Is there such a thing as true religion?

by Half banana 32 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  redvip2000

  @ Redvip, I guess they would but how far would they go?
  In the early annals of Christianity in the fourth century, it was seen as both a wonder and a madness that Christians appeared to harbour a death wish by happily allowing themselves to be killed

  Ok yes, this is a good point, though if i was discussing this with a JW I would ask if someone was breaking in to their house to kill their family if they would defend themselves with anything available like a knife or a stick. Assuming they would answer they would actively defend themselves then how could you not reasonable agree with doing this same thing on a larger scale?
• 

  blondie

  Here is a statement by the WTS about self-defense. This from the for-the-public Awake magazine.

  2010

  https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102010324#h=12:0-17:455
  

  Turning the other cheek does not mean that a Christian would not defend himself against violent assailants. Jesus was not saying that we should never defend ourselves but, rather, that we should never strike offensively, that we should not allow ourselves to be provoked to take revenge. While it is wise to retreat whenever possible in order to avoid a fight, it is proper to take steps to protect ourselves and to seek the help of the police if we are a victim of a crime.

  Another from 2008:

  Also from an Awake:

  https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102008204#h=1:0-20:90
  

  However, if an intruder was fatally struck at night, the householder could be exonerated because it would be difficult for him to see what the intruder was doing and to ascertain the intentions of the intruder. The householder could reasonably conclude that his family was under threat of harm and take defensive action.​—Exodus 22:2, 3.

  The Bible thus indicates that a person may defend himself or his family if physically assaulted. He may ward off blows, restrain the attacker, or even strike a blow to stun or incapacitate him. The intention would be to neutralize the aggression or stop the attack. This being the case, if the aggressor was seriously harmed or killed in such a situation, his death would be accidental and not deliberate.

  Another Awake from 1991:

  https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/101991486#h=2:0-21:122
• 

  redvip2000

  Turning the other cheek does not mean that a Christian would not defend himself against violent assailants. Jesus was not saying that we should never defend ourselves but, rather, that we should never strike offensively, that we should not allow ourselves to be provoked to take revenge. While it is wise to retreat whenever possible in order to avoid a fight, it is proper to take steps to protect ourselves and to seek the help of the police if we are a victim of a crime.

  Sure, and going by this reasoning, we can say that a larger scale, if a village is attacked, they should be able to defend themselves, or if a country is attacked they should be able to defend themselves too. The issue then, is that unlike a family, large amounts of people need some organized way to defend themselves, and thus the need for what we call an army.

  So the Washtowell shouldn't demonize joining an army, but instead focusing on whether the actions of armies are justified or not.
  
  
• 

  Half banana

  @ smashlee, good to read the full Marx quote. Thank you for the contribution.
• 

  Vidiot

  @ blondie...

  Frankly, I'm a bit surprised that the WTS was willing to make all those concessions regarding self defense.

  I'd have thought rank-and-filers being set up as perpetual victims would have more easily reinforced the JW worldview and therefore been more useful to the bOrg.

  That was certainly their MO in Rutherford's day.
• 

  blondie

  Remember, Vidiot, these articles were made in the Awake, a not-for-the-public WTS publication. I found nothing in any WTs or KMs repeating the same info found in the Awake. I call that the lie of omission. Like the definitions of disfellowshipping and disassociating. WTS changed the punishment for taking a blood transfusion from a df'ing offense to a da offense, saying that it was the individual's choice to take themselves outside the WT organization. I can find nothing even now saying taking a blood transfusion is disassociating yourself from the WTS (declaring that you have left the religion and do not ascribe to their teachings). It could be in the elders manual though, I will check unless someone comes with a quote first.

  June 14, 2000 BBC News

  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/790967.stm

  But if this looks like a major climbdown, a spokesman for the organisation - also called Watch Tower - insisted it was merely a procedural change.

  He said not taking blood remains a biblical injunction and a core tenet of the faith.

  If a member has a transfusion, they will, by their actions disassociate themselves from the religion. The ruling emphasises personal choice, he said.
• 

  Phizzy

  "Is there such a thing as true Religion ? " NO !

  Unless you have a very weird definition of the word "Truth". Which of course JW's , Mormons and other minor Cults do.

  But really, for something to be considered true, it needs to agree with the Facts and the Evidence.

  NO RELIGION DOES THIS ! Why ? because all religions, and mere beliefs, come from the imagination of men.
• 

  Half banana

  Yes Phizzy and here is the problem: it is so respectable to base your life on irrational religious beliefs--but stupid.

  In no field of human endeavour , outside of faith systems, does religious dogma play any part, it is a historical relic and should only be seen in museums.
• 

  flipper

  No. Peace out, Mr. Flipper
• 

  LV101

  Interesting -- never knew the Awake was a club-only publication. I never heard that before.