If Daniel Had Been Governed by WT Doctrine and Policy ...

by compound complex 6 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  compound complex

  ISOCF, "Legalism - Opponent of Christian Freedom," page 273:

  I think of this [Daniel and his three companions' responding to their pagan names when addressed] when recalling some of the extreme measures Witnesses have felt obliged to take to demonstrate "strict neutrality," "complete separateness from the world," primarily as a result of the organization's highly sensitizing them by its categorizing policies. There is an inordinate concern for how things will APPEAR, rather than what the reality is. In the modern state of Israel, Witnesses who refused military service were imprisoned. They were issued military clothing to wear. Whatever the APPEARANCE may have been, the REALITY was that they were prisoners due to their stand. Nonetheless, they refused to wear the garments and some even went around in their underclothes rather than put on such clothing. One Governing Body suggestion was that they might wear it turned inside out to register their objection. Yet how much more is a NAME viewed as an identification than is a uniform, and Daniel's responding to the name Belteshazzar could not but come to mind. He knew that this appelative did not change what he was and, when a genuine issue arose, was willing to DEMONSTRATE what he was, though it meant facing death in a den of lions. (Daniel 6:6-23) Had he been governed by Watch Tower indoctrination and policy, he surely would not have displayed such a balanced, discerning viewpoint. [emphasis: R.F.]
• 

  wozadummy

  It's an interesting point you make CoCo ,and yet the three after being appointed by Daniel as overseers of Babylon (Dan ch2 vs 48,49) showed considerable strength in Dan ch3 by refusing to bow down to Nebuchadnezzars gold image and were thrown into the fiery furnace. Surely this is equal to the 20th century JW martyrs ,and yet in this book of Daniel we find another inconsistency....Daniel was esteemed worthy to have incredible power over Nebuchadnezzars realm and yet iff you read chapter three of Daniel ,all the rulers of the jurisdictional areas of the the Babylonian kingdom were commanded to be at the inauguration of Nebs gold image ,including the three Hebrews who were put to the test .....and yet where does the bible say Daniel was??? considering he was Nebs right hand man now? Did he stay away or did he just bow down with everyone else except the three Hebrews - where's the consistency here? I believe this is all related to the theme of your topic. The account is about as consistant as the GB has been.!
• 

  Meeting Junkie No More

  Good points CoCo and wozadummy!

  Thanks for pointing this stuff out...it's amazing how the 'repetition for emphasis' of only the WT's selected readings and scriptures effectively leaves you with ONLY what they want you to remember, absolutely NOTHING ELSE and no questions allowed! So true - WHERE EXACTLY WAS DANIEL while the bending to the image was going on? I am going to reread Daniel chapter 3 with the BLINDERS OFF! Bible reading is so much more exciting these days...
• 

  compound complex

  Thanks, Woza and MJNM, for reminding me of angles I'd forgotten. When two or three are gathered together ...

  CoCo

  Here's some more:

  With regard to Daniel and his three companions, there is additional evidence of their ability to distinguish what was truly an issue and what was not. This is in connection with the names that were assigned to them by the Babylonians. If not in all, then at least in some cases those names included the names of Babylonian gods. [footnote 47: Daniel 1:6, 7. See INSIGHT ON THE SCRIPTURES under "Belteshazzar," "Shadrach," Meshach" and "Abednego."] Nebuchadnezzar himself is shown as specifically saying of the name assigned to Daniel, Belteshazzar, that this was "after the name of my god." (Daniel 4:8, 9) Bel, (corresponding to the Canaanite term Baal), was a chief Babylonian god. I seriously doubt that any of Jehovah's Witnesses would have responded if addressed by a name assigned him by a pagan source and having any connection whatsoever with the name of a false god. Yet the accounts in the book of Daniel show that, when addressed by these names, Daniel and his three companions did not refuse to reply. [footnote 48: Daniel 3:13-18; 4:19. (ibid., p. 273.)]
• 

  Pahpa

  I remember reading in the Bible of a faithful Hebrew who went into the pagan temple of his king to lend physical support. Does anyone remember the account? It always bothered me that the Watchtower made such a fuss of attending a church service for a wedding or funeral... even using a threat of disfellowshipping for the "offense."

  It's another case of selective reading and application by the Watchtower. But as Ray reminds us in his book, the Society was permeated with double standards and contradictions.
• 

  compound complex

  Pahpa:

  2 Kings 5:18, 19.

  Naaman asks pardon for assisting his king to bow in the house of Rimmon as he, too, is obliged to bow. Elisha bids him go in peace.

  Thanks for your input.

  CC
• 

  compound complex

  A genuine pleasure having you back on board, PAHPA!

  Here's some more ...

  According to Watch Tower policy, if a Witness were ordered by the government to serve as the SECRETARY of some government-arranged community administration (as took place in the Philippines with its system of BARANGAYS), he must refuse, even at the risk of fine or imprisonment, to avoid disfellowshipment. [footnote 45: This issue came up in the Philippines in 1973 when a number of the Governing Body members (myself included) attended an assembly there during a tour of the Orient.] This is difficult to harmonize with the attitude of Daniel and his three companions during the political rule of the Babylonian and Medo-Persion empires. Not only did Daniel accept appointment to a high position in the Babylonian political structure, he actually requested administrative positions for his three friends. [footnote 46: See Daniel 2:48, 49; 5:29.] This was not some display of a lack of integrity, for they proved themselves willing to face death rather than be disloyal to God. (Daniel 3:8-18) In the matter of serving in the governmental (political) structure, they showed CONSCIENTIOUS DISCRIMINATION - not BLANKET CATEGORIZATION. Christians today can also reject the bad and shun it while still recognizing whatever good there may be. I could not conscientiously share in political campaigning with its divisive, agressive tactics. Yet that does not cause me to view anything as automatically and intrinsically evil simply because it bears the name "political." [ibid., page 273; emphasis: R.F.]