Satan's Organization -- Who -- Evidence of Identity?

by Marvin Shilmer 26 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  hillary_step

  Heathen,

  I think it's one thing to have rules to regulate the behavior of members but yet another to violently oppress and actively deny someone the right to worship God the way they chose to do so .

  This is where we differ profoundly in principle. Religions should be under the same strictures of Law as any other body in society. Why for example should religions have the right to 'shun' members of its community for percieved wrongdoings when in a secular setting they would open themselves up to the courts for taking the very same actions. Where one seeks employment is as voluntary an action as to where one seeks a church.

  What is so special about religion that it should be granted immunity from prosecution for example for promising that which it does not deliver, or for oppressing its adherents? The First Amendment has been abused by religions like the WTS. It was never implemented to protect anti-social and dangerous behavior, it was implemented to protect the *rights* of the nations citizens. the WTS abuses such *rights* where its adherents are concerned. Why should religions for example, be granted more legal rights than your employer?

  I don't think it's the responsiblity of society to determine for others the way they perceive God . The religion is voluntary there is no threat to keep members from leaving .

  No one is suggesting that at all. What is being suggested is that the WTS should not be allowed to harm, either physically or emotionally, *any* of its adherents, for *any* reason. The idea of a voluntary exit from the religion is misleading and presented if I may say so very simplistically. Even the WTS own theological view is that a person *cannot* stop being a Jehovah's Witness unless they are disfellowshipped. Once baptized, then that is it, you are a JW for ever - *that* is their theology! The threat for the exiting adherent is everlasting death if they leave 'naturally', the threat is 'shunning' by every freind and family member that they may have if they are is asked to leave. So in actual fact the word 'voluntary' is heavily conditional, as I suspect that you are aware.

  Best regards - HS
• 

  heathen

  HS--- I think it a social responsibility to protect the innocent from destructive cults by investigating the behavior or rites and rituals to ensure that people are not abused ( especially children ) but to say society has the right to condemn religions based on a shunning rule is riddiculous . Adults know the rules before they join, it's more like a country club with rules and when someone breaks the rules their membership is suspended . I do like the way society such as silent lambs are investigating child abuse and others are concerned over the blood issue and can agree that a church should not dictate to others over medical treatment but if an adult refuses blood of their own free will then they have to suffer the consequences , it's one of the rules they agree too .
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Hello, Heathen

  You write:

  "…but if an adult refuses blood of their own free will then they have to suffer the consequences , it's one of the rules they agree too."

  Your statement is false. The decision of what is forbidden or respected use of blood by JWs is solely the prerogative of the WTS.

  JWs baptized prior to 1961 were taught that accepting a transfusion of anything of or from blood was completely the prerogative of the individual JW without repercussion. This is beyond debate!

  Prior to baptism, JWs baptized in recent years have hardly a single clue about the specifics of what will or will not get them shunned by JWs when it comes to accepting a transfusion of anything of or from blood. I know this because of my long experience as a JW. Most elders do not even know the policy! If you believe my statement here is debatable then please inform everyone of the WTS mandated disclosure protocol of these specifics so that prior to baptism the potential convert is in a position to agree or disagree.

  Marvin Shilmer
• 

  blondie

  Very little is discussed in the Knowledge book about blood transfusions.

  Only this paragraph

  kl 128-9 13 Why Living a Godly Life Brings Happiness ***

  
  22 Jehovah told Noah and his family that blood represents the soul, or life. Therefore, God forbade them to eat any blood. (Genesis 9:3, 4) Since we are their descendants, that law is binding upon all of us. Jehovah told the Israelites that blood was to be poured out on the ground and was not to be used for man?s own purposes. (Deuteronomy 12:15, 16) And God?s law on blood was reiterated when first-century Christians were instructed: "Keep abstaining . . . from blood." (Acts 15:28, 29) Out of respect for the sanctity of life, godly people do not accept blood transfusions, even if others insist that such a procedure would be lifesaving. Many medical alternatives acceptable to Jehovah?s Witnesses have proved to be very effective and do not expose one to the hazards of blood transfusions. Christians know that only Jesus? shed blood is truly lifesaving. Faith in it brings forgiveness and the prospect of eternal life.?Ephesians 1:7.

  Most JWs are afraid of scaring people they study with so dwell very little on this topic. The questions discussed with prospective baptizees had to have a small page added, given only to the elders, to update the Organized Book. But many elders skirt the blood issue.

  Many active JWs today are clueless as to their choices.

