Hi Satanus - You said the WT uses the Bible to justify lying. The you pull out an old Watchtower magazine that talked about Rahab and her lying to those looking to murder the Hebrews. Jehovah's Witnesses teach that lying is wrong. They also say "While malicious lying is definitely condemned in the Bible, this does not mean that a person is under obligation to divulge truthful information to people who are not entitled to it."
They also say:
"Of course, being truthful does not mean that we are obligated to divulge all information to anyone who asks it of us. “Do not give what is holy to dogs, neither throw your pearls before swine, that they may never . . . turn around and rip you open,” warned Jesus, at Matthew 7:6. For example, individuals with wicked intent may have no right to know certain things. Christians understand that they are living in a hostile world. Thus, Jesus advised his disciples to be “cautious as serpents” while remaining “innocent as doves.” Jesus did not always disclose the full truth, especially when revealing all the facts could have brought unnecessary harm to himself or his disciples. Still, even at such times, he did not lie. Instead, he chose either to say nothing or to divert the conversation in another direction.—Matthew 15:1-6; 21:23-27; John 7:3-10.
I understand where they stand in regards to lying. I agree with them. Yet, there is a standard.
" While all lying is reprehensible, some lies are more serious than others. For example, one person may lie out of embarrassment or fear. Another may wickedly make a practice of lying with the intent to harm or injure. Because of his malicious motivation, such a willful liar is a danger to others and would be disfellowshipped from the congregation if he does not repent. Since not all lies are inspired by maliciousness, care must be taken not to condemn unnecessarily but to be sure one knows all the factors involved when someone has told a lie. Motives and extenuating circumstances should be taken into consideration."
Hi there Blonde - Can you expand on what they are teaching? Why exactly to you think they are contradicting statements?
Hi Dismissing Servant - It only makes they wrong, not that they were lying. If that the case, everybody who was ever wrong in anything they would say are liars.
Hi again Satanus - It looks like you have an issue with the Bible, not only Jehovah's Witnesses.
Hi jgnat - What are you talking about?
Hi there Gopher - Like the 1st century Christians, they have told anybody who would listen that Jesus will return in their lifetime. Were the 1st century Christians false prophets? Many non-Christians would readily admit they were.
Hi Satanus - What is a basic "WT argument"? Is it similar to the "old and tired" basic "anti-JW propaganda"?
Hi Data-Dog - The scriptures never support lying. Okay. But you really did not do anything in your post but agree that Abraham did lie in order to save his life. Like I made mention before, "a person is not under obligation to divulge truthful information to people who are not entitled to it". The JWs teach that we should "chose either to say nothing or to divert the conversation in another direction".
Hi there 2+2=5 - Its too bad you do not give links to the context of what was the articles talking about. I do not know what the theme of these articles or what they were talking about. What I am saying with the links to my orignial post is what the JW's teach in regards to lying. They say to refrain from lying since Jehovah hates the liar. They also say that JW's should either choose to say nothing or divert the conversation in another direction. That is what they teach. From my experience reading posts here and articles elsewhere from those who are against the Jehovah's Witnesses, they do not quote in context and mislead at every given chance.
Hi LisaRose - You say that from experience that they use this "theocratic warfare" to excuse cover up and misrepresentation. I do not understand your example. Russell thought that the gentile times would end in 1914 and that the end times would start in the same year. Okay, they believe that. From what I understand, the end times will last for an indefinate period of time which will culminate in the great tribulation and then Armeggedon. I know from talking to many who were there in 1975 that they were hoping that the great tribulation and then Armegeddon would be in that year. But they also knew that many other prophesies would need to be revealed. They always looked forward and never let up their preaching activities. So how did they invoke this "theocratic war strategy" in regards to 1975?
Hi again Data-Dog - I have been researching this people. I have found out that they are indeed people who are very human. They are like any other person except for one issue. They value the Bible's moral message and will keep its standards to the death. One thing I do not do is hold the opinions of those who hate the JW's in very high regard. Like the user "OUTLAW". Everything he has to say I will disregard because of his hatred of Jehovah's Witnesses.
Hi there sayswho - Not telling the whole truth is deception. The JW's do teach that you should not have deception in your heart. Do you think Jesus had deception in his heart when he told his brothers that he was not going to travel with them to the festival of the tabernacles but arrive at another time?
Hi there mP - I agree. It makes me sick to watch many people "lord this" and "lord that" with the "Jeeesus" thrown in. I dislike pretenders like the Billy Graham's, Tood Bentley's and Geroge Rekers of the world. Jehovahs' Witnesses do not appear to be any more or less self righteous than the rank and file in the churches of Christendom.
Hi Finklestein - Why do you comment on that but not comment on this:
"
Know Your NGOs!
W hen you hear that the Watchtower Society was registered with the United Nations as an NGO, you may not be aware that there is actually more than one kind of NGO. This fact is important, and is often deliberately obscured by those who try to condemn and criticize the Society.
In the United Nations system, there are NGOs who are associated with the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), and there are also NGOs associated with the Department of Public Information (DPI). The Watchtower Society was of the latter kind — associated with the DPI.
However, many websites and at least one book deliberately misleads their readers by quoting rules and stipulations to ECOSOC NGOs, and then pretending that those resolutions and rules apply to DPI NGOs, of which the Watchtower Society was one. This tactic is grossly dishonest and many of those who make this claim know full well they are misleading their readers. Let us now examine the true differences between the NGO types, which apostates and other opposers often try to keep hidden.
What’s the difference?
