New American Standard Bible
"But let your statement be, 'Yes, yes ' or 'No, no'; anything beyond these is of evil."
Yes, evil!
Posts by Terry
-
26Jehovah’s Witnesses are Taught to Lie but to then Lie about Lying
by Terry injehovah’s witnesses are taught to lie but to then lie about lying.
first off, let’s define what it means to tell a lie.
i prefer the definition offered by aristotle way back in 4th century b.c.e.
-
-
Terry
-
28
PAINTING THEMSELVES INTO A CORNER or WHY was the "GENERATION" teaching started in the 1st place?
by Terry insetting the scene.
pastor russell died in 1916. those who had 'followed' him were known pejoratively as russellites.
you could call it a 'cult of personality' if you wanted to sneer.
-
-
Terry
The Watchtower stole a page out of the Koran when it came to
justifying lying. JW's call it Theocratic War Strategy.
Islam calls it Tequila. (Well, it sounds like that word :)
-
26
Jehovah’s Witnesses are Taught to Lie but to then Lie about Lying
by Terry injehovah’s witnesses are taught to lie but to then lie about lying.
first off, let’s define what it means to tell a lie.
i prefer the definition offered by aristotle way back in 4th century b.c.e.
-
-
Terry
Jehovah’s Witnesses are Taught to Lie but to then Lie about Lying
First off, let’s define what it means to tell a lie.
I prefer the definition offered by Aristotle way back in 4th century B.C.E.
“To say the opposite of what you hold to be the truth is to tell a lie.”
________________________
Parsing the definition of “LYING.”
In a court of Law, a witness is required to swear not just to “Tell the truth.”
Something more absolute and comprehensive is required.
“I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God.”Why should this be necessary?
We all know the answer to that. It is possible to answer a question in a deceitful way and “technically” give no further information, and thus hide the truth.
But, a person on the witness stand swears not to engage in this cat and mouse game of not completely revealing what is asked.
This topic applies to Jehovah’s Witnesses because the Watchtower leaders came up with a controversial lesson to teach centering around something they called THEOCRATIC WAR STRATEGY. (Search in vain in your Bible for that one!)
I ran across a JW apologist Blog wherein excuses were offered to get the bad taste of “Liars” off their tongues._______________________
Let me quote in part from the Blog:
In the May 1st, 1957 Watchtower, in the article, "Use Theocratic War Strategy", it gave the example of a sister who was in her ministry in Eastern Germany. When she saw a violent opposer of Jehovah's Witnesses, she immediately went around the corner and changed from a red blouse to a green one. When an officer stopped her and asked if she saw a woman with a red blouse on, she said, "No." Was she lying? No. She had seen no woman walking around with a red blouse on. She, in fact, was the woman, but chose not to reveal that matter. Then the article tells of several examples where such strategy was appropriately applied.
“Did the woman lie about doctrine? No. Did she lie at all? No.”
_________________________________
Let’s probe this opinion to a greater depth, shall we?
Move slowly through the following reasoning because it has subtle snares.
A faithful witness does not love a false oath. So he tells the truth as he swore to do.What he does speak will be the truth. If he speaks at all he will tell the truth. To the extent that he chooses to talk he will state the truth. If for conscientious reasons he refuses to tell everything he will be willing to suffer the consequences if he be judged deserving of a penalty. He refuses to tell everything, not to escape punishment, but facing punishment for conscientious reasons. Even Jesus kept silent before Pilate, refusing to answer though knowing Pilate’s power.—John 19:8-11."
Did you catch that? ”If for conscientious reasons he refuses to tell everything. . .”
Isn’t this a shady way of simply saying, “If you lie for the right reasons. . .”?
Let’s go back and finish the thought started. . .
“ If for conscientious reasons he refuses to tell everything he will be willing to suffer the consequences if he be judged deserving of a penalty. “
In plain language: If you lie for the right reasons and get caught be ready to pay the price.
