tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4139692162736962962024-03-16T04:19:19.690-05:00DISMYTHED<b>Debunking false claims about God, the Bible, the creation and Jehovah's Witnesses</b>Dismythedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09872186295008632240noreply@blogger.comBlogger78125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-413969216273696296.post-83394979516154325632023-11-18T09:15:00.014-06:002023-12-14T10:51:29.823-06:00Repackaging an Old Theory with a Shiny New Ribbon<p>Evolutionists have embarked on a new old theory that is sure to take them over old territory in a new way so that hope springs anew from well worn ground. It is sure to inspire a whole new generation to tread through their parents’ mistakes with the same misplaced zeal, rejuvenating their enthusiasm for the mausoleum of arguments of times long past. They declare it a “sweeping new law of nature!” How bold. What is it? That the more complex patterns get, the more complex the patterns that result, boldly called the “<b>law of increasing functional information.</b>” Isn’t that a bold title? Inspiring!</p><p>The theory does not just say that “evolving systems, biological and non-biological, always form from numerous interacting building blocks like atoms or cells, and that processes exist - such as cellular mutation - that generate many different configurations. Evolution occurs ... when these various configurations are subject to selection for useful functions,” but it also says that it is all due to complex patterns getting more complex. That last part makes it all shiny and new. No need to look at the rust and peeled paint of the old theory underneath the new glittery coating.</p><p>Let’s ignore for now that every living thing is made from atoms and cells, regardless of whether it evolves or not, and let’s ignore for now the fact that the claim that evolution is caused by “cellular mutations” generating “many different configurations” was disproved in the 1980’s, and nevermind that selections of those random configurations have never generated a new creature no matter how many generations are propagated, but we must focus on the complex patterns that arise from less complex patters to generate those unproven effects. Surely evolution will be proved now! No argument can bear the overwhelming weight of complex patterns on complex patterns as the indomitable driver of evolution. Someday that rock on your desk is going to randomly spring to life because it is complexity on complexity.</p><p>Natural selection got weeded out with no effect. DNA didn't randomly encode the answer. Genetic drift drifted away when RNA pushed against it. Epigenetics scratched the surface to reveal its own preprogrammed effects. Ring theory failed to score new species. Environmental pressures imploded in the face of preprogrammed effects. RNA rallied against viral splicing. But patterns on patterns will surely stack up the wins!</p><p>Oh how can the idea that God created all this clockwork machinery from subatomic structures to super mega-galactic structures bear up under the overwhelming avalanche of evolution’s new whitewash coating that kicks the problem up a level? Life is complex, so that must be the cause! It’s not just random, but random upon random upon random. That’ll do the trick!</p><p>Wait, isn’t this called “abiogenesis” and don’t evolutionists frown on calling it “evolution”? Make up your mind, people.</p><p><b>Source:</b> <a href="https://www.reuters.com/science/scientists-propose-sweeping-new-law-nature-expanding-evolution-2023-10-16/">https://www.reuters.com/science/scientists-propose-sweeping-new-law-nature-expanding-evolution-2023-10-16/</a></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh24LiZWlyls6ty1BAROfAyzIvwYfq_mP3nNYzKylYK6cdF8VkRU8CHsqWZ8I9vIYGETdq8sIi-UOE9D6VE6DrmJvGELpgaX0o-QvOhEvrtXSiYGe5YEmWAbj2n7lLAsenz8-G_0QkuDkN2ekkyq63Aqi8f9nifn3eIlg-hpi-nRqV5gNdcQ6ctNRCFksEk/s220/rolling-on-the-floor-laughing.gif" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="220" data-original-width="220" height="220" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh24LiZWlyls6ty1BAROfAyzIvwYfq_mP3nNYzKylYK6cdF8VkRU8CHsqWZ8I9vIYGETdq8sIi-UOE9D6VE6DrmJvGELpgaX0o-QvOhEvrtXSiYGe5YEmWAbj2n7lLAsenz8-G_0QkuDkN2ekkyq63Aqi8f9nifn3eIlg-hpi-nRqV5gNdcQ6ctNRCFksEk/s1600/rolling-on-the-floor-laughing.gif" width="220" /></a></div><br /><p><br /></p>Dismythedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09872186295008632240noreply@blogger.com15tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-413969216273696296.post-79430357413820149652023-03-08T14:25:00.017-06:002023-12-30T03:23:01.958-06:00What the "Faithful and Discreet Slave" Is Not [Opposers Dismythed]<p><span style="color: #666666; font-size: x-small;">Updates listed at the bottom of the post. Last updated Mar 8 at 2:25 PM. <b>FINAL EDIT</b> with conclusion.