by Cold Steel 37 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Drearyweather invents a strawman argument.
Who on this forum has ever said that having a beard in and of itself results in disfellowshipping should the brother refuse to shave it off? No one that I am aware of.
What has been said is that a brother who has a beard faces a far greater likelihood of having his Kingdom-Hall "privileges" removed, and if he were also an elder, being deleted from the role.
Now back to actual statements that others have said...
What I found contradictory is the following scenario which happened with my friend.
Drearyweather is engaging in the old game of, "For-Every-Example-You-Give Me-I-Will-Give-You-A-Counter-Example". Ho-hum.
This has never ever been about organizations - religious or otherwise - not having the right to impose dress code rules on members and/or employees. Of course they have a right! Duh.
This has been first and foremost about a religious organization that claims to be uniquely going back to Scripture for direction and not going beyond the things written.
The fabulous irony is that, little over 100 years ago, beards were not an issue at all within the organization. Rutherford changed that - some argue to stop then males dressing and grooming themselves like Russell and hindering Rutherford's plans to transform the organization into a completely different structure facilitating a more aggressive publishing empire.
This is itself shows that JW organization is guided, not by Scripture, but by corporate business dress codes. Yet, because business dress codes have become more casual in recent years - JW organization is stuck in the 1950s-1960s business dress codes.
Stripped of arguments, it boils down to this:
JW's are stumbled when a man in the congregation grows a beard, because they are told to be stumbled when they see a beard.
If tomorrow they were told not to be stumbled by beards then tomorrow none would be stumbled.
Even the term "stumbled" is an exaggeration used to coerce and control.
If you are stumbled then you stop going to the hall or on the ministry.
The worst that happens in the congregation is that some are "surprised".
Yes, stumble this, stumble that. It becomes a convenient method of exacting conformity.
However, what if a newly interested person is stumbled, not by beards, but by the "No Beard" policy?
Would that buttress efforts to allow beards?
Watch JW organization crush that.
Drearyweather » Technically, there is no such thing as beard policy. There is no written policy or rule with the JW’s that you will be disfellowshipped for wearing the beard. Yes, you are discouraged to wear one, you may lose your privileges, etc, but won’t be disfellowshipped.
No, but wearing a beard can b be met with a loss of privileges. No one here has said a person can give an address if one has a beard. And I don't know who he is -- must be a GB member -- who states in no uncertain terms that having a beard may "stumble" a person. He went on to state that if someone caused such a one to stumble, it would be better if a stone were tied around his neck, etc.
Seeing the subliminal messages being sent via JW material, I couldn't help but wonder if or what might happen if the subliminal campaign might cause a person to stumble. It's hardly a leap of logic, right? It certainly might cause me to stumble.
So what would you say? Are you certain it might not cause a person to stumble?
If the message is subliminal and the campaign is subliminal then is the "stumble" subliminal?
If a tree falls in the forest...
First the wt article posted clearly leaves beards as a conscience issue in many area. Fact is where I live doctors and professors have beards. Half or working men have beards. These are not bad people these are the best im thinking of.
Thus here 1 ms has a beard and beards are allowed for the CLAM meetings on the stage.
I have eczema on my face that plain looks bad and itches like crazy.. I have found my beard corers it. I'm only at a meeting maybe 2 or 3 times a month though now. NO ONE cares that I have a beard.... In fact i gave a bible reading with it just to piss of old F**ks.. 2 months ago. (Stumbled.. good... The mythical Weezus stumbled weak minded people too in John 6 )
Fact is the society has a better argument for the 'dresses' African brothers wear... they could use 1 Corinthians 11/... but do they... ope... they are Hypocrites just like all Christianity
So what is so bad about losing privileges? You can gain Paradise Earth without 'em, they're a pain to begin with and life is easier without 'em.
If one wants to make a point by wearing a beard (and let's "face" it, Jesus was constantly making a point at the expense of the stupidity of established religion) are we truly supposed to think he doesn't have a sense of humor, or that he would condemn a person for doing something he did himself?
The way I see it, they can't get you for wearing a beard. But they can get you for loss of privileges. And they can keep you from having privileges if you have a beard. So forgive my circular logic, which I'm sure Jesus won't see through.
Jehovahs Witnesses claim they are Bible based ,their stance on beards proves they are not .
All of Jehovahs servants (male) had beards and it was mandated in scripture.
The founder of the International Bible Students Association (IBSA) Charles Taze Russell sported a beard the pre-cursor to the Jehovahs Witness religion as we know it today.
How grateful we are that Jehovah does not give us long lists of what is acceptable dress and grooming and what is not.
No, that's what we have the WTS for: they make rules where God doesn't!
