Funny that the major amount of articles is from the 1950s ........
But as you can see, TOH, those articles have not been rescinded. The "1-2016" Watchtower confirms that this is still, as of right this moment, considered "best theocratic practice".
by Terry 26 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Funny that the major amount of articles is from the 1950s ........
But as you can see, TOH, those articles have not been rescinded. The "1-2016" Watchtower confirms that this is still, as of right this moment, considered "best theocratic practice".
New American Standard Bible
"But let your statement be, 'Yes, yes ' or 'No, no'; anything beyond these is of evil."
Yes, evil!
As a JW, I believed as most JWs, that this was reserved for life-and-death situations. For instance, in a time of persecution where JWs are being put into concentration camps and tortured to death, not to betray the location of fellow JWs. In that light, it actually makes sense.
However, in practice, it is apparent that the upper echelons use this statement “may want to bring harm to Jehovah’s people in some way” in a very broad fashion.
What is “Jehovah’s people”? It is Mother Organization, not rank and file individuals.
What is “harm” “in some way”? Not unjust physical harm (life-and-death), but anything that is harmful to Mother, financially, legally, in terms of publicity, potentially losing members by being exposed (example UN NGO scandal).
Of course, rank and file JWs practice a form of theocratic warfare without even being conscious of doing so, partly because of loaded language redefines many words in such a way that is misleading. “No we are not at the door to convert you…” “We are not soliciting…” And back in the day, “We are not selling anything…”
JWs learn to practice omission not bringing up certain teachings that would scare people away. They learn to the art of spin and whitewash and downplay any insider doctrine that a householder might bring up.
Of course, most JWs apart from religion are pretty honest. But then so are members of other groups.
Yes, it is a highly "selective" honesty.
It is an "the end justifies the means" honesty.
Like the entire religious doctrine, it is carefully fabricated to appear
solid while remaining fluid and porous.
An amazing ability to latch on to and confirm the unconfirmable mixed with a REBOOT button to wipe it all clean--is evidence of mind control.
They will love you and give their life for you one minute and call you a "mentally diseased Apostate" and refuse to pray for you the next.
The dysfunction is sociopathological.
Smiling, organic robots are a wonder of the world. I wonder what sort of world keeps them going if not delusion and fear.
Isn't religion about organizing lies to formulate perceivable truths ?
Which would be better for humanity to live of and from, scientifically acquired knowledge of the world in which we live or knowledge acquired from imagined spiritualistic adherence ?
This is my definition of lying:
Deliberately communicating a false idea or impression.
It covers all forms of deception - including lying by omission since the strategic omission of certain information also serves to communicate an idea or impression. In other words, you also say something by what you choose not to say. Once you're communicating in any form or fashion and you're deliberately communicating a false idea, you're lying.
I notice that JWs will often use technically truthful wording deliberately couched in such a way as to give a false impression. That is lying according to my definition because they're still deliberately communicating a false idea even if they use technically truthful wording.
Witnesses are the most honest people around.
But as I looked to my left, I saw a lyin. I raised my rifle and then in front of me was another lyin. Things were looking pretty bleak when I spotted yet another lying.
stuckinarut2 - "...Toole even lied about not knowing what the term 'theocratic / spiritual warfare' was."
To be fair, though, that is what tools do. :smirk:
x
Hey, I just realized... taking into account the guy's name, that's three whole levels of irony.
Inception-level irony.
Almost makes you wonder if his handlers subconsciously picked him to do it simply based on his name. :smirk:
Island Man - "...I notice that JWs will often use technically truthful wording deliberately couched in such a way as to give a false impression. That is lying according to my definition because they're still deliberately communicating a false idea even if they use technically truthful wording."
Once again, for the newbies, lurkers, and trolls...
x
...if you have to cheat to defend your beliefs, your beliefs don't deserve to be defended.
The WTS pressures people to stand up and support their contrived doctrines which are mostly created to support the ongoing proliferation of the WTS's publications, which have been strategically laden full of corrupt doctrines to appeal to that same purpose, as well to confirm the ongoing power and control of those GB men .
So yes you'll see JWS lying about certain doctrines but that's been mentally indoctrinated by the WTS. to protect the organization overall and is also an assertive means to lessen any cognitive dissonance by the each individual as they are being questioned. .