Posts by GinnyTosken

100

The Watchtower's Official Explanation of the Scand

by Kent in

[h3]here is the watchtower's official explanations on the un scandal![/h3.

the letter is, naturally - on the watchtower observer as well!.

yachyd da.

Festering Helplessness

by indireneed in

jw
friends

i wanted to take this opportunity to vent some frustration and ask for suggestions on how to proceed .

.. my wife is just preparing to be baptized this weekend.

i have tried to dissuade her numerous times, even preparing a logical argument that i thought was indisputable.

If your wife is just getting baptized this weekend, she is probably infatuated with "spiritual paradise." If you love her very much and are a patient man, perhaps you can wait until the infatuation subsides and she begins to see beyond the surface of the Jehovah's Witnesses she knows. Perhaps the quickest way for her to see the underside of "paradise" is for you to encourage her to work for a business owned by one of Jehovah's Witnesses, with lots of Jehovah's Witnesses as employees. That will be an eye-opener.

If you can stomach it, perhaps you can take on the role of the interested mate and request a study. Make sure she is included in the study and ask some of the questions that truly disturb you in a noncombative way. At this point, she probably thinks that the Society has neat and tidy answers to everything. To see a study conductor squirm and hedge difficult questions will perhaps encourage her to grapple with these questions herself. Maybe she will research them in an effort to try to help you.

Read what she's reading and ask questions about it. Over and over, the Watchtower Society condemns itself by its own words. Watchtower history is especially good fodder--the failed predictions, Beth Sarim, warnings against vaccinations, waffling viewpoints on many subjects. Judge Rutherford is an especially colorful character. This article from the San Diego Sun of March 15, 1930 is one of my favorites:

http://watchtower.observer.org/apps/pbcs.dll/article?Date=20010204&Category=HISTORY2&ArtNo=204012&Ref=AR

Try to find out why she is so drawn to this religion. Is she afraid of death? Is she looking for structure? Does she need the security of sure answers? To feel that she belongs to a loving group? Understanding her motivation is a big step in helping her.

In a relationship, you hope that you and your partner will grow in similar directions. Sometimes one partner lags behind for awhile but eventually catches up. Sometimes people grow in different directions and cannot reconcile their different points of view. Only time will tell what is true in your case. Whatever happens, it does not negate the love you and your wife have felt for one another or the good moments you've shared. It is very painful when your paths diverge, I know.

Please take care of yourself. You have to have your own oxygen mask on first if you want to help your wife.

Ginny

7

Silentlambs In Denmark

by silentlambs in

accusations about sexual molestation in jehovah's witness family .

accusations about sexual molestation can lead to disfellowshipping.

a tragic family conflict is at the moment being carefully observed by jehovah's witnesses and former members of the sect.

GinnyTosken

From the Watchtower of May 1, 1997, "Trust in an Imperfect World."

Notice that Paul mentions attitudes that have to do with the Christian ministry. How can a Christian minister serve others if his hands are not pure, if he is not a man of integrity? The head of an Irish religious order who recently resigned well illustrates the point. He admitted that he "allowed a paedophile priest to continue working with children long after his child abuse became known," according to The Independent newspaper. The account explained that the abuse extended over 24 years. The priest was jailed for four years, but think of the suffering imposed upon the children he assaulted during those years because his overseer lacked the moral integrity to take action!

The Society is now urging that we not be hasty to judge such "slips" as hyprocrisy. Nor should we allow the hypocrisy of others to "deprive us of the genuine love of true friends." We can be cautious without being overly suspicious, you know.

"How Do You Handle Hypocrisy?"
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=15256&site=3

Ginny

13

Lies: Xtians like Muslim Extremeists

by Rex B13 in

jw
friends

one frequently hears the disinformation and lies from people like bishop spong and others about how 'fundalmentalist christians are a terroristic threat'.

one must first ask what do these people have as an agenda, truth or promoting their own cause?

spong is relatively widely known as a 'alleged' christian who takes little of the bible at reasonable face-value.

GinnyTosken

Hiya, Pappy!

I give up with you, Ginny!

You're very wise. I'm a stubborn, mean ol' woman.

