AlanF

Joined

• started 104 topics
• posted 4,636 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by AlanF

• 
  119

  Validity of 607 BCE date

  by stevieb1 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  has anyone on here ever come across the tiniest shred of evidence supporting this date for the fall of jerusalem.

  i understand rolf furuli is about to but something out on this subject (see elihubooks.com), however even a table of contents has been a long time in coming from this site.

  if no evidence exists what can he possibly be writing about?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  AlanF

  To stevieb1:

  : Has anyone on here ever come across the tiniest shred of evidence supporting this date for the fall of Jerusalem.

  That depends on what you mean by evidence.

  If you mean Watchtower-style nonsensical evidence, then the answer is Yes.

  If you mean real evidence, then the answer is No.

  The only evidence in support of the Society's chronology is its claim that its teachings are right. There is a mountain of evidence that standard secular chronology is right, with trifling exceptions of a year here and there.

  : I understand Rolf Furuli is about to but something out on this subject (see elihubooks.com), however even a table of contents has been a long time in coming from this site. If no evidence exists what can he possibly be writing about?

  Who knows? Furuli and his buddies have demonstrated themselves to be bright in some ways, but quite braindead when it comes to defending the Society's wrong doctrines. They defend such nonsense only because the Society teaches it.

  A good example of the sort of nonsense put out by JW defenders is this silly little thing from "scholar". I'll address my comments to him.

  : There is an abundant ecidence for 607 as the biblical date for the Fall of Jerusalem.

  Wrong. There is only the Society's word. You go right ahead and list the evidence, if you dare. You'll find that the only 'evidence' you can find is the demonstrably wrong claim that the 70 years prophesied by Jeremiah ended in 537 B.C.E. See below for a simple disproof.

  When the Society drops the date during the next couple of decades, people like you will claim that they never taught anything definite about it.

  : The Society has published how the date is calculated using ancient and biblical history.

  More correctly: they've published distortions of secular and biblical history because of wanting to support a doctrine they don't know how to live without.

  : Likewise there is evidence for other dates such as 587 or 586. All of these dates have some basis for their calculation, these dates are not some conjecture or something that has been imagined. Such dates are sustained by careful scholarship with biblical interpretation. The difference is the methodology of the chronologist and his choice of historical narrative.

  Correct, with the proviso that it is easily demonstrable from the Bible alone that the Society's "methodology" (a misnomer for what Watchtower writers actually do) is wrong.

  : In short you have a choice of which date that you believe is correct, if prophecy is important then go for the 607 date. This date succeeds because it establishes the Gentile Times concluding in 1914. The other dates of 587/586 are useless in that these are dead ends, going nowhere.

  This is a perfect argument that shows just why the Society can't yet do without its chronology: it supports that all-important 1914 date. Without 1914, the entire house of cards collapses, most especially the claims of JW leaders to have been appointed in 1919 to speak especially for God. And of course, every one of the Society's claims about "the composite sign of the end" beginning in 1914 has been proved false. That is an additional proof that 607 is a wrong date.

  : However, the value of these dates lies in their approximation of some twenty years which brings us to the biblically reckoned date of 607.

  No, it's a Watchtower reckoned date.

  : You have a choice. The Society has over many decades has demonstrated that their chronology is scholarly, consistent with ancient astronomy and history. This is well demonstrated in their chronology of our Lord Jesus.

  All of their 'chronology' has been proved bogus. Not a single thing prior to 560 B.C.E. agrees with ancient astronomy. In fact, ancient astronomy completely disproves it. So does ancient history.

  From another post by "scholar":

  : I have the book Gentile Times Reconsidered and am well familiar with its contents. The book in no way invalidates 607 as you might claim.

  Suuure. Just like facts don't invalidate the Society's claims about the "composite sign" of the "1914 generation".

  : Jonsson's hypothesis has its weaknesses as shown in his interpretation of the 70 years,

  Wrong. He presents several possibilities and is not dogmatic about any one of them. The best hypothesis -- which must remain one because there is not enough evidence to prove it -- is that the 70 years began in 609 B.C.E. when the last of the Assyrian Empire was crushed by Babylon, and Babylon began systematically taking over Palestine and the lands round about. However, while the starting date cannot be proved absolutely, the ending date can. The 70 years ended in 539 B.C.E. when, just as Jeremiah 25:12 states, the king of Babylon was called to account by being killed, and the Medo-Persian Empire began ruling. After 539, the Babylonian Empire was nonexistent. This is perfectly consistent with Jeremiah 25:11, which says of Judah and the nations round about, that they would "have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years", and with 2 Chronicles 36:20, which says of the Jews that "they came to be servants to him and his sons until the royalty of Persia began to reign." Did you get what the Bible actually says? Note again: the Jews would serve Babylon 70 years until the Persians began to reign -- and not a moment longer. When did the Persians begin to reign? In 539 B.C.E. Therefore the 70 years ended in 539, and not in 537 which is the basis for the Watchtower Society's bogus chronology.

