Paging Jehovah's Witnesses and bible scholars: need a few things cleared up

Great Debates
21

This is pretty close to how I feel about it. I am not a believer by any stretch of the imagination, but I do have a lot of respect for the JW’s for having a solid foundation for their thoughts and actions. I may not agree with any of it on a personal level, but absolutely everything she thinks and feels comes straight from scripture and has reasoning behind it–mad props to the JW’s for bible study. As far as being “willing to discuss those reasons” we’ve had opportunity for endless hours of discussion, and while she knows I’m an atheist and give her beliefs as much weight and creedence as those of any other belief system, be it Jewish, Muslim, Hare Krishna, or Buddhist (which is to say equal on all levels, and a weight >0 ) she is totally willing to discuss and explain her beliefs, which I truly appreciate. I’m interested in the general study of religious belief of any flavor, as I am fokelore, fairy tales, myths, legends, and parables. I find it fascinating to explore what people believe and why, and I do want to earnestly thank you the raindog and others for putting forth the effort.
Beaucarnea, I hope I didn’t give the impresson of ridiculing the JW’s in any sense. While I found some of her explanations puzzling, I don’t look down on the JW’s for their beliefs, and if anything have more respect for them than I do most other Christian denominations.

I do wish faiths would actively encourage their members to consider their faith more carefully. As far as “avoid[ing] those who… attempt to place doubts in the mind of the believer” it always seemed to me a bit dubious. If you, as a believer, can consider the “doubts” and resolve your faith in the face of such questions, well… if your beliefs are the true path, shouldn’t it survive the scrutiny and leave you far more solid in your faith in the end? For example, these discussions I’ve been having with my co-worker leave us both feeling pretty satisfied. She has an opportunity to explore her faith from the POV of a non-believer, and I’m learning all about a belief system I’d not had much contact with before.

Incidentally, sunrazor states: You won’t get consistent explanations across the spectrum of believers…
One thing my co-worker makes a big point about is Jesus saying something like “you’ll know my people by the unity among them” and how the JW’s world wide are extremely consistent in their beliefs and study, to the extent that every meeting hall world wide on any given Sunday will be studying the same passages and having the same discussions. Whether this constitutes consistency in faith or an extremely effective (what’s a monumentally less judgemental word than “brainwashing”? Something that describes a mass of people all indoctrinated with the same belief with zero wiggle room for personal interpretation)… something, what you can say about them is they’re consistent in their beliefs.

22

Not at all- my comments were in reference to the drive-bys. I had/have many of the same questions that you do- and many of the same reservations about disfellowshipping and the question of utilizing some but not all government services. I have drilled my JW friend numerous times over the years, but when it comes to a point that we differ greatly on, questions can sound like accusations. This is a better format than the workplace for hashing out contrasting beliefs- gives both parties time to form coherent questions and answers that aren’t weighted by emotions.

And I agree with Kalhoun- to me wholesale subscription to any religion seems counterproductive to progress, but singling out a particular set of beliefs for ridicule is unkind and a waste of time for both believers and non-believers.

23

I’m guessing you meant me, and by all means–discuss away!

24

I don’t remember the OP saying we were “fighting for Jesus.” I certainly wasn’t disussing “fighting for Jesus.” Furthermore, I don’t believe there is any biblical texts that support Christians taking up arms for Jesus.

I think some of these facts are incorrect. Many are right, however, but lack nuance or context, particularly context.

Who shall you believe? It has been my long standing opinion, stated often, that one should not get “knowledge” from a message board, or the internet in general.

NajaNivea, you started the OP by saying this lapsed JW had “bible-based” answers; and concluded with, “Are there any JW’s out there that can clear these up for me? Any bible scholars outside the JW realm have opinions with scriptural citations on the what the bible has to say about any of these topics?”

While not a bible scholar, I am a JW and perhaps the only one that posts here. I have a passing familiarity with the bible. My advice above applies to me as well; I would suggest you go to the source. Talk to a real live JW, read the texts cites above (you asked for cites and there are probably more than 20 above. Reading them in their full context is a fair amount of reading) or go to the JW web site.

