Sins of the Watchtower/JWs--PO

by patio34 11 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  patio34

  Point 1: I just attended a seminar by Michael Josephson, who runs the Josephson Institute of Ethics. You might know of him from his "character counts" spots on the radio.

  Anyway, one phrase he repeated was "If you allow it, you encourage it." I immediately thought of the JW policy of "2 witnesses" before something is a crime and how that doesn't apply usually in child abuse cases. In their rigid religiousness, they allow, and therefore encourage child molesting. This is not only unethical, it is immoral and illegal. Any thoughts on this?

  Point 2: Is it ethical or moral for JWs to refuse to bear arms, but yet call a policeman to their aid, gun drawn? In other words, they won't sin, but avail themselves of the police/soldiers' sins. Shouldn't they refuse the protection of such "Bible-breaking persons?" (Thought of my walkaway JW son)

  Point 3: In the JW theology, 99.9% approximately of humans are wicked and this is the way it's always been. Now if a company manufactures a product and 99% of it fails, isn't this most probably a design defect, rather than the product's 'fault?' (ibid.)

  Pat

  

  WTBS: Quit peeing on my leg and telling me it's raining.
• 

  YoYoMama

  In the JW theology, 99.9% approximately of humans are wicked and this is the way it's always been.

  Hey, how dare you, that's not true, the truth is that 99.8% of humans are wicked!
• 

  Amazing

  Hi Patio34: Points 2 and 3 are great. Point 1 is good to the extent that it goes. The Constitution protects Church government as part of the right to practice religion ... at least the courts have upheld it that way, so there is no legal demand that a church government have any number or no witnesses to a 'sin' as defined by the church. Churches, though, can be civily sued, as has happened regarding child molestation issues.

  In all 50 states, clergy-confessional (or other similar legal terms) is protected in criminal matters. In about 12 states, clergy are protected from being "forced to testify" in criminal cases where molestation is the issue. 38 states have some laws on the books that are anywhere from 'encouragement' to testify to required to testify. Oregon, where I am from, used to be in the latter category, but now they are in the category that protects 'all' clergy-pentitent privilege in criminal cases. Lawyers in Oregon are also exampt, but other professional, such as medical and mental health professionals are not protected and are mandated to testify and report child molesters.

  Ethicly and morally, clergy should testify anyway. Also, if they do testify, there are no sanctions againsat them for breaking clergy-confessional privilege in molestation cases. It is merely an option for them.

  The fly-in-the-ointment for the Jehovah's Witnesses is that they proclaim that they have no clergy-laity distinctions, no clergy class, as all are said to be equal, brothers and sisters. Therefore, a sharp lawyer might be able to make this stick in a criminal trial and get the JW Elders outside the Clergy box that they typically rely on in molestation cases.
• 

  patio34

  YoYoMa, i stand corrected

  Amazing, you said

  The fly-in-the-ointment for the Jehovah's Witnesses is that they proclaim that they have no clergy-laity distinctions, no clergy class, as all are said to be equal, brothers and sisters. Therefore, a sharp lawyer might be able to make this stick in a criminal trial and get the JW Elders outside the Clergy box that they typically rely on in molestation cases.

  Does that mean they may not have any protection if they testify, or that they can't claim "confessional confidentiality?" Still, something may be technically legal, but clearly immoral and unethical. And by allowing it to continue, they are encouraging it. They are putting children at risk for their religious 'righteousness.' That is irony, all right.

  Pat

  

  WTBS: Quit peeing on my leg and telling me it's raining.
• 

  terafera

  I already have the JW answer for #3:

  "Well God isnt responsible for all the wicked people. We were not made defective. Adam and Eve messed that part up. We are not inanimat products..we have hearts, minds and consciences. We all are responsible for what we do."

  I could just picture my family telling me this!
• 

  patio34

  Terafera, you're so right--JWs would be at the ready with their defense. However, imho, they're wrong, because 100% of the 1st pair went bad according to the Bible. Still would be a design flaw, 'free will' (which is debatable too) aside.

  Pat

  

  WTBS: Quit peeing on my leg and telling me it's raining.
• 

  Yadirf

  patio34

  Point 2: Is it ethical or moral for JWs to refuse to bear arms, but yet call a policeman to their aid, gun drawn? In other words, they won't sin, but avail themselves of the police/soldiers' sins. Shouldn't they refuse the protection of such "Bible-breaking persons?"

  The way I understand the question is: Why do JWs refuse to perform service as soldiers in their nation's military, but then won't hesitate to enlist the help of a municipal law enforcement officer for protection against a law-breaker?

  It all has to do with God's laws.

  God requires Christians to pay taxes to "Caesar", and to be law abiding citizens. As a result, Christians, like everyone else that pays taxes, have earned the right of being protected by local authorities if the need arises.