  The Society avoids these two scriptures like the plague. You won't find any commentary at all on this point from 2 Chronicles 36:20 in Watchtower literature. You'll find only a single bit of commentary on Jeremiah 25:12, in a late-1970s Watchtower article that claimed -- get this -- that the "king of Babylon" reigning when they claim the 70 years ended in 537 was actually Cyrus, the king of the Persians! And do you know how they claim Cyrus was "called to account"? By releasing the Jews to go home! Have you ever seen a more forced, or ridiculous interpretation? Isn't it obvious how dishonest and straw-grasping defenders of this bogus WTS 'chronology' must be in order to glean a bit of support from the Bible?

  Note to stevieb1: Since the above arguments cannot be refuted by reference to Watchtower literature, you likely won't see any substantive answer from "scholar".

  : and his inability to determine whether 587 0r 586 is correct.

  Wrong again. Jonsson explains very clearly why he feels that 587 is correct, and cites a number of scholars who agree. The disagreement about the dates is due to one thing only: the Bible sometimes puts the year of Jerusalem's destruction in Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year, and sometimes in his 19th year. Jonsson thoroughly covers this point, too.

  It's pretty obvious that you didn't understand what you claim you read.

  : You are entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to mine.

  Of course, just as some are of the opinion that the earth is flat. But opinions that are demonstrably wrong ain't worth diddly squat.

  Cyberguy and Zep: excellent comments!

  AlanF
• 
  29

  draft letter - editorial comments?

  by wasasister in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  the following is the first-draft of a letter i would like to send to the society.

  any and all suggestions would be appreciated.

  (don't worry, i've developed a thick-skin.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  AlanF

  Looks good to me.

  The only caveat is that the Society normally just trashes unsigned letters. But in this case, you're not so much asking for a response as offering comments, which they might use to accumulate statistics on which way the wind is blowing.

  AlanF
• 
  57

  A Call To Deal With Apostates

  by AlanF in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  from the july 1, 2003 watchtower article "righteous requirements":.

  .. the kingdom of god is the highest government anyone can serve.

  how does jehovah issue the call to his people?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  AlanF

  Here is your basic problem, proplog2:

  : But there is a difference between what an individual does and the institutional violence that Alan would like everyone to believe it is not just a possibility but a very strong possibility.

  You're either extremely stupid, or a liar. I said nothing that indicates anything about the strength of possibility of "institutional violence". I said that it is a possibility, period.

  AlanF
• 
  57

  A Call To Deal With Apostates

  by AlanF in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  from the july 1, 2003 watchtower article "righteous requirements":.

  .. the kingdom of god is the highest government anyone can serve.

  how does jehovah issue the call to his people?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  AlanF

  To proplog2:

  : You make the following statement as the critical step in moving JW's to violence:

  : "it would be easy for JW leaders to apply such sentiment to potential punishment by secular authorities for killing "apostates" simply by redefining "theocratic law".

  : Your presumption is that it would be "easy" for JW leaders to "simply" redefine "theocratic law".

  It's no presumption -- it's a proven fact that it's easy to redefine "theocratic law", because "theocratic law" is whatever Watchtower leaders say it is. See below.

  : The same could be said about any law making body.

  Right. So what?

  You've inadvertantly brought out an important point, proplog2: JW leaders are not technically supposed to be a law making body, but are supposed to tell forth God's laws as written in the Bible. According to the Bible, humans cannot properly change or fail to obey any of God's laws, and adding to them makes one guilty of the sin of presumption. So when JW leaders change "law" to suit themselves, they're guilty of gross presumptuousness.

  : You fail to see the fact that while the words making up a law can be changed "simply" - the process involving such a change requires the presentation of REASONS for making a change.

  Since when have Watchtower writers ever failed to give a 'reason' for making a change? In the 1920s they gave a 'reason' for banning vaccinations. In the 1950s they gave 'reasons' for rescinding the ban. In the 1940s they gave 'reasons' for banning all forms of blood transfusion; in the 1950s they gave 'reasons' for viewing a person who took blood as a sinner; in the 1960s they put teeth into the ban and gave 'reasons' for DF'ing people over the issue; from time to time since then they've given 'reasons' to ease up on fractions one at a time. In 1967 they gave 'reasons' for declaring organ transplants a form of cannibalism; in 1980 they gave 'reasons' for saying it ain't so. In a few years they'll give 'reasons' why transfusions are not something a Christian can judge another about.

  Sometimes the 'reason' given is simply that "the faithful slave", in it's position of God-given spiritual authority, has decided upon something.

  Of course, we all know that sometimes the 'reasons' are pure bullshit. And that's the point about the 'reasons' the Society might give to "kill apostates".

  : In the 1952 article you quote "God's law through Christ forbid us to kill apostates". That's the REASON it ain't going to happen.

  Wrong. That's the 'reason' it hasn't happened so far. Can you foretell the future? No. So you have no idea whether they will ever issue 'reasons' to "kill apostates" or not.

  But you keep forgetting that I'm not making any predictions about what will happen. I'm talking about the cult mindset of Jehovah's Witnesses that would make it easy for an unscrupulous leader to put in place a "call to action" that, without directly saying so, would convey the message "Go! Kill apostates!" to JWs who are properly attuned. They would, in effect, say that "new scrolls have been opened and this is what they say: ..." They would never issue a direct command to do so, but would leave it up to the individual to put it into practice. Peer pressure would, in the usual fashion, be effective in influencing individual actions.