Sheesh, the evidence is there for all to see. Isn't it about time you quit trying to "save face"? You're wrong and you patently ignore the evidence.

Maybe our perceptions of the evidence are different, Rex. If you include the bloody history of the Old Testament, I see little difference between the background of Islam and the background of Christianity. And I think it's an unfair comparison to choose nonviolent Christians to compare to violent Muslim extremists.

Focus: teachings.
Focus: inherent differences.
a) the life of Christ. His example to us.
b) the life of Mohammed. His example to muslims.
c) the death and changeover of responsibility, comparing the apostles to the gangsters in charge of Islam.

I've looked at many sites that discuss the terrorist acts in context of the Qur'an. I have not seen any verses justifying the killing of innocent people. Muslim extremists interpret and twist the Qur'an to their own violent ends, just as some "Christians" do with the Bible.

A grotesque distortion
Most importantly, we need to think about how to undermine the appeal of these terrorist groups. Most Islamic scholars interpret jihad as the striving for justice (and principally an inner striving to purify the self). But extremists equate jihad with total war. Islam strictly prohibits targeting innocent civilians, yet these extremists developed convoluted arguments to justify murdering women and children. Religious scholars need to get out the message loud and clear that bin Laden's version of Islam is a grotesque distortion of their faith. Those scholars should be speaking out, not just in the U.S., but all over the world, too.
Religion has two sides. One is spiritual: It unifies people, transcending national and religious boundaries. The other side is all about boundaries: To be Catholic is to be not Protestant; to be Christian is to be non-Muslim; to be Muslim is to be not Jewish. Extremists focus on the divisive aspect of religion and ignore its spiritual, universal aspects.
Let's not fall into the same trap.
from http://www.usatoday.com/news/comment/2001-10-01-ncguest2.htm

As for comparing the examples of Christ and Mohammed, the main difference I see is that Christ will act violently against infidels in the future, returning in military splendor with a sword in his mouth. Mohammed felt he was cleansing a holy place from infidels while he lived. His writings admonish his followers only to act in self-defense and not to kill innocent people.

I am only vaguely familiar with the organizational structure of Islam, so I don't know the character of those currently in charge. As I understand it, there are many branches of Islam, just as there are many denominations within Christianity.

You didn't take time to read the post and the links. If you did then I cannot believe your collosal denial of the facts. You wonder why I have to get blunt when dealing with you?

I read your post carefully at least twice, Rex. I did not look at the links about the violence of Mohammed. If you brush away the violence during the conquest of Canaan, the violence of the Crusades and the Inquisition, I am not interested in hearing you moaning and groaning about the violence of Mohammed.

No amount of evidence will crack your lack of humility. Ginny has her view and it will always be right. I can be like that at times. That's one reason that I recognize it in you. ;-)

If I never changed my views or admitted I was wrong, I would never have been able to leave the Jehovah's Witnesses, Rex. Your arguments do not make sense to me and are extremely biased.

I forgive you but I am done with this. I tried my best to show you my reasoning. We will just have to disagree, though I think that we have seen Muslims who ignore the basic violent example of their religious leaders are ripe for conversion to Christianity or agnosticism.

Considering that Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world, I am not very convinced, Rex. Meanwhile, watch out for the 'secret humanists' who work extremely carefully and discreetly to free fundamentalists from religious hegemony.

So, do you like RC cola and moon pies, or what? Norm still wants to know.

Ginny

23

These fundies will never suicide bomb

by Rex B13 in

jw
friends

here is a url that shows the truth of christ's command to christian's, "love they neighbor".

btw, the same denomination baptized over 950,000 (yep, almost a million) last year.

my wife, two sons and i were 4 of them.. http://www.namb.net/dr/.

GinnyTosken

Rex,

I think you're right--there's not much hope of our reaching an agreement. Still, it's fun to boogie sometimes, eh?

I would still like to see the writings in the Qur'an that you believe fully back a resort to violence by Muslims.

Yes, some Muslims use the Qur'an to justify violence, but they represent a fraction of followers. If a fraction of Christians used the Bible to champion violence in the name of Christianity, would it be reasonable or fair to hold all of the faithful responsible?

