Help - how to reason from 'best out there'?

by Xander 28 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Xander
    Xander

    he is following the dictates of the Bible, or the dictates of men in doing these things

    That's where I kinda wedged him with the birthday thing above. He acknowledges that to his belief system, it is more important to follow the men who claim to speak for god than follow the bible. I think he's only okay with that obviously ridiculous idea because he feels they correctly speak for god/the bible.

    Contradictions (ie, the 'blinking light') help a bit, doctrinal changes that stick (ie, 'New light') don't really, and translation errors or other guffaws might a little. (Sadly, he's totally okay with the UN library card excuse.)

    I dunno, I fear nothing but time will have any effect. I'm sure we'll have more such conversations, and I'm sure I'll bounce more ideas of this board, thanks for your time/comments/suggestions so far!

  • hooberus
    hooberus
    However, appendix 1A of the Interlinear Translation claims to show a number of partial Greek manuscripts that contain the form YHWH (in original Hebrew, no less). I'm EXTREMELY SKEPTICAL of the validity of those 'partials', and am curious if anyone has any other thoughts on them?

    I don't have the Wt interlinear but I believe that these are Greek manuscripts of the Septuagent. The Septuagent is a Greek translation of the Old Testament. No one doubts that Gods name is YHWH or that the tetragrammaton is found 7,000 times in the Old Testament. However this is not the issue. The issue is what religion were the New Testament Christians and the fact remains that the divine name is no where to be found in its full form in any of the "Christian Greek Scriptures"(New Testament). The Watchtowers pictures of the divine name in the Septuagent is simply an attempt to confuse the issue.

    The Watchtower also likes to confuse the issue by showing relatively modern (1385ad to present) Hebrew translations of the Christain Greek Scriptures which include the divine name(the "J" documents). However the original Greek manuscripts from which these are translated do not contain the divine name anywhere (the traslators of these "Hebrew New Testaments" added it with no manuscript support.)

  • Xander
    Xander

    Indeed - thanks a bunch, that is much as I suspected, very useful!

    (Honestly, I'm hoping that our next discussion occurs over email or ICQ or something so I have more time to compose my thoughts).

    Thanks again!

  • hooberus
    hooberus

    Here is another important issue for your brother: Lets assume that the WT is right and that mankind does not have a separate soul. Hense according to WT doctrine man is essentially only a body. So that when a person dies all that is left is the dead body. The WT teaches that the original body will remain in the grave forever and will never be resurrected!! So it is a hopeless religion!!

    Remain dead in Paradise Earth Forever!


    CASKETS

    The WT teaches that Jehovah finds some dirt somewhere and forms a new body (which never existed before!). Jehovah then creates this new body to look like your brother before he died. This new body then takes your brothers place and lives forever in paradise earth while your brothers original body remains in the grave forever!!!!! There is no connection between the original person that died and the new person/body which takes their place!!!!

    The Bible on the other hand teaches the resurrection of the original body that died (albeit restored to perfection) see Isaiah 26:19.

    Edited by - hooberus on 31 January 2003 17:42:12

    Edited by - hooberus on 31 January 2003 17:42:57

  • DanTheMan
    DanTheMan

    Of course when I was a newbie JW I was anxious to 'join the club' and I uncritically accepted their justifications for the door-to-door ministry.

    As time went on I really began to question the idea that God was going to kill people because they didn't listen to the mumbling 19 year old JW pioneer that came to their door offering magazines that dealt with such timely, life-or-death issues as "Help for Arthritis Sufferers". Compounding this unease with the often dopey magazine content was the fact that I lived outside of my congregation's territory for over 6 years and never once did the JW's who were assigned to the territory I lived in come to my door. Also, in conversation with relatives, coworkers, etc., I often found that people outside JW knew next to nothing about them. That was jarring to my "center-of-the-universe" JW mentality.

    Ray Franz does an excellent job in ISOCF of debunking the door-2-door dogma of the WT. Do you have this book Xander?

    How many Witnesses go door-to-door their entire lives, but if they should miss one Saturday when they could have been out, they feel an almost unbearable guilt for not making the "sacrifice of the lips". It is this sort of primitive mentality, that the wrathful gods need to be regularly appeased through sacrifice, that really started to drive me nuts as a JW. I felt like if I heard "Are you confident that you are doing all you can in the preaching and disciple making work?" or "We have to make sure that we are pleasing to Jerhover at all times..." from the platform one more time I was going to lose my mind.

  • ClassAvenger
    ClassAvenger

    Another thing to keep in mind when trying to preach to a JW is that they close their ears to any type of negative information to their religion, they are taught to do that and they will do it. They think that they are persecuted when people tell them things on their organization. Try not to show him, but make him reason on his own. Let him find the truth on his own.

  • Xander
    Xander

    Let him find the truth on his own.

    If that wasn't so much easier said than done, there'd be no problems for any of us here, I fear.

    to question the idea that God was going to kill people because they didn't listen to the mumbling 19 year old JW pioneer that came to their door offering magazines

    I got an interesting jab in there. We had been talking about the massive 'growth' the org was experiencing. I pointed out that said 'growth' was below the population growth rate, then I was talking of all the places I'd been on business trips in the US, and how so few had even heard of the JW religion (which, honestly, for a long time was a surprise to me, as well. After all, weren't we the most important people in the universe? At the very crux of an epic struggle before god and satan? Surely, EVERYONE must at least have HEARD of us!?)

    In any case, his response was "Well, you work in IT, the people you talk to won't be at their doors. It's not possible for EVERYBODY to be reached with the message."

    "Wait, don't you still believe that EVERYBODY *must* be reached with the message before the end comes?"

    Oops.

    Oh, well, it didn't sink in.

  • UnDisfellowshipped
    UnDisfellowshipped

    Xander, I'm going to try and help you out if I can.

    I think it might help to show your brother the Watchtower Society's RAPE Policy.

