AF:
As I continue to expose your falsehoods, I will just remind you that AF represents your most current remarks in this thread. DUNS refers to mine. Surely, you will have no trouble following along. But you have made so many errors in your presentation, it is taking me a while to correct everything. I am also trying to make my submission readable.
: All sacred privileges flow from God's undeserved kindness and mercy. The truth emanating from Jehovah's holy mountain serves as evidence of God's blessing. It does not mean that we Witnesses are superior to anyone else.
AF: This is meaningless gobble-de-goop.
DUNS: Is that the best that you could do? If you need help comprehending Standard English, just let me know. I will try to assist you in any way that I can.
:: Indeed, they claim that in 1919 God appointed them "over all Christ's belongings".
: But what you're failing to mention is that the modern-day organization of Jehovah's Witnesses is viewed as a continuation of the first century arrangement. JWs do not simply contend that God appointed them ex nihilo or ex vacuo.
AF: That is an old and discarded view. The modern teaching is as follows:
quote:
Supplying information on the development of the modern-day Governing Body, the December 15, 1971, issue of The Watchtower explained: "Five years later [in 1884] Zion's Watch Tower Tract Society was incorporated and served as an 'agency' to minister spiritual food to thousands of sincere persons seeking to know God and to understand his Word . . . Dedicated, baptized, anointed Christians became associated with that Society at headquarters in Pennsylvania. Whether on the Board of Directors or not, they rendered themselves available for special work of the 'faithful and discreet slave' class. They aided in the feeding and directing of the slave class, and thus a governing body made its appearance. This was evidently under the guidance of Jehovah's invisible active force or holy spirit. Also, under the direction of the Head of the Christian congregation, Jesus Christ." [W90 3/15 p. 14]
This quotation from the 1971 Watchtower shows another aspect of JW teaching -- that God gathered together Christians under Russell's leadership, who later became organized as "Bible Students", and proved to be so much more faithful than anyone else that Christ made a special appointment of them in 1919. But you know all this.
I am of course aware of certain other Watchtower teachings that are quite inconsistent with the above, and quite unexplainable. It will be entertaining to see if you trot them out and try to reconcile them with the above clear teaching: there was no governing body of anything called "Jehovah's earthly organization" before 1884, and it made its appearance under the guidance of holy spirit.:
DUNS: I never denied that JWs teach Christ appointed the faithful slave over all of his belongings in 1919. The point that you are missing, however, is that the slave appeared in the first century. In particular, it came into being at the Festival of Pentecost in 33 C.E. During the hundreds of years antecedent to 1919, the Witnesses have noted that the slave was diligently feeding the domestics (individuals of the slave class) spiritual food “at the proper time.” The slave thus did not come into being in 1919. It (the slave class made up of Jehovah’s anointed ones on the earth at any given time) was simply appointed over “all” of the Master’s belongings at that time. A number of publications make this point clear. Even the Governing Body was a first century arrangement. I thought this information was rudimentary for you. Concerning the WT article, I am shocked that you failed to quote the context. The 3/15/90 WT that you cited makes it plain that the Primitive congregation of God had a Governing Body that was composed of the apostles and older men (paragraph 7). The same study article clearly shows that Jesus inspected and subsequently approved the slave in 1919. However, the slave did not first originate in 1919. Admittedly, the magazine does say that the faithful slave and its Governing Body were in place after the fateful year of 1919. Nevertheless, one must read this statement in context. After the first century Governing Body died out, the men composing that body evidently were not replaced. But the slave is not the Governing Body, and IT (the servant) existed from the first century onward. You are unnecessarily conflating the Governing Body and the faithful slave.
:: Thus, a wicked Israelite king could have done nothing to negate his claim that his nation was God's special possession, but wicked JW leaders prove by their wicked actions that their claim of special appointment as God's spokesmen, as being heads over "God's people", as having special direction from God, and many other claims, are false. Indeed, since such leaders have over time completely determined the nature of the JW religion, their wicked actions prove that JWs are not "God's special people" at all, since JWs for the most part have voluntarily gone along with and given physical support to such actions.:
: I agree, in principle, with your statements about the Jews and their claim to divine favor. But how do you deal with the "wicked" leaders talked about in the NT?
AF: What "wicked" leaders talked about in the NT? Are you merely talking about Christians who made mistakes?
DUNS: No I am talking about Christians who committed wickedness on a regular basis. The apostle John mentions one wicked leader by name, to wit, Diotrephes (3 John 9-10). The Third Epistle of John unambiguously assures us that Diotrephes’ works were evil (LOGIOS PONHROIS) in the sight of John and God.
: Am I to believe that the presence of "wicked" leaders" in the first century church prove that Christianity is false? Do you also contend that Christians in the first century were not God's people either, because of their "wicked" actions?