The primary reason JWs will not serve in the military is one of nuetrality. JWs consider themselves “no part of the world”, and do not involve themselves in political affairs. (including military service) While the account at Matthew 26 (Peter and his sword) is both relevent and pertinent to JWs and the issue of war, the primary issue is still one of strict nuetrality. If the issue was simply one of taking up arms, JWs could conceivably see a particular war “just” and simply insist on non-combat roles. As Blake correctly points out, JWs would not accept any role in the advancement of war. This includes material handling or the like. (although some JWs will accept civilian service in lieu of jail; although many have served lengthy jail sentences) But this issue of nuetrality affects more than just military service. It means that JWs don’t vote or participate in politics. They place their hope and trust in God’s [current and future] government while trying to be good citizens in the countries they live in.

25

I have a tangenital question (I hope you don’t mind); Is family considered “part of the world”? If i’m understanding this correctly, the idea is that JWs should not be loyal to their country or a political system, but only to God (that may sound like an insult, but I don’t feel loyalty is always a virtue so I assure you it isn’t). Does this also include family?

26

The only thing I have to add is that I know several JWs, and have found them to be as normal as just about everyone else. They struggle with their own personality flaws, like the rest of us. JWs can’t be expected to all be perfectly pure models of their religion, because the humanity in us makes hypocrites out of everyone, even us atheists.

The anti politics, anti war stance is pretty counterproductive, in my opinion, but not as bad as the politically dominant warmongering religious alternative. I have no moral problem trying to “unconvert” a Witness through discussion and argument, and they seem to be more than eager to join a civil conversation that might challenge their ideas, for the opportunity to challenge mine. It never gets anywhere in the end, but after wading through such an explosive mine field of protestant zealotry every day, the JW argument and conversion methods are a welcome change.

27

This, along with Blake’s commentary has made it much more clear for me, and (not that it means anything to anyone) I can even support it from that view. It seems that I can feel pretty good about their beliefs in a general sense, if it weren’t for that pesky non-belief in God ;). I find the JW POV to be a nice Truth, as far as belief systems go, and I’ve yet to see one hateful belief espoused, which is more than I can say for a lot of other religions.

My geneticist husband gave this a big, fat :dubious:. His response is that if you start out with two genetically “perfect” parents, the offspring would continue to be equally diverse and --as you stated–inbreeding wouldn’t matter. Anyway, you wouldn’t get subsequent generations with fewer possible genetic variations or less diversity, if anything, you’d get more diversity due to the rise of mutations. Of course, as with any religious belief, the influence of the supernatural often has little or no connection with worldly fact. My “fact” may not be their “fact” and all that, so please don’t imagine I’m giving it a :rolleyes: --just reiterating that science and faith don’t always agree.

28

It is an excellent question, and I don’t mind.

JWs obviously love their families, as any other family does. Most JW families are close, and the JW faith often serves as a cohesive element in a family. While I do not have a cite, it has been my experience that JW families have a lower than average incident of drug abuse, teenage pregnancy, divorce etc.

But they are certainly not immune. Divorces, like the rest of society, are on the rise. Young people, in particular, sometimes get into trouble. Yet, JWs love their families and do their best to show love, concern, and empathy. (and loving guidance for children) A JW parent, husband or wife would not want to simply “jettison” a family member because they were struggling. When the family member is a child, great effort is made to help them—like any other concerned parent.

Yet the the bible is clear that loyalty comes first to Jehovah and to his son Jesus Christ. (Please see Matt 10:32-42 ) So the question may come up, is my brother/sister, mother/father, son/daughter “part of the world” in as much that they are not good Christian association? In other words, does their behavior, lifestyle, speech etc violate Christian principles, or assualt my Christian sensibilities?

JWs are therefore encouraged to guard against bad associations. It is conceivable that JW may want to limit (limit, not terminate) associations with a family member who was willingly leading a life that was egregiously outside bible principles. Just as JWs don’t withdraw from society at large, they don’t withdraw from their own families; trying to encourage them and to lead by example.

Certainly in extreme cases JWs may want to severely limit (to the point of effectively little or no contact) to family members who are leading such a life. But don’t we all know some [non-JW] person who has taken a similar approach to a wayward family member?

29

You have a talent for understatement.