    RAPE Policy Scenario (taken from Watchtower and Awake Magazines which are Quoted below):

    1: Woman is Raped and does not Scream and/or fight off the attacker because he has a Gun/Knife.
    2: Elders find out about her being Raped.
    3: The Elders bring her before a Judicial Hearing.
    4: The Elders ask her the exact details of what happened during the Rape.
    5: If the Elders determine that she did not Scream loud enough, or fight off the attacker enough, she will be Disfellowshipped for Fornication (or Adultery if she is Married).
    6: This is whole Scenario depends on the current New Light on this Policy which has gone back and forth about 10 times!
    7: This has got to be one of the most cruel and wicked Policies ever (2nd only to their Pedophile Policies)!

    Also, if the Rapist is a Jehovah's Witness, they will require 2 Eye-Witnesses against him in order for him to be Disfellowshipped -- however the JW Woman can be Disfellowshipped because she "confessed" to being raped and not screaming!

    RAPE Watchtower Policy Changes:

    Does a Woman have to Scream and/or Fight Off the Attacker in order to not have committed Fornication while being Raped?

    ??? -- Before 1964 (What was the Policy before 1964?)
    YES -- The Watchtower, January 15th 1964 Issue, Page 63 (Old Light)
    NO -- Aid Book, 1969 and 1971 Editions, Page 601 (New Light)
    YES -- Awake!, March 8th 1974 Issue, Page 14 (Old Light)
    NO -- Awake!, July 8th 1980 Issue, Pages 5-6 (New Light)
    YES -- The Watchtower, October 15th 1980 Issue, Page 7 (Old Light)
    NO -- The Watchtower, March 15th 1983 Issue, Page 30 (New Light)
    YES -- Awake!, February 22nd 1984 Issue, Page 24 (Old Light)
    NO -- Awake!, June 8th 1984 Issue, Page 28 (New Light)
    YES -- Awake!, May 22nd 1986 Issue, Page 23 (Old Light)
    NO -- Awake!, September 22nd 1986 Issue, Page 28 (New Light)
    YES -- The Watchtower, December 15th 1998 Issue (Old Light)
    YES -- J.R. Brown says YES to a Reporter, August 2nd 2002 (Old Light)
    YES -- The Watchtower, February 1st 2003 Issue, Questions From Readers (Old Light)

    Ask your brother to explain how God's True Organization could go back-and-forth on such an extremely important Policy TEN TIMES!

    Then, ask your brother to show you WHERE in the NEW Testament is there ANY support for this Policy!

    Then show him John 8:1-11 and compare that to this Watchtower Policy on Rape.

    Then, show your brother the following quotes about New Light:

    *** Watchtower February 1881 Issue, Page 3 (When Charles Taze Russell was President of the Society) ***

    "If we were following a man undoubtedly it would be different with us; undoubtedly one human idea would contradict another and that which was light one or two years ago would be regarded as darkness now. But with God there is no variableness, neither shadow of turning, and so it is with truth; any knowledge or light coming from God must be like its author. A new view of truth never can contradict a former truth. New Light never extinguishes older light, but adds to it..."
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------

    *** Awake! April 22nd 1970 Issue, Pages 8-10 ***

    Changes That Disturb People

    One of the reasons is that people are disturbed by what is happening in their churches. Yes, millions of persons have been shocked to learn that things they were taught as being vital for salvation are now considered by their church to be wrong. Have you, too, felt discouragement, or even despair, because of what is happening in your church?

    A businessman in Medelln, Colombia, expressed the effect the changes have had on many.
    Tell me, he asked, how can I have confidence in anything? How can I believe in the Bible, in God, or have faith? Just ten years ago we Catholics had the absolute truth, we put all our faith in this. Now the pope and our priests are telling us this is not the way to believe any more, but we are to believe new things. How do I know the new things will be the truth in five years? What are some of these changes that disturb people?

    Should Meat Be Eaten on Friday?

    FOR centuries Catholics abstained from eating meat on Fridays. It was a Church law. Many sincerely believed it was a law of Almighty God. But now this has changed.
    The fact is that the meatless-Friday rule was made an obligation only some 1,100 years ago. Pope Nicholas I (858-867) was the one who put it into effect. And how vital was it considered that Catholics abide by this rule? A publication that bears the Catholic imprimatur, indicating approval, states: The Catholic Church says that it is a mortal sin for a Catholic to eat meat on Friday knowingly and wilfully, without a sufficiently grave and excusing reason. It adds: The Church says that if a man dies in unrepented mortal sin, he will go to hell.Radio Replies, Rumble and Carty (1938).

    Thus the devout carefully avoided eating meat on Fridays. They sincerely believed that failure to obey could lead to their eternal punishment in a fiery hell. But then, early in 1966, Pope Paul VI authorized local Church officials to modify this abstinence requirement in their countries as they saw fit. The pope was acting in line with recommendations made at the recently completed Second Vatican Council. Thus, in one country after another, meatless Fridays were virtually abolishedin France, Canada, Italy, Mexico, the United States, and so on.

    The Effect

    The effect upon many devout Catholics has been devastating. All these years I thought it was a sin to eat meat, explained a housewife in the midwestern United States. Now I suddenly find out it isnt a sin. Thats hard to understand. If you are a Catholic, can you understand how a practice that was considered by the Church a mortal sin can suddenly be approved? if it was a sin five years ago, why is it not today? Many Catholics cannot understand. When a woman in Canada was asked how she felt about the changes in her church, she replied: I dont know. Maybe you can tell me. What are they going to do with all those people sent to hell for eating meat on Friday?

    Not just a few Catholics have asked such questions. The change in teaching has shaken their confidence in the Church. Would you not feel the same way if what you had always been taught to be vital for salvation was suddenly considered unnecessary? Would you not be inclined to question other teachings of your church also?

    Many persons have begun to ask questions regarding the basis for this teaching, as well as about other Church teachings. And what especially disturbs them is that they have not received satisfying answers.

    What Becomes Evident

    The inability of the Church to explain its position Scripturally makes evident an important fact: The Catholic Church has not based its teachings upon what Gods Word says. Rather, it has founded many of its beliefs and practices on the unstable traditions of men.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------

    Here are the Watchtower Quotes on Rape, showing the Flip-Flops:

    *** Watchtower January 15th 1964 Issue, Pages 63-64 ***

    Questions from Readers

    According to the Bible at Deuteronomy 22:23-27, an Israelite engaged girl threatened with rape was required to scream. What is the position of a Christian woman today if faced with a similar situation? Is she to scream even if an attacker threatens her life with a weapon?-M. U., United States.