AF: You're creating a big straw man here. Jehovah's Witnesses do not comprise the whole of Christianity. In the early 1st century Christians were fairly united, because they hadn't had time to evolve into factions and their numbers were small. Further, we have no information about any such factions until late in the 1st century, so we may consider the earliest Christianity as monolithic. The situation today is rather different. The fact that the Governing Body and other JW leaders sometimes commit wicked deeds has nothing to do with Christianity as a whole -- it has only to do with Jehovah's Witnesses. In view of these facts, the answer to your question is obvious.
DUNS: You are confusing your view with the Witness view of their role in God’s purposes. The first century Christian community of faith unequivocally claimed to be God’s people (the Israel of God). 1 Peter 2:9-10 shows us evidence of this claim. Similarly, the modern-day Witnesses of Jehovah declare that they too are the people of God. They claim to constitute true Christianity en toto. They contend that they are the very exemplification of monolithic Christianity. It is therefore appropriate for us to make a comparison between the early Christians and God’s modern-day servants. Contrary to your postulate, while Christianity started out being monolithic, it did not remain so. Even around 55 CE, we find Paul reproving the Corinthians for the factions that obtained in their local congregation. Paul even wrote that there must be factions, in order that we may identity God’s authentic servants.
AF: Now please don't trot out that tired old claim that "Christianity" and "Christendom" are different. That's an invention of the JWs, in particular that old harlot, J. F. Rutherford. It is meaningless because it defines Christianity as "whatever JWs teach" and "Christendom" as "all non-JW religions that only claim to be Christian". You should see that trotting this out leads to a circular argument.
DUNS: MIT evidently failed to teach you any secular or ecclesiastical history. Ergo, I guess I will have to briefly correct your academic deficiencies in this area. Christianity originated in the first century; Christendom, on the other hand, is a fourth century invention of Rome. Even a number of non-Witnesses know that Christendom is not necessarily synonymous with Christianity. Christendom has been a perversion of true Christianity since its inception. Comparing the Bible with Christendom’s general beliefs will tell you that. However, another basic mistake that you commit is defining true Christianity as whatever JWs teach. It would be more accurate to say that JWs believe true Christianity is that form of religion, which serves as a pillar and support of the truth, as it tenaciously bases its tenets on God’s holy Word. Your definitions, however, are purely of your own making.
::::: And to answer Jerry's question, if a Witness examines Scripture (thus listening to qol YHWH) and thinks that he or she can in all good conscience take blood or allow his or her child to have blood, then by all means, they should listen to their internal witness-bearer and the voice of YHWH.
::::: Good! Why then, do you follow and give verbal support to men who declare wicked those who do exactly as you suggest? Here is an example of wicked men declaring the righteous one wicked.
::: You want to construe life in terms of strict binary oppositions.
:: Not at all. But in this situation the issue is a life and death matter, and is so clear that it most certainly is a binary proposition: the position of the GB is right, or it is wrong. Either taking a blood transfusion violates God's law, or it does not. There is no in-between.
: So do you feel the same way about abortions? Is abortion either right or wrong? Alternatively, do you think that abortion is a conscience matter? Do you think a woman has the right to make such decisions that affect her corpus?
AF: Red herring again. I will not deal with your red herrings. Stick to the point at hand. If you want to discuss abortion, start another thread.
DUNS: Let us back up here for a minute. You say that the Governing Body acts wickedly when it declares those who take blood transfusions “wicked.” I contend, however, that declaring a righteous one wicked does not in and of itself mean the one making the aforesaid declaration is “wicked.” A righteous person can also declare another righteous individual wicked. That is why I made the comment about binary “oppositions.” You want to think in a binary fashion when it suits you. You say that we must think in these terms (right and wrong) when the issue is a matter of life and death. Yet, you refuse to say what you think about a matter that involves life and death for many people, namely, abortion. You call my words “red herrings.” I call them “consistency tests.” If you think a woman has the right to either refuse or decide to have an abortion. Why should other parents not have the right to decide what is best for their children spiritually and medically? Why can adults not decide what is best for them in life and death matters such as blood transfusions in the same way that a pregnant woman decides to either have an abortion or refrain from having one?
: The fact of the matter is that while you want to say the WT leaders enforcing the "blood policy" are wicked and responsible for the death of innocent people, you are wrong to insist that one who commits a wicked deed or even wicked deeds is in fact wicked himself or herself.
: One wicked deed -- perhaps. Many wicked deeds -- no, you're wrong. A practice of wicked deeds is precisely what makes a person wicked. A person who institutes a blanket policy that institutionalizes wicked deeds is most certainly a wicked person. To say otherwise would make the Biblical notion of "wickedness" meaningless.