BTW, Norm wants to know where you're from. He guesses you're a southerner. I kinda like to think of you as lookin' and soundin' like Pappy O'Daniel from O Brother, Where Art Thou?.

Ginny

1

Cult Conference Notes

by Dogpatch in

jw
friends

dear friend:.

pasted below is a report on aff's 2001 annual conference, for which dr. robert jay lifton was the keynote speaker.

this year's conference was the most international ever, with nearly 40 attendees from 16 foreign countries.. .

GinnyTosken

Thanks, Dogpatch!

The note under "Cult Accountability" makes me hopeful for current ex-JW aims:

Prof. Zablocki noted that the Hare Krishnas [International Society for Krishna Consciousness] responded to litigation, among other things, and eliminated certain destructive practices. . . . And it was noted that professionally trained ex-members now demand accountability, especially because they fear for the second generation now growing up in the cult milieu.

It was also interesting to read this about people who grow up in cults:

Born and Abused in Cults
The Rev. Robert Pardon, an experienced clinician in these matters, discussed abuses, both of omission and commission, suffered by children born into certain cultic groups, especially authoritarian communal ones. Remarking that children were often "martyrs" to their parents' beliefs, Rev. Pardon reviewed the kinds of physical and psychological abuse common in such groups, and also spoke about the grave problems that they face when emerging, as many do, from the cult into non-cult society. They typically have identity problem- there is no pre-cult identity to fall back on. They have no personal moral compass or boundaries that conform, more or less, to the wider society's values. And they do not know how to think critically or negotiate workaday life on the "outside." Discussant Arnold Markowitz, a psychotherapist and Director of the Cult Hot Line and Clinic of the Jewish Board of Family and Children's Services of New York, concurred with The Rev. Pardon's assessment, and stressed the need for therapy and counseling in order to "socialize" children coming out of such groups, and family counseling, if possible.

His comments resonate with my own experience. One of the most difficult tasks after leaving the JWs was to figure out who I really am, the authentic Ginny. I'm still working on it.

Ginny

13

Lies: Xtians like Muslim Extremeists

by Rex B13 in

jw
friends

one frequently hears the disinformation and lies from people like bishop spong and others about how 'fundalmentalist christians are a terroristic threat'.

one must first ask what do these people have as an agenda, truth or promoting their own cause?

spong is relatively widely known as a 'alleged' christian who takes little of the bible at reasonable face-value.

GinnyTosken

Hi, Rex!

You present several comparisons here:

Are Christians like Muslim extremists?

Can fundamentalist Christians be compared to Islamic fundamentalists?

Are Christians and their scriptures no different than Muslim terrorists?

In responding to your other post, I quickly learned that any Christian who uses violence is no true Christian in your book. The Crusades, Inquisition, and other historical violence attributed to the influence of Christianity you discount. These atrocities were not committed by "true Christians." That leaves us with only non-violent Christians to compare to Muslim extremists and terrorists, not a very fair comparison.

It would be more fair to ask, "Does the Bible promote violence? Does the Qur'an promote violence? Are believers in either holy books influenced to commit violent acts?"

I would like to see the "ample justification for [violent] actions from the Qur'an and the life and sayings of prophet Muhammed." As with the Bible, I think it is a matter of interpretation and choosing a verse that fits one's aims. People have used the Bible to justify slavery, intolerance, and killing. The same is true of the Qur'an.

I don't see a big difference between the story of Joshua and the motives of Muslim fundamentalists. They, too, want to purge the land of sinfulness and believe that God backs their aims, and that they are an instrument of his justice. It's not quite so pleasant when we are considered the sinners, is it?

As for booty and spoils of war, the Israelites were not above carting this off themselves.

I have not seen the passages you speak of that encourage Muslims to fight and kill their enemies. I have seen passages permitting them to act in self-defense, but even then being careful not to harm women, children, and innocent people. Since you don't hold the Crusades to be representative of true Christian behavior, it is only fair that I discount the early history of Islam, too. All that early killing and assassination was only for a specific time, place, and purpose, I'm sure.

As I said in the other post, violence and the fanaticism that breeds violence is no stranger to either Christianity or Islam. True believers have much in common, whatever their creed.