    According to God's law an Israelite girl was under obligation to scream: "In case there happened to be a virgin girl engaged to a man, and a man actually found her in the city and lay down with her, you must also bring them both out to the gate of that city and pelt them with stones, and they must die, the girl for the reason that she did not scream in the city, and the man for the reason that he humiliated the wife of his fellow man." If, however, the attack took place in a field and the woman screamed and thus tried to get away from the attacker, she was not to be stoned, since she was overpowered and there was no one to rescue her.-Deut. 22:23-27.

    But suppose the man had a weapon and threatened to kill the girl if she failed to lie down with him? These scriptures do not weaken the argument or alter the situation by citing any circumstance that would justify her in not screaming. It plainly says she should scream; hence, oppose the attack regardless of the circumstances. If she was overpowered and perhaps knocked unconscious and violated before help came in answer to her screams, she could not be held accountable. The thought of the scriptures apparently is that the girl's screaming, by attracting neighborhood attention, would frighten off her assailant and would save her, even though he threatened her life for not quietly complying with his wishes and passionate desires.

    Such Scriptural precedents are applicable to Christians, who are under command, "Flee from fornication." (1 Cor. 6:18) Thus if a Christian woman does not cry out and does not put forth every effort to flee, she would be viewed as consenting to the violation. The Christian woman who wants to keep clean and obey God's commandments, then, if faced with this situation today, needs to be courageous and to act on the suggestion made by the Scriptures and scream. Actually this counsel is for her welfare; for, if she should submit to the man's passionate wishes, she would not only be consenting to fornication or adultery, but be plagued by the shame. There would be shame, not only from the repulsiveness of the experience, but of having been coerced into breaking God's law by having sex connections with one other than a legal marriage mate. Not only that, but she might become an unwed mother, or she may contract a terrible disease from her morally debased attacker.

    It is true that a woman faces the possibility her assailant will carry out his threat; but, then, what guarantee does she have that such a desperate criminal would not kill her after satisfying his passion? In fact, such a one, perhaps already hunted by the law, may be more likely to kill her after the attack, since she would then have had a greater opportunity to identify him and would therefore be in a better position to supply a description of him to the authorities. In such case, following the Scriptural counsel of screaming could well save one's life by attracting attention and driving the attacker away at the outset, instead of causing him to feel that he must get rid of his victim for fear of being identified later.

    In most instances it is doubtless a matter of calling the assailant's bluff, since the girl's screams could result in his arrest for attempted rape. Also, if he carried out his threat and committed murder, he would face the likelihood of apprehension and conviction for this even more serious offense. Of course, there is the possibility that instead of fleeing immediately, the attacker may strike his victim or inflict a superficial wound to silence the screams, yet would not the endurance of such physical punishment be insignificant compared to the disgrace and shame of submitting to an immoral man?

    A Christian woman is entitled to fight for her virginity or marital fidelity to the death. Just how best she can defend herself against anyone who wants to defile her depends upon her courage and quick wits. At least, as has been mentioned, she should first try to frighten off the would-be rapist by screaming and making as loud and noisy a spectacle of the matter as she possibly can, in order to summon any convenient aid. This being unavailing, then she has a right to defend her virtue by whatever means she can.

    The morals of this generation have indeed sunk to an unprecedented low, just as Bible prophecy foretold for these last days. The fact that over 15,000 women a year, about one every half hour, are raped in the United States alone emphasizes this fact. It also serves as a warning to women that they should exercise care so as to avoid dangerous situations. Since women are almost always attacked when they are alone, they should arrange to have a companion along, especially when they are out after dark. And in localities where it is considered dangerous for women even during daylight hours, women should not go out alone but should take along a companion. God's Word says: "If somebody could overpower one alone, two together could make a stand against him. And a threefold cord cannot quickly be torn in two." (Eccl. 4:12) For a Christian woman to persist in going out alone in a city or locality where women are frequently attacked is to invite trouble and needlessly endanger life. It is the part of wisdom to give thought to what could happen in a given situation and then take the necessary precautions. The wise person foresees danger and takes steps to avoid it. "The shrewd one considers his steps."-Prov. 14:15.
    --------------------------------------------------------------

    *** Watchtower June 1st 1968 Issue, Pages 345-350 The Christian's View of Self-Defense ***

    ATTEMPTED RAPE

    If you are a Christian woman, what should you do if, in spite of all precautions, you are set upon by a rapist? If you cannot deter him by reasoning, or by calling upon the name of Jehovah, then what? As a Christian you are under obligation to resist. This resistance includes screaming and creating as much disturbance as possible to try to frighten off the attacker and attract help. If the attack continues and you cannot break free to flee, then you would be justified even to inflict damage on your assailant if necessary. Resistance is imperative, because the rapist is after, not just money, but your virtue. An issue of integrity to Jehovah's laws is involved here. So by no means would it be proper quietly to submit to rape, as that would be consenting to fornication.-1 Thess. 4:3.

    The principle is like that set out at Deuteronomy chapter 22. There it states: "In case there happened to be a virgin girl engaged to a man, and a man actually found her in the city and lay down with her, you must also bring them both out to the gate of that city and pelt them with stones, and they must die." Why would the girl have died under that Law covenant? The scripture continues: "The girl for the reason that she did not scream in the city." If she did not make the effort to scream, she was viewed as consenting to fornication. But if the woman screamed and resisted and nonetheless was overpowered, then she was not guilty of complicity: "The girl . . . screamed, but there was no one to rescue her."-Deut. 22:23-27.

    Would it be different if the man had a weapon and threatened to kill you if you did not submit? No, the Scriptures plainly state that Christians are under obligation to "flee from fornication." (1 Cor. 6:18) It is true that you face the possibility of death in this case. But you have no guarantee that if you meekly submit, your assailant will not kill you anyhow to avoid identification.