  Blondie
• 

  hillary_step

  Heathen,

  Thank you for your post.

  HS--- I think it a social responsibility to protect the innocent from destructive cults by investigating the behavior or rites and rituals to ensure that people are not abused ( especially children ) but to say society has the right to condemn religions based on a shunning rule is riddiculous .

  If the shunning rule leads to depression and suicide, and I have seen this result on a number of occasions, would you not think that society then has a right to intervene to protect the rights of its citizens?

  Let me use the example of employment again. If your employer introduced a policy that commanded all your fellow employees to shun another worker for behavior that the company viewed as offensive and threatened to fire all those who did not follow this policy, would society move to protect the rights of the workers? Of course they would and they do so on a daily basis. Why then would a similar action not be expected regarding religious bodies? Hiding anti-social and dangerous theology behind the first amendment is unethical and immoral but that is where the WTS and such groups smugly hide themselves.

  The whole issue of what is voluntarily undertaken by an adherent of the WTS has been stated by you in a simplistic fashion that completely ignores the dangerous inductive process of high-control religions and cults for the potential 'convert'. The term 'voluntary' implies that no emotional pressure, peer pressure, or doctrinal pressure is placed on a person during their inductive process into the WTS. This is clearly not the case.

  Best regards - HS
• 

  TD

  Heathen,

  HS make a good point, one that the Witnesses themselves recognize when it comes to other religions.

  
  For example in the February 22, 1999 issue of Awake! the JW?s published the following letter and response:

  "For some years I have been a reader of your magazines. I have to protest your one-sided reporting about the doctrines of the Catholic Church in the article "The Bible's Viewpoint: Is Celibacy a Requirement for Christian Ministers?" There is no "enforced celibacy" in the Catholic Church! There is only a voluntarily chosen celibacy that is a prerequisite for a certain profession. Whoever claims that he was forced into celibacy is lying."

  Notice the JW reply to this:

  
  "We believe that there is an important distinction between the phrase enforced celibacy and the notion that people are forced into celibacy. If, for example, a corporation establishes a dress code and hires only those who agree to adhere to it but fires those who violate it, then it could be said that the corporation has an "enforced" dress code. In a similar sense, it is fair to say that there is an "enforced celibacy" in the Catholic priesthood."

  
  Indeed. By the same argument, it is equally fair to say that the JW?s maintain an "enforced refusal of blood" which fact becomes painfully obvious if you reread the quoted material above substituting "celibacy" with "refusal of blood." They are clearly condemned by their own words.

  
  I think the confusion arises because Watchtower writers and Jehovah's Witnesses' apologists obfuscate this issue by asserting that Witnesses do in fact have "freedom of choice." People misinterpret this to mean something other than the freedom to face whatever adverse consequences the JW's see fit to attach to that choice

  
  While it?s true that the threat of adverse consequences do not take away an individual's freedom of choice in the academic sense, this fact is for all intents and purposes virtually meaningless, as it is almost impossible to take this away from anyone. To cite a graphic example, if a man was backed against a wall with the flash suppresser of a terrorist's Kalishnikov painfully pressed into the soft tissue under his jaw, his freedom of choice would still remain intact. He would still be a free moral agent and as such, he would be perfectly free to disregard any imperative that was shouted at him under those circumstances and suffer the consequences, however messy they may be. What has been taken away is not his freedom of choice, but the ability to freely exercise it.

  
  Now while having the business end of an automatic rifle pressed against your neck is a much more immediate and deadly form of coercion than having your good name ruined and suffering the alienation and loss of your family and friends, the latter is no less real a form of coercion. Further, it is no less real a manifestation of the JW policy of "enforced refusal of blood."

  Claims to the contrary are simply untrue.
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  I GIVE UP! THIS EDITING FEATURE IS CRAP!
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  I just cannot get this forum's editor and posting tool to work.
• 

  blondie

  Marvin, are you typing it in Word and making your edits there? If not, try it and see if that helps. Keep the edits on here down to a minimum. What particularly is being difficult?

  Blondie
• 

  heathen

  HS--- I don't think the government interferes with a dress code enforced by companies . Let's face it we are really talking about government involvement and not just society . What I'm getting here is that people want the government to step in and tell people what to believe and how religion should be organized , which I am against unless these religions are violent terrorist organizations. Would you think the government should step in and tell catholics that the pope has no right to make them refuse contraseptives so to prevent pregnancy ? Or maybe they should tell the jews what is kosher to them as well .