  : My references to the blood guilt of the worlds mainstream religions are important to make my point that you are exaggerating your scenario.

  Your references have nothing to do with the point at hand and you have not shown that they have.

  : You take a group of people who would rather be killed or imprisoned than actually kill their enemies

  Here again you're missing an extremely important point: JWs as a group do not avoid killing people because of a moral indignation against it, or because they individually apply Bible proscriptions against it. They avoid such because and only because the Watchtower Society tells them to (of course, this applies in a group sense; many JWs certainly do make independent choices). This is proved with the blood transfusion issue. JWs will let their loved ones -- even children -- die simply because the Society has told them that's the right thing. Until a year ago all JWs would (at least on paper) rather let children die than take a hemoglobin preparation. Now that the Society has told them that hemoglobin is ok, most will not let their children die if this treatment is an option. This proves that even in life and death matters, Watchtower conscience rules over the conscience of individual JWs. It's a minor step to go from taking strong action to allow someone to die in order to obey Watchtower edicts, to taking strong action to cause someone to die to obey such edicts. That this is a minor step in point of general human laws is shown by the fact that a person can be charged with neglect or even murder for withholding certain medical treatment.

  : and try to make a case that they WOULD kill their enemies.

  But you're forgetting that part of the 'reasons' given for this would necessarily include whatever is needed to suppress the general desire to avoid needless killing. You're also forgetting that JWs are not in the least bothered by killing God's "enemies", but only bothered by murder. "Murder" is by definition the illegal killing of a human. By redefining "theocratic law", "killing apostates" would by definition not be murder, just as it was not murder for an 18th-century U.S. slave owner to kill a slave.

  : That takes more than a stretch of the imagination.

  Not so. I've already demonstrated why and how it could be done.

  : It requires an irrational hatred toward JW's to even suggest the possibility. JW's have their faults but this simply is off the charts.

  You're entitled to your opinion. You have not given any good arguments to support your opinion.

  : Even their ridiculous policy about blood transfusions is based partly on their belief that it is better to die than to take another person's life/blood in order to keep living.

  You're half right, but you're distorting the Watchtower position by using "life/blood". The policy on blood transfusions has nothing to do with avoiding taking another person's life; it has only to do with avoiding taking another person's blood. The avoidance of taking a life has only to do with the Bible's command to avoid murder. You're conflating two entirely separate issues.

  : Your ditty was not honest and is an example of the rabid anti-JW attitude in this forum.

  My parody was dead nuts on and is an example of an objective view of what the cult mindset of Jehovah's Witnesses could result in.

  I've challenged several loyal JWs with exactly this scenario of "killing apostates". In every case they've run away from the challenge. This is typical of the way it went:

  AF: You obey the Society as if it were God.
  JW: I do not!
  AF: Yes you do. You would even kill me if the Society told you to.
  JW: That's ridiculous!
  AF: Not so. I'll prove it. Are you up to the challenge?
  JW: Go to it!
  AF: Do JW leaders speak for God?
  JW: Well, as long as they tell what's in the Bible they do.
  AF: Ok, fine. But can you publicly state what you just said and avoid congregational action?
  JW: What do you mean?
  AF: I mean, can you publicly imply that current teaching from JW leaders might not be perfecly according to the Bible?
  JW: Well...
  AF: Come on now, be honest. What happens if you publicly state that a particular teaching is not scriptural?
  JW: Well that would be contradicting the "faithful and discreet slave".
  AF: So could you publicly contradict "the slave" without congregational action against you?
  JW: Well, no, because that would be running ahead.
  AF: So you really must obey "the slave" in everything in order to avoid congregational action, right?
  JW: I guess so.
  AF: You "guess so"?
  JW: Alright, I would have to obey or be disfellowshipped.
  AF: Ok, now consider this: if you are required to obey to that extent, doesn't that mean that you are required to view what "the slave" says as if Jehovah himself were speaking?
  JW: Well, not really.
  AF: What do you mean, "not really"? If you can be disfellowshipped for publicly disagreeing with "the slave", doesn't that mean that "the slave" must be infallible?
  JW: Well, I suppose so.
  AF: And are any humans infallible?
  JW: No.
  AF: Isn't it true that only God is infallible?
  JW: Sure.
  AF: So isn't it proper to conclude that anyone who cannot ever publicly be disagreed with must be infallible and therefore must be speaking for God?
  JW: I guess so.
  AF: So if you're honest you must admit that as a JW you're required to believe and act as if "the slave" is infallible and speaks for God, right?
  JW: I have to admit that's right.
  AF: So if "the slave" tells you today that the Bible says such-and-such, you have to believe and act on that, right?
  JW: Right.
  AF: And if "the slave" tells you tomorrow that the Bible says the opposite of what it tells you today, you have to believe that that is Jehovah speaking, right?
  JW: I guess so.
  AF: Come on! Do you agree or not?
  JW: Ok, I'd have to believe and obey.
  AF: Ok, now what would you do if "the slave" told you to withhold certain medical treatment from your child that you knew would result in the child's death. Would you do it?
  JW: Yes, of course. You know that we do that with blood transfusions.
  AF: What would you do if "the slave" told you that I was an apostate and that you should kill me?
  JW: That's a ridiculous question!
  AF: What's the matter? You said you were up to a challenge.
  JW: The Society would never tell me to kill anyone!
  AF: How do you know that? God told the Israelites to kill plenty of people.
  JW: That was a long time ago.
  AF: But what if "the slave" tells you that "new scrolls" have been opened and that they contain instructions to kill apostates?
  JW: They would never do that!
  AF: How do you know?
  JW: ....
  AF: Well, how do you know?
  JW: I don't know that for sure.
  AF: But Revelation 20 talks about "new scrolls" being opened sometime, and since you're required to view everything that "the slave" tells you as if it came directly from Jehovah, you can't properly disagree if "the slave" tells you about "new scrolls", right?
  JW: I suppose you're right.
  AF: So let's try again: If the Society told you I was an apostate and then told you to kill me, would you kill me?
  JW: .....
  AF: Well?
  JW: .....
  AF: Hello? Hello? Is anybody home?
  .........