30

Just call me a master of diplomacy :wink:

31

Thanks for the answer, the raindog. :slight_smile:

32

You’re welcome.

33

I remember seeing another one of your posts in another thread at about the same time and you referenced your JW friend. I had a moment of clarity :wink: regarding those exchanges.

My memory is a little foggy as to the details, but here’s what I remember:

  1. It became to me that you were vicariously suffering for him as you heard [at length it would seem] his story. (a sure sign of empathy on your part) But it seemed clear to me that your view as to the source of his suffering, and his view of that suffering were entirely different. This dichotomy produces it’s own suffering. In other words, he says “I’m suffering from X”; yet you feel (and likely remains unspoken) “If only you didn’t have these [crazy] beliefs, you wouldn’t be suffering X!”

If that’s true, and it seemed like it was, it causes some anxiety of your own. It seemed to me that it might be best to look past your differences with his beliefs and accept them and him on his terms; to essentially align the source of his suffering. It might help if you had a better understanding of his beliefs, if only to give him better support within the framework of his beliefs. (none of which requires you to validate them )

  1. The second though dealt with the nature of suffering. JWs are not martyrs and see nothing noble in suffering for the sake of suffering. There is particularly nothing noble about suffering when it’s self inflicted. Yet it seems to me that there will always be some anxiety—and perhaps suffering—when there is a divide between who someone is, and who they want to become; when there is a divide between the life one is leading and the life they imagine for themselves.

Suffering is the fuel of growth. No good friend wants to see another friend. (or at the very least to have to vicariously experiance another’s suffering) Yet James said, “2Consider it pure joy, my brothers, whenever you face trials of many kinds, 3because you know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance. 4Perseverance must finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything.” (Jam 1:2-4) and Paul added “3Not only so, but we[a] also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; 4perseverance, character; and character, hope.” (Romans 5:3-4)

So another perspective on [his] suffering might be that it is an indication that he is alive, that his convictions are alive; that he is growing albeit in a halting or inelegant way; that he has an acute conscience and set of values. In this context, the suffering is perhaps lessened with the realization that the suffering has meaning, and is part of the process of growth.

34

raindog, I will quote my post from the previous thread so that others may follow this conversation if they wish.

I’m not sure if I have graduated to being disappointed with his beliefs yet. I am still smarting over the willingness of his family, friends, and fellow parishioners to kick a man who was already down. When Robert encountered a parishioner at the grocery store, the person would wheel the buggy the other way. When Robert picked up his son for visits, his teenaged daughter would lock herself in her room until her father left. Cell phones are loud in a car, and I overheard many conversations in which his wife would berate Robert for his failure at becoming an adequate “Godhead” for his wife and children. (Yes, she yelled at him for his failure to lead her.) I was with Robert at a local courthouse when he received withering dirty looks from a JW family, and saw the mother turn her child away in order to prevent the boy from acknowledging Robert’s presence. At 40 Robert had no other friends, no outside contacts, and parents who refused his calls. He became worse than invisible: he was despised.

We work with teenaged felons, many of whom have suffered horrendous abuse. I have some stories; I have seen some things. But I have never seen such a conscious, organized effort at cruelty in my life as shunning.

Three years have passed since Robert returned to his marital home, and I haven’t seen any growth in his spirit. He is a man defeated, resigned to following rote and routine in order to keep the company of his children and parents. If his suffering has any meaning, it is that he simply has no choice but to follow the orders of Charles Taze Russell or wither and die alone.

I feel it is unfair to condemn Robert with the assumption that he was failing at his duties as a Witness. From my perspective, Robert already was an excellent witness- studied constantly, took every opportunity to witness, knocked on doors, encouraged his children in Bible study. Robert took great pleasure in his knowledge of the Bible and seamlessly blended the JW version of science and scripture in our conversations. Robert simply excelled at being a Witness- it is what he did best.

35

I had forgotten about the concept of disfellowshipping. I heard it referred to somewhere as “the last act of love”. I’ve never seen anyone under the effects of it, and I’m not sure I realized it was that kind of hard-core shun.

36

The Op says precisesly and direstly that we were “fighting for Jesus.” To quote the op:" “So… God doesn’t want you to stop Satan’s rule or do anything to thwart it?” “Nope.”.