    Christian women are wise if they do all they can to avoid making themselves targets for rapists. Knowing that the morals of this generation are sinking to new lows, take every precaution. In unsafe areas avoid traveling alone after dark. As Ecclesiastes 4:12 states: "If somebody could overpower one alone, two together could make a stand against him. And a threefold cord cannot quickly be torn in two." Also consider how you dress. If a woman adopts the provocative, suggestive styles of dress now so prevalent, she indicates that she is a woman of loose morals, and in so doing she may invite trouble.

    Resistance includes screaming and creating as much disturbance as possible
    ----------------------------------------------------------------

    *** Aid to Bible Understanding Book (1969 and 1971 Editions) Page 1371+ and Page 601 ***

    [Note: The Aid Book is not available on 1993/1995/1999 Official Watchtower Library CD-ROMs]

    RAPE is defined as unlawful sexual intercourse without the woman's consent, effected by force, duress, intimidation...

    FORNICATION: Sex relations by mutual agreement between two persons not married to each other.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------

    *** Awake! March 8th 1974 Issue, Pages 13-16 Faced with the Threat of Rape ***

    Rape is illicit sexual intercourse without the consent of the woman and is effected by force.

    Scream! Scream! Scream! Is that good advice? It certainly is. Just how good this advice is can be seen from what happened on November 12, 1973, in one of Brooklyn's largest hotels.

    Threatened with Rape

    The rapist was a well-dressed man. He had the physique of a football player, being well over six feet tall and weighing about 250 pounds. He took the elevator to the tenth floor of the hotel and there began to molest a middle-aged woman tenant, who managed to escape his clutches by screaming. She at once called the police, who came but were unable to locate him in the building, he having fled to lower floors.

    On the second floor he saw two fine young women housekeepers who asked him if they could help him. "Yes, you can," he said, and, pulling out a gun, ordered them into one of the rooms, upon which he double-locked the door. He assured them that they would not get hurt so long as they did not make any noise. He said that he needed a place to hide until things cooled off downstairs and that he would keep them there for an hour.

    These two young women happened to be Christian ministers and they began to make conversation so as to release the tension. One of them asked him if they could read while they were waiting. He said Yes, and so she took a Bible study aid that was in reach, handed another to the other woman and started a Bible discussion on the subject of how long Noah had preached before the flood came, it being a subject that had come up the day before in her Christian field ministry. She noted that it must have been about forty years, but the man thought it had been about 200 years. From that discussion they went on to such subjects as the name of God, Jehovah, and the kingdom for which Jesus taught his followers to pray. They also told him that they were Christian witnesses of Jehovah and about the high standards of conduct the Witnesses have. The two women were not particularly frightened, for it seemed much like a typical Bible discussion that these girls often had, especially as the man kept expressing his own opinions on these subjects.

    But after about forty-five minutes things suddenly took a disquieting turn. He looked at his watch and said that he would have to tie them up so as to give him time to get away. Although they assured him that it was not necessary, he ordered one of them to sit on the floor in a closet, upon which he tied her feet with a necktie, and her hands behind her back. He then turned off the light in the closet and closed the door. He ordered the other into the bathroom but then changed his mind and, warning her not to scream or yell, he reached for the zipper on her blouse. She exclaimed: "No! No! Not that!" and told him that if he touched her she would scream as he had never heard anyone scream before and that if he was going to shoot he might as well go ahead and shoot because if she did not scream she would be as good as dead anyhow.

    She told him that marriage was honorable before God and that she was married, but that what he wanted to do was not honorable. Also, that if she did not scream she would ruin her relationship with Jehovah God and the Christian congregation; that then she would be disfellowshiped or excommunicated from it and that this would be worse than being killed as far as she was concerned. He looked puzzled. He did not understand and so asked her to repeat what she had said, which she did, scared and shaking though she was. As she later explained: "The situation sickened me and the mere thought of it all was so disgusting that I knew what I had to do." After all of this he again tried to put his arms around her, upon which she moved away, saying, "Don't you touch me or come near me."

    This calls to mind a statement made by the Dallas, Texas, police department, namely, that "a woman's best defenses" are, among other things, "her wits" and "a scream."

    Yes, this young woman in the Brooklyn hotel used her wits by courageously using her knowledge of the Bible, thereby diverting the would-be rapist from his evil intent. As a result, he pursued the matter no further with these two women but left after first ordering them not to leave the room for fifteen minutes.

    Frustrated a second time, this rapist was not giving up. Coming out into the hallway, he saw another fine young woman and began engaging her in conversation, asking where the elevators were, the nature of the rooms on the floor, and so forth. Suddenly he moved close to her and tried to push her into one of the rooms the door of which was open.

    What could she do? He was every bit a foot taller than she was and weighed at least twice as much. She did what the Bible indicates a young woman should do: she screamed, louder than she had ever screamed before. (Deut. 22:23-27) This was wholly unexpected by the rapist. Startled, he ran down the steps at the end of the hallway.

    As the three young women told their story at the police station, their hearers, increasing from three to eight men and two policewomen, marveled at what they heard. They could not get over it that two of these young women had talked about the Bible to a would-be rapist. One of the women officers asked for more information about the beliefs of Jehovah's witnesses and stated that if more women took such a determined and firm stand there would be fewer such crimes.

    Why the Increase?

    The foregoing experience in a Brooklyn hotel last November is but one instance of this social crime that is increasing on every hand. And that increase is very real. As the editor of America's Campus Law Enforcement Journal said about this increase: "It's not just a question of more women reporting it. It has happened."

    No doubt one of the main reasons for rapes has ever been the extreme selfishness of men who refuse to control their mating instinct. As Dr. Ralph Garofalo, of Massachusetts' Center for Diagnosis and Treatment of Sexually Dangerous Persons, put it: 'Normal men find a socially acceptable outlet for their desires, while the rapist loses sight of all moral or legal considerations.' But why the great increase of rape in modern times and in recent years?

    Discussing the reasons, a Seattle, Washington, police official in charge of the city's sex-crime investigation department stated: "Our whole moral climate, our attitudes toward sex and the dress of the women have to be causes." He also stated that the 'increased exposure to pornography has contributed to the rise in reported rapes.'