AF: Just what do you think a person has to do in order to be wicked? What about deliberate murder, the "lying in wait" kind that the OT so strongly condemns? Doesn't just one such act prove that a person is wicked at heart? What about child molestation? Does one act make a person wicked? Maybe, maybe not; it depends on what's in his heart and whether he repeats. If he repeats even once, then he has proven to be wicked. Do you not agree? If not, why not? I don't think that anyone in his right mind will disagree that many wicked deeds committed over a long period time makes a wicked person.
DUNS: One wicked act certainly does NOT prove a person is wicked at heart. Consider the example of David. He committed adultery with another man’s wife and then had her husband killed. There is no doubt that King David committed wicked acts in the eyes of God. Nonetheless, the OT tells us that he was whole-hearted in his devotion to God. In other words, David was a “righteous” man who performed dirty deeds dirt cheap. One wicked act thus does not make a person wicked. Nor is a person necessarily wicked because he repeats certain acts that are evil in themselves. For instance, a Christian may habitually get drunk. While the Bible teaches that drunkenness is essentially wicked, the said Christian engaging in the aforesaid activity is not of necessity wicked by virtue of simply performing the wicked act. A biblical example of a man who committed many wicked deeds over a long period of time, but who I would not say was wicked is Manasseh. At least he was not incorrigibly wicked. I guess you could say that I think intent comes into play here. Even the legal system in the US and other places (I think) recognizes a concept called in Latin, mens rea.
AF: Just what is your personal standard for determining wickedness? Let's see you clearly define it, and then we'll see about applying it to JW leaders.
DUNS: I make a distinction between wicked acts and wicked actors. That is, I think it is possible for a righteous person to commit wicked acts and vice versa. I further believe that wicked actors are identified by their tendency to practice wicked acts accompanied by a wicked inclination or wicked intent. To put it simply, one who willfully and regularly violates the law of God with “criminal intent” or in bad faith (mala fide) is wicked. An adequate delineation of a wicked person is presented in Isaiah 26:10. One OT reference work says that the word translated “wicked” in Isaiah 26:10 points to “the attitudes and intentions of people.” The wicked hate God (2 Chronicles 19:2), are hostile toward His people (Isaiah 13:11), and continually break God’s law with evil intent. The Hebrew RASHA itself can denote conduct that is wrong, bad, wicked, and unrighteous.
: What is more, many doctrines are a matter of life and death. What about joining the military? Is that not a matter of life-and-death?
AF: That depends on whether a country is at war or not.
DUNS: Joining the army is always a matter of life and death. Just ask those Gulf War veterans who never thought they would see any action or those men and women who had to go assist folks in the former Yugoslavia.
AF: What's your point? Life and death matters exist. So what?
DUNS: My point is that you are inconsistent. You evidently think it is okay for men and women to join the army and you might even think a woman can have an abortion, if she wants one. Both of these situations are matters of life and death for someone. However, when it comes to Jehovah’s Witnesses and blood transfusions, you all of a sudden begin to think we must think of life and death matters in terms of black and white polarizations. You have no problem with someone dying for his or her country. But you criticize JWs because we are willing to die for God. How bigoted!
: Do you think its okay to join the army or navy? What about smoking? Is it alright to puff on "cancer sticks"?
AF: Irrelevant to this discussion.
DUNS: No it is quite relevant to the discussion. The question is a consistency test. You see I know that you are too prideful to adjust your views when the evidence merits such a change. Consequently, I am not even trying to readjust your stiff neck. Nevertheless, I do want everyone to see how inconsistent your position is and what motivates your protests against the JW belief regarding blood transfusions. Do you also hound the Christian Scientists?
::: Wicked men declare the righteous wicked,
:: This is not a proposition that I have set up -- it is one that your precious Bible has set up: "anyone pronouncing the righteous one wicked [is] ... something detestable to Jehovah." (Proverbs 17:15) Someone "detestable to Jehovah" is by definition wicked. Thus, my statement is strictly Bible-based.
: I think you're overlooking the fact that YHWH is a reasonable God. You cannot take such biblical statements at face value.
AF: Really. That's putting yourself on a rather slippery slope.
DUNS: Paul criticized the Corinthians because they looked at things according to their face value (2 Cor 10:7). Any exegete worth his salt also knows that you cannot take Scripture at face value. You must read biblical accounts or passages in the light of God’s entire revelation deposited in the Bible. One must also (like CT Russell) get to know the personality of God and discern the pattern of scriptural teaching before extracting erroneous ideas from one scriptural passage. James 3:17 gives us the assurance that the divine wisdom is reasonable. Therefore, YHWH is not an unreasonable God (He does not always go by the letter of the law). This point is beautifully illustrated in the case of King David.
Duns the Scot