__________________________________
Let’s pause for a moment to reflect. . .Imagine an Elder on the Witness Stand in a court of law. Imagine a trial concerned with child molestation by a JW accused of this crime. Imagine a looming multi-million dollar penalty hanging over the head of the Watchtower corporation and the bad publicity at stake.
With those in place, read the following . . .
The 1960 Watchtower, p.352, emphasized, "Should circumstances require a Christian to take the witness stand and swear to tell the truth, then, if he speaks at all, he must utter the truth. When faced with the alternative of speaking and betraying his brothers or not speaking and being held in contempt of court, the mature Christian will put the welfare of his brothers ahead of his own, remembering Jesus’ words: “No one has greater love than this, that someone should surrender his [life] in behalf of his friends.”"
Can you see what advice is being given?
LIE on the Witness Stand even if it means the death penalty!
Sneaky and above all unethical and illegal. In short: suborning perjury.
In American law the subornation of perjury is the crime of persuading a person to commit perjury — the swearing of a false oath to tell the truth in a legal proceeding, be it spoken or written.
________
What does the apologist JW conclude?
“What this is saying is that if the judge orders him to betray his brothers, he must hold his tongue. It does not say to lie.”
Oh my! Your ethics are showing! (Actually, your lack of. . .)
_________
Let’s move forward. Another subtle scenario is presented.
In the May 1st, 1957 Watchtower, in the article, "Use Theocratic War Strategy", it gave the example of a sister who was in her ministry in Eastern Germany. When she saw a violent opposer of Jehovah's Witnesses, she immediately went around the corner and changed from a red blouse to a green one. When an officer stopped her and asked if she saw a woman with a red blouse on, she said, "No." Was she lying? No. She had seen no woman walking around with a red blouse on. She, in fact, was the woman, but chose not to reveal that matter. Then the article tells of several examples where such strategy was appropriately applied.
The Blogger presents a rhetorical question;
Did the woman lie about doctrine? No. Did she lie at all? No.
The Blogger is correct!
The woman knew what complete information would reveal and she concealed it for self-protection.You see, we have switched context from LYING to protect others at a cost to yourself to that of concealing the whole truth about yourself to protect yourself.
So what?
In this case, the technicality of the “lie” is self-preservation solely.
______________
Now our JW apologist moves to the most recent instance of Theocratic Strategy. Give careful and specific attention to contexts and exemptions.Does "Theocratic War Strategy" Teach Lying?
By C. J. Williams
The term "theocratic war strategy" has not been officially used in our publications since 1968. (Though a 1988 life experience article referred to its use during World War II.) Some of our opposers seem to be very fixated on this term even today, while referring to this doctrine that we still hold to. However, rather than sticking to what Jehovah's Witness publications state about the subject, many use erroneous statements from misguided individuals as proof of the meaning of the publications, as well as performing their own omissions of the facts. So let us examine the facts in their contexts.
Sources of "Theocratic War Strategy" Doctrine
When the term was used, here was the direction in the Watchtower:
February 1st, 1956 Watchtower says, "Never swear falsely in Jehovah’s name.Jehovah declares that at his temple he will be a “swift witness against . . . the false swearers.” (Mal. 3:5, AS) Never take an oath in his name and then tell lies as a sworn witness. Rahab of Jericho was under no oath in Jehovah’s name to tell the facts to the king’s officers and hence was not a false swearer or a false witness. “A faithful witness will not lie; but a false witness uttereth lies.” (Prov. 14:5, AS) A faithful witness does not love a false oath. So he tells the truth as he swore to do.What he does speak will be the truth. If he speaks at all he will tell the truth. To the extent that he chooses to talk he will state the truth. If for conscientious reasons he refuses to tell everything he will be willing to suffer the consequences if he be judged deserving of a penalty. He refuses to tell everything, not to escape punishment, but facing punishment for conscientious reasons. Even Jesus kept silent before Pilate, refusing to answer though knowing Pilate’s power.—John 19:8-11."