    Womankind must share the blame. To begin with, until the age of five or six years, the most vital period, little boys have their personalities molded largely by women, their mothers. And as they grow up, it is usually the mother that has the most opportunities to inculcate in her son respect for womankind, both by word and by example. But far too many mothers have come short in this regard. Especially and specifically blameworthy are those female relatives, such as an aunt or even a mother, who have used boys as sexual playthings, thereby starting them on a road that leads to their having aggressive feelings toward women.

    A new American motion picture star who aims to occupy the place once held by America's previous sex symbol brags about her charms and about her ability to arouse men by displaying herself in motion pictures. Such actresses must also share in the blame for the increase in rapes, for after men have seen them on the screen they frequently go out and attack a woman who may be a paragon of virtue.

    The New York Times, November 26, 1973, told of two fifteen-year-old girls being forced, shortly after midnight, into a store by an employee of the store who kept them for four hours and repeatedly raped one of them until the police came and rescued the girls and arrested the kidnapper and rapist. But what business did two teen-age girls have on the streets around midnight?

    And never should a single woman, or even two, for that matter, take a chance on hitchhiking with a strange man. Many have done so, to be not only raped, but even murdered.

    Further, in view of the way that many men think, each virtuous woman should be careful to dress modestly. According to the Seattle, Washington, police lieutenant in charge of the department dealing with such crimes, women who "reveal everything" in the way they dress make themselves more vulnerable to rape. "You can't advertise a commodity and expect no buyers . . . A little modesty," he holds, would prevent some rapes.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------

    *** Awake! July 8th 1980 Issue, Pages 5-6 The Growing Terror of Rape ***

    How Most Victims React

    Understandably, a woman faced with the threat of rape may be terrified. In fact, two Boston College professors, after interviews with 80 rape victims, noted: "The primary reaction of almost all women to the rape was fear." And the problem is that such fear can be paralyzing.

    The illustration was given by a rape victim: "Did you ever see a rabbit stuck in the glare of your headlights when you were going down a road at night? Transfixed-like it knew it was going to get it-that's what happened."

    Often coupled with the fear is confusion and uncertainty. For example, a 19-year-old explained: "I never physically fought him off in any way, partly because I was frightened, mostly because in my navet I thought a girl has to do what she's told. . . . I was overwhelmingly confused and defenseless against the whole suddenness."

    She reacted as many others have under similar circumstances. She submitted. Few are prepared to resist--to resist for all they are worth. Elizabeth R. Dobell, writing in the magazine Seventeen, made the surprising revelation: "In only one of the 4,057 rape cases reported in New York City in 1974 was there an act of resistance. . . . Profound terror in the face of physical threats simply renders most women helpless."
    ----------------------------------------------------------------

    *** Watchtower October 15th 1980 Issue, Page 7 Avoiding the Tragedy of Rape ***

    Back in March 1974, Awake! magazine described how a man with a gun had held two of Jehovah's Witnesses prisoner in a hotel room. As he reached for the zipper on one girl's blouse, she exclaimed: "No! No! Not that!" She told him that if he touched her she would scream as he had never heard anyone scream before. She explained that if she did not she would ruin her relationship with Jehovah God and the Christian congregation. (Compare Deuteronomy 22:22-29.) Her firm demand: "Don't you touch me or come near me" kept the rapist at bay.

    This woman did the Scripturally proper thing, which actually is the best thing to do. A Christian woman is under obligation to resist, for the issue of obedience to God's law to "flee from fornication" is involved. (1 Cor. 6:18) By no means would it be proper for her willingly to submit to being raped.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------

    *** Watchtower March 15th 1983 Issue, Pages 30-31 Honor Godly Marriage! ***

    Defining "Fornication"

    What do we understand here by "fornication"? The Greek word in this text is porneia.

    Footnotes:
    A male or a female who is forcibly raped would not be guilty of porneia.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------

    *** Awake! February 22nd 1984 Issue, Pages 24-27 They Resisted Rapists ***

    They Resisted Rapists

    GENERALLY rapists try to get a woman in some isolated place where people are not around. At times they have a weapon and threaten to use it if the victim does not cooperate. Should a Christian quietly submit?

    No, the situation is not the same as when a man simply is asking for money or other material possessions. A woman wisely would give him these. But the rapist is asking a person to break God's law by committing fornication. Under such circumstances a Christian is obligated to resist.-1 Corinthians 6:18.

    'But could not resistance be dangerous?' someone may ask. Yes, it could be. Yet it may well be more dangerous not to resist, as a teacher of rape self-defense notes: "He just may kill you when he's done so you can't identify him later."

    The comments of a leading spokeswoman on rape are noteworthy. She said: "Despite the popular myths of male violence and the alleged safety in submission, it has never been demonstrated that resistance on the part of a rape victim in an attempt to escape 'provokes' an assailant to commit an act of murder." The following experience illustrates this.

    Two young women were in a Laundromat when a man came in and at gunpoint herded them into a room in the rear of the building. He ordered them to undress. They refused, praying aloud to Jehovah God for help. Finally, they told the now-confused gunman that they were Jehovah's Witnesses and that it was against their religious belief to do what he was demanding; they would not do it even if he shot them. Result? The frustrated gunman fled.

    Treat Him Respectfully

    The intended victim should remember that the rapist is a human. No doubt there are circumstances in his life that have precipitated his behavior. So although a woman should not cower in fear and permit a rapist to intimidate her, at the same time she should treat him understandingly, as a fellow human. A woman who lived in a housing project in New York City writes:

    "I usually am careful when going into elevators. As usual, I checked this one out before entering, and all was OK. However, just before the door closed completely, a big man grabbed the door and opened it to come into the elevator with me. As he entered he threw a six-pack of beer at me, and I caught it. It took me by surprise.

    "As the door closed he turned his back to me to do something with his pants. Then he turned around and faced me. I didn't look down at his pants but looked him in the eyes. I threw his six-pack of beer back to him, and said, 'Here is your beer.'

