Freedom of Thought and JW Opposers

by dunsscot 137 Replies latest jw friends

  • dunsscot
    dunsscot

    Dear Thinker,

    1) I'll have to get back to you on the Bulgaria case. One must take the context into consideration, and it would take me a couple of days to do so.

    2) Concerning religious sanctions and blood transfusions: This statement may well be true within certain parameters. Maybe one who chooses a certain course that seems to violate a principled directive of God removes his/herself from God's congregation (ecclesia): There is thus no need for the body of Christ to administer any sanctions. I can therefore see your problem with this statement. But remember that the one who uttered it may justify such language in the way that I stated in this paragraph. While I do not think the statement is a formal lie, it may be disappointingly and intentionally ambiguous. Furthermore, we may need to emphasize more intensely, the "conscience" aspect of a conscience decision.

    Concerning the WT quotes you provided: I do not think the statements made in the WT were untruthful. Maybe they were mistaken, spoken in the wrong "moment" of doctrinal development (Hegel delineates three "moments" in his Philosophy of Mind) or articulated too hastily. But if you look back at Christian history, you will find that the ante-Nicene fathers erred in the same way. So did the Reformers as well as Pope Gregory the Great. Even Israel did not always speak what is truth as a nation. What is more, individuals like King David engaged in adultery and murder, then practiced deception after performing such unspeakable activities. I do not think that such actions made these men "false" or inauthentic representatives of God. Neither do I think that seemingly contradictory statements make the WT a false prophet.

    Sincerely,
    Dan

    Duns the Scot

  • dunsscot
    dunsscot

    I'll respond to AlanF's last post tomorrow.

    Ciao

    Duns the Scot

  • julien
    julien
    I'll respond to AlanF's last post tomorrow.

    No doubt you will merely address his (IMO justified) critique of your obfuscated style. The viewers would all much prefer to see you respond to the points in Alan's first post.

  • julien
    julien
    Maybe one who chooses a certain course that seems to violate a principled directive of God removes his/herself from God's congregation (ecclesia): There is thus no need for the body of Christ to administer any sanctions

    Hmm, it's rather curious why this only applies to blood transfusions. If you follow this logic then any disfellowshipping offense should give you an automatic disassociation, no committee needed. Since it is inconsistantly applied, the explanation given rings false. Just like the BS explanation of the when the donation arrangement came into effect.. "It is to simplify our work.. (but only in some countries where we are subject to being taxed on book sales)"

  • Eusebius Hieronymus
    Eusebius Hieronymus

    <Should taking blood thus be a matter of conscience? I personally think it should. And by this statement, I do not mean that we should consider those who take blood transfusions to be our former brothers, who have shown they did not want the truth. A matter of conscience should be a matter of conscience.

    <On the other hand, there are those who, after weighing the scriptural and medical evidence (either in a perfunctory in-depth manner), decide to abstain from blood transfusions. They also make this decision for their offspring and thus allow situations tat MAY involve the death of their very dear beloved children. They act in this way--suspending what to many might seem ethical--for a higher telos. They believe that they hear the voice of God (bath qol) in Scripture and through God's congregation, and they act accordingly. I cannot fault such individuals who take this course. In a way, they are akin to father Abraham.>

    I am in agreement, good Doctor Subtilis. Your points are made very well. My long-time personal experience as an elder, however, suggests that the majority of JWs do not weigh these matters at all, preferring to listen to what I believe you have termed 'law emanating from' a specific group of individuals who themselves are in disagreement on this dogma. That is to say, they prefer to ask, "How does the Society [obviously not a corporation] feel about this?"

    When the Society first published information in QFR form regarding the acceptability of the blood fraction gamma globulin, it was categorized as "in the field of conscience." When asked whether it was "right" to have an injection in the ER after a spider bite, many of us painstakingly discussed the need for developing the conscience so that it could flourish and act. For naught, because the repeated reply was almost invariably, "Yes, yes, I understand; but what does THE SOCIETY think about it?" I need not further burden this point.

    In your opinion, what should a person do who has conscientiously examined Scripture, hears God's voice, and comes to the conclusion that "abstain ... from blood" has no application to the infusion of, say, packed red cells?