The 1960 Watchtower, p.352, emphasized, "Should circumstances require a Christian to take the witness stand and swear to tell the truth, then, if he speaks at all, he must utter the truth. When faced with the alternative of speaking and betraying his brothers or not speaking and being held in contempt of court, the mature Christian will put the welfare of his brothers ahead of his own, remembering Jesus’ words: “No one has greater love than this, that someone should surrender his [life] in behalf of his friends.”"
What this is saying is that if the judge orders him to betray his brothers, he must hold his tongue. It does not say to lie.
In the May 1st, 1957 Watchtower, in the article, "Use Theocratic War Strategy", it gave the example of a sister who was in her ministry in Eastern Germany. When she saw a violent opposer of Jehovah's Witnesses, she immediately went around the corner and changed from a red blouse to a green one. When an officer stopped her and asked if she saw a woman with a red blouse on, she said, "No." Was she lying? No. She had seen no woman walking around with a red blouse on. She, in fact, was the woman, but chose not to reveal that matter. Then the article tells of several examples where such strategy was appropriately applied.
Did the woman lie about doctrine? No. Did she lie at all? No.
Modern Discussions of Omission
The latest discussion of this "strategy" is found in the November 15th Watchtower, 2004. It states:
"The faithful witness does not commit perjury when testifying. His testimony is not tainted with lies. However, this does not mean that he is under obligation to give full information to those who may want to bring harm to Jehovah’s people in some way. The patriarchs Abraham and Isaac withheld facts from some who did not worship Jehovah. (Genesis 12:10-19; 20:1-18; 26:1-10) Rahab of Jericho misdirected the king’s men. (Joshua 2:1-7)
_______________
The above statement is very carefully worded as a manipulation for coercive reasons.There are 3 parts to this manipulation.
Part 1:
this does not mean that he is under obligation to give full information
Part 1 is clearly false. The Witness has sworn to tell “the whole truth.”Part 2:
to those who may want to bring harm to Jehovah’s people
Part 2: implies once again a kind of noble perjury for the benefit of religious allies. Perjury is illegal. For the Watchtower writers, it is suborning that perjury.
Part 3: in some way.
Part 3: This is wickedly vague! It leaves the door wide open to include child molesters!
______________
What conclusion does the Blogger himself make?
Yes, the doctrine holds today. But it is very succinctly spelled out here that we are never to lie under oath
______________
This Blogger is either a dimwit, incapable of reasoning, or deliberately misrepresenting reality.He finishes his presentation vapidly:
Jehovah's Witnesses are, in fact, the most honest people you will ever come across. We are neither in the practice of lying, nor do we lie to suit our own purposes.
_______________Let us ask ourselves where the Watchtower leaders got this idea? The history of the Organization is rife with cherry-picking ideas from other religious groups, is it not?
Take a look at taqiyya, a strategy in Islam for our answer! (Sounds like Tequila)
__________________
Define taqiyya: In ISLAM, a legal dispensation whereby a believing individual can deny their faith or commit otherwise illegal or blasphemous acts while they are in fear or at risk of significant persecution.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6F4wBeshTswConclusionJohn 8:44 You are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and stayed not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.Ephesians 4:29 Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace to the hearers. -
29
Diddling, adjusting, changing Doctrines? Why not leave it alone?
by Terry ini have kept on asking myself why the jw's put targets on themselves by constant diddling with their own doctrines?
why not leave it alone?.
mainstream christianity has fixed teachings.
-
-
Terry
I appreciate your thoughts, Joe, and your POV.
The psychology of Religion is even more fascinating than the plotting.
I think human psychology is as responsive to pressure in an evolutionary sense as the species adaptations as a whole.
Belief is a survival mechanism. Humans can survive in impossible situations if there is some HOPE things will improve. The nature of HOPE is pragmatic: "Everything will probably turn out okay, but it might not--so, I'll keep a positive attitude to improve the chances."
On the other hand, the red-headed, freckled face step-brother of HOPE is FAITH.
