Posted by AF - Part 2 [AF] on April 10, 1999 at 14:38:41 {83dcrF/7KEtWYktmF7cQdaOt1gg/Zk}:
In Reply to: Attention AF This is a repl posted by ben1957 on April 09, 1999 at 22:24:24:
Part 2
Now, on to the next bunch of stuff:
: previous ben1957
: Some people out here are under the impression that JW must obey every thing that the WTBTS say and that is not true. (Some individuals see that way, but the WTBTS do not
: previous AF
: Most of the time JWs must obey, since if they don't they're liable to be DF'd, "marked" or otherwise have "privileges of service" taken away.
: new ben1957
: Whay JWs must obey are Gods Laws. There is plenty of room for personal conscience for one to make his own decition on matteres.
So you say. But God has made no laws about certain matters. Nevertheless, the Watchtower Society claims that he did. It is these specific areas that we must consider on a case by case basis. Remember that, as shown above, the Society once claimed that taking an organ transplant violated God's laws. Today it does not, since the Bible says nothing about organ transplants. Similarly, the Bible says nothing about blood transfusions, but the Society says it's implied in Genesis 9:4 and Acts 15, just as it once claimed essentially the same thing about organ transplants. But let's get on to specifics.
: The law of the land stipulates that when driving a car, there is a speed limit that we must addhear to. Some drivers do not think that the law is fair, the fail to realise that such laws are for the good of the community as a whole. If we choose to break that law we risk the consequenses. Gods LAWS are for the good of the community as a whole, if we decide to take the selfish view that they are unfaire we risk. the consequences. The decition is still up to us. If we get fined (or worse as in some new laws in the US regard driving), we have no one to blame but ourself. If we break Gods law and get caught we can only blame ourself.
: If we do not like the driving laws, do not drive or go somewhere else that is more leanient. If we do not like Gods laws go else where.
These are all nice, warm, fuzzy generalities but they have nothing to do with the specifics we started talking about. You can spout generalities all day long, but specifics are where the action is.
: previous ben1957
: A JW believes all the major doctrines of "truth" eg no hell, no trinity, Gods government, his purpose for mankind, moral laws of the Bible, no Easter or Christmas or other pagan ideas.
: previous AF
: Many of these things are merely the opinions and human interpretations of what is in the Bible. The ever-changing ideas of WTS leaders proves that merely because they at one time claim that something is "bible-based", that's not necessarily so. You already know plenty of examples, I think.
: new ben1957
: Well AF you really need to do some Research and you will find that some of the major teachings of Chritianity such as Trinity, Hell fire, Imortal Soul, Christmas Easter etc are of pagan origin and not Bible based. All encyloprdias that Ihave looked at show the"pagan" oragins of those teachings.
I'm quite familiar with what various sources say about these things. I tend to agree with the WTS on certain things but not on others. However, the WTS has taught plenty of major doctrines that have proved to be false. Those are what I was referring to. Birthday celebrations, by the way, are no different from wedding anniversary celebrations, so here's one case where the Society is inconsistent in its application of what it claims are "Bible principles".
: The WTBTS do not stand still.
You're injecting a bit of unintended humor here.
: If you take the time to examine Gods word closely you will find that even the deciples of Jesus made mistakes, had wrong interpretation of ideas, falsely prophesied, and showed that they were imperfect humans subject to making mistakes and humble enough to CHANGE them. The WTBTS will admit when their perception of a text, word, idea has been wrong and change just as the first century Christians did.
You're oversimplifying to the point of absurdity here, and not entirely telling the truth. First, none of Jesus' disciples described in the Bible ever falsely prophesied. They may have held some wrong ideas, but they didn't prophesy about them. To prophesy means to teach something or predict something in God's name. It means to claim that what is said comes not from one's own originality, but is from God. You can't find any Bible examples where disciples did that.
Second, all humans are imperfect. We know this and it is not an issue. Therefore, saying it about Jesus' disciples or anyone else is irrelevant to the main question we were considering. What is that? The question of whether the leaders of Jehovah's Witnesses - namely, the Governing Body - represent Jehovah God in the way that they claim, and that they speak for God, and that salvation can come only by listening to them, and that Jehovah's Witnesses as a religious group are uniquely God's people.
Third, the WTS only changes its collective mind when it is virtually drowned in evidence. The men in charge do not usually listen to any individuals outside their tiny inner circle. They look at others who offer suggestions as irritating, arrogant upstarts. "Who are you to question us, we who are God's divinely appointed representatives?" The only time they change is when outside circumstances force a change. Usually such outside circumstances consist of passing a predicted dated without anything happening, or getting lots of letters from JWs who indicate that they disagree with certain teachings or policies.
If you disagree with my assessment, then by all means give me a couple of counterexamples.
: previous ben1957
: Often when the WTBTS prints information they will use words like "it appears as if, according to current knowledge, perhaps, probably, etc. This type of language is often used in relation to new "ideas" or the application of prophecy.
: previous AF
: Right. They're called "weasel words".
: new ben1957
: You can call them "weasel words" if you like, thats fine with me. But what it really shows is that they do not claim to be inspired.