  When it comes to the question of military service, here too God's law is what determines what a Christian will do. And of course Jehovah's Witnesses, for various scriptural reasons, believe that to share in warfare is contrary to God's wishes for them. One of those reasons is that we JWs are not advocates of man's rule, a system which got its start out of rebellion against God -- a rejection of God's rule instigated by Satan. In harmony with that the Bible shows that Satan (the Dragon of Revelation 12, and the Serpent of Genesis 3) has been in charge of each of the SEVEN successive World Governments that have now governed the earth, since the time of Egypt down to the present time. In light of what the Bible thus reveals, is there anyone who can add 2+2 and come up with the answer 4 that can't also understand why Jehovah's Witnesses choose to refrain from getting involved in the world's politics, and skirmishes in which blood is shed in the name of man's rule?

  Yadirf

  Daniel 11:35 ... a KEY prophecy that must be fulfilled before the "time of the end" gets underway.
• 

  patio34

  Hi Yardif,
  I believe this is the 1st time we've ever directly posted to one another. Thank you for your thorough explanation of the JW view.

  However i was a JW for 28 years until last year, so i'm intimately familiar with it. But i disagree with it and consider it unethical and immoral to take advantage of another person's willingness to lay their life on the line to save you, especially when you consider their action to be sinful. JWs should be willing to face the consequences of their decision to not bear arms, imo.

  I don't believe the Bible anymore after investigation, so that rationale doesn't excuse the JW weak action.

  As far as paying taxes, that's what everyone else does too. It's the law. It seems curious to me that JWs are so quick to point that out as if it's an extraordinary thing.

  Pat

  

  WTBS: Quit peeing on my leg and telling me it's raining.
• 

  garybuss

  Yadirf wrote:
  
  <Jehovah's Witnesses choose to refrain from getting involved in the world's politics,>

  That would be true if lobbying every official they could find in Greece is refraining from getting involved in the world's politics. And it would be true if lobbying was not participating in politics. The Watch Tower Corporations are prolific in their involvement in politics by lobbying at the administrative and legislative levels of government (politics).

  It would be true if the judicial division was not one of the three branches of government. And it would be true if the Watch Tower Corporations have not participated in politics at the USA Supreme Court level more than any other religion in the history of the USA.

  There are two ways to affect law. Make it in the legislative branch or influence it's application in the judicial branch. The Watch Tower Corporations are prolific in their involvement in politics at the judicial level.

  The Watch Tower is one of the MOST politically involved religions on the planet. Their strategy is to simply deny what they boldly do.

  In order for them to be politically inactive, they need to define political involvement for their own personal dictionary.

  A key to the Watch Tower Corporation's political policy is the word "neutrality". Neutral means indifferent. How can the Watch Tower Corporation claim indifference (non-participation ) while holding the record for difference (participation )?

  Hope you are having a good winter.

  gb
• 

  Yadirf

  patio34

  I believe this is the 1st time we've ever directly posted to one another. Thank you for your thorough explanation of the JW view.

  I'll be pleased to take your word for that, as I can't remember for sure after now having made so many posts to various ones here. (I'm getting old and senile.)

  However i was a JW for 28 years until last year, so i'm intimately familiar with it.

  That's a lot of years out of a person's life, true. But years in themselves do not guarantee wisdom and understanding for a person. I think if that were so I'd be smarter than what I am, given that I'm near to being 63.

  But i disagree with it and consider it unethical and immoral to take advantage of another person's willingness to lay their life on the line to save you, especially when you consider their action to be sinful.

  
  I fail to see exactly how you figure Jehovah's Witnesses "take advantage" of soldiers who on their own accord "lay their life on the line" in what they think to be their duty, particularly since we JWs didn't ask them to do so in the first place.

  And you say, "to save you". What is it that you feel that I've been saved from?

  And insofar as you saying that JWs "consider their [military personnel] action to be sinful", that's a strange twist of the matter. Isn't that leaving what the Bible says out of the equation?

  JWs should be willing to face the consequences of their decision to not bear arms, imo.

  Of course you're entitled to your opinion. But I believe that JW history is filled with experiences of them having done just that, that is, shown themselves willing to face the consequences of their decision to not get involved in the conflicts of the world. Certainly they've had to face the bear innumerable times, very much like Mordecai did after having refused to bow before the Amalekite Haman; or like the three Hebrews who refused to bow before the image that Nebuchadnezzar had set up in the plain of Dura. Those faithful servants of Jehovah stood their ground, and it wasn't easy. So, yes, I'd say that they, and we JWs today, have shown ourselves willing to face the consequences of our decisions -- decisions, BTW, which make us stand out in sharp contrast to the "world" in general.

  I don't believe the Bible anymore after investigation, so that rationale doesn't excuse the JW weak action.

  I'm sorry to hear that, and, that that's YOUR decision. Perhaps you will face the consequences of having made such a decision ... what do you think?

  With regards to your saying "so that rationale doesn't excuse the JW weak action", what you appear to be saying is that since the Bible is meaningless to you then it should likewise be meaningless to Jehovah's Witnesses. Of course that's not for you to dictate, is it?

  As far as paying taxes, that's what everyone else does too. It's the law.

  Not only man's law, but for those who believe in the Bible it's God's law ... which is first and foremost of importance to a Christian.

  It seems curious to me that JWs are so quick to point that out as if it's an extraordinary thing.

  I pointed it out in order to show why all who pay taxes are entitled to the things those collected taxes furnish, which includes the police force and the protection it provides the public.

  Yadirf