Ginny

23

These fundies will never suicide bomb

by Rex B13 in

jw
friends

here is a url that shows the truth of christ's command to christian's, "love they neighbor".

btw, the same denomination baptized over 950,000 (yep, almost a million) last year.

my wife, two sons and i were 4 of them.. http://www.namb.net/dr/.

GinnyTosken

Hello, Rex,

Absolutely NOT. God determines our life spans to start with. You argue a moot point.

Let me see if I understand. I say that God demands that we believe and obey or he will kill us. As I see it, God is using a death threat to coerce, making him a terrorist. You argue that God determines our life spans anyway. Put another way, he decides when we die and has the power to kill us whenever he pleases. You say this makes my point moot. I don’t think so.

Reading this statement, I can’t help but wonder how you view those who died in the recent terrorist attacks. Did God determine in advance that September 11, 2001 was the time for their life spans to end?

Many humans have the power to kill and coerce. I have the power to kill and coerce my son if he does not do as I wish. Because I’ve had the power to kill all along, does this mean I am not a terrorist if I coerce him with death threats?

1)The created does not judge the creator because he does not have sufficient facts.
2) God has offered redemption to all under His terms, as is His right.
3) God Himself paid the price by suffering the most excruciating death and humiliation. If you choose not to accept His sacrifice you are to blame for your own eternal death.

To accept these statements, I must believe many things. I must believe that there is a creator and that I am created. I must accept the Biblical description of God and his ways. I must accept the Trinity.

There are so many obstacles to overcome to believe as you do, Rex, and we’ve discussed them many times. Should we never question the ways of the god we worship? Does God want unquestioning obedience? Was there a literal Adam and did his sin set in motion the need for redemption? Can we trust that the Bible is the inerrant word of God? Are the stories about Jesus true? Why are there contradictions between the accounts? Does the redemption story itself make sense?

Even Jehovah’s Witnesses are beginning to recognize the difficulties with the redemption story. In the November 15, 2001 Watchtower, in an article called, “Jesus Saves—How?” they write:

Appropriately, the apostle Paul later wrote: “Through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because they had all sinned.” (Romans 5:12) Yes, because of the original sin, children that were supposed to be born perfect with endless life ahead of them were brought forth with sickness, old age, and death as their prospect.
“That is not fair,” someone might say. “We did not choose to disobey God—Adam did. Why should we lose our prospect for everlasting life and happiness?” We know that if a court of law were to put a son in prison because his father had stolen a car, the son could rightly complain: “That is not just! I did not do anything wrong.”—Deuteronomy 24:16

Like you, the Jehovah’s Witnesses do not question whether God was just in punishing the children of Adam for Adam’s sin. They say that God was just and fair in providing a means of pardon for his sentence. In a court of law, would we think it fair and just if a judge sentenced a son to life imprisonment because his father stole a car if the judge also provided a means of pardon? I personally would not. I would still consider it unfair that the son was punished for the sins of the father. The Bible itself is mixed on this issue. (Compare Deut. 5:9 and Deut 24:16)

Ginny : Christianity has a history of martyrdom and crusades. This is not a straw man. The point is that historically some fundamentalists have been willing to die for a cause, just as have Islamic fundamentalists. If blaming Christianity for crusades is over-generalizing and unfair, then so is blaming Islam for the behavior of a few fanatics.

Rex: And that is a lie. It's a lie that the agnostic's use constantly. The Kingdom of God is not of this world and you can't lay any bloodguilt at the foot of the cross. No human organisation speaks for God and any that do good works can also become corrupt. Islam has as it's main focus conquest by man, which you continue to ignore.

You puzzle me, Rex. You began this post with a claim that a certain denomination would never suicide bomb. Now your reasoning sounds similar to that of Jehovah’s Witnesses whenever one of their flock does something bad. Anyone who behaves badly is not truly one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Do the acts of terrorism reflect the beliefs of the majority of Muslim believers? Muslims also see themselves as imperfect people striving to be submissive to God and do right. Only in the extremist literature have I seen a main focus of violent conquest. In all other Islamic literature the focus has been submission to God and peace. Jihad itself literally means struggle or striving and applies to many non-violent activities:

http://islam.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htmsite=http3A2F2Fwww.unn.ac.uk%2Fsocieties%2Fislamic%2Fjargon%2Fjihad2.htm

If you mean conquest in a religious sense, then Christianity also has a main focus of conquest, since its goal is to convert all people to Christianity. Can Muslims be faulted for wishing the same of their religion?

