Alan,Thank you for you kind response. I believe you have brought us back to the heart of the problem, how do we define evil.
I think that most people would define an evil person as someone who would harm others knowingly, period. It doesn't matter if someone has something to gain from harming others, either personally or in a larger sense -- harming others knowingly is still evil.
That seems to be the definition most dictionaries prefer. If we accept this, however we have to accept the reality that follows:You're perfectly right that all of us will sometimes fit the definition of evil, But the question of really being "evil" boils down to how often and how intensely someone commits acts of evil ……A person who ignores his conscience in this way is certainly an evil person, because he had it in his power to stop the commission of evil, or to separate himself from it, but did not -- for selfish reasons.
Completely agree. As I have said above I believe there are evil individuals in the org who are evil by any definition. The point you make that impresses me was that the men composing the GB Franz knew has changed. Since the 1970’s the GB as a whole I believe has conspired to harm. His (Ray’s) ouster from the GB marked a turning point in Society history. After that, WTS leaders became much more hardheaded and unforgiving. They were jealous of their positions and power, and they did everything they could to preserve their authority even at the cost of stomping on the rights and heads of individual JWs.
I think you are right here. They have changed. When you and I were in NY those of the GB I knew were pretty much normal guys in there positions because they had been there a long time and Knorr trusted them to co-operate. They just went along. When they started to assert themselves in the mid 70’s to the point of bucking Pappy’s authority they seem to have interred a new phase that gradually lead in later years to ruthless self preservation. If this is the case I concede most of the members of the GB, if not all, are truly evil.However, I’m not sure we should include the issue of conscience. Is it not possible that some of these men “conspired” and “caused harm” fully believing they were protecting “God’s Name”? If that is true then some may actually have acted in good conscience. Yet, this does not relieve them of responsibility. You finally touched on the responsibility of those who claim to speak for God. In my view this is far and away the most condemnatory of Watchtower lunacies. I'll leave further comments for another time because I'm beat from a long day at work.
Again, completely agree. Thanks for your thoughts, AlanJst2laws