AlanF and Andi,
I have responded to your questions on the following thread:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=11776&site=3
Nicodemus
JoinedPosts by Nicodemus
-
26
A Different JW Viewpoint
by Nicodemus ini have seen reference here to some of the posts on witnessesonline.com (wol) in response to the horrific events of yesterday, september 11, 2001.. please allow me to express a few different thoughts.. first of all, what happened yesterday was, just as president bush described it, despicable.
in making this attack, the attackers showed complete and utter disregard for human life.
those who commandeered the plane, knowing their ultimate goal, had no consideration for their own lives.
-
-
-
13
Why Do I Remain one of Jehovah's Witnesses?
by Nicodemus innote: i originally started this as a reply to a query on the thread a different jw viewpoint.
alanf had asked me why i stay a jw in view of what i posted there.
as i developed the reply, it started to become clear to me that it was such a deviation from my original post that it deserved a separate thread.
-
-
Nicodemus
NOTE: I originally started this as a reply to a query on the thread “A Different JW Viewpoint.” AlanF had asked me why I stay a JW in view of what I posted there. As I developed the reply, it started to become clear to me that it was such a deviation from my original post that it deserved a separate thread.
AlanF and Andi
Alan asks a very good question, and a very complicated one. I didn’t particularly want to digress onto a different topic on this thread, hence my failure to reply to Alan. But maybe I can discuss it briefly.Lots of factors contribute to who each of us is. For example, most citizens of the USA are such because they are born such. However, as they grow to be adults, I suspect that most are proud of their citizenship because, overall, they see good in what the USA represents. Does that mean they support, or even condone, everything about that country, its leaders, or all of its fellow citizens? Do they support all aspects of American domestic and foreign policy? What do they think about America’s involvement in the Vietnam war? Do they support, or condone, Gary Condit’s recent behavior? Bill Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky, and subsequent behavior? The views or activities of NAMBLA?
I suspect most would answer “no.” But how many renounce their US citizenship?
Those who have “known” me for a while on the internet know some of my views about certain aspects of the beliefs and practices of JWs:
1. I am concerned about the propagation of certain aspects of our doctrine that I feel have become as much JW dogma as what we criticize as the dogma of other religious groups.
2. I believe we put forth propaganda in the sense that we spend a lot of time congratulating ourselves, organizationally speaking, to our own members. I’m an elder. I’ve seen enough to know that our organization is not always the “spiritual paradise” we continually tell ourselves that it is.
3. I am concerned about the pedophile issue, although I personally have not been exposed to some of the horror stories that seem to be popping up on the web.
4. It certainly seems to me that our blood policy gets more and more inconsistent as time passes.
5. The whole emphasis on “works.” I believe that faith should manifest itself in works. But Paul makes a classic argument against the type of works that we seem to expect, when he says at Romans 4:4: “Now to the man that works the pay is counted, not as an undeserved kindness, but as a debt.” A further question is: Why do we only count time for one kind of work, when there are others listed in the Bible? Why are JWs “graded” on only one thing?
But I have seen other facets of this organization as well. The stand that individual Witnesses were willing to take in the face of the Nazi assault. Those that served, and serve, prison terms in this and other countries because they will not go to war and kill another human. Those that have sacrificed their own wants, desires, comforts and preferences to become missionaries in foreign lands. I know many such individuals personally and I have nothing but admiration and respect for them. Whether or not one believes in the specific message they preach, I don’t think you can find much fault in their personal actions.
As I said, it’s complicated. This topic could be debated almost endlessly, and in many cases there are no easy, or clear, answers. But perhaps that may share a little of my perspective.
Finally, Alan, one of the characteristics of a true friend is that he or she “defends the absent.” In other words, if you are my friend, and somebody in my opinion unfairly maligns you in your absence, if I am a true friend I should speak up and defend you. On the thread referencing WOL, a blanket statement was made referring to Jehovah’s Witnesses as “perverts.” Is that OK? Should I have just let that pass?
Nicodemus
-
26
A Different JW Viewpoint
by Nicodemus ini have seen reference here to some of the posts on witnessesonline.com (wol) in response to the horrific events of yesterday, september 11, 2001.. please allow me to express a few different thoughts.. first of all, what happened yesterday was, just as president bush described it, despicable.
in making this attack, the attackers showed complete and utter disregard for human life.
those who commandeered the plane, knowing their ultimate goal, had no consideration for their own lives.
-
-
Nicodemus
Bridgette
My comments were not directed at any individual in particular, simply a statement regarding what I believe to be the fallacy of drawing large-scale conclusions from a small-scale sample, or of a blanket “categorization” of people of any form. I deplore it when some of my own brothers and sisters make blanket categorizations of others, and neither do I support such with respect to Jehovah’s Witnesses.
I truly appreciate the kind comments you just made, and think I understand where you were coming from.
-
26
A Different JW Viewpoint
by Nicodemus ini have seen reference here to some of the posts on witnessesonline.com (wol) in response to the horrific events of yesterday, september 11, 2001.. please allow me to express a few different thoughts.. first of all, what happened yesterday was, just as president bush described it, despicable.
in making this attack, the attackers showed complete and utter disregard for human life.
those who commandeered the plane, knowing their ultimate goal, had no consideration for their own lives.
-
-
Nicodemus
I would like to thank all who have replied to my post.
The intent of my posting was simple. Much has been made of certain comments posted on websites such as WOL regarding the view of Witnesses with respect to the horrific events of the past days.
I have to say that I find it ironic that some of the “conclusions” regarding Jehovah’s Witnesses in response to these comments have come from intelligent individuals who are proponents of the scientific method, and requiring that arguments be supported by facts and figures.
And yet, the comments of 20-30 individuals, in one very limited forum, are presented as “evidence” that such represent the mindset of all, or at least the majority of individuals in a group that numbers 6 million individuals worldwide? How scientific is that? Those with some history on the web may recall that the group of individuals that make up WOL are largely those of a certain mindset that originally posted on Obed Fernandez’ site, witnesses.net. And they may further recall that other Witnesses on that site disagreed with certain “narrow”, or what I’ll refer to as “fundamentalist” viewpoints they expressed.
I’m one of the ones that have a different view, which I posted above. I put what I said together rather quickly, so likely it isn’t the most eloquent thing ever written. Truth be told, I could go on for pages and pages about my own personal feelings regarding this truly horrific event. But, crude as it may have been, I think I have written enough to make clear what my own personal viewpoint is regarding the concern that all Jehovah’s Witnesses should have for all their fellow men and women.
I realize full well that certain teachings of the WTB&TS over the years have contributed to an “us vs. them” mentality that is now prevalent in many of my brothers and sisters. I also know that attempts have been made in print recently to start the process of reversing that mentality. They are but a start, and I dare say the message still gets muddy and conflicted at times, but it is a start, and I applaud it, as does virtually every thinking JW with whom I am in contact.
I join with BOC in saying a prayer for all who have been affected by this tragedy.
-
66
What I heard the JW's say in light of this tragedy
by Bridgette inokay, i know (or want to believe) that not all jehovah's witnesses are this calloused.
at least i hope not.
there are some good, caring people, but here are some stark contrasts i've observed today that remind me of how glad i am that i'm not part of such an overall unloving group of people.
-
-
-
26
A Different JW Viewpoint
by Nicodemus ini have seen reference here to some of the posts on witnessesonline.com (wol) in response to the horrific events of yesterday, september 11, 2001.. please allow me to express a few different thoughts.. first of all, what happened yesterday was, just as president bush described it, despicable.
in making this attack, the attackers showed complete and utter disregard for human life.
those who commandeered the plane, knowing their ultimate goal, had no consideration for their own lives.
-
-
Nicodemus
I have seen reference here to some of the posts on witnessesonline.com (WOL) in response to the horrific events of yesterday, September 11, 2001.
Please allow me to express a few different thoughts.
First of all, what happened yesterday was, just as President Bush described it, “despicable.”
In making this attack, the attackers showed complete and utter disregard for human life. Those who commandeered the plane, knowing their ultimate goal, had no consideration for their own lives. Additionally, they had no regard whatsoever for the lives of the innocent people aboard those planes. It’s one thing to give your own life for something you believe in, it’s another to think you have some right to take others with you.
In terms of numbers, even more frightening is their disrespect for the lives of those in the Pentagon, and the World Trade Center towers.
And it seems clear that those who planned this were highly skilled, and knew exactly what they were doing. The fact that the planes they hijacked were headed to the West coast, and were thus heavily laden with fuel, as just one example. It would seem that the precision with which they were flown into the buildings was calculated. It also seems likely that the group had input from professionals who factored in the effects that amount of jet fuel would have on the steel of the building once it caught fire.
Prayer, Love and Concern – For Whom?
I would like to address briefly one thing about the response from some of my fellow JWs, though, which disturbs me.It’s the matter of whom we pray for, and are concerned about.
I have seen much written about praying for our brothers, fellow Witnesses who were affected by these events. In and of itself, that is certainly a good thing, and perhaps a natural response. After all, I suspect most people, when they hear of something like this, are first concerned for family members and close friends. This is only natural. And, since Jehovah’s Witnesses consider themselves a worldwide brotherhood, or family, concern for their own is not necessarily surprising, or inappropriate.
However, love, care and concern should then extend much further than that. It should extend to others, really all who were affected.
So, let’s pray for everyone who was negatively affected by this tragedy, not just fellow Witnesses. There are scores of grieving individuals out there right now, suffering indescribable agony. It’s true that many likely are not active worshipers of God. Likely, some affected don’t even believe in God.
So what?
Perhaps some expressions of the Apostles Paul and John are worth pondering:
(John 3:16) “For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, in order that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life.
(Romans 5:8) But God recommends his own love to us in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
(1 John 4:10) The love is in this respect, not that we have loved God, but that he loved us and sent forth his Son as a propitiatory sacrifice for our sins.
If God waited until people accepted him before reaching out to them, perhaps we’d have a basis for doing the same.
But he didn’t. So why should we?
-
37
Blood, Deceit, Watchtower, Pirie
by hawkaw into uphold its position on banning certain blood transfusions, the watchtower society has taken liberties with written presentations from early scientists, the clergy and other authors.
one that stands out is alexander pirie.
this blessing is very important, deut.
-
-
Nicodemus
Lisa,
Just one more comment I should have included in my last post.
Some, even among active Jehovah's Witnesses, who argue against our current position re: blood transfusions, feel that the commands given to Noah do not apply to blood transfusions.
They feel strongly that an individual can completely respect and uphold Jehovah's commands to Noah, and yet accept a transfusion of blood, or the components of blood, if needed. One simple reason for this view is that no life was taken to supply such blood.
Nicodemus
-
37
Blood, Deceit, Watchtower, Pirie
by hawkaw into uphold its position on banning certain blood transfusions, the watchtower society has taken liberties with written presentations from early scientists, the clergy and other authors.
one that stands out is alexander pirie.
this blessing is very important, deut.
-
-
Nicodemus
Lisa,
As to your question, here’s a brief overview:
Acts 15:28 records the apostles using the expression: “For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to YOU, except these necessary things.”
They then listed among those “necessary things” to “keep abstaining . . . from blood.”
The question is: What made it necessary? Were the apostles instituting a new law? If they weren’t, then they must have been referring back to commands previously given by Jehovah.
Essentially, Jehovah had previously given commands regarding blood on two occasions:
1. To Noah (Genesis 9)
2. In the Mosaic Law (Leviticus 17, for example)If, then, the apostles by that decision were not seeking to reinstitute part of the Mosaic Law (and it seems quite clear that they were not), they must have been referring back to God’s commands to Noah.
We understand God’s commands to Noah, as they were given long before he established a special covenant relationship with Israel, to be binding on all mankind.
And, Jehovah’s commands to Noah were certainly not oppressive. For the first time recorded in the Bible, Jehovah granted humans the right to kill, the right to take away the life, of an animal for food. At the same time, Jehovah commanded that the blood of such an animal not be eaten. By obeying this command, man would show respect for Jehovah as the one who had given life to that animal, and who had also allowed man to take that life, to sustain his own.
I tried to keep that brief. If you’re interested in a far more comprehensive discussion of this topic, a great one can be found at:
Nicodemus
-
37
Blood, Deceit, Watchtower, Pirie
by hawkaw into uphold its position on banning certain blood transfusions, the watchtower society has taken liberties with written presentations from early scientists, the clergy and other authors.
one that stands out is alexander pirie.
this blessing is very important, deut.
-
-
Nicodemus
Hawkaw,
Thanks for that very informative material you posted. I have scanned your post, and the material, very quickly. However, I won't comment until I have the opportunity to absord it a little more carefully.
Just one small clarifying comment, for now:You wrote:
The first thing that struck me with this book is that Alexander Pirie is a “Minister of the Gospel”. Hello did I read that right? Alexander Pirie is a Minister of the Watchtower’s evil Christendom and part of Satan that Jehovah’s Witnesses are not allowed to deal with?
For sake of accuracy, the WTB&TS teaches that "Babylon the Great," which includes "Christendom," was discarded by Jehovah in the year 1919. While they consider the bulk of Christendom "apostate" since the death of the apostles, they do teach that certain individuals were not such. They teach that there have been some down through those centuries of time who were loyal to God, and taught truth. Included in that group are individuals, such as Hus, Tyndale, Wycliffe and others who fought to keep the Bible alive and available to the common man. They have also singled out certain groups, such as the Waldensians and Lollards, for favorable mention.
As this work of Pirie was published in 1806, it would not necessarily be inconsistent in and of itself, then, for the WTB&TS to use it to support one of their views. By that comment, I'm not arguing for either Pirie's or the WTB&TS' view of blood, just some historical perspective re: whether they would necessarily consider him part of "evil Christendom." -
12
Silent Roar
by silentlambs ini received another call tonight; this person was given the silentlambs site about an hour ago.
how can i convey the feeling when you hear the same tearful words over and over again?
i thought i was the only one.
-
-
Nicodemus
In some ways, it seems the organization has a very similar mentality to certain countries when it comes to suppression of bad news to make the entity, be it political or religious, look to be better than it is.
For example, I recall that it was hard to get a handle on how bad the catastrophe at Chernobyl was, because information was so tightly controlled and managed by the former Soviet Union.
Similarly, articles are now starting to appear regarding the extent to which AIDS has become a problem in China. One of the difficulties in determining the extent of the problem is that the Chinese government, similar to the Soviets, has worked at keeping the information "under wraps."
I'm saddened that the organization of Jehovah's Witnesses seems to have that same mentality. When a large part of your message centers around condemning other religions, it sure is helpful to be able to pretend that your own is "above" such problems. When it turns out that this is not the case, however, credibility and image take a beating.