Ginny, you sidestepped my explanation for why Christians may not always act by Christian principles.

I side-stepped nothing, Rex. I do understand that spiritual transformation is a gradual process, so your comments seemed misplaced. Also, I did not understand to what you were referring. Martyrs? Crusaders? Yourself?

And again, if you apply this idea to Christians, should you not be fair and make the same allowances for Muslims? Won’t you find Muslims on all points of the spectrum from “desperately depraved” to “pretty nice”?

Ginny quoted: "It is worth reminding ourselves that extreme Christian fundamentalism breeds its own violent cells of terrorists here at home. According to the Abortion Rights League, there have been 2,500 reported attacks and 55,000 acts of illegal disruption against medical clinics since the late 1970s in the United States."
Rex: Which is American citizens exercising their rights to protest what they view as murder.

Okay. If American citizens are exercising their rights to protest what they view as murder by bombing abortion clinics, are not citizens of other nations exercising their rights to protest what they view as murder when they bomb American buildings?

Was he following the word of God in doing so? Christiianity has no Jihad. You are using incidental evidence that is in no way typical nor widespread.

I don’t think you understand what jihad means, Rex. If you equate it with a violent, holy war, Christianity has had plenty of those. Of course, any one who is violent in the name of Christianity is, in your mind, not a true Christian.

You seem to think that violence by Muslims is typical and widespread. Of course, most Muslims would say that those acting alone in the name of Islam are not true Muslims and are not following the holy Qur’an in doing so.

To get to the truth of the matter, we would have to determine what makes a person a true Christian or true Muslim, take a careful look at history and determine the motivations for acts of violence, and make a statistical tally. Many horrors have been committed in the name of Christianity, but you are quick to discount those. You are not as willing to make the same allowances for Islam.

Hmmm, you've yet to show me one car bomb that has destroyed innocents. I have yet to see dancing in the streets over the twin towers being destroyed by any similiar acts from any 'claimed' Christian.

Well, you’ve neatly sewed this up, Rex. The Crusades don’t count. I assume the violence during the Inquisition doesn’t count either. Christians who throw acid and bomb abortion clinics are exercising their rights to protest what they view as murder. Surely you also have a justification for Christians who violently harass atheists and for the violence between Catholics and Protestants in Ireland, too. Any other acts of violence are “incidental” and are committed by those who only claim to be Christian. How very tidy!

Christians have danced in the streets when innocents were killed. This is from Will Durant's The Age of Faith:

At last, on June 7, 1099, after a campaign of three years, the Crusaders, reduced to 12,000 combatants, stood in exaltation and fatigue before the walls of Jerusalem. . . . The caliph offered peace on terms of guaranteed safety for Christian pilgrims and worshipers in Jerusalem, but Bohemund and Godfrey demanded unconditional surrender. . . . On July 15 Godfrey and Tancred led their followers over the walls, and the Crusaders knew the ecstasy of a high purpose accomplished after heroic suffering. Then, reports the priestly eyewitness Raymond of Agiles,
"wonderful things were to be seen. Numbers of the Saracens were beheaded . . . others were shot with arrows, or forced to jump from the towers; others were tortured for several days and then burned in flames. In the streets were seen piles of heads and hands and feet. One rode about everywhere amid the corpses of men and horses."
Other contemporaries contribute details: women were stabbed to death, suckling babies were snatched by the leg from their mothers' breasts and flung over the walls, or had their necks broken by being dashed against posts; and 70,000 Moslems remaining in the city were slaughtered. The surviving Jews were herded into a synagogue and burned alive. The victors flocked to the church of the Holy Sepulcher, whose grotto, they believed, had once held the crucified Christ. There, embracing one another, they wept with joy and release, and thanked the God of Mercies for their victory.