And that is precisely what you were discussing. Quite clearly and explicitely fighting for Jesus to assist him in a war. This is what the OP and I were discussing. This is the discussion you quoted when you said I was wrong. This is what you were discussing.

I think the problem is that you didn’t read what we were posting and were thus unable to place it in context. Go back and read what was written again and you will be left in no doubt that the OP said we were fighting to assist Jesus, and you will also see that it was this point and this point alone I was adressing.

I repeat: the primary, if not sole, reason why JWs don’t fight for Jesus is because Jesus directly commanded Peter not to fight on his behalf, and stated that he was more than capable of foighting for himself if he wished to thwart Satan’s plans.

I believe that too. Nonetheless millions of Christains have taken up arms and said they were doing it for Jesus, beginning with Peter. And they did so with the blessing and support of the clergy. Therefore the fact that you and I believe there is no spirirtual suport for such a position is irrelevant. The JWs OTOH have an express statement by Jesus himself saying that he does not wish people to take up arms on his behalf.

Of course. Any message borad disussion of a complex religiouis faith will lack nuance and context. Given that th Church in quetsion publishes dozens of magazines and several books every year adding nuance and context to the issues it is inevitable that we won’t get it all in any message board disussion.

With all due respect to your husband, he is forgetting his undergrad biology.

If I get a population of animals with a full spectrum of diversity in any one trait, say eye colour and then subject them to selective pressure they will lose that diversity. It can’t be helped. For example in a tropical environment every individual born blue eyes has a much higher chance of developing cataracts and being slected against. Therefore even a recessive triat like this will be selected against and over time blue or hazel eyed indivdiuals will become exceedingly rare in tropical populations. Given sufficient time and a few bottlenecks that blue eye gene will be lost entriely despite being present in 100% of the founder population. Diversity has been reduced due entirely to selection.

Perhaps your husband might ask himself why say, poodles, are so genetically uniform compared to wolves. If genetic diversity never decreases due to selection then all canines should be exactly as diverse as the wolf populations from which they descended, but that is not the case. Instead selective pressure and bottlenecks has drastically reduced the diversity of every dog breed.

Then how do you explain why poodles are more genetically uniform than wolves? Poodles are only the result of subsequent generations of wolves breeding. If subsequent generations always have more diveristy due to mutations then every dog breed should be more diverse than any population of wolves. Of course this isn’t the case. Diversity can only increase due to mutaions if there is absolutely no selective pressure against either mutations or existing phenotypes. As soon as you introduce such selective pressure then any phenotype selected aginst will be eliminated and diversity has to decline.

To make it simple, imagine that Adam and Eve were genetically constucted to be heterozygous for all skin colour traits, They lived in North Africa/Mesopotamia, a rgeion today inhabited entirely by ark haired dark eyed people for good reason, But A&E themselves produced 1/4 children blue eyed, fair skinned and blond haired. Do you really think that those blue eyed and brown haired children had excatly the same survival chances as their darker brethren? And if so then explain why such individuals are rare at those latitudes even today after thousands of years of input form northern Europe? Quite obviously no matter where fair skinned genes come from they will vanish from the high latitudes over succeisve generations because individuals expressing them will be selected against.

37

I read the OP again, and NO WHERE does it say “precisely and directly” we were “fighting for Jesus.” NO WHERE. Note: quotation marks are yours

It didn’t say that. Period.

Highlighting mine
Once again, it did not say this explicitely.

You know, in the end it doesn’t even matter. JWs have maintained a long standing nuetrality, and that is their stated reason for not serving in the military. I can’t even count how many times I’ve read and heard it from the platform.

This is simply wrong. While the text in question speaks to the point at hand, the aversion among JWs to military service is much more comprehensive than this. If not, JWs may take sides in a conflict and serve in any non-combat role. Further, JWs could simply issue a statement in support of a particular combatant while refusing combat roles. And, as stated, could simply serve in support roles. If this is used myopically (as Blake is attempting to do) one could easily envision a scenario in which a JW is sympathetic to a combatant (The USA for example) while standing on the sidelines for religious/biblical reasons. (in this case Matthew 26:51-52)

But this is not the case. Refusing military service is but one result—one manifestation—of an overall view of strict nuetrality. US citizen JWs, for example, would not only not take up arms in a war, they would not takes sides as to who won!