  Please understand that the above scenario is not just made up -- it's based on real life conversations I've had with several practicing JWs. They know very well that if the Society told them to "kill apostates", they would have to obey or cease being JWs. They hate to have that realization pushed in their faces, and so in every case they've simply run away from further discussion. Whether or not such a "call to action" actually occurs is irrelevant -- the JW mindset is such that under the right circumstances it could occur. That is a necessary consequence of The Fundamental Doctrine of Jehovah's Witnesses: JW leaders speak for God and must be obeyed as God.

  AlanF
• 
  57

  A Call To Deal With Apostates

  by AlanF in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  from the july 1, 2003 watchtower article "righteous requirements":.

  .. the kingdom of god is the highest government anyone can serve.

  how does jehovah issue the call to his people?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  AlanF

  Proplog2, it's obvious that you're not understanding what you're reading in my posts:

  : I appreciate parody but you REALLY indicate your motives when you try to defend the possibility for JW's carrying out violence.

  Oh? Just what motives do you "REALLY" think my posts indicate?

  Are you really going to claim that Jehovah's Witnesses are not taught to hate those who criticize them? If so, on what basis?

  I will now prove that the potential for declaring open season on "apostates" exists within the JW organization:

  According to the Bible, an apostate is one who has abandoned God. According to the Watchtower Society, the statements of JW leaders are equivalent to God's pronouncements, and one who has abandoned the Society by repudiating its claim that JW leaders comprise a "faithful and discreet slave" that uniquely speaks for God has also become an apostate by virtue of repudiating the ones who "speak for God":

  *** w86 4/1 30-1 Questions From Readers ***
  Questions From Readers
  O Why have Jehovah's Witnesses disfellowshipped (excommunicated) for apostasy some who still profess belief in God, the Bible, and Jesus Christ?
  . . .
  Obviously, a basis for approved fellowship with Jehovah's Witnesses cannot rest merely on a belief in God, in the Bible, in Jesus Christ, and so forth. The Roman Catholic pope, as well as the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury, professes such beliefs, yet their church memberships are exclusive of each other. Likewise, simply professing to have such beliefs would not authorize one to be known as one of Jehovah's Witnesses.
  Approved association with Jehovah's Witnesses requires accepting the entire range of the true teachings of the Bible, including those Scriptural beliefs that are unique to Jehovah's Witnesses. What do such beliefs include?
  . . . That there is a "faithful and discreet slave" upon earth today 'entrusted with all of Jesus' earthly interests,' which slave is associated with the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses. (Matthew 24:45-47) That 1914 marked the end of the Gentile Times and the establishment of the Kingdom of God in the heavens, as well as the time for Christ's foretold presence. (Luke 21:7-24; Revelation 11:15-12:10-12) . . .
  Paul wrote about some in his day: "Their word will spread like gangrene. Hymenaeus and Philetus are of that number. These very men have deviated from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already occurred; and they are subverting the faith of some." (2 Timothy 2:17, 18; see also Matthew 18:6.) There is nothing to indicate that these men did not believe in God, in the Bible, in Jesus' sacrifice. Yet, on this one basic point, what they were teaching as to the time of the resurrection, Paul rightly branded them as apostates, with whom faithful Christians would not fellowship.
  Similarly, the apostle John termed as antichrists those who did not believe that Jesus had come in the flesh. They may well have believed in God, in the Hebrew Scriptures, in Jesus as God's Son, and so on. But on this point, that Jesus had actually come in the flesh, they disagreed and thus were termed "antichrist." John goes on to say regarding those holding such variant views: "If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, never receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him. For he that says a greeting to him is a sharer in his wicked works."-2 John 7, 10, 11.
  Following such Scriptural patterns, if a Christian (who claims belief in God, the Bible, and Jesus) unrepentantly promotes false teachings, it may be necessary for him to be expelled from the congregation. (See Titus 3:10, 11.)

