I?ve noticed some contradictions, inconsistencies, and back-tracking by e-watchman lately. Examples below. There are some others I have spotted but for the sake of brevity will put them up later:
BLOOD
From Mail of October 12 th
"Ultimately, everything is a matter of conscience, in that we will all have to stand before the Judgment seat of God to answer for ourselves. However, some things are clearly wrong and the Christian Scriptures authorize congregation elders to judge specific offenders. Paul lists them as follows: "But now I am writing you to quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother that is a fornicator or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man. For what do I have to do with judging those outside? Do you not judge those inside, while God judges those outside? "Remove the wicked man from among yourselves."
While Paul specifically noted that unrepentant fornicators and idolaters ought to be removed from the congregation, taking some form of transfusion does not seem to fall into any of those categories
?even though it, too, was listed as one of the necessary things that Christians should abstain from in Acts. So, perhaps when it is all said and done, Jehovah may indeed judge some individuals for having misused blood, but perhaps the organization might also be rebuked by Jehovah for going "beyond the things written" in Scripture by treating blood issues as a congregational judicial matter. It is something to think about."
But hold on here! He is saying that blood abstinence is definitely one of the ?necessary things? that JW?s must avoid, but that it does not fall under the list of ?some things that are clearly wong? that Paul enumerated as quoted, and he says that the Organisation may be judged for disfellowshipping such ones and going ?beyond the things written?. BUT if abstaining from blood is a necessary thing, and Jehovah will judge people for ?having misused blood? why is the Society wrong to discipline such ones? This seems rather contradictory to me.
From latest commentary (Dec 03):
"Our view is that blood and its main components should not be infused under any circumstances. But, we do allow for the conscience of each individual to determine matters in regards to medical procedures that may use so-called blood derivatives of these components. In essence, our approach already embodies the exception that Jehovah made in the Law."
Notice how he says ?Our? and ?we? as if he is speaking as a personal representative of the Watchtower Society itself, or as some sort of spokesperson for all JW?s? I find this rather odd and presumptous. Also notice how this seems to contradict his earlier comment about blood being a conscience matter that no one should really be disfellowshipped for. Now he is saying it should not be taken ?under any circumstances? and that the only allowance for conscience is in relation to ?so-called blood derivatives of these components?.
Yet notice what he said in his Sept 21 Mailbag about blood transfusions when asked about what changes he would immediately make in the organisation if he could:
"Make blood transfusions a matter of conscience, if we haven't already."
If blood should be a conscience thing, as he says above, then why does he now say that it ?should not be infused under any circumstances"??? A big contradiction?
Is e-watchman back-tracking? Is he now becoming nothing more than a JW apologist.
APOSTLES & GOVERNING BODY COMPARISONS
From Sep 7 th mailbag:
"But, today it is not so clear-cut just what constitutes "abstaining from blood." New products and technologies involving blood, blood fractions, and miniscule derivatives of blood, are constantly being developed. As a consequence of the ever-changing challenges presented to us, it has been necessary for the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses to make similar apostolic-like rulings on the issue. The bottom line, though, as they say in accounting, is that, individually, we will each have an accounting with God. So, each of us are responsible before God to educate ourselves on the issues and do what our conscience then dictates to be the right thing in the sight of God."
Yet from the same mailbag a few questions down:
"You are mistaken. The Watchtower does not claim to have received any such grant of authority by means of apostolic succession."
So he is comparing the Governing Body?s decrees and rulings as being apostolic, but in the next breath refutes any sort of link with the apostles.
MEETINGS
From August 31 commentary (Out with the Old, in with the New):
"Out with boring meetings, where Jehovah's command is taught to us like a child's repetitive nursery rhyme: "command upon command, command upon command, measuring line upon measuring line, measuring line upon measuring line, here a little, there a little." (Isaiah 28:13)"
BUT in today?s mailbag (Dec 03):
"However, there is a principle that might apply in our case. Paul also wrote to the Hebrews, saying: "Be obedient to those who are taking the lead among you and be submissive, for they are keeping watch over your souls as those who will render an account; that they may do this with joy and not with sighing, for this would be damaging to you."
Since those taking the lead among us follow the five meetings per week program, it stands to reason that those following their lead would do the same. It is interesting that the reason given for Christians to meet together in the first place is "to consider one another to incite to love and fine works...encouraging one another, and all the more so as you behold the day drawing near." Conversely, Paul noted that our not following the lead of the shepherds would be discouraging to them and ultimately spiritually damaging to ourselves. The bottom line is that love of God and love of our brothers and sisters has to be the motivation for everything we do or else it is all for naught anyway."
So in the August commentary he denounces the meetings as being ?boring? and repetitive, and even quotes a scripture as if it is a direct prophecy about our meetings, but now he is defending the meetings and saying we should slavishly keep attending them all out of obedience to Organisational leaders who he has slammed big time as being corrupt and bringing enormous reproach on Jah?s name!
AND recall what he said in the mailbag of Sep 21:
"Maybe cut down the 5 hours of meetings per week to about 2-3 hours. Get rid of the book study altogether and reformat all meeting programs in order to liven things up a bit."
A classic example of double talk if I?ve ever seen one.