I'm still trying to wrap my head around what JWs think qualifies them to call themselves "witnesses": witnesses to WHAT?
Here's the definition of "witness" (n):
1. a. One who can give a firsthand account of something seen, heard, or experienced: a witness to the accident. b. One who furnishes evidence. 2. Something that serves as evidence; a sign. 3. Law a. One who is called on to testify before a court. b. One who is called on to be present at a transaction in order to attest to what takes place. c. One who signs one's name to a document for the purpose of attesting to its authenticity. 4. An attestation to a fact, statement, or event; testimony. 5. a. One who publicly affirms religious faith. b. Witness A member of the Jehovah's Witnesses.
Certainly, they cannot claim to serve as first-hand witnesses, in the plain-English meaning of the word, claiming to have actually observed any interactions that are depicted in the Bible (eg the Adam and Eve account, testifying on behalf of the chief prosecutor AND judge, YHWH, etc).
Regardless what mental gymnastics they use to justify calling themselves "witnesses", here's the fundamental problem with JWs applying the legal term "witnesses" to themselves:
Remember that YHWH is the final arbiter, the supposedly impartial unbiased Judge in the trial. He's ALSO the Chief prosecutor, as well (red flag, anyone?).
In a real-World (non-kangaroo) court case, a fundamental miscarriage of justice occurs when witnesses are provided a script by prosecutors or judges that all must follow, to guarantee that defendents are found guilty. These defendents are essentially sentenced to death even BEFORE the mock-trial is held.
In a truly-just judicial system, the witnesses aren't allowed to compare their testimony, so they can make it consistent. The witnesses aren't allowed to communicate pre-trial, much less to form a CLUB based around being a witness to the crime they saw! Any evidence of such that was found by the defendents lawyer would be presented to the court, and an immediate mistrial would be declared by a just judge (or conviction appealed, etc).
To the contrary of this basic legal principle, JWs DEMAND that you agree to the testimony you believe and will offer, where any disagreement to comply with the dogma is automatic grounds for removal from the "Witness" club.
A Judicial Committee proceeding for DFing clearly demonstrates this policy in action, when the elders ask, "Bottom-line: do you believe that the GB is God's voice on Earth, yes or no?" If you say NO, you've just bought yourself an exclusion from the "Witness" club, and you won't be asked to testify in God's kangaroo court (and you've bought yourself inclusion on the list of those who get trumped-up charges placed against them, the "already-convicted defendents" list).
It's just amazing to me that so many JWs cannot see the kangaroo-court character of their own "just" God, and fail to even ask or ponder what the name actually means....
Comments welcome!
