The views expressed here are my own and I state them as such. Perhaps some will agree with me, for a certainty others will not. I invite comment and discussion regardless of your viewpoint. I do not see myself as a self-appointed guardian of truth who stands ready with pen in hand, so to speak, to dispel the ignorance and stupidity that abounds in the world (or on this board). I am well aware of mine own ignorance and shortcomings albeit difficult as they are to acknowledge. I call no one ignorant or stupid, I leave that evaluation to others.
Words are wonderful things, are they not? Words can be soothing or exciting, calm or tempestuous, beautiful or ugly, the list is virtually endless as to what words can evoke. Words can be misunderstood. That is an ever present danger that must be taken into consideration when we use them. The primary reason for this is that words can and do have many meanings and shades of meanings and then there is the ever present possibility of sarcasm which can further complicate matters. A very accomplished writer once said that the English language should be used as building blocks and not for interior decorating. I have to agree. The simpler the language and the composition, the easier it is to understand and the less likely it is to be misunderstood. That is not to say that all communications should be limited to monosyllabic expressions because variety is, indeed, the spice of life. What I mean by this is that by keeping things basic we can better communicate more accurately what we intend.
The converse of that statement is the subject of this thread. Ideas, concepts, thoughts, etc. can be obscured by complicated communications techniques. Diplomatic language (which is not really a language at all) is an example of this distortion and reassigning of meanings to words. Two diplomats can converse in this pseudo-language and understand each other precisely whereas an observer will be lost in the differences between the everyday usage of the words used and what those words mean to the diplomats. An example: "Your Excellency, I have been authorized to inform you that my country deeply regrets your decision to continue your military presence in the area. We strongly suggest you reconsider." That might appear to be an innocuous statement of disappointment and a harmless suggestion . It is not. It is a veiled threat. Did the diplomat actually threaten 'His Excellency'?
Which side of the argument would you take on this? At face value of the statement, the answer is no, he did not. As to the actual intent of the statement, yes, he most certainly did. Which is correct? There was, indeed, a threat made. Whether or not you recognize it or want to acknowledge it, a threat was made which was understood precisely by 'His Excellency.' HOWEVER, should an accusation ever be leveled against 'that country' of threatening punitive action against the other, it could and would be denied and the exact statement would be reproduced as 'evidence'. It would be argued that he merely expressed regret over the decision and only suggested that an alternate position be taken on the matter.
Debaters love this sort of stuff. It's an endless supply of fuel for meaningless rhetoric and circular reasoning. It affords debaters who, without actually wanting to establish anything concrete, a medium for endless nit picking and trivial details that in the end do nothing but obfuscate the real issue. The 'language' is specifically designed for that very purpose. It's like a fiddle, if you're good at it, you can play just about any tune you want on it. Understanding this one can well agree with Paul when he wrote about one : "...being mentally diseased over questionings and debates about words." Debates about 'words' is what a lot of this comes down to. Not concepts or ideas but semantics.
Another tool of debaters is to change your question just ever so slightly and give it another slant and then present their argument or rebuttal on that now biased line of thought. Of course the more they go on, the more divergent the line of reasoning becomes until, in the end, if you are not careful you will forget what it was that you thought were discussing in the first place. Big difference between discussing and debating. Discussion implies a two way communication wherein all parties are earnestly seeking to investigate the issue. Debating is merely the arguing of one's position, it's totally one way. In a debate, everything you say becomes a target for the debater to attack. (You know just like your leading questions to the householder at the door. You don't REALLY want to know what she thinks about the world situation, you came here this morning to TELL her what it is and you are looking for something she will say for you to 'home in' on.)
The WTS has such a language. Common, everyday terminology is used in a manner not consistent with the usage of the general populace. When a statement is issued in that 'language', those conversant with the 'language' know exactly what is being said BUT to the outsider reading that same statement, the meaning is something quite different. An example of this is our usage of the term: 'the truth'. It is not a reference to what is factual but rather it's a term we apply to our religion and consequently an implication (if not an outright assertion) that everything else is not. Look at the term again. 'The' truth, not, 'a' truth. The word 'the' in this case is no mere article of speech, it's a term of exclusivity. When the general populace uses the term "Christian" it generally refers to one who professes and practices the teachings of Christ. When JW's use that term in a contemporary setting they mean JW's exclusively. This is especially so when the phrase "true Christian(s)" or "true Christianity" is used. Maybe you have your own personal favorites?
----
-WORDS-
by Frenchy 44 Replies latest jw friends
-
Frenchy
-
Frenchy
Taking SC at his word, his question was:
Do we as individuals have to belong to the Jehovah's Witness faith to gain salvation?