  *** "Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock", Kingdom Ministry School Textbook, 1991, p. 94 ***
  Apostasy includes action taken against true worship of Jehovah or his established order among his dedicated people. . .
  Persons who deliberately spread (stubbornly hold to and speak about) teachings contrary to Bible truth as taught by Jehovah's Witnesses are apostates.

  Far more quotations could be cited to prove who the Watchtower Society labels "apostate", but the above is sufficient to prove my point. Note that according to the above, "apostates" would include those who had never been JWs but who speak against or otherwise criticize "God's anointed".

  Next we note how rejection of "Jehovah's organization" is equated with "intense hatred for Jehovah":

  *** w93 10/1 19 "Search Through Me, O God" ***
  What if some people show intense hatred for Jehovah?
  15 Regarding them, the psalmist said: "Do I not hate those who are intensely hating you, O Jehovah, and do I not feel a loathing for those revolting against you? With a complete hatred I do hate them. They have become to me real enemies." (Psalm 139:21, 22) It was because they intensely hated Jehovah that David looked on them with abhorrence. Apostates are included among those who show their hatred of Jehovah by revolting against him. Apostasy is, in reality, a rebellion against Jehovah. Some apostates profess to know and serve God, but they reject teachings or requirements set out in his Word. Others claim to believe the Bible, but they reject Jehovah's organization and actively try to hinder its work. When they deliberately choose such badness after knowing what is right, when the bad becomes so ingrained that it is an inseparable part of their makeup, then a Christian must hate (in the Biblical sense of the word) those who have inseparably attached themselves to the badness. True Christians share Jehovah's feelings toward such apostates; they are not curious about apostate ideas. On the contrary, they "feel a loathing" toward those who have made themselves God's enemies, but they leave it to Jehovah to execute vengeance.

  Next we note the wistful tone in The Watchtower regarding the sad fact that "Jehovah's earthly organization" is not now authorized to execute apostates:

  *** w52 11/15 703-4 Questions from Readers ***
  Questions from Readers
  O In the case of where a father or mother or son or daughter is disfellowshiped, how should such person be treated by members of the family in their family relationship?-P. C., Ontario, Canada.
  We are not living today among theocratic nations where such members of our fleshly family relationship could be exterminated for apostasy from God and his theocratic organization, as was possible and was ordered in the nation of Israel in the wilderness of Sinai and in the land of Palestine. "Thou shalt surely kill him; thy hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him to death with stones, because he hath sought to draw thee away from Jehovah thy God, . . . And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is in the midst of thee."-Deut. 13:6-11, AS.
  Being limited by the laws of the worldly nation in which we live and also by the laws of God through Jesus Christ, we can take action against apostates only to a certain extent, that is, consistent with both sets of laws. The law of the land and God's law through Christ forbid us to kill apostates, even though they be members of our own flesh-and-blood family relationship. However, God's law requires us to recognize their being disfellowshiped from his congregation, and this despite the fact that the law of the land in which we live requires us under some natural obligation to live with and have dealings with such apostates under the same roof. . .
  Satan's influence through the disfellowshiped member of the family will be to cause the other member or members of the family who are in the truth to join the disfellowshiped member in his course or in his position toward God's organization. To do this would be disastrous, and so the faithful family member must recognize and conform to the disfellowship order. How would or could this be done while living under the same roof or in personal, physical contact daily with the disfellowshiped? In this way: By refusing to have religious relationship with the disfellowshiped.
  The marriage partner would render the marriage dues according to the law of the land and in due payment for all material benefits bestowed and accepted. But to have religious communion with the disfellowshiped person-no, there would be none of that! The faithful marriage partner would not discuss religion with the apostate or disfellowshiped and would not accompany that one to his (or her) place of religious association and participate in the meetings with that one. As Jesus said: "If he does not listen even to the congregation [which was obliged to disfellowship him], let him be to you just as a man of the nations and as a tax collector [to Jehovah's sanctified nation]." (Matt. 18:17, NW) Hurt to such one would not be authorized, but there would be no spiritual or religious fellowshiping.
  The same rule would apply to those who are in the relation of parent and child or of child and parent. What natural obligation falls upon them according to man's law and God's law the faithful parent or the faithful child will comply with. But as for rendering more than that and having religious fellowship with such one in violation of the congregation's disfellowship order-no, none of that for the faithful one! If the faithful suffers in some material or other way for the faithful adherence to theocratic law, then he must accept this as suffering for righteousness' sake.