Faith is neurotic belief things will turn out great no matter what facts may mitigate against that outcome. Faith is narrow and deaf. In the face of contradictory evidence, Faith is obstinate and blind.
Perhaps this works only because of the community social support involved in rituals and recitation of creeds and the insistence on orthodoxy. In other words, the Crazy are pronouncing themselves "blessed" whether they are, in fact, in a terrible situation or not.
I remember as a child seeing the movie QUO VADIS. There is a scene where Emperor Nero (Peter Ustinov) is examining the corpses of Christians in the coliseum.
He exclaims with surprise at the faces of the sacrificial victims.
"They're smiling--why are they all smiling?" He screams.
-
28
PAINTING THEMSELVES INTO A CORNER or WHY was the "GENERATION" teaching started in the 1st place?
by Terry insetting the scene.
pastor russell died in 1916. those who had 'followed' him were known pejoratively as russellites.
you could call it a 'cult of personality' if you wanted to sneer.
-
-
Terry
Thank you. Every once and awhile I get the same feeling we all get
when we see boxes on the top shelf of the closet. The urge to reach up and hoist them off those dusty shelves and lift the lid comes over us.
Of course, it's always stuff we've seen before, but as we age our perspective on same-old-thing changes and a fresh sense of how it all fits into the bigger puzzle seems more nearly possible.Each time I tread these waters I learn something.
________
The transitions in Russell's life fascinate me. Why? Because he seems like a person who never had any fun. Such a serious face without a smile to be found! I'd guess it was the loss of his doting mother when he was so young. I don't have a feeling for his dad's personality at all.
Was he all business? Was he a fun companion? Did he just go along with anything his son wanted to do? It is all fuzzy how a young man ended up convincing his father to sell the business and invest in End of the World speculation!
Here's another puzzle.
Who was C.T. Russell's best friend? I don't know--do you?
Did he and his friend play jokes on each other? Did they ever get drunk?
Was he always a Nerd? How did he manage to talk a beautiful woman such as Maria into a loveless marriage?
Was it really only a business venture with security for her and a platform for her writing? Did they ever cross the line into passion?
I think--I mean, I guess perhaps these two were really uptight and closed off to carnal expressions. Either that or the marriage was a false pretense on the part of Charlie. Perhaps he will always remain an enigma.
__________
With Joe Rutherford, I think I have a really strong idea of what kind of man he was. His father was a stone cold, hard-nosed farmer. Joe had to work very very hard from the time he was a small boy. But this kid had a burning ambition to be much more than a clone. He wanted to become a lawyer and he put everything he had into achieving that goal. Working, going to school and long hours spent studying demonstrate a driven Type A personality.
This man was cunning and strategic and it paid off for him.
He strikes me as the sort of person a Mob boss would love to hire to handle accounts.He was ruthless, too. If you got in the way of The Judge, you paid the price. Plotting out his life story is like looking at Bugsy Malone or Al Capone. It seems the only thing that could stop the man was rectal cancer. Just imagine the pain and agony connected to a long slow death of that nature! I almost feel sorry for him as a human being.
I said, "Almost."
-
29
Diddling, adjusting, changing Doctrines? Why not leave it alone?
by Terry ini have kept on asking myself why the jw's put targets on themselves by constant diddling with their own doctrines?
why not leave it alone?.
mainstream christianity has fixed teachings.
-
-
-
28
PAINTING THEMSELVES INTO A CORNER or WHY was the "GENERATION" teaching started in the 1st place?
by Terry insetting the scene.
pastor russell died in 1916. those who had 'followed' him were known pejoratively as russellites.
you could call it a 'cult of personality' if you wanted to sneer.
-
-
Terry
Zeb: Spiritual guidance? feed the hungry, house the poor, shelter the orphans; do unto each other as ye would have them do unto you....................... and stop forever the practise of making fool predictions!
________________
The form of worship that is pure and undefiled. . .
So foreign to JW mindset.
They have no heart for human beings only invisible rulers and locksetp marching to rules.
