of city and town leaders impacts our daily lives maybe more than what the leader of the nation does. We never attended town meetings or spoke up against anything that could affect us personally. We never voted. Not only didn't we vote for president of the nation, but we didn't vote for mayors, school board members, sheriff, people that do make a difference in our daily life. We only glanced at the newspaper to stay informed, but not enough to form an opinion...unless it was sports. (Watch a typical JW male read the paper...he'll go straight to the sports and ignore the headline about a terrorist attack.)
The decisions made by the courts was never given any thought or questioned...until...it affected the WTS or the door to door work. Then the WTS lawyers come crawling out of the woodwork like roaches coming out after the lights are off. They fight tooth and nail to maintain their "rights" to worship or preach as they see fit.
Why is it that the WTS can use the courts to further their cause or protect their rights, but the average everyday follower is expected to give up those same avenues to protect his property or his personal rights? That's where the hypocrisy lies. If JWs are expected to remain neutral in politics and government, then when that same government makes a decision that could affect the organization behind the religion, shouldn't it be expected to remain neutral and just deal with it the best they can?
One may say that constitituional rights are at stake. The right to freedom of religion. The right to preach that religion. The right to publish books tax-free for that relgion. Good points. But what about my constitional rights? I gave some of them up to become a follower of the religion. The right to vote. I gave up that up. The right to have a say in my government. I gave that up. And I gave them up because I was taught from childhood that "True Chrisitans" don't get involved in politics or worldy matters. But yet the religion that I supported used their constitional rights to fight for their freedoms and rights while I ignored mine.
That's where the hypocrisy lies. Say one thing, do another. They preach politcal neutrality and all the followers accept that but the organization itself does not abide by those same principles. They've been caught in bed with the UN, they've been caught in these type of roundtable discussions with other religions and government officials. Where is the neutrality in that?
-
ICBehindtheCurtain
Touche undercover, very well said!!!! I feel the same way, if they came out and openly admitted to the R&F the kind of stuff they are involved in, it would be pretty much OVER for them. So they have to keep the neutrality charade going, pretending to be that which they are absolutely NOT, "God's chosen people" an insane asumption by itself since we are all God's/The Source's people!
-
zack
The whole JW issue about neutrality is wrong on its face. Jesus did not teach or advocate neutrality. He taught to love your enemies and to pray for them. That isn't being neutral,
it is being active. You cannot attempt to make friends of your enemies by doing nothing. You have to do something GOOD for them. You have to talk, engage in dialogue.
I do not believe, however, that Jesus wanted people to allow evil to go unchecked. And some on Earth have been evil. Do you just allow the evil to destroy the good, even
after repeated attempts at winning them over as friends? I don't believe so. Christianity isn't a suicide pact. And if an individual Christian can defend his life or the
life of those he loves and is left no option but to use deadly force, will God judge him adversely? I do not think so. So then, what applies to an individual would apply to a community, and
then to a State.
Zack---
-
Fred E Hathaway
Many make claims that lack proper support, even you or me.
-
Fred E Hathaway
Who dare say to Jehovah that what He's doing is wrong!! The nations don't measure on Jehovah's scale, but His people do.