  Carefully note that last bolded sentence. It would be easy for JW leaders to apply such sentiment to potential punishment by secular authorities for killing "apostates" simply by redefining "theocratic law". Such sentiments can further be reinforced by appeal not to yield to "the fear of man" but to obey God above all -- of course with the understanding that God's will is expressed through "the faithful and discreet slave" which is the expounder of "theocratic law". It should be obvious also how an appeal to "persecution" can be folded into a call to take one's lumps for killing "apostates":

  *** w96 3/15 15-17 Meeting the Challenge of Loyalty ***
  5 Loyalty to Jehovah God also involves not yielding to the fear of man. "Trembling at men is what lays a snare, but he that is trusting in Jehovah will be protected." (Proverbs 29:25) Thus, we do not compromise when faced with persecution, but we follow the example set by Jehovah's Witnesses in the former Soviet Union, in Malawi, in Ethiopia, and in ever so many other lands.
  6 If we are loyal to Jehovah God, we will avoid making friends with all who are his enemies. That is why the disciple James wrote: "Adulteresses, do you not know that the friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whoever, therefore, wants to be a friend of the world is constituting himself an enemy of God." (James 4:4) We want to have the loyalty that King David evidenced when he said: "Do I not hate those who are intensely hating you, O Jehovah, and do I not feel a loathing for those revolting against you? With a complete hatred I do hate them. They have become to me real enemies." (Psalm 139:21, 22) We do not want to fraternize with any willful sinners, for we have nothing in common with them. Would not loyalty to God keep us from socializing with any such enemies of Jehovah, whether in person or through the medium of television?
  Coming to Jehovah's Defense
  7 Loyalty will move us to come to the defense of Jehovah God. What a fine example of that we have in Elihu! Job 32:2, 3 tells us: "The anger of Elihu . . . came to be hot. Against Job his anger blazed over his declaring his own soul righteous rather than God. Also, against his three companions his anger blazed over the fact that they had not found an answer but they proceeded to pronounce God wicked." In Job chapters 32 through 37, Elihu comes to the defense of Jehovah. For example, he said: "Have patience with me a little while, and I shall declare to you that there are yet words to say for God. . . . To my Fashioner I shall ascribe righteousness. . . . He will not take away his eyes from anyone righteous."-Job 36:2-7.
  8 Why is there a need to come to Jehovah's defense? Today, our God Jehovah is blasphemed in ever so many ways. It is claimed that he does not exist, that he is a part of a Trinity, that he torments people eternally in a burning hell, that he weakly is trying to convert the world, that he does not care about mankind, and so forth. We demonstrate our loyalty to him by coming to his defense and proving that Jehovah does exist; that he is a wise, just, almighty, and loving God; that he has a time for everything; and that when his due time comes, he will bring an end to all evil and make the whole earth a paradise. (Ecclesiastes 3:1) This requires that we make use of every opportunity to bear witness to Jehovah's name and Kingdom.
  Loyalty to Jehovah's Organization
  9 We now come to the matter of being loyal to Jehovah's visible organization. Certainly, we owe loyalty to it, including "the faithful and discreet slave," through which the Christian congregation is fed spiritually. (Matthew 24:45-47) Suppose that something appears in Watch Tower publications that we do not understand or agree with at the moment. What will we do? Take offense and leave the organization? That is what some did when The Watch Tower, many years ago, applied the new covenant to the Millennium. Others took offense at what The Watchtower once said on the issue of neutrality. If those who stumbled over these matters had been loyal to the organization and to their brothers, they would have waited on Jehovah to clarify these matters, which he did in his due time. Thus, loyalty includes waiting patiently until further understanding is published by the faithful and discreet slave.

  Note this last bolded sentence carefully. After issuing a "call to action" as shown in my parody, the Society could easily squelch objections by making such a statement. Failing to act on that "call to action" would be viewed as disloyalty to Jehovah, perhaps even as a disfellowshipping offense. One simply cannot know how far fanaticism will take a group of religious leaders when their world is threatened.

  Given the above, how much convincing do you think it would take for a fanatically hateful person like Robert King (You Know) to take up the sword against "apostates"?

  : With most religions you don't need a parody. The history books are full of the horrible acts of violence on the part of the traditional religions. World wars, jihads, slavery, torture, are typical behaviors of the mainstream religions you seem to feel are superior to the Watchtower "cult".

  How you conclude that I "seem to feel" that such vile behavior is "superior to" the behavior of "the Watchtower 'cult' " is beyond me. It is not stated or implied in anything I've written. Why do you have such a bug up your ass? I roundly condemn all such behavior.

  : I view the "blood" policies of the Watchtower as a tragic mistake. But it is like a pin prick compared to the barrels of blood that have needlessly soaked the worlds battle grounds.

  True, but irrelevant to anything I've written.

  AlanF
• 
  57

  A Call To Deal With Apostates

  by AlanF in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  from the july 1, 2003 watchtower article "righteous requirements":.

  .. the kingdom of god is the highest government anyone can serve.

  how does jehovah issue the call to his people?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  AlanF

  I think you entirely missed the point, proplog2. The message certainly does illustrate a point: How easy it is for Watchtower writers to justify any position they please simply by plastering it with standard catch phrases.

  As for the "kill apostates" call being an unlikely scenario, I disagree. If JWs can be convinced by mere words to shun even their closest flesh and blood based on nothing more than the latter's disagreement with JW teaching, and if the Society teaches that disfellowshipping is the Christian counterpart to Israelite stonings (cf. a 1952 WT article) and is almost wistful in seeming to wish that it could practice real stonings, and if JW leaders teach that obeying them is equivalent to obeying God, and if JW leaders find themselves cornered by bad publicity sponsored by "apostates", how easy would it be for those leaders to issue a "call to action"? Very easy! I don't think it will happen because I think that in a practical manner the fanatics within Watchtower will soon be booted out, but my point is about the potential for violence that is evident to careful observers of Jehovah's Witnesses. In that sense, I think that the "kill apostates" scenario is not far fetched at all, since it's a function of the mindset of rank & file JWs that needs only a trigger from fanatical leaders to set it in motion.