The JW stance is much more comprehensive than the text Blake indirectly references. The JW stance involves not only this text, but dozens of others that speak to the perspective that a Christian should have towards the state, the perspective that a Christian should have in the church and state paradigm, and the allegiance that a Christian should have towards God. (and how a Christian should handle a conflict between Man’s law and God’s law)

I am also concerned that lurkers may get the impression that this text could be interpretated to mean that that JWs may see a country as favored or blessed by God----and take the position that the fight belongs to God. (and therefore Christians must by this text remain unarmed) This is not true. JWs place their trust in God’s current and future government and respect the laws of every country they live in. (which involves the whole earth) They take no sides in any conflict, and offer no opinion on wordly politics.

I’m also concerned that one might see as capricious the JW stance on military service if it was based on these 2 verses in Matthew alone. The fact is, I have cited more than 20 texts in this thread alone----all of which speak directly to the JW belief on nuetrality and their view on church and state. I could have easly cited 20 more----and when read in their context encompass a much fuller picture on what the bible has to say on the matter; and how the earliest Christians led their lives.

I hyperlinked the texts cited above. If a lurker is interested in JW beliefs on this matter I would encourage you to read them in their full context. if you’re interested in what the bible has to say on this matter, or how the earliest Christians viewed the church/state paradigm I would encourage you to read them.

I will address the lurkers and posters on this point. It has been my experience that Blake knows more about JWs than the average poster, and more than the average non-JW person on the street. Even so, he gets a fair amount wrong, and some of it that he gets right lack practical application, nuance and context. (which in many cases is so out of context it is as wrong as it is right) (including in this thread)

And so I don’t believe that his posts are an accurate representation of JWs or JW beliefs.

That being said, I will reiterate: Don’t take my word for it. Don’t take Blake’s word for it. Go to the source and read it for yourself. As to this issue, while I am not a spokesman for the JWs, I am a practicing JW. In the post above I gave around 20 biblical cites (which is exactly what the OP asked for!; a JW perspective and bible cites to confirm/refute his/her friends points) which speak directly to the texts often used (among many more) that speak to the JW stance on nuetrality----the same nuetrality that keeps a JW from not only ‘drawing his sword’, but driving a supply truck, working as a battlefield medic, or voting on the local school levy ballot.

38

I think his point is that you have a limited number of alleles per gene locus for any given trait, period. Adam and Eve would have to have been supernatural beings with a system of genetics that simply does not fit the model of human genetics as we know it–and we are talking about the supernatural when we’re talking about God, so I suppose that isn’t outside the realm of consideration. Furthermore, genes don’t just disappear. While gene deletion happens, it’s something that takes millions of years to occur, and if the JW’s believe that human beings are only six thousand years old, well… you just wouldn’t have the span of time for this to cause an impact on any significant level.
On the other hand, if you accept that mutations widely occurred than it’s absolutely plausible to have started out with a single breeding pair, but you have to have some comfort level with evolution and speciation to accept this and accept a time frame much greater than six thousand years.

With all due respect to the rest of your argument, poodles are not a naturally occurring organism brought to you by either God or mother nature but by human manipulation and therefore do not reflect anything remotely like natural selective pressure, but selective pressure under a magnifying glass–it’s a wholly artificial situation. Release the poodle into the wild and in a few generations you have a population of Carolina Dogs.

39

Beaucarnea
You’ve packed a lot in your posts, so I’m struggling to begin. I’ll start with a global view on JW practices and doctrines for your benefit perhaps, and for any lurkers. I’m acutely that most of what has been posted about JWs here (and elsewhere) is wrong–often with malice of forethought. In another post I will adress some of your words about Robert—to the extent I am able.

