I was looking in one of the more recent copies of the Awake and there is a question from the readers on pinatas. i won't go into the whole thing, but in the response, at one point, the Awake says that (paraphrase) "The Bible puts birthdays in a bad light. However (and I love that word, 'cuz it implies, 'well, we've changed our minds again') if a practice has no CURRENT FALSE RELIGIOUS attachments, then it is up to each individual to decide what they will do".....that's not verbatim, but it's close enough. I'll post it verbatim if you'd like, but it sounds to me like they're saying that B-days are now a concience matter. Did anyone else see this? Ah...I just LOVE this new light. Can I sue them for 'back birthday presents' that I didn't get for the last 35 years....lol.....
New 'Asleep', uh, I mean, 'Awake' information on b-days....
by TallTexan 13 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
mineralogist
Hi TallTexan, you could take a look at the former discussion under http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/72560/1.ashx
-
Leolaia
There is definitely still a birthday ban, but to clearly see it, one must read the passage backwards.
?Awake!? responds: Christians refrain from any celebrations or customs that continue to involve false religious beliefs or activities that violate Bible principles. For example, the Bible definitely puts birthdays celebrations in a bad light. (Genesis 40:2; Matthew 14: 6 - 10) However, if it is very obvious that a custom has no current false religious significance and involves no violation of Bible principles, each Christian must make a personal decision as to whether he will follow such a custom.
Working backwards: Birthday celebrations are an example of a celebration or custom that Christians should refrain from.
There is also cohesion between the Bible being mentioned in the sentence about birthdays (as indicating that birthdays are "bad"), and the prior sentence which mentions Bible principles as the rationale behind the "proper" Christian response to such celebrations.
The last sentence has nothing to do with birthdays. It is only meant to shore up their position on the pinata, which they feel falls into the "conscience" category. It is permitted for the very simple reason that the Bible fails to mention anything about the pinata (!).
-
TallTexan
Interesting view, but that's not what I got out of it. If that were the case, why didn't they say something like "However, other customs which have no religious....." or something of that nature. It's just aggrevating because it's typical WT doublespeak/obscuring language so that later they can come back and say "That's not what we said"....I don't even know why I bother reading their stuff anymore - it just gets me all bent out of shape...lol.
-
observador
each Christian must make a personal decision as to whether he will follow such a custom.
Very good points raised, but what I like the most is when they say "must make" a personal decision..., instead of the more natural and logical sentence "each Christian can/may make a personal decision..." since it involves a permission to do something.
The reason I don't like "must make" is because it sounds like they're saying "hey, you're such grown up people. You have to make your own decisions now", as if it were the "christians" who created all these elaborated rules on what can and cannot be done and now want the WT to decide for them what to do.
The same wording is used on the blood articles. Very clever, in my opinion.
-
Valis
http://www.mexconnect.com/mex_/travel/wdevlin/wdpinatahistory.html
Actually the pinata has a long history of being used in religious cermonies and has been given all kinds of different meanins from the chinese good luck pots all the way to symbolically beating the crap out of Satan (Or Satanus). That URL has a brief history which would lead one to believe that the Awake responders don't do thier homework very well. Or it is just easier to leave it to the conscience of the reader..
Sincerely,
District Overbeer
-
cyber-sista
From what I have heard South America is a ripe field for JW converts. But the culture there is very strong and it may be that the people there are having a hard time giving up their pinatas. So in order not to lose this culture they will have to be a bit more "flexible"
But of course back in the US of A we were "discouraged" from hanging up windchimes and burning incense. I think the Org will have to be a bit more "accommodating" in order to make inroads into some of these other more profitable cultures.
The WT Org is insane and not much they so or do makes a whole lot of sense. I am now convinced that the God of the Org is the many faces of the almighty $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
-
truthseeker1
Just becaue it becomes a personal decision, doesn't mean that people can't be DF'd for it. Its a personal decision not to smoke and people can get DF'd for doing that. If people do what the WT says 'christians should refrain' from doing, they will get in trouble with the borg. This is just legal back peddeling so the Borg doesn't get into legal trouble.