The difference between the two types is quite stark. The online political magazine Insight has this to say on the matter:
“For an NGO to be recognized by the United Nations, however, there are requirements, and even two statuses for which an NGO might apply. The DPI status is under the authority of the U.N. Department of Public Information (UNDPI), which controls U.N. archives and research facilities...
“The other status for which the NGOs may apply is ECOSOC (Economic and Social Council) status. The U.N. Website says that to obtain ECOSOC standing an NGO must prove that its work is directly relevant to U.N. goals. With ECOSOC standing an NGO may enter into a formal consultative relationship with access to officials of U.N. member states and must provide useful or special information to the U.N. Economic and Social Council...”
Notice how DPI NGOs are under a department which controls “archives and research facilities”, yet on the other hand ECOSOC NGOs have a “formal consultative relationship” with the United Nations, and it's work must be “directly relevant” to the UN's goals. In other words, the ECOSOC NGO consults with the UN on it's policies and helps it achieve it's political aims and direct it's policy-making.
This is exactly what apostates are accusing the Watchtower Society of doing. Yet, this is not a description of the type of NGO the Watchtower Society was, but it is a description of the other type of NGO — that associated with the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC).
The Watchtower Society was a totally different type of NGO associated with a different UN department — the Department of Public Information (DPI). Accusers deny this, and claim the differences are “irrelevant facts”, when we can clearly see that is not how the UN feels about the matter. Let us now examine the original Resolutions of the United Nations to show the difference between ECOSOC and DPI NGOs."
Hi Josie Jones - You are purposely confusing things. Where did I say I was going to pm you? Here is what I have said to you:
1st message - "horray for me... my question has been discarded and I was labeled an apologist... lol"
2nd message - "dunno what you just said... "disgraded"? - You are saying you post what you want any place you want regardless of the rules." Then I posted the rules highlighting keeping on topic.
3rd message - "Why would you want to pm me? I do not understand. Do you confuse people on purpose? Anyways, discrediting people is easy. Those being discredited have to have enough humility to know when they have been discredited.
4th message - " Okay. According to you Jesus is a liar (John 7:1-13)"
Where did I say I wanted to pm you? All you want to do is flame... go ahead. Call me a cult member.
Hi there OUTLAW - Yes. You did not like the lifestyle. You really do not know what my life is like. You assume you know how my life is like. You have a twisted view of who and what Jehovah's Witnesses are like.
Hi Crisis - Your opinion does not really matter, now does it?
Hi again Satanus - Maybe I am not humble enough... what do you think?
Hi again Finkelstein - Your opinion is that the "WTS is a lying, corrupt publishing house". Without using the WTS as a crutch, what is truth to you?
Hi again 2+2=5 - I cannot really comment since I do not have the needed information.
Hi again recovering - I could be misinformed. Then, so can you. They claim that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 BCE. They claim Bible chronology is more accurate and reliable than the secular evidences. That is their defense. They trust the Bible.
Hi again Julia Orwell - Personally, if my friends and families lives were in peril, I would not devugle any information that would lead to their deaths. Why would you expect me to? Why would you expect Jehovah's Witnesses to do the same?
Hi there jhine - Jehovah's Witnesses are looking to teach others about Bible truth and how to live life as a Christian. That is what they share. They tell everything they know about what they teach. They have two books they lead the study through using the Bible as the standard. I did not notice anything they have left out. No information has been withheld. Everything I have asked about has been answered.
Now, what kind of information do you want to know apart from understanding the Bible. When you teach somebody about your Christian faith, do you go over all the scandals that your people have gone through since the 5th century, especially the horrible ones in the 20th and 21st centuries?
Hi Dismissing Servant - Okay. You believe the Christians in the 1st century are liars. Do we need to proceed with our conversation any longer?
Hi again Data-Dog - Revisionist history, controlling information, forbidding Bible studies, misquoting authors. There are two sides to every conflict. History is subjective to the one who lives it. The history of the US is different from the perspective of the political parties. Which viewed history is more correct? The republican or the democrat? How does Rush Limbaugh's view of history differ from that of Thom Hartmann's? What kind of information do they control. I have heard from opposers that the JW's have misquoted authors but it seems more likely that they quoted correctly but the context may have been a bit off.
Hi again wasblind - you misconstrue what I mean. People do not stay on topic and start nitpicking. No structure.
Hi again 2+2=5 - I saw the test. I did see somebody disagree with some of the quotes. I cannot comment since I do not have context.
Hi again wasblind - You have to understand that Jehovah's Witnesses believe their society is the only Christianity. If Christianity is the only path to the Father and truth, then nobody should have to choose between a false religion and their family. That is what I thought the article taught after reading it. I understand that you believe the Witnesses are a false religion and are not Christian in any sense of the word. But they think of you the same way you think of them... but they are a little louder.
Hi again LisaRose - Jehovah's Witnesses believe they are the only Christian people. You believe the same, do you not? Do you believe that only those who worship Jesus as God are the only Christian people? Do you not believe that only those who "believe on Jesus", which means to you that he is God, are to be considered Christian? If the JWs are the only Christian people, then yes, you should make the choice of Christianity over that of your family.
If I believe the Jehovah's Witnesses are the only true Christian people, why is that delusional? There is only one Christianity. Should I think you are delusional to claim that only born again Christian's, those who believe Jesus is to be worshiped as YHWH, to be the only Christians?
Hi again Gopher - Yes. They choose to follow Bible standards and morals over that of their families. They would be correct if they were the true Christian church.
Hi there TD - cut and paste - nice one! Can you explain what each one of those articles are teaching?