What does SC mean by the pronoun 'we'? Is it the people who have died before the Society came into existence? Is it those people that will never get a chance to hear the 'good news'? Is it those that are impaired in some way and thus not able to intellectually grasp the requirements of salvation? No to all the above. He means, by that expression, you and I, doesn't he? Do you and I, as individuals, have to belong to the Jehovah's Witness faith to gain salvation? Any and all references to anything other than that is obfuscation of the real question. What the Society teaches about people who have either died before being reached or are incapable of understanding is not germane to the question. They are completely irrelevant to the topic and therefore serve no purpose for the clarification of the issue but rather are a tool of the debater to take the heat off of the real question.
So, let's ask the question. Is it the Society's contention that, once the Great Tribulation has begun, one would have to be a member of that organization, i.e. a Jehovah's Witness, in order to survive it? I believe I have reproduced here such a statement from the Society. 89W, 9/1, p. 19Only Jehovah's Witnesses, those of the anointed remnant and the "great crowd," as a united organization under the protection of the Supreme Organizer, have any Scriptural hope of surviving the impending end of this doomed system dominated by Satan the Devil.
A reading of the entire article will show that this was not taken out of context.
As most of you know by now, this was in response to a direct question by Xandit: "How about one clear statement that says anyone who isn't a Witness (that as in card carrying publisher, etc.) won't survive Armageddon." Xandit got his 'one clear statement'. Did he deny that the Watchtower said so? No. Did he say that it was taken out of context? No. Did he, in anyway, elaborate on why this quotation did not satisfy his question? No. Has he presented any 'new light' that changes or modifies that statement made in 1989? No. Then why not acknowledge that this teaching is from the Society? The answer to that question is obvious, debate, not discussion was the intent of what I'm sure he now regrets ever asking.
Now, back to the question I posed about the Society's teaching on salvation as expressed in the second paragraph above. The following has been presented as an argument against what the Society has already been quoted as stating on the matter:Do they believe that they are the only ones who will be saved?
No. Many millions that have lived in centuries past and who were not Jehovah's Witnesses will come back in a resurrection and have an opportunity for life. Many now living may yet take a stand for truth and righteousness before the "great tribulation," and they will gain salvation. Moreover, Jesus said that we should not be judging one another. We look at the outward appearance; God looks at the heart. He sees accurately and judges mercifully. He has committed judgment into Jesus' hands, not ours.—Matthew 7:1-5; 24:21.—Questions Often Asked by Interested Persons , Jehovah's Witnesses in the Twentieth Century, 1989:29. Is it just me or do you see the dust being kicked up here in this excerpt? Who asked about the 'millions that have lived in...."? I didn't see that question, did you? How about that second sentence, does it really answer the question asked? On the contrary. Look carefully at the implications of that sentence. The key to understanding the 'language' that is being used here is in the phrase "Many...may yet take a stand for truth..." Whoa! We've run across that world before, 'truth'. What is the definition of 'truth'? In the WTS language 'the truth' is 'the Society'. ( see w79 7/1 "Who Really Have the Truth?) Looking closely at the remaining sentences do we see the question answered there? Personally, I see general statements that can be construed in different ways.
Now how does the km, which is not read by the general population, express the Society's view on salvation?km 4/97, p. 3 -One of the questions that he will be asked during the baptism ceremony is: "Do you understand that your dedication and baptism identify you as one of Jehovah's Witnesses in association with God's spirit-directed organization?" Hence, it is important that he realize he cannot serve God without actively associating with the true Christian congregation.
"...he cannot serve God without actively associating with the true Christian congregation." And where, pray tell, may we find this 'true Christian congregation?
W97 1/15 "What Does God Require of Us? --There is only one religious organization on this earth that has all these marks of true Christianity—Jehovah's Witnesses! ... We have been pulled from the dangerous "waters" of this wicked world into the "lifeboat" of Jehovah's earthly organization[/quote]
-
Frenchy
In the majority of the cases, however, the inferences are subtle, especially in the 'campaign literature'. But it's there. Looking back, now, how do we reconcile the quote in the JW brochure about "... we should not be judging one another... He has committed judgment into Jesus' hands, not ours" (this statement, you will recall, was in reply to the question: "Do they believe that they are the only ones who will be saved?") with the quote from the 97 Watchtower: "--There is only one religious organization on this earth that has all these marks of true Christianity- Jehovah's Witnesses! (italics theirs)"? How can the latter statement be made without a judgment?