    "Each of us will be accountable to God," says the inspired writer of Romans 14:12. If I follow an edict, policy or doctrine because an ecclesiastical body tells me I must (because I want to continue in its fellowship), I do not act from faith. Is that not sin for me? "Whatever does not proceed from faith is sin."--Rom. 14:23, NRSV.

    For those to whom the historical Duns Scotus is unknown, a word or two.

    Scotus changed his doctrine in the course of time, or at least he was not uniformly precise in expressing his thought; "now he follows rather the 'sententia communis,' then again he goes his own way."

    Of him it is said: "In the heat of controversy he often uses expressions which seem to go to extremes and even to contain heresy. His language is frequently obscure; a maze of terms, definitions, distinctions, and objections through which it is by no means easy to thread one's way."

    I think I understand your approach. Am I reading this correctly?

    Jerry

  • thinker
    thinker

    Duns,
    Please reexamine the WT quotes I provided. I did not make any claim concerning the truthfulness of the statements.
    What these quotes DO show is that the WT CHANGED the words from the monthly magizines when they made the bound volumes and CDs.
    WHY? These were direct quotes from someone outside the organization!

    w89 1/1 12 "The Hand of Jehovah Was With Them" ***
    [as originally published in Watchtower magazine]

    "The apostle Paul was spearheading the Christian missionary activity. He was also laying a foundation for a work that would be completed in our 20th century."
    w89 1/1 12 "The Hand of Jehovah Was With Them" ***

    [as it appears on Watchtower bound volumes & CD-ROMs]
    "The apostle Paul was spearheading the Christian missionary activity. He was also laying a foundation for a work that would be completed in our day."

    (and)

    tr (Truth book) pg.9 1 Grand Blessings from God Near at Hand! ***
    [as published prior to 1975]
    Also, as reported back in 1960, a former United States Secretary of State, Dean Acheson, declared that our time is "a period of unequaled instability, unequaled violence." And he warned: "I know enough of what is going on to assure you that, in fifteen years from today, this world is going to be too dangerous to live in."
    tr (Truth book) pg.9 1 Grand Blessings from God Near at Hand! ***
    [as published after to 1975]
    Also, as reported back in 1960, a former United States Secretary of State, Dean Acheson, declared that our time is "a period of unequaled instability, unequaled violence." Based on what he knew was then going on in the world, it was his conclusion that soon "this world is going to be too dangerous to live in."

    What it really comes down to is this:
    I can disagree with active JWs, yet I still respect them for standing up for their beliefs. I would have more respect for the WT Oganization IF:
    1)IF they had stood by their principles and told the truth in their case against Bulgaria.
    2)IF they had not tried to cover-up their errors ands mistakes in the WTs I quoted.
    3) IF they had organized in Mexico as a RELIGIOUS organization rather than a CULTURAL organization.(a business decision)
    4) IF they told the truth about why WT literature no longer sold, but donations are asked for.(a business decision)

    During the history of the organization, the WT has shown a willingness to abandon Christian principles in order to expand the BUSINESS of it's "religion" and to present a good image to it's members and the general public; no matter how false that image may be. I cannot respect the actions of such an organization. Nor do I see them as christ-like. I DO respect the actions of indivdual JWs. I have no doubt there are many true christians amoung the JWs; what a shame their religion is more concerned with image and a successful business than the "truths" they claim to represent!

  • CPiolo
    CPiolo

    Dunsscot:

    You do have a gift for obfuscation.

    I'm glad you attempted to answer Farkel's questions, although by now many will have forgotten them. Perhaps in the future you could quote the question being answered, especially when it's so far up the thread and a day old. Farkel's post is here: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?site=3&id=8125&page=1, down the page a bit.

    1) God evidently has a universal organization and an earthly one. When I speak of "God's Organization," I am referring to God's earthly organization composed of the remaining ones of the heavenly woman's seed and those who loyally associate with this remnant.

