Jehovah's Court case -- Witnesses are killed who don't testify.

garybuss

Jehovah's Court case -- Witnesses are killed who don't testify.
The Jehovah's Witnesses's founder was an attorney called "Judge" Rutherford. He saw everything, even religion, as a legal case. Rutherford laid it all out. There's a giant, universal court case, Jehovah on one side and Satan on the other side. The planet earth is the court room and the followers of the Society are witnesses for Jehovah, thus . . . Jehovah's witnesses. Everyone else is a witness for Satan.
Rutherford presented the case and then he presided over his own case as Judge. He ruled on summary judgement in two books, Millions Now Living Will Never Die, and The Harp of God. Those two books were his Summary Judgement thesis. The Harp of God in chapter three titled, Justice Manifest, laid out the rules for the trial and presented definitions. The end of the Harp book lays out restitution, or what if would take to make the plaintiff whole. The section is titled, "Restoration".
Rutherford presented the plaintiff's case AND he served as Judge. That role was reflected in his title "Judge" Rutherford.
The meetings and assemblies are formatted like a court trial, but only one side gets to present it's case. Witnesses are called, evidence is presented, and testimony is heard. Then every day a speaker gives a talk, or closing argument, where a summary of the case is given, a spin is put on everything, speculation is presented as fact, and the jury (the audience) is brought to the desired conclusion.
The difference, in a real trial, is the jury gets to hear both sides of the case. The Witness people are told not to even listen to the other side of the issue but they must still reach an objective conclusion.
It's a little hard for me to reach an objective conclusion by only studying one side of a case. That's a fact that was understood and appreciated by Rutherford and all his successors.
All books and literature presented after Millions Now Living Will Never Die, and The Harp of God is in support of the thesis laid out in those two books. It's a universal conspiracy theory with the Jehovah's Witnesses as the only advocates and the only witnesses for Jehovah. The conspiracy theory includes the argument that IF Jehovah doesn't like the way his witnesses are witnessing for him, HIS witnesses will be murdered by HIM when he murders all the witnesses for the defendant, Satan. If a witness for Jehovah, doesn't come to court anymore and quits witnessing for him, those witnesses will be murdered by Jehovah as well.
This religion is nothing but an insane attorney's delusions, presented as fact without ANY proof. The delusion is required for acceptance by us to have social contact with our parents and our sons and daughters.

Panda

Hey GB really good thoughts. And as always you give a rational argument. I was just thinking ;while reading your post that religions are started by the strangest people for the oddest (if decernible) theses. Judge Rutherford as a lawyer lays out a ficticious court case; LR Hubbard as a sci-fi author tells an alien/human story to prove his ideas of good and evil. Mohammed decided that Christianity and Buddhism were way too cosmopolitan for nomad arabs; so he had a revelation. Jesus never really started a religion (my opinion). Moses was a character of fiction copied from older Babylonian and Egyptian myths in order to give history to a people w/o such. All of these religions seem begun for selfish rather than selfless reasons.

MerryMagdalene

Thanks, Gary. Very interesting perspective. Only there aren't really any jurors, are there? And the witnesses have witnessed what exactly? Only what da Judge has told them they have witnessed. Everything else is dismissed. Crazy.

~Merry

Forscher

Not a bad synopsis Gary. I don't think that many realize that the judge remolded things from a lawyer's perspective with a Calvinist flavor (remember he'd been a Baptist and brought it's Calvivnist's underpinnings into the organization's theological outlook).

garybuss

Panda, you wrote: All of these religions seem begun for selfish rather than selfless reasons.Interesting point. What do ya think was Rutherford's motive?

Merry, you wrote: Only there aren't really any jurors, are there? If the Jehovah's Witness people are only witnesses and not the jury, then all of the meetings and conventions are just the preacher preaching to the choir. You're right of course, Jehovah is absent, but presented as the Judge, the jury, and the executioner. Is this your understanding of the dogma?

Forscher, You wrote: I don't think that many realize that the judge remolded things from a lawyer's perspective with a Calvinist flavor . . . Thanks for the post. What would be an example of a Calvinist element that Rutherford added to the mix?

A Paduan

Defendant (of his own soul) - "but that is a lie"

Jury (of j. witnesses) - some shocked, some alarmed, and some think "hmmm"

Accuser (jw proselyte) - "objection, because we don't want to think that"

Judge (Rutherford) - "yes, the jury is instructed to disregard that comment"

Forscher

Try the stern, merciless god who delites in punishing all but the chosen in the spirit of the famous sermon "Sinners in the hands of an angry God." That sermon was delivered by a famous preacher of one of the faiths of the Calvionist tradition here many years ago. CTR emphasized a much more loving god in his teachings, even portaying armaggedon as more of a breakdown in society rather than a world-wide butchery.

When the judge took over, he found it more useful to bring in the evangelical idea of complete world destruction and revenge on God's part and rule his flock with fear rather than inspire them with God's love. This stern kind of God is very much in the Calvinist tradition.

MerryMagdalene

Merry, you wrote: Only there aren't really any jurors, are there? If the Jehovah's Witness people are only witnesses and not the jury, then all of the meetings and conventions are just the preacher preaching to the choir. You're right of course, Jehovah is absent, but presented as the Judge, the jury, and the executioner. Is this your understanding of the dogma?

Gary, it's interesting to me to contemplate just how the much the legalistic JW spin on the Bible comes from Rutherford. Thank you for bringing our attention to that.

Yes, I tend to see the dogma as presenting Jah to be Judge, jury and axe-man. And I do tend to think JWs are mainly involved in "preaching to the choir" and are all pressured to testify according to what God's great defense attorney, Rutherford (and the defense team that has had to carry on since his death), coached them to say.

Odd sort of trial, seeing that it is actually the "witnesses" who end up being on trial, not God or his "sovreignty" and the Accuser is the one who will end up in prison, while the prosecution's witnesses will all be executed. Unless I have misunderstood the whole metaphor. It is a bit confusing when you try to make sense of what they are saying exactly.

~Merry

garybuss

Thanks Forscher, I listened to Rutherford's phonograph records and his hate towards business, religion, and government seemed motivated by hostility and frustration. He was humble like Hitler was humble. Rutherford makes the fire and brimstone preachers of television today seem like wimps by comparison.

Merry, you wrote, "It is a bit confusing when you try to make sense of what they are saying exactly."I think you got it right. The defendant in the case, Satan, will go to prison. ALL of his witnesses will be murdered, unless they are already dead, then they will be made alive. Witnesses for Jehovah, will not be murdered unless they have doubts or slack off, or in some way become not good witnesses. If witnesses for Jehovah's side don't measure up, they will be murdered by Jehovah. If witnesses for Jehovah die before they are murdered by Jehovah, they will be made alive again.
That's the Jehovah's Witness's message at their neighbor's door. Neat huh?

Wasanelder Once

Gary,

The Judge not only came up with the universal court case scenario, he tampered with the evidence. After some 40 years of believing that Christ became invisibly present from 1874 he changed it to 1914. Spin it Joseph! I had wondered why such an obvious change in the complete structure of Jehovah's Witnesses didn't send up red flags for people. It did for me. I'm one who read all he could get his hands on, including the old books. For years I'd resolved that Jehovah was using the legalistic viewpoint of Rutherford to "Reveal" the whole "Issue of Universal Sovereignty", ya'know "meat in due season". Obviously I've come to a different conclusion. As the "Light gets Brighter" I see people getting dimmer. Thanks for writing it out plainly for others.

W.Once

Jehovah's Court case -- Witnesses are killed who don't testify.

Share this