If it was good enough for Naaman, why not a Dub?

by ozziepost 17 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  ozziepost

  The WTS teaches its members to have "no part" of certain places and practices, under pain of disfellowshiping and shunning. Things like attending a church service, taking blood, etc

  The WTS claims that such is "Bible based" and that since there 'logically' are Bible precedents for all their prohibitions, then the R&F must keep well away.

  But is such an attitude "Bible based"?

  Take as an example, the Old Testament character Naaman, a Syrian army chief who was struck with leprosy. The OT recounts that he journeyed to Samaria to meet up with the prophet Elisha to seek healing. Surprisingly to him, he was told to bathe in the Jordan River seven times. This he did and was healed, whereupon he became a believer in the god Jehovah.

  Later something interesting happened - he bowed before the god Rimmon with the king. He asked for forgiveness to Elisha and was told, "Go in peace".

  How does the WTS explain this? In the publication "Insight on the Scriptures" they put this explanation (or is it an excuse?): [Notice, incidentally, the neat use of the phrase "If such was the case".]

  "Naaman next requested that Jehovah forgive him when, in the performance of his civil duties, he bowed before the god Rimmon with the king., who evidently was old and infirm and leaned for support upon Naaman. If such was the case, then his bowing would be mechanical, being solely for the purpose of dutifully supporting the king's body and not in personal worship." (page 456)

  So, why is it OK for Naaman and not for a Dub?
• 

  greven

  his bowing would be mechanical, being solely for the purpose of dutifully supporting the king's body and not in personal worship

  Whatever happened to "do not add to this scroll/scripture etc..."? It simply says he bowed to rimmon with the king. If it was to support the king as he was old I think it would have said so, at least to prevent confusion. What a crock! Nice find btw!

  Greven
• 

  ozziepost

  Whatever happened to "do not add to this scroll/scripture etc..."? It simply says he bowed to rimmon with the king.

  Exactly! You've got it in one!!

  Ain't it strange the Borgmeisters can't "get it". Like you so rightly say, they forget, or overlook, "do not add to the word".

  Cheers, Ozzie
• 

  Lainey

  Wow all these years you just take everything they say as coming from Jehovah, so it must be right.

  I am so glad I have pulled away from all that flawed thinking where you can't challenge anything the Watchtower says...especially if you are a women

  Lainey

  Thank you Ozzie. BTW Cassie and I would love to meet you when you come over the UK.

  Caspian told me, that, apparently my oldest brother's big regret was that he never met you, when he had the chance, when you came to England a few years ago.

  To late now, but I think you know who I mean.
• 

  ozziepost

  Lainey,

  Yeah, I know what you mean. Ya know he's often, very often in my thoughts.

  We just got email from our travel agent - flights booked. Woohoo - we're coming Business Class this time!!!!!

  Cheers, Ozzie
• 

  Prisca

  The WTS teaches its members to have "no part" of certain places and practices, under pain of disfellowshiping and shunning. Things like attending a church service, taking blood, etc

  Agreed. The WTS teaches against the practice of attending and participating in church services.

  If such was the case, then his bowing would be mechanical, being solely for the purpose of dutifully supporting the king's body and not in personal worship." (page 456)

  So, why is it OK for Naaman and not for a Dub?

  If Naaman is an example of a secular attendence and seemingly "worshiping" the god (not for personal worship but as part of his job) then how do the JWs come into this?

  Is there an example you can give where JWs were disfellowshipped or shunned for attending a church service as part of their job?
• 

  ozziepost

  Dubs are not to perform any secular service, like plumbing, electrical work, etc etc for a church. Anyone doing so is to be DF. (Elders' Manual)
• 

  Prisca

  Dubs are not to perform any secular service, like plumbing, electrical work, etc etc for a church. Anyone doing so is to be DF. (Elders' Manual)

  Yes, but Naaman wasn't doing anything like that, was he? He wasn't doing anything to add appeal to a church (part of BTG) nor was he taking money from them as a wage. He was working for the King, and part of his duties meant he had to attend the church to assist the king (according to the WTS' reasoning).
• 

  ozziepost

  I can recall seeing Wally Baxter being helped onto the District convention platform so that Wally could deliver a prayer. So, the assistant was there, but did he do the same as Wally? No, he was there to steady his bearing, or hold him up!

  If Wally had then bowed low before an image of Buddha, would his assistant have been obliged to? No.

  Naaman was bowing down before the god (in the WTS' words).
• 

  Prisca

  If such was the case, then his bowing would be mechanical, being solely for the purpose of dutifully supporting the king's body and not in personal worship." (page 456)

  I still think you are making a huge leap in logic by trying to link this comment to JWs prevented from working on churches, JWs being df'd for attending church services etc.

  A JW who regularly attends a church service for personal reasons is sharing in the practices of that church, and is participating in inter-faith worship if he still calls himself a JW.

  A JW who works on a church building or provides some other service for which he is paid, is supporting that church, which is part of Babylon The Great (according to the WTS).

  However, Naaman was not attending the temple of that god for personal worship, nor was he providing a service to that temple. He was attending in order to assist and accompany the King, to whom he was obligated to assist as part of his secular duties.