Bane MadJW and other apologist please justify ......................

by cantleave 14 Replies latest watchtower scandals

  • cantleave

    In light of the following scripture:-

    There are six things that Jehovah does hate; yes, seven are things detestable to his soul: lofty eyes, a false tongue, and hands that are shedding innocent blood, a heart fabricating hurtful schemes, feet that are in a hurry to run to badness, a false witness that launches forth lies, and anyone sending forth contentions among brothers. - (Proverbs 6:16-19)

    How the following sworn statement be reconciled?

    "As regards the alleged involvement of children, the [WatchTower Bible and tract Society] submits that children cannot become members of the association but only participate, together with their parents, in the religious activities of the community. In respect of the refusal of blood transfusion, the applicant association submits that there are no religious sanctions for a Jehovah's Witness who chooses to accept blood transfusion and that, therefore, the fact that the religious doctrine of Jehovah's Witnesses is against blood transfusion cannot amount to a threat to public health." {Sworn testimony submitted by the Society in evidence before the European Human Rights Commission Jul 3 1997}

  • brotherdan

    It's called "Theocratic Warfare". Using this tactic they can justify anything. The only time you need to be truthful is when a person is "entitled to know". According to the insight book, fighters against Jehovah or his organization do not need to be given truthful information that they are not entitled to. They use the example of Rahab lying that she was hiding 2 spys in her house.

  • ziddina

    Very true, Brother Dan...

    Unfortunately, those with the "right to know" DOESN'T include the "rank & file" Jehovah's Witnesses...

    That's something they neglect to mention when doing the pre-baptism 'question' ritual...


  • tec

    Withholding information and outright lying are two different things. Withholding info might be acceptable in 'theocratic warfare' (though even that term makes me uncomfortable), but outright lying cannot be.

    How can a person speak lies and yet claim to follow the truth?


  • cantleave

    Well said Tammy!

    It was the realisation that the borg had lied, that made nugget follow me out!!

  • cantleave

    As the apologists seem to be on here now!!

  • dssynergy

    They use the example of Rahab lying that she was hiding 2 spys in her house.

    Uh, Rahab was not a worshipper of Jehovah yet - she was still a prostitute, right? So, why is her decision making (lying) used as an example to follow and that of say, Lot and his daughters (incest) is not?? Where is the logic??


  • wobble

    You can never find an apologist when you want one, and yet, on a thread where they are not needed they are like 'buses, two or three turn up together.

  • cantleave

    Wobble - they were on last night but had no interest in answering this very simple question.


    I remember the watchtower where the witness went door to door and when the householder sounded the alarm she changed her shirt. When question about this by the police shortly after she lied and said no. I do remember her being applauded for her ingenuity(sp). a Dub over at yahoo answers define Theocratic Warfare as "It means that we do not share the FULL truth with people in cases where it might not be beneficial. For example, before I tell non-JWs what will happen to them at Armageddon, I prayerfully consider how this will impact the kingdom ministry. However, in most cases I am fully honest and provide the complete truth – since people need to know it."


Share this