Counsel, including disfellowshipping.
The local congregation is “governed” by a group of “elders”; a group of spiritually mature and experienced men. When a minor problem arises in the congregation a single elder may offer some scriptural guidance or support. If the reported problem is of a more serious nature a committee of 3 elders is formed to look into the matter. The matter is discussed with the member (called a brother or a sister, as is everyone else, including the elders who have no title that they are addressed with) and investigated. If the matter is valid, the forms of counsel available are basically these:

Private Counsel
In this case, the matter is minor in nature and counsel, and encouragement is offered. In every form of counsel the bible is the authority and guidebook. Discussions begin and end with a prayer. Everyone in the room has a bible and it is used extensively. It is rare for pointed “advice” to be given. Rather, biblical principles are shared and the brother/sister is free to choose their own course. More than any church I’ve ever known, the bible is used as the arbiter and there is virtually no latitude for an elder to opine on what course a congregant should take. It is an extremely consistent message congregation to congregation.
Private Reproof
If the matter is more serious in nature, some “reproof” may be in order. The nature of ALL forms of counsel is private in as much as the nature of the matter being discussed remains private. If the matter being discussed was a private matter and no one else is aware, the matter is entirely private and most, if not all, members remain unaware anything at all happened.
Public Reproof
The only difference here is the nature of this problem has been made public. If you had an affair that was reasonably well known within the congregation, or if you were picked up for solicitation and it hit the “crime blotter” in the local paper, it has become a public matter. The counsel remains the same. The encouragement remains the same. The principles remain the same. Yet, this has become known by some percentage of the congregation. After you receive private counsel and encouragement (and with your awareness) a statement is read which is exactly this succinct: “Sister Beaucarnea has been publicly reproved.” End Of Story. The message to the congregation is this: A) The elders are aware of this matter and have spoken with Beaucarnea B) The matter has been dealt with. C) The matter is a closed matter. The people in the congregation who are/were aware of this matter are informed that the matter has been dealt with. For those who were unaware, it is simply none of our (my) business. Carry on.
Disfellowshipping
So far, we haven’t defined what is minor and what is not. That is because not only the nature of the “infraction” (for lack of a better word) is important, but the attitude of the member is extremely important. You may have one glass of wine too many tonight and kill someone on the road. This is a public matter. But the nature of the crime, and your attitude, as manifested by your current and future behavior, may not get you disfellowshipped. Someone else in your congregation who just received his 3rd DUI in 2 years may be disfellowshipped. There is NO desire to disfellowship anyone. Many times a person disfellowshipped goes through months of counsel before this action is taken. The only people disfellowshipped are those who engage in a pattern of behavior over an extended period and who show an unwillingness to bring their behavior in line with biblical principles. It is unrepentant behavior that manifests itself by rejecting biblical counsel and knowingly carrying on behavior that brings reproach to Jehovah and the congregation. So while there are some biblical texts that indicate that some matters are more serious than others, the attitude of the member is of equal importance. Was this an impestuous act, or a crime of passion? Was it a slip, or random mistake? Did the person seek help or counsel and bring it to the attention of the elders? Is there clear indication that the member who did this is removing the circumstances that caused the problem? Is there contrition or a humble spirit that indicates they wish to make the necessary changes? Are they making those changes?

On the other hand…Did the person seek to conceal this? When asked, did they lie, or continue to lie? Did they reject counsel? How many times did this happen? Is there a pattern? Is it continuing? Have they brazenly continued or are they bragging about it? Have they been forthcoming, or are they not telling the whole truth?

In the end, disfellowshipping is a severe form of counsel to be sure. It may sound trite to say it is an act of love. But JWs believe that you may not bring reproach upon Jehovah’s name, nor carry on conduct that assaults the values of the congregation with impugnity. No one wants a member to leave, and every effort is made to keep them. But it is not a standardless environment. There is no desire to disfellowship the weak or downtrodden. But if a person indicates through words and/or deeds that he/she is rejecting biblical counsel, than they must be removed for the benefit of the congregation as a whole.

ETA: When a person is disfellowshipped a statement is read from the platform that is exactly this succinct: “Sister Beaucarnea has been disfellowshipped from the Christian congregation.” When they are re-instated it is exactly this succinct: “Sister Beaucarnea has been re-instated to the Christian congeregation.” Nothing more is said.

40

While Satan does have great power, he is not free to act however he likes on earth, he is subordinate to God.

And then the authority given to us