  AlanF
• 
  41

  Blanket Bomb Or Snipe?

  by hillary_step in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i wish to open a thread on a bit of a controversial issue so belt-on the self control!

  my question?

  why do some of us attack jws as people and who are our real targets?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  AlanF

  This topic is a general one that is presently the subject of a long-running debate among professional psychologists and sociologists who concentrate on religion.

  On one side are people like Gordon Melton and Massimo Introvine, whose colleagues have come up with the term "New Religious Movements" to describe religions that most people consider cults, or at least out in left field. They uncritically accept disgusting cults like Scientology, the Japanese Aum cult, the Solar Temple cult and so forth. In my opinion these so-called sociologists are entirely lacking in sense. Some of them, like Melton and Introvine, have accepted money or other considerations from these cults to do research on some of the cults, and naturally have produced "studies" indicating that they're harmless. These guys claim that things like "mind control" and "brainwashing" are figments of the imagination of "disgruntled" ex-members. They refuse to accept that anyone caught up in these cults is a victim. There was a court case about 10 years ago where the court decided that certain studies produced by the opposite camp of sociologists were flawed and cannot be used to show that cults produce victims. Watchtower Legal people have used this case to argue that JWs are not victims of "mind control" because "mind control" does not exist, and so, of their own free will, JWs accept abominations like the WTS blood policy.

  On the other side are professionals who accept that "mind control" of cult members exists in some fashion. They are hard put to define this objectively, and are especially hamstrung in the U.S. because of laws and court precedents on separation of church and state. I think they're in a position similar to trying to define "pornography".

  Most everyone will agree that a picture of an adult man having sex with a five-year-old is pornographic, just as they will agree that a cult member who commits suicide in order to join up with invisible space aliens is a victim of mind control. The difficulty of definition is at the borders. Is a picture of a naked 21-year-old woman pornographic? How about of an 18-year-old woman? How about a 15-year-old? How about a 5-year-old? The answer is not clear and depends on many factors that are impossible to define objectively. A picture of naked 5-year-old in a magazine designed for adult male consumption will be deemed pornographic by most people. A similar picture in a family photo album might be called "cute".

  It's similar with religions. Just when does everyday acceptance of convincing arguments become mind control? I can't say, but I'll go along with a U.S. judge who many years ago said about pornography, "I know it when I see it." That kind of judgment is inherently subjective and is the reason that the above-mentioned court decided that certain studies on mind control were not admissible as evidence.

  But I know that many of Jim Jones' followers were victims. I know that a lot of JWs are victims. I also know that plenty of these people are not just innocent victims, but willing victims, and they know on some level what they've gotten into, but stay anyway because of some large benefit they get. Such benefits span the range of human desires, from desire for power to desire for group acceptance to fear of being kicked out of a family group. The nasty thing about the camp of braindead religious sociologists is that they have made it next to impossible for reasonable people to do much about people who are such victims, because they claim that victims don't exist, that people almost always make fully reasoned choices about being in a cult.

  With respect to JWs, many have posted their experiences of almost becoming a JW, but holding back after figuring out that hard questions about JW belief and practice were not being answered and were not ever going to be answered. They managed to avoid becoming victims. Others don't see the subtle mental manipulation that is occurring and so they do become victims.

  Some years ago I got a personal taste of how this victimization occurs. I was on the phone with my JW mom (a sweet, sincere lady who is thoroughly caught up in JW La-La-Land) talking about my frustration about not getting my 'difficult' questions answered by her and my stepdad, by elders, or by the Society. I complained that they were all stonewalling. She objected strongly and so I said, "Well, why then, are my questions not being answered?" Dead silence. I said, "Alright mom, think of it this way: How would you handle it if one of your bible students asked you the same questions I'm asking? Would you put them off? Or would you try your darnedest to get answers?" Without a trace of embarrassment she said, "Well, I'd try to get them to put their questions off for awhile, and concentrate on more important things and help them to get baptized." "What about answering their difficult questions at that point," I asked? She said, "Well, I'd hope that by that time the person would have enough sense not to ask them anymore!" I said, "Mom, do you realize what you've just told me? You've just told me that you'd do exactly what all of you have done with me -- you'd stonewall your student and, in effect, lie to them by telling them you'd eventually answer their questions when you had no intent of ever doing so." She got very upset and handed the phone to my stepdad.

  Now picture how this works with someone who actually falls for the JW ruse. They like the sincere, kind people who seem so honest in their desire to teach them "God's Word", and they want to be just like their teachers. They don't understand that their hard questions will never be answered. After they reach a certain point, they even forget that they ever asked hard questions. This is precisely the kind of person that JWs are looking for. People who don't fall for the ruse, but demand immediate answers to the hard questions are usually dropped by the JW teacher as someone who is unappreciative.