I am reminded of something I read recently:

When asked whether Christianity supports violence and is a violent religion, does one answer "Of course -- look at the crusades, the multiple blessings of wars, warrior popes, support for capital punishment, corporal punishment under the guise of 'spare the rod and spoil the child,' justifications of slavery, world-wide colonialism in the name of conversion to Christianity, the systemic violence of women subjected to men, and more"? Or does one respond, "Of course not -- look at Jesus, the beginning point of Christian faith, who is worshiped as 'Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace' (Isa. 9:6); whose Sermon on the Mount taught nonviolence and love of enemies; who faced his accusers nonviolently and then died a nonviolent death; whose nonviolent teaching inspired the first centuries of pacifist Christian history and was subsequently preserved in the justifiable war doctrine that declares all war as sin even when declaring it occasionally a necessary evil, and in the prohibition of fighting by monastics and clergy as well as in a persistent tradition of Christian pacifism"?
From http://www.crosscurrents.org/weaver0701.htm

You asked:

How reliable is the information? Do the sites give us back up sources? Does this in any way compare with the amount of Islamic terrorism, condoned by the Jihad, from the KORAN, since Islam's inception? Frankly, I've seen the typical anti-Christian propaganda is just that.

LOL. Your standards are so skewed, Rex. You assume that Islamic terrorism is condoned by the Qur’an. Most Muslim believers would argue that it is not. You hold Islam responsible for all violent acts committed in its name since its inception; Christianity is not held responsible. To fairly compare the two religions is not propaganda, Rex.

We dealt with that above. Not only is this besides the point, since Christianity teaches that only those who are in league with Satan will die at armageddon, but also because you ignore the right of the creator to demand that His creation worship Him alone. Him and not our selfish desires, idols, money, other 'gods' and the list goes on. That is logical and that is just.

You don’t seem to understand that not believing in the God you describe has nothing to do with wishing to be in league with Satan or following my own selfish desires. I still value the same things I valued as one of Jehovah's Witnesses: love, truth, justice, etc. I cannot worship the God you describe because he does not reflect these values.

Rex: Hmmm, every one seems to have been a political or Islamic group. Then we have guys like Shabbaz and Farakahn teaching things like, "kill all Zionists".
Ginny: I think you know as well as I do that there are Christian groups which promote hate and killing, the Ku Klux Klan for one.
Rex: Show me from theKoran where either of these are not teaching Islam. Oh sheesh, you call KKK 'Christian'? Is this the best argument (from slander again) that you can do?

There are many quotes from the Qur’an about peace, tolerance, and understanding:

http://www.submission.org/terrorism.html

I don’t think the KKK upholds the ideals of Christianity, but neither does the Muslim world believe that these terrorists upheld the ideals of Islam. If calling the KKK Christian is slander, your calling these terrorists Muslim is also slander.

Ginny: As I noted above, fundamentalist Christians have attacked medical clinics, killing innocent people. If abortion is terrorism, fundamentalists are fighting terrorism with terrorism.

Rex: Hmm. I saw no figures in the news for pregnant women, NOW activists, nurses, social workers or doctors. If they did, by the above argument (by me) they are NOT TRUE Christians, they play at being 'Christian'. Maybe some day a 'Christian terrorist' will fly a 737 into a abortion clinic, eh? Do you see how ludicrous your argument is yet?

Well, you might want to take a look at the statistics here:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_viol.htm

Can’t you see how ludicrous it is for you to argue that the people who committed these acts are not true Christians while not allowing that the terrorists are not true Muslims? Terrorism is terrorism, regardless of the weapons used or the number of people killed.

They do not follow the Koran then, they are selectivly ignoring the horrid side of their belief. BTW, don't assume that even the 'moderates' are not cheering the Osama's of the world on. Just look at the complicity of the Saudis and the numerous muslim 'charities' taht are being exposed!

What specifically do you consider the horrid side of their belief from the Qur’an, Rex?

Criminals live in many countries and work under many fronts.

Ginny: some Muslims are extremists who will kill to advance their beliefs.

Rex: Yes, the ones who follow their Koran to the letter of its 'law'. The rest are 'backslid' according to their own faith.

I would like to see this letter of the Qur’an law, Rex.

Because they are taught thus. An important point. Do you realize that most moslem schools are training up little terrorists by their teachings? You better open your eyes, Ginny, they grow up to be effective with box cutters and suicide to try and gain paradise.