-
29
Diddling, adjusting, changing Doctrines? Why not leave it alone?
by Terry ini have kept on asking myself why the jw's put targets on themselves by constant diddling with their own doctrines?
why not leave it alone?.
mainstream christianity has fixed teachings.
-
-
Terry
"Only those who are truly loyal will remain."
_____________What is fascinating about that comment is this.
Take two events, 1925 and 1975. Members who left were
looked upon as culled from the herd. This meant those who remained were more devout (i.e. deeper cognitive dissonance.)
The net result of 1975 was an increase rather than a decrease in numbers of hardcore members.
These "shake-ups" are Evolutionary events.
The strong survive and the weak perish.
I sincerely doubt there is a conscious effort just to "mess with" members by changing, altering, modifying, adjusting present "truth".It's more a question (I think) of piss poor planning and irrational thinking than a diabolical strategm.
-
29
Diddling, adjusting, changing Doctrines? Why not leave it alone?
by Terry ini have kept on asking myself why the jw's put targets on themselves by constant diddling with their own doctrines?
why not leave it alone?.
mainstream christianity has fixed teachings.
-
-
Terry
I think that you're thinking too narrowly here - and too recently.
_________
The context of my comments are under the specific heading of the Topic and not an academic dissertation on the MYTH of what constitutes a monolithic religion.
________In my view, there is no such thing as Christianity. That is too general a term. But, most of us speak (for convenience sake) as though there is.
Judaism was sectarian. Christianity even in the first 4 centuries was sectarian. Islam is sectarian. That is certainly historically true.
What makes Jehovah's Witnesses so weirdly individual is the fluidity of its absolute authority in a narrow strip of time (roughly 100+ years.)
(There has been no schism resulting in a Reform Church of JW's etc. as you will see in the Mormon church and other sects. Therefore, all the upheavals in teaching remain under one roof, so to speak.)The fixation on predicted dates and events is weird because it easily falsifies the premise of God's direction.
Any hack politician knows better than to make definite statements that do not contain plausible deniability later:)
JW's shoot from the hip and pretend the other guy drew first.
-
29
Diddling, adjusting, changing Doctrines? Why not leave it alone?
by Terry ini have kept on asking myself why the jw's put targets on themselves by constant diddling with their own doctrines?
why not leave it alone?.
mainstream christianity has fixed teachings.
-
-
Terry
I'm not sure what the target of your point is, Joe.
IF it is this: ** (see below)
I'll save us the spelunking in the abyss of calculus as to what constitutes FIXED teachings.
I'm making a comparative evaluation and not an absolute statement.JW's change their teachings far more often than, say, Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Catholics GENERALLY SPEAKING.
I'm suggesting there is a far greater level of academic confidence in those above named denominations as to what Christianity (for then) requires of their members.
The GB members in the Society are human Mood Rings rather than scholars. Whim and whimsy litter the history of changes to beliefs and practices.
One glaring example is Romans 13: 1,2.
Russell's view was that Superior Authorities had the right to require Christians to join the Army and go out onto the battlefield, but he advised that the Christian in uniform "fire over the heads" of the enemy.
Rutherford changed the historic definition of Superior Authorities entirely and summarily to Jehovah God and Jesus Christ. As a result, the Governments were stripped of the right to send Christians into uniform or the battlefield. This cataclysmic overhaul remained in effect until about 1963 when it was--just as summarily--flipped back to the traditional interpretation of Russell's day once again.
However, under Knorr, a secret policy went into effect requiring JW boys to refuse their legally provided Alternate Service. Not because of the Rutherfordesque flip of Romans 13: 1,2--but rather because THEY SAID (the GB) it was a violation of "Christian Neutrality")
This sort of morphology is common to cults and far less common in Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, etc. "Mainstream" churches.
This is the point I was striving to make. I hope this suffices to clarify.
**______________________
"Mainstream Christianity has FIXED teachings."I don't think so. The various christian sects and divisions have (as I understand it) a near 2000 year history of being at variance about their teachings and of changing, refining and adapting their teachings.
