Beards and Circumcision: turning their argument around

by neat blue dog 31 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  neat blue dog

  One argument against beards I've heard multiple times, both from individual JWs and from the platform is roughly:

  'Timothy got circumcised so as not to stumble others! Shouldn't you be thankful you don't have to do that? Shaving is much easier!'

  Putting aside the fact that it has nothing to do with something being 'easy' or 'difficult', and everything to do with the principles involved, let's take them up on this comparison:

  Timothy was circumcised specifically to not offend the non-Christians he was going to be preaching to. There is no place in the civilized world that I am aware of that looks down on well groomed beards, so therefore there would be no reason to shave for the sake of preaching to others, seeing as many respectable people from all over the world have them: doctors, lawyers, police officers, fathers, grandfathers, clergy, etc. This alone renders the comparison irrelevant.

  But couldn't the same principle apply to the congregation, who are offended by beards? Let's see the very different way circumcision was viewed when imposed by FELLOW Christians, in Galatians:

  not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:and that because of the false brethren privily brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage: to whom we gave place in the way of subjection, no, not for an hour . . .

  
  All those who want to make a good impression in the flesh are the ones who try to compel you to get circumcised, doing so only to avoid being persecuted . . .

  
  they want you to be circumcised so that they may have cause for boasting about your flesh. . .

  
  For neither is circumcision anything nor is uncircumcision

  
  The phrase "stumbled" is all too often misunderstood by JWs to mean 'offended', but it actually refers to being stumbled away from Christ. If the offendee still claims to be a Christian, then they're just attempting to impose their own conscience on others, a conscience which itself has already been imposed on by a high-control group.
• 

  AverageJoe1

  Here here. Totally agree. Once again the Governing Body show themselves to be the self-righteous hypocrites that they are and also liars: there is NO culture in the world who would be offended by a Jehovah’s Witness having a beard (except for American JWs themselves).

  For those JWs in Bethel tasked with reading forums like these, pass this along to your double-faced bosses: their lack of balls to come out and ban it directly shows them up to be the Pharisees that they really are.

  I would so love a reporter to ask a branch rep why they aren’t allowed to have beards and have privileges in the congregation. Then when they dismiss that as apostate lies, ask them to show ONE brother, yes just ONE JW with a beard appearing on the JW Broadcasting! Case closed. It’s a cult!
• 

  Betheliesalot

  I don't think anybody has ever stumbled over circumsision unless it is dragging on the floor.
• 

  neat blue dog

  Betheliesalot:

  Lol, mental picture 😂

  I guess the same goes for beards
• 

  neat blue dog

  One apologetic phrase I've heard regurgitated among American JWs is:

  'Over here beards aren't the custom.'

  That makes zero sense, seeing as there IS NO cultural 'custom' regarding beards in America . . . Some people have them, some don't. Now on the other hand, JWs definitely DO have a long-standing custom, 'tradition of men' if you will, against the wearing of beards.
• 

  AverageJoe1

  JWs are the only idiots on the planet who view beards as a sign of being a bad Christian!
• 

  steve2

  JW convention videos show young JWs calling to mind old prophets from the Hebrew Scriptures complete with full facial beards. Role models is all but dress and grooming.
  
• 

  neat blue dog

  It's funny though, while beards (anything on the chin basically) are off limits, JWs will sometimes see how far they can go with 'mustaches' that are so close to being beards, and/or 'sideburns' that do the same.
  
• 

  neat blue dog

  So by JW theology this is technically allowable 😜

  
  
• 

  TD

  'Over here beards aren't the custom.'

  That was certainly true back in the 60's when beards were associated with counter-culture.

  But when roughly half the adult male population in the U.S. has facial hair other than a moustache, I think the argument could easily be turned back on the one making it.