I haven’t seen this, Rex. When I worked for International Programs at Indiana University, I met thousands of Muslim students. Most of them were kind and gentle. Can you show me specifics about Muslim education?

Fanaticism and violence is NOT TAUGHT in Christ's life or his word as revealed to us. That is the point of the matter and you cannot dispute the stark differences between the N.T. and the Koran.

I pointed you to a site that showed the similarities between Christianity and Islam. You have yet to show me the stark differences.

One had a messiah who died for all of our sins and taught peace.
The other robbed caravans, ruled by violence, taught Jihad, never performed a miracle and never lived even by his own moral law.

Strange. According to the site below, Mohammed is considered a prophet and Jesus is recognized as the Messiah:

(3) belief in the prophets of Allah, of whom Mohammed is the last and greatest and the one commissioned to deliver Allah's message to humanity. Abraham, Moses, and Jesus of Nazareth also are recognized prophets. Moreover, in the Qur'an Jesus is recognized as the Messiah, and Mary is highly respected.
From http://www.episcopalchurch.org/ens/2001-263.html

This is confirmed on a Muslim web site:

Jesus is the Messiah. He is a word from Allah, and a spirit from Him. He is honoured in this world and in the hereafter, and he is one of those brought nearest to Allah.
From http://www3.sympatico.ca/shabir.ally/new_page_24.htm

I am not an expert on Islam, but from my reading on the net, I gather that Muslims, too, expect a second coming. They call their savior Mahdi, and he will fulfill the promise in Psalms, “"And just a little while longer, and the wicked ones will be no more...But the meek ones shall inherit the earth, and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace...The righteous themselves shall inherit the earth."

I think you may have more in common with Muslims than you imagine, Rex.

Ginny

10

How Do You Handle Hypocrisy?

by GinnyTosken in

jw
friends

how do you handle hypocrisy?

appears in the november 15, 2001 watchtower.

the article intrigues me because instead of a clear-cut condemnation of hypocrisy, the article wavers back and forth.. first, the writer defines hypocrisy:.

GinnyTosken

Amazing,

I agree that hypocrisy is a matter of degree. One of the biggest lessons I learned after leaving the Watchtower world is that few things in life are black or white; most things are on a continuum.

I took exception to the Society's statement because they usually judge in a very black-and-white way without considering degrees. Take Java as an example. He was given the boot for voting on a referendum that would provide more tax money for his child's school, in which the ceilings were literally crumbling down. This was not considered a "slip" and he was judged as harshly as though he had voted in a presidential election.

While the examples of Peter and Barnabas are cited in the article, glaringly absent is an explanation of what, if any, discipline they received for their "slip." Galations 2:11 says that Paul "resisted him [Peter] face to face, because he stood condemned." Galations 2:14 says that when Paul "saw they were not walking straight according to the truth of the good news," he rebuked Peter "before them all." No mention is made in the article of acting as a "man of integrity," speaking out against hypocrisy, or publicly exposing hypocritical "slips." The implication is that we should overlook such weaknesses and imperfections, not allow them to alienate us from the brotherhood, and concentrate on keeping our own love and faith free of hyprocrisy. If this advice applies to Jehovah's Witnesses, it should apply to Catholics, Protestants, and other religious groups as well.

Ginny

10

How Do You Handle Hypocrisy?

by GinnyTosken in

jw
friends

how do you handle hypocrisy?

appears in the november 15, 2001 watchtower.

the article intrigues me because instead of a clear-cut condemnation of hypocrisy, the article wavers back and forth.. first, the writer defines hypocrisy:.

GinnyTosken

How Do You Handle Hypocrisy? appears in the November 15, 2001 Watchtower. The article intrigues me because instead of a clear-cut condemnation of hypocrisy, the article wavers back and forth.

First, the writer defines hypocrisy:

Judas was a hypocrite--a person who pretends to be what he is not, someone who hides his bad motives behind a mask of sincerity. The Greek word rendered "hypocrite" means "one who answers" and also denotes a stage actor. In time, the word came to refer to anyone who was simply putting on an act in order to deceive others.