-
Leolaia
I think you just answered your own question. They probably connected the third sentence to the second in an ambiguous way to make it look like to those on the outside that JWs don't actually have a strict rule on the subject, while those indoctrinated inside the faith know that birthdays in practice are not permitted. It also gives them wiggle room for the future.
As it is phrased, it is not clear whether the third sentence contrasts with the second or continues the same thought. "However" is contrastive, but as it is commonly used in English it could denote a condition that overrides the importance of the previously mentioned concern. Your suggested phrasing by adding the word "other" would clearly make it contrastive. But they don't do that. There are other things that muddy up the interpretation. The initial question asks for their stand on birthdays and Christmas, and the response ends on the note of things being "up to conscience". To someone not reading carefully (or knowledgable of JW-speak), the flow of the response is suggestive of a lenient position, since one expects the final sentence to sum up the bottom line. Another factor is the fact that the third sentence refers only to "customs" while the second refers to "celebrations". Are they referring to the same thing, or something different? A third factor is the failure of the second sentence to use the word "violate" or "violation". The first sentence gives two conditions for banning a practice: a "continuation" of false religious belief in the practice and a "violation" of Bible principles. The second sentence conveys the idea that Bible principles are "violated" ("the Bible puts birthdays in a bad light" translates as "The Bible says birthdays are bad"), without actually using the word. Another tactic is the failure to explicitly spell out the consequence of such a violation, which would result in asserting an overt birthday ban. This obfuscates the otherwise very clear position they are making, of citing birthdays as an "example" of something Christians should "refrain from" (the use of the word "definitely" also functions by making birthdays a definite example of something to be refrained). Likewise, they fail to explicitly spell out the matter in the case of the pinata, which the third sentence is alluding to. This is the most important tactic of all, because by leaving the application of the third sentence open-ended, one could theoretically apply it to either birthdays or the presumed pinata. Since birthdays are mentioned explicitly and the pinata is not, one is misled into thinking that birthdays are a conscience matter. This is reinforced by the fact that the second sentence doesn't use the word "violate" or "violation", which would clearly rule out such an interpretation. But such a position is already ruled out a priori by the crucial word "example". What are birthdays mentioned as an example of? An example of something to be permitted or something Christians should refrain from? What is the prior sentence talking about. Is it talking about things to be permitted or things to be refrained from? Indeed, the context shows that birthdays are mentioned as something to be refrained from.
I think if one makes the implicit explicit, their position is this:
Conditions (a) or (b), if met, lead to a ban on practice (x). Practice (x'), namely birthdays, "definitely" violates condition (b), thus it is implied but not stated that practice (x') is banned. If conditions (a) or (b) are not met, then the practice is not banned and one can make a "personal decision" on whether to practice it or not. It is implied but not stated (tho it was made explicit in the prior pinata article) that practice (x''). namely the pinata, does not violate either condition (a) or (b), thus one can make a "personal decision" about it.
I think this is a masterpiece of obfuscation.
-
Scully
truthseeker1 writes:
Just becaue it becomes a personal decision, doesn't mean that people can't be DF'd for it. Its a personal decision not to smoke and people can get DF'd for doing that. If people do what the WT says 'christians should refrain' from doing, they will get in trouble with the borg. This is just legal back peddeling so the Borg doesn't get into legal trouble.
This is the crux of the matter, imo. The WTS has been leaning more and more toward Personal Decisions? that result in announcements to the effect that So-and-So has Disassociated? and is no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses, and away from DFing people for so-called Wrongdoings? that outsiders view as ridiculous and objectionable from a common-sense point of view.
Regardless of the fact that the result is exactly the same, it puts the onus on the individual for their Personal Decision?. It also lets the congregation off the liability hook - YOU made the decision to leave, THEY didn't make the decision to kick you out. If you write a letter of resignation, you can't later go back and sue the employer for firing you. It also spares the Elders? of having to deal with you in those messy Judicial Committee Meetings?. There's no appeal process, no going over their heads to the CO. It was YOUR Personal Decision?.
Love, Scully