In essence, my evaluation of how this question is being answered is: No, we are not saying that we are the only ones being saved, only that we are the only religion that is truly Christian. So, what is the person to think? You don't need to be a Christian to be saved? On the other hand Jesus said: "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14:6... The 79 Watchtower 7/1, p. 25 made this statement:all persons who have a love for the truth are invited to examine this claim that Jehovah's Witnesses really do have the truth
I think this is being done now in a way and on a scale never expected. Note the last two words: "the truth". Exclusivity.
-----
I look forward to your responses. -
Pathofthorns
September 1, 1989 Watchtower page 19,
“Only Jehovah's Witnesses, those of the anointed remnant and the "great crowd," as a united organization under the protection of the Supreme Organizer, have any Scriptural hope of surviving the impending end of this doomed system dominated by Satan the Devil.”
This is perhaps one of the most difficult statements any Witness could make at the door. I do know many who don't believe we teach the above, and I know many more who don't believe it.
One of the most troubling things for me, is what about the rest of the non-Christian world? How does God view them? Even in the Christian world where JW's call on homes frequently, how can God judge them on a message most people don't really understand?
-
Maxee
September 1, 1989 Watchtower page 19,
“Only Jehovah's Witnesses, those of the anointed remnant and the "great crowd," as a united organization under the protection of the Supreme Organizer, have any Scriptural hope of surviving the impending end of this doomed system dominated by Satan the Devil.”
Can you imagine Jesus saying that?
-
RedhorseWoman
Frenchy.....a big hug to the wondrous French Knight who has FINALLY put my feelings on current "debates" into words!! The frustration of seeing ideas altered and not being able to get back to the original point was beyond description.
September 1, 1989 Watchtower page 19,
“Only Jehovah's Witnesses, those of the anointed remnant and the "great crowd," as a united
organization under the protection of the Supreme Organizer, have any Scriptural hope of
surviving the impending end of this doomed system dominated by Satan the Devil.”This statement has caused me much intellectual and emotional pain through the years. I know that it says that, other than those who have died without benefit of hearing the "truth" and deciding what to do with it, only those who are comfortably ensconced within the JW ranks would have a chance of survival.
In my heart, however, I could never believe that Jehovah would use membership in an organization to determine a person's worthiness for everlasting life.
This has been a point I have never been able to reconcile within myself.
-
katchoo
This was one of the first doctrinal things I could not recincile in my mind.
good work, Frenchy.
BTW, I am new here, been lurking for a few days to see what the climate was around here. Hi everybody, I'm ready to join the discussion... :)
--B.
-
Friend
Re: Frenchy’s dissertation
Not that it matters, but I happen to agree with a goodly part of it. Nevertheless, there are some difficulties that are apparent. As follows:
Debating is merely the arguing of one's position, it's totally one way.
That statement assumes that the debate has no purpose. The purpose of debate is to analyze for sake of choice, an informed choice. Just because someone argues a position does not mean they are not listening to counter-argument. Indeed, honest debaters are more interested in improving their understanding of things via debate than they are in prevailing. I.e., they are more interested in accuracy then winning.
He means, by that expression, you and I, doesn't he? Do you and I, as individuals, have to belong to the Jehovah's Witness faith to gain salvation?…
Any and all references to anything other than that is obfuscation of the real question. What the Society teaches about people who have either died before being reached or are incapable of understanding is not germane to the question. They are completely irrelevant to the topic and therefore serve no purpose for the clarification of the issue but rather are a tool of the debater to take the heat off of the real question.
I agree with the above entirely, yet the following citation—which has been totally dismissed by Frenchy—does offer more than the above. Let’s see how Frenchy blows off the germane comments therein. The citation:
Do they believe that they are the only ones who will be saved?
No. (1)Many millions that have lived in centuries past and who were not Jehovah’s Witnesses will come back in a resurrection and have an opportunity for life. (2)Many now living may yet take a stand for truth and righteousness before the "great tribulation," and they will gain salvation. (3)Moreover, Jesus said that we should not be judging one another. We look at the outward appearance; God looks at the heart. He sees accurately and judges mercifully. He has committed judgment into Jesus’ hands, not ours.—Matthew 7:1-5; 24:21.—Questions Often Asked by Interested Persons, Jehovah’s Witnesses in the Twentieth Century, 1989:29. [Parenthetical numbers added]Note that Frenchy said very little about the number three (3) response contained above. Regarding those final four (4) sentences Frenchy said,
Looking closely at the remaining sentences do we see the question answered there? Personally, I see general statements that can be construed in different ways.
