Continued:
:::: Conversely, if God declared that from now on marriage was a dead institution (new scrolls opened and all that), and men and women should be like bonobos and free have sex with whoever they pleased, what humans could properly tell him that he had set up an improper standard? You? Me? Not likely. JW leaders and other Pharisees? More than likely.
::: First, your example is purely speculative thought that is far removed from reality.
:: Not at all removed from reality. God obviously went from one standard at Adam's creation to another standard by patriarchal times and back to the old standard in Jesus' day. If the standard went to 'one man, many women', why not to 'many men, many women'?
: You have yet to demonstrate that there was a change in God's standard. Care to offer any "proof" (apodictic or otherwise)?
Apodictic proof has been given.
::: Secondly, if values are in fact material, then premarital sex is wrong, period.
:: What? Premarital sex was not said to be wrong until Jesus' day, according to everything we read in the Bible. What was wrong in patriarchal times and for the Israelites was not premarital sex in and of itself, but extra-marital sex when a man's property rights were violated. The Old Testament standards about adultery and extra-marital sex were entirely about the property rights of men, not about sexual propriety.
: Genesis 2:21-24 shows that God originally willed that sex relations be confined to marriage.
Fine.
: Genesis 39:7-12 also shows that extramarital sex in and of itself was considered wrong in God's eyes from the beginning.
Wrong. The account is entirely about the fact that adultery was wrong. As I wrote in the above-referenced thread:
While in modern usage adultery refers to any sexual activity of a married person with someone other than his or her mate, adultery in the OT is best defined by examining various cases and laws. A careful examination shows the following:
Among the patriarchs and the Israelites, adultery amounted to any act whereby a married man was exposed to the risk of having a spurious offspring imposed upon him. An adulterous man, therefore, was one who had illicit sexual relations with a married or betrothed woman, and an adulterous woman was a betrothed or married woman who had sexual relations with any man other than her husband. Sexual relations between a married man and an unmarried woman, or between two unmarried people, was simply fornication -- a sin, but not of the order of adultery, because adultery was punishable by death. This was because adultery could pollute a line of descent, could damage an inheritance, or could result in illegitimate offspring that could not become the man's own through the mechanisms referred to above. The offspring that might result from non-adulterous sexual relations could easily be absorbed into society by the man marrying the woman, possibly with the woman becoming another of the man's wives. Clearly, adultery was a function, not of sexual relations per se, but was defined in terms of violation of property rights -- the right of a man to exclusive ownership of his wife's ability to bear him children.
The patriarchal and Israelite view of adultery is intimately connected with the existence of polygamy. A married man who had sexual relations with a woman who was not his wife, concubine or slave, was guilty of unclean conduct, but committed no offense that violated his wife's legal rights. But if he had relations with the wife of another man, he was guilty of adultery -- not because of violating his own marriage covenant, but because of infringing on the covenant between the woman and her husband.
And concerning Genesis 39:1-23:
A third OT story often trotted out as condemning simple fornication is the story of Joseph and Potiphar's wife. Joseph got to be appointed as master over everything in Potiphar's household, so much so that Potiphar "left everything that was his in Joseph's hand; and he did not know what was with him at all except the bread he was eating." (vs. 6) From time to time Potiphar's wife would try to seduce Joseph, but he would refuse, saying that Potiphar "has not withheld from me anything at all except you, because you are his wife. So how could I commit this great badness and actually sin against God?" Clearly, Joseph's objection was not to committing simple fornication, but to violating another man's wife. In accord with patriarchal law, he would have been stealing Potiphar's exclusive right to sexual relations with his wife, and Potiphar would have had the right to demand the death penalty. Clearly, the account is about adultery, not fornication.
: Furthermore, consult Deuteronomy 22:13-21. It shows that a woman, who lost her virginity before marriage, was considered a reproach to her family.
This is simply an illustration of the gross double standards for men and women that existed in patriarchal and Israelite times. A man was entitled to unused property -- that's what this business is about. A woman was not so entitled. You cannot find a single OT scripture that explicitly condemns sexual relations between a man (married or single) and an unmarried or unbetrothed woman. Indeed, the scriptures that deal with such sexual relations prove that the matter was one of property rights. That's why the man could marry the woman or not, but either way had to pay the bride price. Again consult the above-referenced thread for more details.
:: The story about Judah and Tamar is a good proof of my point. Judah was married and was obviously accustomed to fooling around with prostitutes and the Bible does not condemn him for it.
: I think your use of the term "accustomed" reads something into the text that is not there.
Not at all. Tamar was extremely sure that if she simply sat down on the side of the road and looked like a prostitute, Judah would want to have relations with her. She was especially sure because Judah's wife had recently died and he wasn't 'getting any'. Likely the wife had been sick for awhile and so, between that and the time of mourning that Judah observed, he was probably horny as hell. Only if Tamar knew Judah's habits well could she make such a daring plan to get her levirate marital dues.
If you have a better explanation of why Tamar could be so sure, then let's hear it.
:: Indeed, the account relates that God himself killed two of Judah's sons for the 'crime' of failing to fulfill brother-in-law marriage, so if God thought that Judah's actions were really bad, he would have killed him too.
: Lot's actions with his daughters after the cities of Sodom and Gommorah were destroyed?
What about them?
Let's see you not sidestep my points.
:: That Judah was so accustomed is implied by the story: Tamar knew enough about Judah's habits to know that if she disguised herself as a temple prostitute and made herself available on the road, Judah would take the bait. It would be stretching credulity to claim that Tamar would try such a thing unless she knew it had a good chance of working. Also, Judah's Adullamite companion happily cooperated with Judah in trying to pay for his dalliance.
: You overlook the fact, however, that Judah also commanded Tamar be put to death when he thought she was whoring around with other men. The stealth way the payment was made also suggests Judah did not commonly lie with prostitutes.
Nonsense. Judah's command that Tamar be put to death reflects the standard patriarchal notion of the day: 'No woman in my family shall play the prostitute because that would be embarrassing to us and mess up our property rights. It's fine for other women to do it, and I approve of it because I happily visit prostitutes when I can get away with it.' Furthermore, Judah in no way made a payment in a stealthy way. The account suggests no such thing. On the contrary, it states that Judah had his Adullamite companion make a diligent public search for the "temple prostitute". The account is clear that this involved asking many people if they had seen a temple prostitute in the area where Judah lived. Obviously, if this "companion" of Judah's were known to be his companion, it would be obvious to all who received such inquiries who the inquiries were made on behalf of -- Judah, the wealthy patriarch. Finally, the account is clear that Judah was extremely concerned, not about his fooling around with the woman, but about what might happen if it became known that he had failed to fulfill his bargain with the 'prostitute'.
:: Furthermore, the story does not condemn Tamar for having extra-marital relations. Indeed, Judah admits that she was justified in her conduct, because of the far more important "moral principle" of brother-in-law marriage.
: Actually, the story does not condemn Tamar for taking steps to obey the law concerning brother-in-law marriage.
So?
: It clearly indicates prostitution is wrong.
Where? The account only concerns itself with Tamar's supposedly having violated the property rights of the men in her extended family.
:: What's the deal with that? By Christian standards, the divinely-approved practice of brother-in-law marriage amounts to adultery. It's another illustration of God's radically changed moral standards, in that at one time God held that the right of a man to leave offspring bearing his name was more important than future Christian sexual standards.
: You have yet to show that God ever APPROVED of such conduct. He permitted it, yes. That's not the same thing as approving of it.
The command to take another wife, in the performance of brother-in-law marriage, is an explicit approval of polygamy, and therefore of God's explicit approval of conduct that he condemns under the Christian arrangement.
:: And what about the righteous Samson? He visited and obviously dallied with Philistine prostitutes and yet remained highly approved by God. In this case property rights were not being violated because Samson was not married and neither were the prostitutes.
: Proverbs 29:3 shows that one is unwise to cavort with prostitutes.
So what? That has nothing to do with my points of argument.
: While its possible Samson "dallied" with ladies of the evening, the Bible never explicitly says that he did so. Again, can you produce any biblical proof of such?
Not proof, but very good implications. The only three women Samson is said to have had liaisons with were Philistines -- notorious for being loose. Many Bible commentaries note this and indicate that the specific reference to Samson's going to see a prostitute implies that Samson had relations with her, even though the account does not explicitly say so. Note how Judges 16:1 phrases Samson's actions here:
"Once Samson went to Gaza and saw a prostitute woman there and came in to her."
Compare this with the similar but explicit language about David in 2 Samuel 12:24:
"And David began to comfort Bath-sheba his wife. Further, he came in to her and lay down with her."
So while I cannot absolutely prove that Samson actually dallied with the Gaza prostitute, no one can prove that he did not.
:: A careful analysis of the rest of the OT and of the Mosaic Law shows that almost all of the laws about extra-marital sex had to do either with property rights, or avoiding incest. They have nothing to do with the Christian standard of sexual morality.
: See the examples I listed above.
I've shown why these don't prove your claims, or even give evidence for them.
: And while you're at it, take a look at Deut 17:14.
Did you list this correctly? It has no bearing on our subjects.
::: Furthermore, I think the Roman Catholics have a valid point when they talk about human "nature." God evidently made our bodies to function in a certain manner. If we try to use our bodies in an unnatural way (not in accord with their nature), we could have major problems. At present, the preponderance of evidence indicates that it is unnatural to be promiscuous or have sex outside of marriage. Why would God command that which would causes humans problems because it is unnatural for them?
:: What evidence shows that such is unnatural? If it were unnatural, then how do you explain the success of the patriarchal system, one that was largely based on polygamy? If it were so bad, then why did God approve of it?
: Again, I reiterate, God NEVER approved of polygamy, and saying its so does not make it so.
He did, because the Bible says so.
: Additionally, certain psychologists have now shown that premarital sex is not conducive to good relationships or stable emotional and psychic health.
I think you or your undisclosed "certain psychologists" are leaving out much important information. I will agree that unrestrained, promiscous pre-marital sex often causes such problems, but not if it is practiced with control and appropriate restraint. I've seen comments from a number of psychologists over the years that it's a good safety measure to engage in pre-marital sex for a year or two before getting married, simply because two people might not be sexually compatible, or might find that their initial love cannot last for any number of reasons. Many, many people I know -- including JWs -- married young because they were horny and latched on to the first likely looking prospect they could find. Many of those marriages ended in divorce, or in absolutely miserable lives because the partners could not scripturally divorce. Had these people been allowed a proper outlet, so that the sexual "bloom of youth" was not the deciding factor in marriage, they would all have been much better off.
I know how this works in my own case, where I got married at nearly 24, and was a virgin until then. I married mainly because by then I was so horny I couldn't stand it. It quickly became evident that the marriage was not working well sexually because my wife disliked sex. It was messy, smelly and inconvenient. That only got worse as time passed. We only had good sex four or five times in 19 years, and each time it was when she had three or more strong drinks. I can tell you any number of similar stories about sexual incompatibility and why responsible pre-marital sex would have eliminated tremendous suffering. Some OT mores simply do not work in a non-patriarchal society.
: What is more, Deut 22:13-21 shows a girl's virginity was commonly prized in ancient Israel. This verse does not deal with property rights as such.
I've covered this above.
: Neither does the example of Dinah in Genesis 34.
Property rights are implied by the cultural context. Here is my commentary on Genesis 34:1-30 from the above-referenced thread:
Another OT story cited as condemning simple fornication is the account of Dinah, daughter of Jacob. Jacob and his large family group were living Canaan, and eventually one Shechem, a Canaanite, seduced Dinah. He asked his father to get Dinah as a wife for him. Jacob and his sons Simeon and Levi "heard that he had defiled Dinah his daughter". Through deceit, Jacob's two sons tricked Shechem and his fellows into getting circumcised, and then killed all the men of the city. Jacob was upset because of the possible repercussions from other Canaanites, but his sons said, "Ought anyone to treat our sister like a prostitute?"
Again this account might seem as if it reflects a hatred of OT characters for fornication, but again a consideration of the cultural context shows that it does not. The normal punishment, if one could call it that, for seducing an unmarried girl was that the seducer had to marry her. That is exactly what Shechem's family wanted him to do. But Jacob's sons went far beyond that and killed, not only the seducer, but all the males in his family and in his city. Clearly, the account is not condoning such overreaction, but condemning such wholesale murder. Thus the account provides no justification for claiming that the OT condemns simple fornication the same as it does adultery.
: Lastly, polygamy is not the same as premarital sex.
Duh.
: At least there is a family structure in polygamous arrangements in case children are produced in the union. There is no such structure when two people are having casual sex.
Straw man again. This has nothing to do with my points.
: 1 Thessalonians 4:1-3 also exhorts us to abstain from fornication, period.
Irrelevant. We're discussing the change from sexual standards in Genesis 1-3, to those in patriarchal times, to those in Christian times.
::: True, one could argue that snake-handlers carry out their activities on the basis of a questionable biblical text, and go on to point out that JWs base their decisions concerning blood transfusion on an equally questionable Bible principle.
:: That is the point.
: The difference, however, is that the Witnesses do not base their doctrine on one text.
No, they base it on essentially two texts: Genesis 9:4 and Leviticus 17:10-15. A few others are also used, but they in turn are based on or directly related to these two. For example, the statements in Acts 15 about blood are based entirely on Genesis 9:4. And since the Mosaic law does not apply to Christians, Leviticus and anything based on it must be irrelevant. For a thorough discussion of these and related points, see http://www.jwbloodreview.org . Since JWs can logically base their views only on Genesis 9:4, and this interpretation is based only on the personal views of their leaders and not on anything in the Bible, this is no different from what the snake handlers do.
: What is more, there are no significant textual critical issues involving the passages used by the Witnesses to support their doctrine.
Read the above-referenced website on blood transfusions. If you can refute the arguments, do so in a new thread. I could repeat the basics here, but I think it's best dealt with in its own thread.
::: But JWs do not intentionally put their children in jeopardy by walking into a den of snakes and handling such serpents around their children. Some event has to occur before the issue of blood transfusions even comes up in the life of a JW. The JW then makes a decision based on certain factors.
:: So what? The Society has arranged things so that JWs make an advance decision not to have certain forms of blood transfusion no matter what. If a bad situation never arises, they've beaten the odds. But if they find themselves in a life-threatening situation where blood is the only alternative, then they have just as surely put themselves in harm's way as have the snake handlers.
: You're now comparing apples and oranges, AlanF.
A claim without argumentation to back it up is worthless. Try explaining instead of merely claiming.
:: This point bears repeating: Jehovah's Witnesses and certain other Christian groups intentionally put themselves in harm's way based on nothing more than an extremely questionable interpretation of the Bible.
: "Questionable," in your eyes.
Questionable by almost all people who are not in the JW cult. Again, deal with the material on the jwbloodreview website.
::: What is more, refusing to take a blood transfusion is not necessarily death-dealing. It may be life-giving. I cannot say that for a snake bite.
:: So what? We're not talking about medical situations where blood is considered an option. We're talking about situations where the majority medical opinion is that the patient will die quickly without blood. Situations like when a person's blood is gushing out onto the ground after a bad auto accident and it falls below the critical level. A snake bite is not necessarily fatal either, but does that in any way justify putting children in harm's way?
: Do you think there are some things worth dying for in this life, AlanF? I certainly do.
Of course, but they must be based on more than the opinions of a few men who have proved time and again that their opinions are worthless. Do I really need to list for you the many idiotic medical teachings that these idiots have set forth over the years as "truth from God" and then later had to abandon? They're going to do the same with blood.
: What is more, let's say you are right and the GB is wrong. How would you feel if your child contracted an incurable death-dealing disease because you allowed him or her to have blood?
If my child were bleeding to death in front of me and the doctor claimed that there was a 99% chance that she would die without a transfusion, but had a 0.01% chance of contracting an incurable, death-dealing disease with a transfusion, I'd opt for the better odds. Don't ask me to be solid where the odds would have to be for me to draw the line, but I think that I'd still opt for the blood if it were 50-50. Anything else is, I think, not justifiable.
What about you? Given 99%:0.01% odds, what would you do?
Naturally, in a non-emergency situation where alternatives to blood exist, I'd explore all possibilities and then go with the best odds.
: We both have to live with the choices we make for ourselves and our children.
That's true, but because not all parents are responsible, or even competent, society must have a certain say in what is done with children. Obviously, allowing a religious sect to practice child sacrifice would be going too far. Most people feel that allowing a religious sect to shun all medical treatment is going too far. Most also feel that allowing a sect to shun medical treatment in such a way as to put children at risk is going too far. I have no doubt that, if you could manage to remove your JW blinders for a moment, you'd see these points.
: I think Witnesses should be allowed to act in good faith, just as I think Christian Scientists have the right to refuse medical treatment for their children. But they must live with the consequences of their choice, just as I have to.
I disagree about Christian Scientists and JWs. Parents are custodians of their children, not their owners. Oh, but I forgot: you go by Old Testament standards.
:: Actually, your response here shows your inability to see your religion's double standards at work. You see the flaw in other religions but are unable to see the same flaw in your own. Do you understand why that is?
: It could be for the same reason I am not inclined to see the flaws in my mate that other folks see.
A surprisingly wise answer. Think hard about what you said.
::::: Lastly, I find it ironic that those who worry so much about the POTENTIAL death of a child who refuses blood transfusions do not care enough about the spiritual welfare of their children to teach them spiritual and ethtical guidelines. Some parents even smoke in front of their children or abuse alcohol. They also fail to teach them biblical truth or transcendent values as a whole. Are they any better than Witnesses who MAY permit their children to die if suitable alternatives to blood cannot be found?
:::: Who are you to judge what is right for others to teach their children? Can you prove apodictically that God exists, that this God is the God of the Bible, and so on? No? Then don't judge those who act responsibly on that knowledge.
::: While I cannot irrefutably"prove" that God exists, no one can "prove" (apodictically) that He does not exist.
:: Precisely. So arguing that either belief ought to be the basis for some absolute moral standard is unjustifiable. Your beliefs amount to exactly that -- beliefs and opinions.
: You're guilty of a non sequitur here, AF.
Don't confuse a non sequitur with your opinion of a poor argument. My statement follows very well from the preceding arguments.
: You cannot rightly conclude that because a belief is non-apodictic, one cannot use it as the basis for an absolute standard.
Of course one can. An absolute standard requires absolute proof, unless one simply claims that the standard will be by assumption. And that's exactly what people do with the assumption that God exists or does not exist.
: People rightly do such with refutable beliefs all of the time.
That's right, and when they do that, they're making assumptions. If the assumption is wrong, then the standard is wrong. Thus it is not actually an absolute standard, but only something that some people would like to be one.
Do not confuse a true absolute standard with something that people merely call an absolute standard.
: If you don't read any book I've recommended, I beg you to read Kelly J. Clark's _Return to Reason_. Particularly, pp. 126ff of this book. There, Clark discusses noetic structure, showing that we all possess a number of basic and non-basic beliefs. There are even beliefs that we all commonly use to establish absolute standards. Why, the very belief in reason, is just that. G.K. Chesterton well said that reason is an act of faith.
I'll pass on that book for now, but thanks for the recommendation. I have too many pots on the fire.
At any rate, all you've argued is that no absolute standards exist, since if belief in reason itself is a mere assumption and is not absolute, then nothing found by reason can be absolute. And how do we find anything but by reason?
: Yet many on this board demand logical, well-reasoned arguments, thus establishing a standard (absolute?) for this board.
It's a standard alright, but not an absolute one in the mathematical sense. It's a common standard, the same one that allows you to reason that you ought to get up tomorrow morning and go to work because it's a good bet that the world will still be around and you'll still need to pay your bills.
: The same principle applies to mathematical beliefs (both basic and non-basic ones).
Mathematics is a different kettle of fish. With the assumption that reason works, mathematics, being a purely intellectual exercise, is precise and exact, and not subject to the fuzziness of real life. Thus we can talk about points and lines and circles and spheres and limits as X approaches infinity and all kinds of things that we only deal with as approximations in real life. Mathematics is the only discipline that allows absolute proofs.
::: But, as Plantinga has shown, belief in God could be viewed as basic.
:: And Feuerbacher has shown that unbelief in God could be viewed as basic.
:: So what?
: Indeed, unbelief in God is probably basic, in that it is not "based" on anything substantial.
It is based on exactly as substantial a set of observations as is belief in God.
Do you know anyone who God has appeared to? I don't either.
Do you think that "the design of life" proves that there is a designer? Who then, designed the ultimate life form itself -- God?
::: There could be as much evidence for belief in God as there is for belief in other minds.
:: "Could be's" are a dime a dozen.
: My point exactly when it comes to atheism.
Atheism and theism are both fully unproveable. Arguing which is better boils down to what feels better to a particular person, in light of evidence he feels is good.
::: Since you like to quote Scripture, you might enjoy reviewing Hebrews 3:4.
:: Ah, very good. All sentient beings are constructs. Who then, constructed God?
: Plantinga insists that belief in God is as basic AS 2 + 2 = 4. Davies also explains why your move does not work per se. I'm sure you've seen or read his book, "The Mind of God."
I care nothing for what these men have written. If you have something to say, say it here. Argue your case. If you can't, you have nothing to say.
Again you simply sidestep a pertinent question rather than explain your answer.
:::: More important for our present discussion, though, is that you're raising another red herring. The propriety of the JW position on blood has nothing to do with the living habits of anyone -- including those who choose to discuss the issue.
::: I think one's living habits have a lot to do with the issue of blood transfusions.
:: That position is nonsensical. It is easy to disprove by exhaustive process of elimination:
:: Does the propriety of the JW position on blood have anything to do with the living habits of Sadaam Hussein? No.
:: Does it have anything to do with the living habits of George Bush? No.
: You're now seeking to skew the argument. Did I say that living habits had any bearing on the propriety on the JW belief regarding blood transfusions? Maybe I did. But I don't think so.
Oh please! Do you really find it so difficult to remember your own arguments? Let me remind you (this is simply copied from above):
<<::::: Lastly, I find it ironic that those who worry so much about the POTENTIAL death of a child who refuses blood transfusions do not care enough about the spiritual welfare of their children to teach them spiritual and ethtical guidelines. Some parents even smoke in front of their children or abuse alcohol. They also fail to teach them biblical truth or transcendent values as a whole. Are they any better than Witnesses who MAY permit their children to die if suitable alternatives to blood cannot be found?>>
Does that ring a bell? What are smoking and alcohol abuse but living habits?
: My point was that it seems hard to understand how folks who engage in activites that show they actually support a death culture, can turn around and protest the JW practice of refusing blood transfusions.
Such things may be harmful, or in the long run may reduce life expectancy, or may conflict with your views about the Bible, but they cannot be compared to the immediacy of a child bleeding its life out on the operating room floor. Do you not agree?
:: Since the living habits of no single person have anything to do with the propriety of the JW position on blood, it follows that the propriety of the JW position on blood has nothing to do with the living habits of anyone -- including those who choose to discuss the issue. QED
: And since I never said that one's habits have anything to do with the propriety of blood transfusions, you can your delete your QED.
Since I have demonstrated that you did connect living habits such as smoking, drinking alcohol, failing to teach Christian values, etc., to the question of the propriety of blood transfusions, you may now undelete that QED.
:: Clearly, my personal habits have nothing to do with the Society's position on blood. Nor do yours, nor those of anyone else on this forum.
: Our living habits have a lot to do with the stance we take in the debate.
Only in the minds of those who rely on authority rather than the substance of the question to determine their stance.
: One who supports a death culture cannot rightly castigate those who favor the death penalty.
Sure they can. They might be hypocritical, in your opinion, but that does not lessen the validity of the arguments they make.
Solid arguments are by definition objective and are therefore independent of the ones giving them. It doesn't matter whether Satan or God writes down the proof of the Fundamental Theorem of the Integral Calculus. The proof stands on its own.
Sadly, many Christians and most JWs never learn this simple lesson. That's because they're trained from infancy to listen to authority rather than to think on their own.
: Similarly, IMHO, those who expose their children to death-dealing practices and engage in such themselves cannot rightly (unhypocritically) denigrate JWs for abstaining from blood in the way they see fit.
Sure they can. You're equating "rightly" and "unhypocritically", but that's ridiculous. It's like claiming that if I overindulge in food, like a lot of fat JWs do, I can't rightly condemn a murderer.
You're doing the strawman routine bigtime now, dunsscot. This is a very standard JW technique of sidestepping problematic areas -- to say that critics are not perfect, so how dare they criticize JWs? Turn it around, dunsscot, and see if you agree that it's hypocritical for JWs to criticize all other religions to the point of outright condemnation when they themselves are guilty of many of the same sins. Can you be objective enough to think about this at all?
:::: As the apostle Paul was asked, dunsscott, why do you keep kicking against the goads? The answer to "the question of blood and JWs" is obvious and you know it. Why not act on your gut, follow through, and do the right thing?
::: I may see things your way one day, AlanF. But remember what James 1:19 says: "Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath."
:: That's a good rule to live by. It took me seventeen years from the point where I first realized that the Society is fallible to get to the point of acting on it and ceasing to preach the JW version of the gospel. It took another ten to realize that the Society's leaders are irredeemable and thoroughly unchristian. It took another five to admit that I had been completely taken in by a cult. But I didn't have the advantages you do, such as the Internet and a large community of people who had already 'been there'. When you finally see the light, you'll be surprised at what else you find. Many have found for the first time in their lives that they have friends they know they can count on, friends who won't abandon them at the first sign of disagreement with some silly religious view. Do your JW companions allow others that freedom? Not likely. Most JWs simply don't know what real freedom and friendship are. Their view of them is like that of a man in a desert who has heard that green pastures exist over the next hill, but who never quite manages to get over that hill.
: I have a number of JW friends with whom I freely disagree. There are friends in the WT organization that would also die for me and I for them.
At this moment, perhaps. But most of them would disappear if you let it be known that you actually question the propriety of the Society's policy on blood. How about discussing the matter with that astute scholar, Al Kidd? Do you think he, being an accomplished JW apologist, would accommodate your discomfiture?
How about the matter of JW chronology? Would John A. go along with you if you publicly and unequivocably repudiated the 1914 chronology? How about his friend Rick T.? How about that most astute of scholar-pretenders, Rolf F.? If you clearly rejected JW chronology, would these men have anything more to do with you? I think not. So how far does it go, for real, when you know that if you made your real feelings known, you'd be rejected and shunned by the very men you now count as ones who would die for you?
You don't believe me? Then make your true feelings known to these so-called friends, and report back here what kind of reaction you get. But I don't need a report. I already know what you'd find, if you could muster the courage to do what I suggested.
: Moreover, I enjoy the relative peace that obtains among JWs and the advances they have made in race relations.
I have few complaints in this area. I grew up attending a number of JW congregations where the people were all mixed. When I was young, everything was sweet and light. I liked most of the "colored" brothers and sisters. A couple of my best friends, one of whom I still keep in touch with, were black or of mixed descent. Later I found out that there was rivalry among the elders of the mostly-white and mostly-black congregations, which were separated along neighborhood political lines. Having attended both, and having spent plenty of time with all of these guys, I sympathized with the black guys. In fact, most were real friends whereas most of the white guys were nothing but talk. For a couple of years one of my best friends was a black man much older than me, one Caesar Smith (now dead), who got me a couple of jobs when the white guys showed no interest, and who showed far more interest in me than my real father and my stepfather (both elders of a sort) or any of the other brothers ever did. When I got married in 1975, close to half the people who attended were my black friends. The best congregation I ever attended was the Manhassett, New York, congregation, which was about as mixed racially as one could imagine. So I know how good JWs can make race relations.
On the other hand, since I became inactive for the 2nd time in 1983, I've found that in many locations race relations are not a problem. It all depends on the attitude of the local community, just like it depends on the local community of JWs or whoever. I know a white guy and a black guy, for example, in the Portland Oregon area who are equally bright and who equally view the JWs as thoroughly screwed up. We all laugh about our experiences, although these guys tend to remain low key for various reasons.
: What is more, they refuse to war against and murder their fellowman or woman. Have you found such friends like this in the world?
Indeed I have. Some would and some would not war against their fellowman, depending on the specific situation, and sometimes I have strong disagreements with some of them. I have none who I think would murder anyone. Indeed, as you probably know, some of our esteemed Norwegian colleagues on this forum are quite outspoken, and on occasion I and others within my family have disagreed with them to the point of anger. So what? Does that make these guys any less my friends? Not hardly! In fact, in a way that most JWs cannot understand, disagreement followed by coming to terms cements friendships. I can hardly express the emotion that goes along with my expression that certain of these men are my friends, friends in a way that no JW I have ever known is capable of understanding. So, too, is it with many others, men and women, with whom I've become acquainted over the years, men and women who recognized truth when they saw it and bullshit when they stepped in it. I hope that one day, you will find such friendships.
In the meantime, I suggest that you put to the test any doubts or misgivings or whatever that you might have. I suspect that you'll be pleasantly suprised.
AlanF