  The problem of definition lies with the many borderline cases. Suppose a student asks hard questions and is given the usual runaround. He or she actually realizes that he's being somewhat misled, but instead of acting on his gut instinct, he deliberately puts his gut feel aside and continues with his study. He obviously feels that he's getting something out of the relationship even though he continues to feel somewhat cheated by not having his hard questions answered. If such a person continues this way long enough, he shuts his reasoning facilities off in this area, and convinces himself that his questions weren't all that important anyway. When this person gets baptized, can he be called a willing or an unwilling victim? I don't know, because it's in that large gray area where we can't easily decide if someone has been coerced or has made a reasoned choice.

  From personal experience in making such a deliberate choice myself, to suppress my unease about certain JW teachings and to try to forget about them, I know that from time to time after making the choice my conscience would prick me and say, "Hey stupid! Why didn't you listen to me? Now look how tightly you're caught up in this thing!" Yet for years I kept ignoring it until I was forced by other circumstances to admit that the JWs were completely clueless about many important matters in which they declared themselves to be "God's mouthpiece".

  Given the above complexities, I don't know if an objective answer can ever by given to the question of just where a person's real conscience leaves off and a victim's conscience takes over. I just know it when I see it.

  AlanF
• 
  24

  MIRACLE CONDOMS! Awake issue

  by philo in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  miracle condoms!

  (see free sample on back page of awake!

  magazine).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  AlanF

  Sounds like a case of The Emperor's New Condom.

  AlanF
• 
  57

  A Call To Deal With Apostates

  by AlanF in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  from the july 1, 2003 watchtower article "righteous requirements":.

  .. the kingdom of god is the highest government anyone can serve.

  how does jehovah issue the call to his people?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  AlanF

  Thanks for everyone's comments. As Amazing pointed out, this was a parody of the July 1, 1943 Watchtower article "Righteous Requirements". The original is, if you can believe it, a lot longer and is incredibly full of bullpucky. It's virtually a study in how to coerce people with propaganda tricks. If anyone is interested in a dissection of the tricks, look here: http://www.geocities.com/osarsif/think.htm#tec

  AlanF
• 
  41

  Blanket Bomb Or Snipe?

  by hillary_step in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i wish to open a thread on a bit of a controversial issue so belt-on the self control!

  my question?

  why do some of us attack jws as people and who are our real targets?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  AlanF

  You raise an interesting question, Hillary. I think that the answer is mixed.

  It's true, as you say, that most JWs are good, decent people who have become victims of a rotten system of religious control. The problem is that they are by and large willing victims. Almost all of us who were JWs know very well that we sometimes would submerge our better judgment under that of the Society or of someone we thought "wiser in the truth". Sometimes we would even make a mental choice between doing what we knew was the right or true thing, and sticking to the JW religion because it was the easier or less painful path.

  What ex-JW doesn't know a number of current JWs who, in especially private settings, make scathing comments about the Society's practices, but in the company of JW loyalists, or even of anyone not a JW, will deny that anything is wrong? Such people may be victims, but they have still made their own choices, choices that we ex-JWs have had the courage (or perhaps the opposite) to make. It's hard to have sympathy for such people. I often wish that someone had come along 30 years ago and beat me over the head to get me to listen to criticisms. I'm certain that I would have listened, as long as they didn't try to convert me to something equally bad.

  Of course, I realize that not everyone is as open to criticism of our former religion as many of us proved to be. But they should be! And that's a good deal of the source of frustration and anger that so often appears on discussion boards that cater to ex-JWs.

  I think that there is a strong parallel between what happened in Germany around WWII and the JW organization. In both cases there is a strong central government that brooks no dissent. There is a set of middle managers who often disagree with government policy but who have to obey in order to retain their jobs -- and their heads. The rank & file citizens generally know that something is wrong, but either are too passive to care enough, or are too stupid to care enough, or are too afraid, to rise up and do something about the government.

  It has been said that a people deserves the government it has. I suppose that's true in some cases, but I don't think so in other cases. An old H2O poster who I haven't seen around for awhile argued that the Society's policy on disfellowshipping for blood transfusions came about in the 1950s largely because many JWs wrote to the Society and argued that it should be so. I strongly disagreed with him, but he seems to have had an inside track on Bethel doings back then, so I had to defer to his opinions. The problem with that claim is that the Society first set up the conditions where such a hard mindset could flourish, then a good number of people took on that mindset, then they came full circle and asked JW leaders to become even harder. So here we have a case of runaway positive feedback, where the harder the leadership gets, the harder the followers get, and then back to the leadership, until we have a monster. Who is responsible for the monster? Is it not everyone who encouraged its growth, either by giving overt support, or by giving tacit support by failing to object?

  All in all, I feel somewhat sorry for JWs, but not all that sorry. Too many would take up that 'sword of God' and kill you if their leaders told them to. I think I've illustrated, with a recent parody, just how easy this would be to do. I have no doubt whatsoever that certain of my relatives, given the right encouragement by the Society, would not hesitate to kill all of their non-JW relatives. Yet on the surface they're as loving towards other JWs as the murderous King David was towards his favorites. This attitude is shown in a minor way by the way JWs all accept the Society's gross misuse of shunning.

  AlanF