    "At this moment, before he could do anything, I started to talk. I said I was one of Jehovah's Witnesses and was going up to the 13th floor to have a Bible study with a family who was waiting for me. I just kept talking and told him about our Bible educational work. We were half way up to the 13th floor by now, and as I kept right on talking I showed no fear, looking him straight in the eyes. Then a funny thing happened. He began to say that he loved the Bible and that he was from the South and his family loved God too.

    "Meanwhile, we had reached the 13th floor, and he opened the door to let me out. He asked me if I would do him the honor of shaking his hand. I did, and he practically shook it off. Then he said he wanted to thank me because I was the first white woman that hadn't looked at him with scorn in her eyes, and that I was sincere in talking with him. He then said good-bye and wished me good luck on my Bible study."

    Resisting in One's Home

    Rapes that occur in one's own home can be particularly traumatic, since the surroundings are a constant reminder of the event. How much better, therefore, for one to resist! A mother who was able to avoid being raped in her home in Detroit, Michigan, tells how she did it.

    "It was 5:30 a.m. when I was awakened by the sound of footsteps. At first I was unsure from which direction they were coming. I looked at my watch and saw that it was too early for my oldest daughter to be getting ready for school. My husband is a traveling musician and was away. I had been asleep downstairs. Since I knew no one was upstairs, I decided the sounds were coming from the front porch. So I turned on the porch light. Immediately I heard footsteps run down the stairs, and when I turned, there stood a strange man.

    "Because the man had his hand inside his coat, as if he had a gun, I said, 'If you are going to kill me, do it.' He said he had a gun and would shoot me if I did not do everything he commanded. He told me to turn off all the lights and sit on the couch. I turned off the lights but refused to sit on the couch. He said he would kill me if I did not let him rape me. Then he started pushing me to the couch, so I quoted Matthew 16:26, which says: 'For what benefit will it be to a man if he gains the whole world but forfeits his soul? or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?'

    "The man stopped pushing me and asked what the scripture meant. So I explained that if I resisted him and remained faithful to my God and my husband, and was killed for this faithfulness, I would have a hope of being resurrected to a Paradise earth and everlasting life. But if I gave in and he raped me, I would eventually die and have no hope of a resurrection.

    "The intruder knew he was not going to talk me into letting him rape me, so he started pulling at my clothing. I remembered the scripture at Deuteronomy chapter 22 that says if you are attacked in the city and do not scream it is considered the same as consenting. I then said very loudly, 'Stop! Please! No! Don't do that! Mister, please leave my house!'

    "If a woman is attacked, her best weapon is still her lungs"
    ----------------------------------------------------------------

    *** Awake! June 8th 1984 Issue, Page 28 From Our Readers ***

    I was deeply disturbed by the article "They Resisted Rapists." I am very upset that anyone would even consider a victim of rape guilty of fornication. The scripture at Deuteronomy that you quote only requires that the woman scream, not fight to the death!
    C. W., Indiana

    Your article "They Resisted Rapists" disturbed me very much. I was raped by a man who attacked me with a knife. I could only scream once because of being choked and having a large hand pressed against my mouth. I fought until I was unconscious. Because I survived, it disturbs me that it is fornication on my part. You say to show a rapist respect. These men show no respect for their victim. They don't care that they are shattering a woman, leaving in her memory horror for the rest of her life. Unless you have personally experienced the horror of this crime, you can never truly understand.
    A. G., Massachusetts

    For the victim to be considered guilty of fornication there would need to be proof of willing consent. Apparently the requirement of Deuteronomy 22:25-27 for the woman to resist by screaming would clear her from any suspicion of such consent on her part.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------

    *** Awake! May 22nd 1986 Issue, Page 23 "Now You Are Going to Die!" ***

    Why you should resist an attacker from the first moment:

    1. Attacker may be startled and leave you

    2. You may incapacitate attacker and be able to flee

    3. Attacker may lose sexual urge or tire out and retreat

    4. You can attract others to assist you

    5. Your conscience will be clear. (Even if you are raped, you will not sacrifice your self-respect or cleanness before God)

    6. Injuries you inflict on an attacker will help police identify him later (for example, bits of his skin under your fingernails)
    ----------------------------------------------------------------

    *** Awake! September 22nd 1986 Issue Page 28 From Our Readers ***

    Resisting Rape

    Thank you for your article "Now You Are Going to Die!" (May 22, 1986) I might note some concerns about the advice given, however. Some rapists are very angry and sadistic in their approach and come armed with weapons and the intent to use them if there is the least provocation. Our Metropolitan Organization to Counter Sexual Assault suggests resistance, but if the woman is paralyzed by fear or her instincts tell her not to resist, we recognize that as appropriate. We would rather have someone live through the experience than be killed or seriously mutilated.
    P. R., United States

    The Bible does support the thought that a woman attacked by a rapist should scream and resist. True, the woman has to respond according to her assessment of the danger to her life, and we believe that is covered in the advice given in the box on page 23 (May 22, 1986). It should be kept in mind that submitting to rape gives no guarantee that the victim will not be beaten or killed afterward. See the article "They Resisted Rapists" in our issue of February 22, 1984.-ED.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------

    *** Insight on the Scriptures Books (1988) ***

    (Says you are NOT required to scream if you are Raped)
    ----------------------------------------------------------------

    *** Awake! August 22nd 1989 Issue, Page 24 ***

    If a woman does not cry out when attacked, it indicates she is submitting to the man and is committing a sin against Jehovah.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------

    *** Pay Attention To Yourselves And To All The Flock Secret Elders Book, 1991 (Latest) Edition, Page 93 ***

    Self-abuse, or masturbation, is not "porna'a," nor would one who was raped be guilty of por.neia. (Watchtower March 15th 1983 Issue, Page 30; Watchtower March 1st 1974 Issue, Page 160; Insight Book Volume 1 Pages 862-864; T.P. Page 144)
    ----------------------------------------------------------------

    *** Awake! March 8th 1993 Issue Pages 4-5 The Reality of Rape ***

    Rape myths create a false sense of security. In other words, if you can find some fault in the victim's behavior-she dressed in tight clothing or she went out alone at night or she really wanted to have sexual relations-you or your loved ones will be safe if that conduct is avoided; therefore you will never be raped. The alternative, that rape is a senseless act of violence that can happen to anybody, regardless of how she is dressed, is too terrifying to accept.