WOW! Remember SC’s question. As Frenchy put it, "Do you and I, as individuals, have to belong to the Jehovah's Witness faith to gain salvation?" Since the question involves you and I, as individuals, then why did Frenchy blow off the very comments that dealt with that question? I have no clue. I can only see that he dismissed it, apparently because dealing with it would wreck his otherwise nice little flow. Details tend to do that when they disagree with some preconceived notion.
As for those final sentences, they explain just what has been postulated all along, that though Jehovah’s Witnesses teach that they have the true religion and that association with it is critical to insure salvation they still yield that God does the judging, which means they cannot say that they will be the only ones saved. What is so hard about that to understand? It is what every one of Jehovah’s Witnesses teaches practically everyday.
Frenchy, whether you respond to me directly or not, that is the teaching that you must address. All the other stuff you harped on about "people who have either died before being reached or are incapable of understanding" is a no less than a red herring. No one here has argued the point based upon those ideas. You are the only one bringing them up, and by your own admission they have nothing whatsoever to do with answering the question at hand—which is perhaps why no one else has argued based upon them. Again, the real answer to SC’s question is found in the final four (4) sentences cited above, the sentences you just dismissed outright. Those are the words wherein SC’s answer is found. They are plain spoken and unequivocal; they have no double meanings.
At this point I will repost something that I now think was place on a defunct thread. I think it speaks volumes.
The Tale of Two Statements
Does the following two statements represent a dichotomy or not?
"Does that mean then that because they are 'rare' we are to pretend that they don't exist? "Abtain from blood" is a rare statement in the Greek Scriptures. Is it ignored? Nope. Does the Society feel that just 'seining' this out of the 'vast body of material' is insufficient to make it a doctrine? Is it discounted just because it's 'rare'? How about the phrase "faithful and discreet slave"? Another 'rare' jewel 'seined' out of the 'vast body of material' that appears thousands of times in what has become the Society's 'vast body of material'."
"For every sentence even mildly suggesting that we do not hold the view that we are the only ones that are going to make it, there are volumes of statements telling us just the opposite. Those few statements suggesting that we don't have that view are strictly for PR reasons and for ammunition (though it's very weak) to argue with those who point that out."
Assuming the instances are rare where the Society indicates that Jehovah’s Witnesses are not the only ones who will be saved, I propose the following question:
Does that mean then that because they are 'rare' we are to pretend that they don't exist?
Pretending such statements do not exist by dismissing their merit outright is exactly the problem with some of the conclusions on this and other threads. In so doing sometimes direct statements are totally dismissed. If we look carefully at those dismissals we will often find that they are based upon a preconceived conclusion, which would make them circular.
Friend
Edited by - Friend on 11 June 2000 19:21:8
-
waiting
Dear Friend and Frenchy,
Deep thoughts, thank you both.
"I do not want to be one on Jehovah's Witnesses anymore - I do not agree with the Governing Body's teachings. I want to exercise my freedom of speech and tell others my conclusions based upon my personal study of the Bible. I am not lying, cheating, stealing, committing fornication, etc. I love God and Jesus."
If Armageddon arrives next week and I still feel in my heart this way, according to the Bible, will God kill me? According to the WTBTS's published teachings, implied wording or direct, will God kill me?
For 30 years as a dedicated servant of Jehovah, I have been taught, whether implied or implicite, God will kill me. That is one reason we try so hard to keep our children in The Truth. We don't want God to kill them. This statement is made from a mother's heart - not a debate forum.
Thanks, Frenchy, a good post.
Dear Friend,
I know we are taught that God is the final judge, but around here, the spin has always been as follows: "When you get in the new system after Armageddon, and look around - you might see brother so-and-so. You look surprised and say, 'well, I sure didn't think HE would make it!' But then that brother has the same surprised look on his face when seeing YOU for the first time.' Jehovah is the final judge."
We have, at least the times I've heard it, applied that scripture of Paul's about running the race to the finish so that we might not somehow be found lacking to ourselves. And if God found us lacking, even if we were Jehovah's Witnesses, God would kill us.
I've never heard comment #3 you quoted above referred to worldly people. After all, "Jesus was saying that we should not be judging one another."
That sentence does not refer to worldly persons. That sentence does refer to Christians and that Christians were not to judge each other.
As for the question about millions of dead persons, you were the first one to bring forth that quote, not Frenchy. I remember because, like you said, it's a red herring.
waiting
-
Scorpion
Good post Frenchy. You are truly a thinking man that says things in a way as to not confuse the issue at hand with rhetoric.