    By what empirical evidence is there to show that God has either a universal or and earthly organization? On what Biblical evidence do you base this? Who is this "heavenly woman," who are the remnant of her seed, and who are those who assiociate with this remnant? On what do you base your answer (again empirically)?

    2) In His holy Word, God Himself tells us that when we bless His worshipers, we are in effect blessing Him. Conversely, cursing God's servants is akin to "cursing" Him. So leaving God's organization is comparable to apostatizing from Him. The NT never promotes the notion of "Lone Ranger" Christians.

    Besides begging the question, you've made a couple of logical errors here. You've of course still have to prove God has an organization and that the WT is that organization.

    It does not follow that cursing God's servants is akin to cursing God. If I curse you, I am not necessarily cursing your entire family, you entire city, your entire race, religion, nation, etc. This, of course, depends on the curse.

    You have to prove first that by leaving the WT you are cursing, first God's worshippers, second his organization, and thirdly God. You've also equated cursing with apostacizing. In other words your equating apples and oranges. I can say all kinds of bad things about (cursing) God without rejecting God (apostacy) and without stopping my worship of Him. There are many examples of peoples who worship and curse mean, angry gods.

    The NT does not promote the notion of a Christian corporate entity, Christian door-to-door magazine salemen, counted hours and time slips, five weekly meetings, assemblies, conventions, no beards for men, dress length for women, etc., etc., etc.

    Lastly, you failed to address Farkel's questions:

    What, exactly is "God's Organization?" Please be specific. There will be a quiz. And by implication you have stated that leaving "God's Organization(tm)" is the same a leaving "Jehovah God Himself." Please show evidence for that assertion.

    4) You also asked me to prove that "so-called 'vile utterances'" even "bother a God "so far removed from us all that is pathetic." Well, what kind of "proof" would satisfy your mind. What type of argument would seem "cogent" to you? In many (if not all) cases, "proof" is person-relative.

    I believe we'd all like to see a logical argument built with empirical evidence to back it up.

    Looking forward to your response to Alan,

    CPiolo

    The worst vice of the fanatic is his sincerity. -- Oscar Wilde

  • Faraon
    Faraon

    Dunsscot,

    am not trying to impress anyone on this forum. To the contrary, I am aware of my manifest ignorance. Why, I cannot even spark ideas in one of my fellow rational agents: I am only a midwife who tries to assist other subjects to produce ideas with their own cognitive powers while I stand by helping in any way that I can.


    Do you talk this way to the dubs in the Kingdoom Hell or in the street during field service?
    If you are aware of your manifest ignorance, why do you then try to assist other subjects to produce ideas? Is it because you want them to become manifestly ignorant like you?
    If you cannot even spark ideas in one of your fellow rational agents, it may be because s/he is rational. Try doing it to an irrational agent.

    In short, I am simply being myself and staying true to the name I have lifted from the stalwart metaphysical champion of the Middle Ages, namely, Dr. Duns (the subtle doctor).


    Shame on you. Does your mommy organization know that your hero delves in metaphysics?

    God evidently has a universal organization and an earthly one. When I speak of "God's Organization," I am referring to God's earthly organization composed of the remaining ones of the heavenly woman's seed and those who loyally associate with this remnant.


    Where is this evidence?
    If this god has a universal organization and an earthly one, does it mean that they are separate organizations and the earthly organization does not belong to the universal organization?

    Which god? Jupiter, Tlaloc, Ra, Thor, Yaweh, Jesús, Venus, Huitzilopochtli?

    If this heavenly woman produced a seed: Is the seed in heaven, or on Earth? If in heaven; is this the same heaven that, according to the bible, the gods created between the two layers of water around the earth? The bible claims that his heaven is located between the lower layer and the top layer and that it contains all the stars?

    In His holy Word, God Himself tells us that when we bless His worshipers, we are in effect blessing Him. Conversely, cursing God's servants is akin to "cursing" Him. So leaving God's organization is comparable to apostatizing from Him. The NT never promotes the notion of "Lone Ranger" Christians.