That's right, but we already know that they're not inspired, and that they don't claim to be inspired - at least, not directly. What they do claim is to be "divinely directed", which in practice is indistinguishable from being inspired except that it gives them an "out". But again in practice, since the Society allows no public discussion of disagreement, on pain of disfellowshipping, for all practical purposes the Society's leaders claim to be inspired. They teach that since God appointed them and only them to teach mankind about God during "these last days", no one has the right to publicly disagree with them. Everyone must quietly wait and watch what this self-appointed "slave" decides to do next. A very small number of JWs will actually have the courage to offer suggestions to these leaders, but most of the time they're ignored. We have examples on this board of loyal JWs who have experienced this ill-treatment time and again.
: It shows that the present knowledge that they have leads to a certain conclusion that may not be right, but at present explains the point to their current level of knowledge. They are not presented as absolute truth (allthough some indeviduals may take it that way, it is not what the WT is saying), but as possible explanations of a matter.
That's true in principle but not in practice. To be true in practice the Society would have to allow open discussion of disagreement with its "possible explanations". Since it doesn't, but threatens DF'ing for anyone who would dare to openly discuss alternative ideas, the Society in practice claims to be inspired, because God is the only one who should not be questioned in this way.
: previous ben1957
: Unfortunately humans being the imperfect creatures they are often do not see such words (or do not want to) and pronounce things as truth that the WTBTS say are "may be's.
: previous AF
: True, but irrelevant to this thread. The ban on blood transfusions is not stated using weasel words. So what's your point?
: new ben1957
: It is not irrelevant to this thread of thought because the point is, many people here on this forum do not portray an accurate picture of what JWs believe because they only see what they want to see and read things into WT literature that is not there or only read (or quote) portions of articles.
That's what a lot of JW apologists would like to believe, but they're wrong. I and others on this forum were practicing JWs for many years and we know exactly what the religion is all about. My extended family has been involved one way or another with the JWs and/or Bible Students for 90 years. I have relatives who are high WTS officials. I personally know certain GB and Writing Staff members and have discussed certain difficult issues with them. I have extensive experience discussing issues with JWs personally and on Internet forums. I know what JWs are all about.
Most JWs, whether they admit it or not, most certainly believe that God directly causes the Society to do and publish various things. Most are quite convinced that God directs them and them alone, and does so not in a remote way such as by "allowing" them to properly understand some Bible text, but in a very personal and direct way by causing them to act different from what they otherwise would - in other words, most JWs in practice believe that WTS leaders are inspired. This includes most WTS leaders themselves. I know, because one GB member as much as told me that directly. And the fact that most JWs are quite convinced that only JWs will get salvation is another proof.
: The ban on Blood is not stated using weasel words because it is clear cut command form God.
No, it is not. A clear cut command from God would be along the lines of "do not have a blood transfusion". Since transfusions are not mentioned in the Bible, the issue is not clear cut. It's no more clear cut than was the Society's reasoning on many other things that have changed, such as organ transplants, vaccinations, "the generation of 1914", that 1874 was when Christ's presence began, etc. etc. etc. Every one of these items was once declared to be "clear cut", and every one was not mentioned in the Bible. Only after the Society got burned did they change their mind about what the Bible said.
About a year ago I visited the 25 Columbia Heights Bethel facility in Brooklyn. I spoke with a representative of the Public Relations Office about the blood issue. He stated clearly that the Society recognizes that the Bible says nothing directly about blood transfusions. He also stated that the Society is confident that its interpretation of the Bible concerning transfusions is correct. So you'll have to admit that even the Society admits that its view is only an interpretation, and therefore not a clear cut command from God.
: If you can not see that, well that is your business,and I will not hold it against you. On the other hand, JWs do beleive it to be a law from God. If you would like me to e-mail you some old articles from the 50's and 60's that shows the complete issue I will be glad too.
Thanks, but there's no need. I have a fairly complete library of WTS material going back to the very beginning, and I'm quite familiar with the entire blood issue.
: previous ben1957
: JW are quite free to follow their conscience
: previous AF
: Absolute nonsense. Claiming that this is so in the case of blood transfusions is like claiming that when an armed robber threatens you with a gun, and you give him your money, that you've given it to him voluntarily. This kind of reasoning comes only from people who are desperate.
: new ben1957
: I made the mistake of assuming too much from potential readers. When it comes to clear Bible law such as no blood, murder, fornication, stealing etc and pagan religious practises, a true Christian will follow Gods law to the point of giving his life. God commands and wants obeidience from his followeres. (Exodus 19:5, 23:21,22; Deut 11:27,28; 1 Sam 15:22; 2 Thes. 3:13-15; John 18:37; Heb 5:9; Acts 5:29, etc). Gods command is to keep the congregation clean of such things.(1 Corin. 5:9,10, 6:9-11; 1 Tim 1:8-10) If a person can not abide by that, than they do not love their creator.
: The following ones conscience steps in when things are not spelled out in the Bible as in the above. There are many aspects of life that must be governed by conscience and no man can judge us on those actions. Transplants are one such area.
Since the Bible says nothing about blood transfusions, it is not spelled out in the Bible. Therefore it is not a command from God, any more than the prohibition on organ transplants was.
What you've admitted is that JWs are indeed not allowed to follow their consciences when it comes to blood transfusions because the Society declares it to be not a matter of conscience. This directly contradicts the Society's public statements, namely, that JWs only follow their consciences and are not coerced by the WTS in any way. If you want references to some articles written by the Society in several medical journals that explicitly state this, visit the AJWR website and look for articles in medical journals.
You have some rethinking to do on the matter of blood transfusions.
AF