Scripturally, JW-system is synonymous with sin

by abiather 9 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  abiather

  Loving one’s neighbor (whether he is a believer or not) is the KINGLY LAW. (Mathew 5:44-48; James 2:8) It is THE KINGLY LAW, because it originates from KING of all kings; and all other laws originate from this law. Hence violation of this law is the greatest sin, or mother of all sins; because it is against KING of all Kings and King of all laws.

  JW-system is a flagrant violation of this law on two counts:

  1) They love themselves more than others and hate OPENLY those who left them.

  2) They project even God as showing PARTIALITY (in contrast to Deuteronomy 10:17 that says: “the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality.”) Because they teach that only those very few, born between 33-1935 CE, are chosen as rulers; and those who support this ruling class are chosen as subjects for the new world. (This is something God will never do as He Himself has prohibited “partiality.” (James 2:1) He also said: “Whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point (eg. showing partiality) is guilty of breaking all of it.” (James 2:10)

  Thus, the whole concept on which the JW-system is built is something that Bible calls “sin.” (It can even be called KINGLY SIN)

  Is this “’the abomination that causes desolation’ standing where it does not belong”? (Mark 13:14)
• 

  Syme

  I think you are correct as regards to the jws loving just their kin, and not those who left.

  But who said that the Bible teaches something better? The "Love your Neighbour" command is for ISRAELITES. If you want to see how ..."loving" the Israelites were as regards to foreigners, read Judges, read Joshua, read Numbers; heck, read ANY random passage from the Old Testament. The hate for, and the (in cases) KILLING of, non-believers was a command from Jehovah himself. With regards to this, we can't blame the Jws for doing nothing more than what is commanded in the whole of the Old Testament: Love your own, KILL all the rest; if not kill them, at least enslave them, and take their virgins for "own use". Luckily, JWs don't actually kill the rest right now, not because they wouldn't do it if Jehovah commanded them, but because they are waiting for God himself to do the 'dirty work' in Armageddon.

  Hate, and if possible, killing of the non-believers, especially the apostates, is in the heart of ALL Abrahamic religions. Islam still kills those who defect to another religion. The only reason Christians don't kill anymore, is because they've lost the political power required to do so. If the JWs had political power, they would kill also. Since they have only spiritual power over members, they are restrained to killing only 'spiritually', i.e. disfellowshipping+shunning.

  And as for Jesus, he did say "love one another", but guess what! we was referring to his DISCIPLES at the table. Love "ONE --> ANOTHER", not love the Gentiles! Instead, Jesus, as a faithful Jew, regarded the Gentiles as "dogs" and "pigs" if you recall. Plus, he often said that he would return as King and make the nations tremble, melting from fear; he would set them apart, as sheep from goats (where's the impartiality? This is the definition of partiality), we would save his OWN, he would KILL the rest. Yup, no big difference from the bloody Old Testament here. So the faithful jws who await the Armageddonian World Genocide, they may be sick, but this is what all the monotheistic religions require, actually.
• 

  abiather

  Syme

  Nice observation: “If the JWs had political power, they would kill also.” In their thinking they treat the ex-witnesses as those who have already being killed.

  Now, regarding your OT apprehension:

  All those God-authorized killings are attributed to God so that genocides assume validity. Jesus says many things in the OT are not original. (Mathew 19:4-8) In the great fire of Alexandrian Library, all the original scrolls of OT too were destroyed. What we have is the copy of the copy of copy ….. So is the case with NT scrolls. We need to take only what is REASONABLE. (1 Thess 5:21, 22) Mathew 5:44-48 and James 2:8 are universal in application, and its validity can never be questioned or doubted because it does not distinquish between JWs and gentiles/apostates!

  Even many things that are supposedly said by Jesus is actually attributed to him. For example, the lengthy last super speech has never taken place, in which the new commandment is introduced. See, Apostle James is not at all aware of such a new command or speech. Because, he invokes “Scriptures” (not Jesus Christ) as authority for saying love your neighbor as yourself:

  “If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing right (James 2:8)

  Jesus would never make thoughtless, God-dishonoring statements. Yet we find him doing so in John 9:1-3 where he presents God as creating people with physical deformities for "HIS GLORY"—God as a sadist—another example of saying attributed to him!
• 

  DeWandelaar

  Have you ever considered that there actually may not be something as "sin"?
• 

  abiather

  DeWandelaar

  The word “sin” is negative; hence many would not like it. Also, the word “sin” has a guilty connotation. When we are aware that there is cause and effect, that “sin” is just a cause for a consequence that you will experience. Therefore, nothing is “sin,” but just a cause for a consequence to be experienced.

  Hence let us give up the word sin, and take the concept behind it:

  We know that when we do good, good things happen to us—and vice versa. Hence what brings good to us and others is virtue and what brings hardship to us and others will be vice!

  In broader sense, sin/vice would be doing harm to others, and not doing anything to alleviate the pain of the suffering when we have abundance to help them!
• 

  DeWandelaar

  According to Paul we die because of sin and because the law made clear we always lack in goodness and are sinners by nature. So sins only can occur when there are "laws" ... the punishment for being a sinner is death according to scripture? Problem with that theory is that in order for someone or something to die there needs to be a law and without a law noone would die. So animals who live without a law could never sin and therefore could never die according to theology.

  Problem is: that law that paul was referring to was written 600 before christ... long AFTER all the incidents that were written in the tora and/or bible. Backward compatibility you might say :P

  So... people who died before could never have died for sins... since there was no law! Sodom? Gemorra? Homesexual deeds and lawlessness was there but there was no written law! How could these people be punished if there was no law to convict them? You see the problems with the sin theory?
• 

  abiather

  DeWandelaar

  You are right 100%. As all other religions, Paul too finds it difficult to explain sin and its expiation. In the process, people come up with some explanation which would not stand under scrutiny!

  Correct explanations should meet the following criterion:

  1) Man does acts of virtue or vice because of his own volition and choice, hence he is 100% responsible.

  2) This would mean there will be variety of personalities—good, bad and those in between with mixed qualities in varying degree.

  3) The reward should not be just heaven and hell, but each one should get varying reward according to the degree of merit or demerit one has earned. (Jesus hinted about this when he said: “with the measure you use it will be measured back to you.” (Mathew 7:2; Mark 4:24; Luke 6:38) but he gave no elaboration.
• 

  DeWandelaar

  Abiather... one of the reasons I was mentioning the problem of sin is the fact that therefore it can be stated that the Bible is corrupted to say the least. You refer to Christ but can we state that he is who he was told to be? I mean: The bible tells a lot of bullshit... if someone is lying to me a lot then I won't trust the other part that much as well.
• 

  abiather

  DeWandelaar

  I agree with you—there is corruption in it! Yet we can see statements that are eternally true such as Mathew 5:44-48; James 2:8, which, if practiced, will benefit the practicer first, and others second.

  Hence don't dismiss the Bible completely--take only what appeals to your reason.--1Thess 5:21, 22.
• 

  DeWandelaar

  If I should only take what appeal to reason then I do not have to dig in the bible really :)