    One woman, raped by someone she thought of as "nice, respectable," pleads: "The worst possible thing you can do is believe it won't happen to you."

    Rape Myths and Realities

    The following are some of the long-held misconceptions about rape that serve to blame the victim and to perpetuate attitudes that encourage the perpetrators:

    Myth: Rape happens only when a woman is attacked by a stranger.

    Fact: The majority of women who are raped are assaulted by someone they know and had trusted. One study found that 84 percent of victims knew their attackers and that 57 percent of the rapes happened on dates. One out of 7 married women will be raped by her own husband. Rapes are violent and emotionally traumatic whether the attacker is a stranger, a spouse, or a date.

    Myth: It's rape only if a woman afterward shows evidence of resistance, such as bruises.

    Fact: Whether they physically resisted or not, few women show visible evidence, such as bruises or cuts.

    Myth: A rape victim bears part of the blame unless she actively resists.

    Fact: Rape by definition takes place when force or the threat of force is used to gain sexual penetration, of any kind whatsoever, against a person's will. It is the rapist's use of force against an unwilling victim that makes him a rapist. Thus, a rape victim is not guilty of fornication. Like an incest victim, she may be forced to submit to an act she doesn't want because of the perceived power held over her by another person. When a woman is forced to submit to a rapist out of terror or disorientation, it does not mean that she consents to the act. Consent is based on choice without threat and is active, not passive.

    Myth: Rape is an act of passion.

    Fact: Rape is an act of violence. Men rape, not solely for sex, but to feel power over another person.

    Myth: A woman can tease or lead a man on to the point that he can no longer control his sexual urges.

    Fact: Men who rape do not have a stronger sex drive than other men have. Rather, one third of all rapists were unable to complete the sex act. In most cases rapes are planned acts, not spontaneous urges. Both stranger and acquaintance rapists usually set up their victims-the stranger by stalking the victim until she is alone, the acquaintance by arranging a situation where she is isolated.

    Myth: Women lie about rape to get revenge on a man or because they feel guilty about having sex.

    Fact: False reports of rape occur at the same rate as for any other violent crime: 2 percent. On the other hand, researchers agree that rape is grossly underreported.

    Myth: A woman can "ask" to be raped by wearing provocative clothing, drinking alcohol, letting a man pay her way, or going to his home.

    Fact: Using bad judgment, being naive or ignorant, does not mean that a woman deserves to be raped. Rapists bear sole responsibility for the rape.

    [Footnotes]
    "The crime is not about the act of 'sex' but rather the sexual act is the tool that the perpetrator uses to commit a violent crime."-Wanda Keyes-Robinson, division chief, Sexual Offense Unit, Baltimore City, Maryland.

    [Box on Page 7]

    Profile of a Potential Rapist

    * Emotionally abuses you by insulting you, ignoring your views, or getting angry or annoyed when you make a suggestion.
    * Tries to control elements of your life, such as how you dress and who your friends are. Wants to make all the decisions on a date, such as where to eat or what movie to see.
    * Gets jealous for no reason.
    * Talks down about women in general.
    * Gets drunk or "high" and tries to get you to do the same.
    * Pressures you to be alone with him or to have sex.
    * Won't let you share expenses on a date and gets angry if you offer to pay.
    * Is physically violent even in subtle ways, such as grabbing or pushing.
    * Intimidates you by sitting too close, blocking your way, touching when you've said not to, or talking as if he knows you better than he actually does.
    * Can't handle frustration without getting angry.
    * Doesn't view you as an equal.
    * Enjoys weapons and likes being cruel to animals, children, or people he can bully.

    From I Never Called It Rape, by Robin Warshaw.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------

    *** Watchtower December 15th 1998 Issue ***

    There are, of course, limits to cooperation. Jehovah's servants do not cooperate in any way that violates God's law. For example, a Christian would not willingly submit to rape.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------

    David Semonian, a Spokesman for the Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, answered Questions prompted by Diane Wilson's Book on the Watchtower Society. He spoke by Phone from the Organization's Bethel World Headquarters in Brooklyn, New York (This was Published on a News Website on May 18th 2002):

    Reporter's Question: "How is rape viewed?"

    David Semonian's Answer: "Any time a woman is sexually assaulted, we view it as a horrible crime. And we are there -- the Elders, the Congregation -- to support that person. We handle it with the utmost compassion."

    Reporter's Question: "Has the Watchtower ``zigzagged'' on Doctrine?"

    David Semonian's Answer: "We've never claimed to be infallible, inspired or perfect as an Organization. And so it's a fact that with increased knowledge, as we increase our study of the Bible and come to a better understanding, that from time to time we will make adjustments. We humbly do that."

    Reporter's Question: "Is the Organization a Direct Channel between God and humanity?"

    David Semonian's Answer: "Again, our Governing Body has never claimed that our Organization is inspired or infallible. Instead they, our Governing Body, study the Bible diligently and through prayer they make a request for his Holy Spirit to direct them and be upon them. And with his help, they come to decisions. So we believe this to be the Channel that God is using today. But our Governing Body has said that it is not inspired or infallible."

    Reporter's Question: "What is 'Disfellowshipping'?"

    David Semonian's Answer: "It involves someone who has committed a serious spiritual violation, such as adultery or stealing; the Bible directs that they receive a readjustment. They usually meet with three Elders of the Congregation, who will see if the alleged accusation is true, because sometimes it's not. And the Elders will see whether the person confesses or whether there are witnesses to the act."

    "And if it is true, the Scriptures say to readjust the person, help them come to their senses that what they did was wrong, to show them that Jehovah God is very merciful if they change their course. So it's a very loving arrangement. The aim is to keep the person in good standing with God and the Congregation."

    "Now if the person blatantly refuses to be helped, even after several Meetings, then the Bible says in First Corinthians, 'Quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother that . . .,' and then it mentions a variety of serious sins. It mentions a fornicator, an idolator, a drunkard."