    Good point. That proves that the JWs are cursed, since they call all kinds of names to people not in their kult but who still worship the same god as JWs.
    I am a true apostate. I don’t believe in the god of the bible, but there are others who still follow the teachings of the apostles after leaving the Borg. By definition, they are not apostates. They still worship Jehovah, and yet are humiliated and their families broken for not following immediately all the teachings of the two-thirds majority of the GB.
    The “Lone Ranger” was not alone. He had a Native American companion. The Watchtower itself is a “Lone Ranger” it has no companion. It has seceded from Christianity.
    Prove to me that “God’s Organization” is anywhere close to the WTS. You may do it awake or on your sleep.
    I think that clear biblical teachings should be "enforced," as you say. But we must also allow room for the "fact" that certain forms of conduct that are evidently undesirable from God's standpoint, are not explicitly disallowed in Scripture. For example, I do not believe that Christians should smoke cigarettes. There seem to be a number of Bible principles that indicate true Christians should refrain from this practice. I am also of the mindset that the Christian ecclesia should discipline toward who smoke. Hopefully, this information will clear up any confusion.

    There was a letter circulated about this subject a while ago.
    Yaweh made it explicitly clear that someone working on a Saturday must be murdered. This is a biblical teaching. By this law, most JWs must be murdered since they preach on Saturdays and this is considered work. If this was a law made by a just god and not a murdering nut, How come Jesus changed it?
    What makes the Witchtower a cult is that they want to regulate all aspects of your life Jessie did not impose so many regulations. He did not say to have 5 meetings per week, to freeze your buns selling materials, to beat up your child because she is not still during those meetings, to reject all those who rejected him. As a matter of fact: He talked obscurely on purpose, like you, so that people would not understand him.
    On matters involving life and death, I can only say that God does not allow any evil occurrence that cannot be rectified in God's own due time. We have the hope of the resurrection. Furthermore, those leading God's flock will render an account to Him.

    You mean to tell me he is going to resurrect all those murdered for working on a Saturday? Ooops! No wait a minute. It cannot be an act of evil to murder someone for working overtime on a Saturday because J ordered it. But then Jesus said it was OK, as a matter of fact, He worked on Saturdays too, and Said that J was wrong: that people could work on a Saturday. Maybe we should write to have this published for Questions for the Readers. Do you think that the WT wants to lose all this book/magazine money and say that Jehovah was right and Jesus was wrong?
    Not only those leading the flocks will render an account to god, but those who propagate the wrong doctrine. Jesús did not say that it would be better for only the leaders of the Pharisees to tie a stone to their necks and jump in the water.
    One more note on doctrine in the process of development. While I think it is a mistake to enforce a provisional UNDERSTANDING of Scripture, there are times when we must act in accordance with the Zeitgeist that obtains. God will show mercy where mercy is proper; but He will show severity (I believe) where the evidence indicates that an overseer has acted abusively.

    Zeitgeist \Zeit"geist`\, n. [G.; zeit time + geist spirit. See Tide, n.; Ghost, n.] The spirit of the time; the general intellectual and moral state or temper characteristic of any period of time.

    Sorry, this was the only dictionary entry that I found. I cannot understand how we must act in accordance with the general intellectual and moral state or temper characteristic of any period of time that obtains. Obtains what?

    Sorry too tired to keep going.
    May you receive blessings from Tlaloc, Aztec God.

    JRP
    If I wanted your opinion, I would beat it out of you (seen in a bumper sticker)

  • dunsscot
    dunsscot

    Dear folks,

    I'm dun posting for tonight, but I have a question. I have tried to cut and paste to this board, but to no avail. What I mean is that I've tried to copy and paste quotes from others, but nothing appears in the message box. What am I doing wrong? Its a pain trying to reply when you cannot paste the material of your interlocutor. This is the reason I did not paste Farkel's quotes, but had to work from a file on my computer.

    Thanks,
    Dan

    Duns the Scot

  • Faraon
    Faraon

    Try copying and pasting their work first into a word processor. You can also type your thoughts into it.
    When you are finished with your work you can copy the whole thing and paste it in the message window.

    Jeez, the things I do for freedom of speech.

    JRP
    If I wanted your opinion, I would beat it out of you (seen in a bumper sticker)

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit