Let's play 'Devils Advocate'. . . . . . . . . .

by nicolaou 25 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  nicolaou

  For the purposes of this thread I am a dub. A 2nd generation, dyed-in-the-wool, sincere and genuine Jehovahs Witness (just like I used to be). Why? Well I just feel the need to hone my debating skills after having been in a 'faded' state for quite a while. Perhaps when we've exhausted my feeble attempts at defending 'myself' another poster can step up to the plate and play Devils Advocate.

  This is what I want. Try to convince me that the doctrines of the 'Governing Body' and the 'Fathful and Discreet Slave Class' as taught by Jehovahs Witnesses cannot possibly be correct. I will try to defend these beliefs as best as I can - or at least as best as I used to defend them some years ago.

  Remember - I believe I have The Truth and that the Organization really is directed by Jehovah God. Why am I wrong?
• 

  under74

  Okay-
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
• 

  Brummie

  What scripture proves the 1935 (end of the anointed/gathering of the great crowd) date?

  Brummie
• 

  nicolaou

  How can you defend the JWs when with their 2 witnesses rule and avoiding the police when it comes to child molestation accusations?

  Well as Jehovahs Witnesses we try to adhere as closely as possible to Gods standards of justice and sometimes the wisdom of such a position may not be readily apparent. The 2 witness rule you refer to is scripturally sound and protects everyone against false accusation. Can you deny that charges of abuse or molestation are sometimes brought against an individual for purely malicious reasons?

  As for the second part of your question, the elders do indeed inform the local authorities if they recieve accusations of child molestation.

  Deuteronomy 19:15

  15

  "No single witness should rise up against a man respecting any error or any sin, in the case of any sin that he may commit. At the mouth of two witnesses or at the mouth of three witnesses the matter should stand good.

  As for shunning. This is of course a difficult and emotive subject but who are we to question the correctness of God's Word?

  1 Corinthians 5:9-13

  9

  In my letter I wrote YOU to quit mixing in company with fornicators, 10 not [meaning] entirely with the fornicators of this world or the greedy persons and extortioners or idolaters. Otherwise, YOU would actually have to get out of the world. 11 But now I am writing YOU to quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother that is a fornicator or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man. 12 For what do I have to do with judging those outside? Do YOU not judge those inside, 13 while God judges those outside? "Remove the wicked [man] from among yourselves."

  2 John 11

  11

  For he that says a greeting to him is a sharer in his wicked works.
• 

  under74

  "...sometimes the wisdom of such a position may not be readily apparent."
  
  Not good enough. But I thought in the "Truth" God's laws were always apparent. You leave it wide open for your own benifit. You say you now the truth but then you say the wisdom isn't always apparent. Are you saying you're not sure what the truth is?
  
  
  "As for the second part of your question, the elders do indeed inform the local authorities if they recieve accusations of child molestation."
  
  
  No, you're wrong. If this were true there would not be so many cases of child molestation gone unreported until much later when someone other than the elders are able to tell or report. Name one case where an elder has reported a case of suspected child molestation to the authorities.
• 

  nicolaou

  There is not a single year that is given in the Bible anywhere, we should not expect to see such. However it is plain to see how Jehovah's purposes have played out - and that is even easier with hindsight.

  I would refer you to the article ?Behold! The Great Crowd!? from the May 15th, 2001 issue of the Watchtower. Read the history of the Societys growth from the late 19th century and see how this came to a significant point in a convention scheduled for May 30 to June 3, 1935, in Washington, D.C., U.S.A.

  In a stirring talk on "The Great Multitude," delivered to about 20,000 conventioners, J. F. Rutherford presented Scriptural proof that the modern-day "other sheep" are identical with that "great crowd" of Revelation 7:9. (John 10:16) At the climax of this talk, the speaker asked: "Will all those who have the hope of living forever on the earth please stand?" As a large part of the audience stood up, Rutherford declared: "Behold! The great multitude!" There was a hush, followed by loud cheering. On the following day, 840 new Witnesses of Jehovah were baptized, most of these professing to be of the great crowd.
• 

  nicolaou

  under 74

  "...sometimes the wisdom of such a position may not be readily apparent."
  
  Not good enough. But I thought in the "Truth" God's laws were always apparent. You leave it wide open for your own benifit. You say you now the truth but then you say the wisdom isn't always apparent. Are you saying you're not sure what the truth is?

  Let me put it this way... imagine a child going to the Dentist. He may not appreciate the wisdom of having a strange man poke around in his mouth with scary metal implements while he is forced to lay back in a big chair. Only later, when he is older and a bit more experienced can he understand the wisdom of his parents decision to force him to go to the Dentist.

  Sometimes God's requirements are like that. We just don't get it at first but we should nonetheless trust that Jehovah loves us and that while his requirement (shunning, no blood etc) may seem harsh, they are in fact for our own good.

  As for the issue of reporting molestation, can you name one case where an elder has not reported a case of suspected child molestation to the authorities? What is your evidence for stating that they don't? You made that accusation - you have to defend it!

  {the real Nic' says "phew this is hard" I gotta go get my wife lunch - back later}
• 

  googlemagoogle

  very good idea. and you correctly dismissed the "2 witness" question, because it simply doesn't apply anymore. cases of child abuse are reported to the police, at least where i live. this question could only be combined with the new-light-doctrine, and how it harmed people in the past.
  
  here are a few questions for you:
  1.) why/when did god create disease?
  2.) are animals affected by adam&eve's sin? if not, why do they die?
  3.) how did the nephilim survive the global flood (numeri 13:33)?
  4.) if so many prophecies prove jesus to be the messiah, why do jews still exist?
  5.) why is most of the christian believe-system based on paul, when jesus wanted to build his church on peter?
  6.) why do you use the protestant bible-canon? did the spiritus santus inspire the canon? if yes, which one?
  7.) if the bible is like a manual for our life, why does it have to be explained by so much additional literature? a manual for the manual?
  
  i'll probably post more of these... looking forward to your answers
• 

  AlmostAtheist

  What's the deal with not taking a blood transfusion?

  Acts 15 says to keep abstaining from blood, things strangled, and fornication. You can't here tease out of the word "abstaining" something that isn't meant, like "not only shouldn't we eat it, we should ABSTAIN from it, meaning don't touch it, etc" because that would mean you couldn't touch a strangled animal, either. Eating is what's prohibited here, strangled animals or blood.

  And your "if a doctor told you not to drink alcohol, could you still inject it?" reasoning won't fly either. If a doctor told me not to eat liver, would he object to my getting a liver transplant? A blood transfusion is a transplant of an organ, it isn't "consumption".

  And of course, don't try to bring the health risks of blood transfusions into the discussion. Every medical procedure has risks, but this is the only one forbidden by your religion.

  (No, I don't want any magazines. No, I don't want to contribute to the World Wide Work. No, no one else in my household would like magazines, either.)
• 

  NeonMadman

  And your "if a doctor told you not to drink alcohol, could you still inject it?" reasoning won't fly either. If a doctor told me not to eat liver, would he object to my getting a liver transplant? A blood transfusion is a transplant of an organ, it isn't "consumption".

  I find their choice of alcohol for that analogy to be particularly telling. Alcohol, unlike food, passes into the bloodstream in essentially the same chemical form as it enters the mouth. It is not digested, unlike food. Therefore, drinking alcohol has virtually the same effect on the body as injecting it into the veins. Food goes through a digestive process and reaches the bloodstream in a completely different form than what was consumed. Injecting, say, orange juice directly into the bloodstream would produce a much different result than simply drinking it. The whole reason the analogy works with alcohol is that alcohol is not a food substance, which flies in the face of what they are trying to prove with the analogy - namely, that transfusing (injecting) = eating as food.