Now that is a real eye opener there Greybeard. '73 was the year I got baptised....for some reason, I don't remember that gem.
Why do we care?
by fade_away 24 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Greybeard
@ Watson
It's for real. I got it straight out of the WT Library. Check out this article written on it:
http://www.jwstruggle.com/2011/09/i-have-a-question-for-the-watchtower-organization/
-
AGuest
I personally don't care what "they" think of ME (may you all have peace!). Some know it's not true... some probably think it regardless of the article. My concern, however, is how such a description may be used by others against those it's being applied to. For example, many JWs are very maleable-minded, some (many) even weak-minded (c'mon, we all know it's true!). Let's say they're also "black-hearted"... which we know is also true. Could this thinking not be used, at some point, by family members wishing to have the sanity of their no-longer-believing family member questioned? True, a court might not buy the "mentally diseased" tack... but the FAMILY might... and as a result MIGHT use it to "build a case" against a non-believer. So as to get conservatorship, have someone committed, sully one's reputation, etc.
It's a slanderous... and potentially very dangerous... label to place on someone... without a proper medical diagnosis to back it up. Yet, it has the potential to be USED... to obtain such a diagnosis (rare, but possible, if the physician is, to some degree, WTBTS sympathetic. Which could happen.)...
Which is why I take some issue when it's done here. People don't realize that making such unsubstantiated, undocumented, and solely born of personal opinion and nothing more... statements/accusations... can be potentially harmful to someone's life outside of the WTBTS... and outside the forum. Thus, it's absolutely slanderous... and, once posted, libelous. And, therefore, subject to legal suit.
The difference between what is said here about the WTBTS and its leaders/members... and what they are saying about "apostates"... is that the former is largely TRUE. Rarely are false accusations made; usually, there is some event, even an article/publication that backs up what is stated as to them. Or someone is experiencing/has experienced the matter personally.
Making a blanket statement that someone is "crazy", "delusional," "mentally diseased," "schizophrenic," etc., however... is purely speculative... and slanderous. And if put in writing, libelous. And anyone HARMED by such statements... can... and possibly should... sue. To have it ceased/recanted, if not also for compensation.
Can a suit against the WTBTS be won? I think so. At the least, I think they will "settle" by either recanting... or explaining [away] their use and that the phrase "mentally diseased" didn't really mean what they WANT folks to believe it does: insane, crazy, delusional, etc. Of course, they will try to say that they were only referring to the meaning of the Greek words originally used, but if it can be shown (and I think it can) that their INTENT was to slander (or at least put others' reputations into question)... which it was... then they will have to recant, one way or another. Maybe even pay some compensation (I doubt that will occur, though).
The thing is... recant HOW... and WHERE? I'm of the mind that it will only be in the "public" version of the WT... and not the "study" version. Which means it won't actually be a recanting, at all. For their members, there will be some cursory announcement hidden in some silly "talk" (and, thus, shown in the outline as proof of recantation)... or obscure WT paragraph. So that although none of their members actually GET (so as to APPLY) that it's a recantation... they will be able to say they DID recant. Sort of like the whole "We NEVER said 1975" thing.
Again, I bid you all peace!
A slave of Christ,
SA
-
exwhyzee
And if you'll remember Greybeard, when this article came out, even the general public hadn't reached the point where they were openly talking about such things as they do now. Since the advent of reality TV and Jerry Springer like forums we've become used to hearing just about any topic discussed but it was pretty shocking stuff in those days. As a teen, I remember being quite embarrased/ashamed to be knocking on doors presenting magazines to total strangers when these kinds of topics were involved. I used to wonder how these old guys who'd been living in the house of God for decades, knew so much about these kinky topics and why it had to be presented to people who weren't even Witnesses.
-
Retrovirus
Slightly off topic but. . .from Greybeard's post 97 on P1:
How do they violate Jesus words at Matthew 5:22? The Watchtower itself explains this in 2006, 2/15 “Questions From Readers” article asks this: What three dangers was Jesus warning against at Matthew 5:22 ?
"What, then, did the expression “despicable fool” signify? The word used here sounded similar to a Hebrew term that means “rebellious,” or “mutinous.” It designates a person as morally worthless, an apostate and a rebel against God. So the person addressing his fellow as a “despicable fool” is as much as saying that his brother should receive a punishment fit for a rebel against God, everlasting destruction. From God’s standpoint, the one uttering such a condemnation against another could merit that severe sentence—everlasting destruction—himself.— Deuteronomy 19:17-19 ."
How do they get away with this stuff? A word "sounded similar" to a Hebrew term that means "rebellious or mutinous" which designates "apostate"???
Anyone in the real world would be laughed out of the country for such leaps of illogic!