    "This is only after they blatantly refuse the help. Then the Bible says to quit mixing with them, or the term we use is 'Disfellowship.' Other Churches say 'Excommunicate.' "

    "Now, why is that loving? Because the rest of the Congregation knows that they are among clean worshipers of Jehovah. They are protected against serious, wrong violators of Bible principles. The shunning has also impressed, upon the one who refuses, the need to come back to the loving Congregation. It may help him come back to his senses."
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------

    Here is an August 2nd 2002 Comment by J.R. Brown (Watchtower Society's Main Spokesman) in an Interview with Reporter, Michael Morris (mikepence), over the Phone:

    Question asked by Michael Morris (mikepence): "Is requiring a woman to scream during a rape a 'reasonable position to take'?"

    Answer by J.R. Brown: "We feel that is a reasonable position to take. We've had a fairly consistent Policy. If this [screaming and resisting sexual assault] has been done, then we are not going to view that, obviously, as some immorality."

    J.R. Brown and Michael Morris (mikepence) did not discuss whether Jehovah's Witnesses require a child to scream during a rape or not.

    Michael Morris (mikepence) said this after the Interview: "Would I be compromising my objectivity to admit that I need to go puke in disgust?"
    -----------------------------------------------

    The Watchtower February 1st 2003 Issue:

    Questions From Readers

    Why does the Bible say that a person should scream if threatened with rape?

    Anyone who has not personally experienced the horror of being brutally assaulted by a rapist can never truly understand how it can shatter one's life. The experience is so terrifying for the victim that it may trouble her for the rest of her life* [FOOTNOTE SAYS: Although this article speaks about female victims, the principles discussed also apply to males who are threatened with rape.]. A young Christian woman who was attacked by a rapist some years ago relates: "Words cannot express the sheer terror I felt that night or the trauma I've had to overcome since," Understandably, many prefer not even to think about this frightening subject. Yet, the threat of rape is a reality, in this wicked world.

    The Bible does not shy from recounting some cases of rape and attempted rape that occurred In the past. (Genesis 19:4-11; 34:7-7; 2 Samuel 13:1-14) But it also offers counsel on what one should do when threatened with rape. What the Law says on the matter is found at Deuteronomy 22:23-27. This covers two situations. In the first case, a man found a young woman in a city and lay down with her. Even so, the woman did not scream or cry for help. Consequently, it was determined that she was guilty "for the reason that she did not scream in the city." If she had cried out, people nearby might have been able to come to her rescue. In the second Instance, a man found a young woman in the countryside, where he "grabbed hold of her and lay dawn with her." In defense, the woman "screamed, but there was no one to rescue her." Unlike the woman in the first instance, this woman clearly did not give in to the actions of the attacker. She actively resisted him, crying for help, but she was overpowered. Her screaming proved that she was an unwilling victim; she was not guilty of wrongdoing.

    Although Christians today are not under the Mosaic Law, the principles mentioned therein provide them with guidance. The above account underscores the importance of resisting and screaming for help. Screaming when threatened with rape is still viewed as a practical course. One expert on crime prevention stated: "If a woman is attacked, her best weapon is still her Lungs." A woman's screaming may attract others, who can then assist her, or it may startle an attacker and make him leave. A young Christian woman who was attacked by a rapist stated: "I screamed with all my might, and he backed off. When he came toward me again, I screamed and ran. In the past I had often thought, 'How can screaming help me when some big man grabs me with only one thing on his mind?' But I've learned that it works!"

    Even in the sad case where a woman is over powered and raped, her struggle and screaming for help is not in vain. On the contrary, it establishes that she did all she possibly could to resist her attacker. (Deuteronomy 22:26) Despite going through this ordeal, she can still have an undefiled conscience, self-respect, and the assurance that she is clean in God's eyes. The horrifying experience might leave her with emotional wounds, but knowing that she did all she could to resist the attack will greatly contribute to her gradual healing.

    In understanding the application of Deuteronomy 22:23-27, we must realize that this brief account does not cover all possible situations. For example, it does not comment on the situation where the attacked woman cannot scream because she is mute, unconscious, or paralyzed with fear or is forcibly prevented from screaming by a hand or tape over her mouth. However, since Jehovah is able to weigh all factors, including motives, he deals with understanding and justice in such cases, for "all his ways are justice." (Deuteronomy 32:4) He is aware of what actually took place and of the efforts the victim put forth to fight off her attacker. Therefore, a victim who was unable to scream but otherwise did all she could under the circumstances can leave matters in Jehovah's hands. -Psalm 55;22; 1Peter 5:7.

    Even so, some Christian women who have been attacked and violated are incessantly pained by feelings of guilt. In hindsight, they feel that they should have done more to prevent the incident from happening. However, instead of blaming themselves, such victims can pray to Jehovah, ask for his help, and have confidence in his abundant loving-kindness.-Exodus 34:6; Psalm 86:5.

    Hence, Christian women who are presently coping with emotional wounds resulting from an encounter with a rapist can be confident that Jehovah fully understands the painful feelings they are dealing with. God's Word assures them: "Jehovah is near to those that are broken at heart; and those who are crushed in spirit he saves." (Psalm 34:18) Further help to cope with their trauma can come from accepting the sincere understanding and gentle support of fellow believers in the Christian congregation. (Job 29:12; 1 Thessalonians 5:14) Moreover, the victims' own efforts to concentrate on positive thoughts will help them to experience "the peace of God that excels all thought"-Philippians 4:6-9.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I hope this info helps you!

  • Chap
    Chap

    Xander,

    Try this on your brother. Read John 1:1 from both a JW Bible and from a different translation. Here is John 1:1 from both.

    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (New American Standard)

    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. (JW Bible from memory) Underlining added to both versions.

    Then get out the interlinear Bible to see if the word for "God" is the same for both instances in the verse.

    Here is John 1:14

    And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. (NASB)

    By believing in their own Bible, JW's break the first commandment found in Exodous 20:3

    Thou shall have no other gods before me. (NASB)

    From reading John's Gospel, we see that either the "Word" that was "with God" and became flesh was Jesus Christ. Therefore we either worship Jesus Christ as God or as a false god. There are no other possibilities. I hope this helps.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit