The Mosaic Law and JW's

by jimakazi 10 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  jimakazi

  Jesus did away with the mosaic law.
  

  On this basis JW's eat pork if they wish, do not have to maintain a beard, and do not observe the sabbath.

  However the JW's seem to apply aspects of the Mosaic law when it suits them - for instance they often quote it to support their postion on blood. However if the mosaic law does not apply then why refer to the mosaic law at all - if it does provide a guide then maybe bacon should be off the list, beard should be worn and no witness should work on the Sabbath? This is also where they get a lot of their justification for harsh treatment of disfellowshiped people. As has been noted by many the god of Moses was fairly strict, and was quick to have the earth open up and deal to those who didn't agree with him. Jesus preached a Christian message - and it was a lot less restictive than the Mosaic law the Jews had lived under. Turn the other cheek, he who is without sin throw the 1st stone, etc. So once again what is the point of quoting sellected Mosaic law scriture to justify postions that do not appear compatible with the example of Jesus? On blood, I can accept that to eat blood is against Jehovahs wishes - HOWEVER there is a vast difference between someone being hungry and someone about to dies from loss of blood - just as there is a huge difference between eating bllod and a bllod transfussion. Do not the witnesses them selves speak highly of witnesses who have died to save other witnesses? So if a life can be save [not nourished] but saved by a donation of blood from one to another then it would actually seem to be the Chrisitan thing to do.
• 

  greendawn

  The problem with the jws is that their whole demeanour revolves around the Mosaic rather than the Christian law they are too works oriented and have that fear of God that is characteristic of those enslaved to the jewish law.
  
  This may well be intentional to frighten the followers with the jehovah bogeyman into submission and therein control and manipulation/exploitation. God as perceived through the Christian understanding can not serve this purpose as he is far too mild tempered and slow to anger.
  
  As for the works rather than grace orientation it serves well the org in enabling them to have unpaid sales people a slave workforce that are constantly striving but always feel they've done very little.
• 

  jimakazi

  Hi Greendawn

  I feel you are right - but it makes another nice point to raise with any JW who is silly enough to try to preach to us.
• 

  greendawn

  Indeed it's more enlightening at times to make people aware of the overall mentality of the org rather than the individual ideas and actions that stem from it.
  
  Whenever the GB want to frighten and cow into submission (emotionally abuse)the dubs and especially those that show an inclination to challenge the legitimacy of their claims and assumed status they always resort to old testament stories of divine anger.
  
  It's enlightening to observe how they never ever seek to bring to centre stage God as a loving Father that is appropriate to the christian concept of the divine as reconciled with fallen man. Having followers stricken with fear of the divine serves them much better and a healthy concept of man's relationsip to God, one based on love, never develops.
  
  Totally anachronistic, the meaning of the gospel seems to have gone totally over their heads.
• 

  Sad emo

  I think my questions connected but sorry if I go slightly off thread here. Something that I've wondered a lot about is the stance on eating blood. I don't understand why JW's are ok to eat non-kosher meat - which still has blood in it. Even if the Mosaic law doesn't apply any more, there is still the letter in Acts commanding Christians to abstain from blood. I can't make it add up.
• 

  ithinkisee

  I heard it best summed up yesterday in an MP3 I listened to of Lori MacGregor (i think) that said something like:

  Grace (what the Society calls "undeserved kindness") is a free gift.

  If a friend whom you had a long relationship with says to you, "Stop by my house, I have a free gift for you, because I love you so much."

  Then when you get there, your friend says, "Now, before I give you your gift, can you wash my clothes, fold them and put them away?"

  So you do.

  Then they say, "Now can you mop my floors?"

  So you do.

  When you are finished they say, "Now can you make my bed and clean my bathroom?"

  You do. But by now you are pretty tired and worn out.

  When you are finally done, they say, "Great! Here is your gift."

  Does that gift now have the same meaning that it did when your friend first told you about it? Was it really given to you from the heart? Was it given freely?

  (if I completely butchered this account I apologize)

  -ithinkisee
• 

  crazyblondeb

  Now, the blood issue really gets me going. This is another way to maintain control, using some more scare tactics. If someone dies because of not accepting blood, it's suppose to look good. This person sacrificed his life for his beliefs, blah,blah,blah. Now, it's suppose to be an individual choice. BUT, pressure is still applied to abstain. They use the bible like they use anything else--however it suites them at the time.

  If it works to their advantage, they twist and turn it till it fits them. They like to appear to be a victim.
• 

  jula71

  Jesus did away with the mosaic law.
  
  

  On this basis JW's eat pork if they wish, do not have to maintain a beard, and do not observe the sabbath.

  However the JW's seem to apply aspects of the Mosaic law when it suits them - for instance they often quote it to support their position on blood.

  Keep in mind though, they believe the law as a whole was done away with, but Paul in Acts 15:19-21 brings up blood as one of the aspects of the law that should be followed in principle. Personally, I believe they do it, much like a media ploy, as something to point to say they are different from other religions. If they were serious about it they would follow it as strictly as the Jewish faith regarding blood.
• 

  M.J.

  If they were serious about it they would follow it as strictly as the Jewish faith regarding blood.

  The Jewish faith sees no connection between eating blood and taking a blood transfusion.

  I agree that it's strange how they can eat all kinds of blood cells when they eat meat, especially from animals not properly bled as per the law. Does it matter whether or not the blood from it is cooked or if its raw? It's still blood.

  It is tragic how they cannot qualify thier stance on this life and death issue with their own admission that their interpretations are merely human and not infallable. Such admissions are made only when they are defending their past flip-flops and failures--they are not meant to have any bearing on how their present teachings should be viewed.
• 

  greendawn

  That's the classic example of double think, the JWs often have two contradictory opinions on an issue and keep wondering between the two as it suits them so at times they are imperfect and must be treated leniently at other times they are as if infallible and their opinions can't be questioned.