The scribes and Pharisees are cited as examples of hypocrisy:

Consider the religious climate when Jesus was on earth. The scribes and Pharisees pretended to be loyal teachers of God's Law, but in reality they filled people's minds with human teachings that drew attention away from God. The scribes and Pharisees scrupulously insisted on the letter of the law, but they ignored fundamental principles that reflected love and compassion. In public they pretended to be devoted to God, but in private they were full of badness. Their deeds never measured up to their words. Their objective in doing things was "to be viewed by men."

Insisting on the letter of the law but ignoring the principles of love and compassion? Why is that so familiar?

An example is given of a family who had not learned to identify hypocrites. This family hired a lawyer who was also a preacher in a local church. When the family received a $3.4 million settlement, the preacher pocketed most of it. The article says:

Regarding this lawyer, a law journal stated: "If he preached the kind of conduct he practised . . . , his message would have to be this: let us prey." How can we protect ourselves from people like that?
"Keep your eyes open," was the advice Jesus gave to those in his day who were confronted with religious hypocrisy. (Matthew 16:6; Luke 12:1) Yes, we must be cautious. People may profess the most noble aims and ooze sincerity, but we need to exercise reasonable caution and not immediately accept everyone at face value. Would we not carefully check our bank notes if we knew that counterfeit currency was in circulation?
Hypocrites have appeared even within the true Christian congregation. . . .

Oh, dear! What should we do if we encounter hypocrites within the true Christian congregation? Expose their hypocrisy as Jesus did with the scribes and Pharisees?

"Stop Judging"
How easy it is for imperfect humans to point out other people's failings while ignoring their own! . . .
When others at times do things that seem hypocritical, we must be careful not to label them hastily as hypocrites. The apostle Peter, for example, "went withdrawing and separating himself" from Gentile fellow believers in Antioch so as to please visitors of Jewish background from Jerusalem. Barnabas 'was also led along with Peter and others in this pretense.' . . . But this slip on the part of Barnabas and Peter surely did not put them in the same category as the scribes and Pharisees or Judas Iscariot.

Oh, I see! Hypocrisy is a matter of degree and frequency! I wonder if this defense can be used in committee meetings?

The article assures us that all hypocrisy will eventually be exposed:

"There is nothing covered over that will not become uncovered," said Jesus Christ, "and secret that will not become known." (Matthew 10:26; Luke 12:2)

So, if a religious organization bears hypocritical fruit, should we leave it? Does not a little leaven ferment the whole lump?

Meanwhile, why should we allow the hypocrisy of others to affect us to the point that we are deprived of the genuine love of true friends? We can be cautious without becoming overly suspicious. And by all means, let us keep our own love and faith free of hypocrisy.--James 3:17; 1 Peter 1:22

Cautious but not overly suspicious? No mention of boldly exposing hypocritical behavior? How strange . . .

Contrast the article above with the mention of hypocrisy in this excerpt from the Watchtower of May 1, 1997, in an article called "Trust in an Imperfect World":

A man of integrity can be trusted, not just by his fellow man but, more important, by God. His purity of heart is seen in his actions; he is free from hypocrisy. He is not devious or corrupt. The apostle Paul put it this way: "We have renounced the underhanded things of which to be ashamed, not walking with cunning, neither adulterating the word of God, but by making the truth manifest recommending ourselves to every human conscience in the sight of God."-2 Corinthians 4:2.
Notice that Paul mentions attitudes that have to do with the Christian ministry. How can a Christian minister serve others if his hands are not pure, if he is not a man of integrity? The head of an Irish religious order who recently resigned well illustrates the point. He admitted that he "allowed a paedophile priest to continue working with children long after his child abuse became known," according to The Independent newspaper. The account explained that the abuse extended over 24 years. The priest was jailed for four years, but think of the suffering imposed upon the children he assaulted during those years because his overseer lacked the moral integrity to take action!
[bolding mine]

Now, brothers and sisters! Don't be hasty to judge our imperfect brothers simply because they have not yet removed the pedophile rafter from their own eye. This slip surely does not put them in the same category as the scribes and Pharisees, Judas Iscariot, or Catholic priests. Wait on Jehovah, and everything covered over will be uncovered.

Ginny