</span></p><p style="margin-left: 25px; margin-right: 25px; text-align: left;"><small><i><b>Author's Note:</b> <span style="font-size: 13.3333px;">This post focusses on the actual context of the words and related symbolism, not on incidental peripheral concepts unimportant to its interpretation.</span></i></small></p><br /><p>Many of their opposers have criticized Jehovah's Witnesses on "the faithful and discreet slave." But let us examine the merits of our critics arguments on the verses in question. The method of discovery used here is proof by exhaustion, a tried and true method.</p><p>But first, let us review the Scriptures and the stand of Jehovah's Witnesses.</p><br /><h2 style="text-align: center;">Source: “The Faithful and Discreet Slave”</h2><p>Jesus himself related the prophecy, saying:</p><p></p><blockquote><i>"Who really is the faithful steward, the discreet one, whom his master will appoint over his body of attendants [or "domestics"] to keep giving them their measure of food supplies at the proper time? Happy is that slave if his master on coming finds him doing so! I tell you truthfully, he will appoint him over all his belongings. But if ever that wicked [or "evil"] slave should say in his heart, 'My master delays coming,' and starts to beat the male and female servants and to eat and drink and get drunk" "with the confirmed drunkards," "the master of that slave will come on a day that he is not expecting him and at an hour that he does not know, and he will punish him with the greatest severity and assign him a part with the unfaithful ones [or "hypocrites"]." "There is where his weeping and the gnashing of his teeth will be."—Matthew 24:45-51 and Luke 12:41-46.</i></blockquote><p></p><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><h2 style="text-align: center;">Is: a Group Parsing Spiritual Food Supplies to True Christians</h2><p>We must first review what the "faithful and discreet slave" <i>is</i> and then we will discuss what it is not so you may compare it. The following is a brief review of information published by Jehovah's Witnesses for a touchstone.</p><h3 style="text-align: left;">Why did Jesus call them "faithful and discreet" and a "steward"?</h3><p><span style="color: #990000; font-size: medium;"><b>Read:</b></span> <i>Luke 12:48; 16:10; Heb 13:17.</i></p><p>A <b>steward</b><sup>*</sup> is the assigned manager of a household, object(s) or city. They are <b>discreet</b><sup>**</sup> by carefully and prayerfully thinking through every decision. They are <b>faithful</b><sup>***</sup> in unwaveringly performing their appointed task to feed the flock in their care in a timely way, even in the face of opposition and death.—John 21:15.</p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: #666666; font-size: small;">* "steward" Gk. "oikonomos" (οἰκονόμος), from "oíkos" (οἶκος), meaning "house", and nemō (νεμω), meaning "apportion"; administrate. Variants: Lu 16:1-4, 8; 1Co 4:1, 2; 1Co 9:17; Gal 4:2; Colossians 1:25; Eph 1:10; Eph 3:2, 9; Tit 1:7; 1Pe 4:7, 10, 11.—Ge 39:4; Ro 16:23.</span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: #666666; font-size: small;">** "discreet" Gk. "phronimos", (φρόνιμος), from "phrén" (φρήν), meaning the midriff, from where we get "diaphragm" ("From the midriff"); thinking deep down. Antonym: foolishness (Gk., "móros" μωρός; dull senses, unthinking).—Pr 22:3; Mt 7:24-27; Mt 25:2-4.</span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: #666666; font-size: small;">*** "faithful" Gk. "pistos" (πιστὸς), "persuaded', from peíthō (πείθω), meaning "persuade" as of what is trustworthy, and is related to "believe" (Gk. pisteuó, πιστεύω) and "faith" (Gk. pistis, πίστις). Antonym: hypocrisy (Gk. "hypokrisis" [ὑπόκρισις]; playacting; saying, but not doing).—Lu 16:9-12; Ac 16:15; 1Th 1:3; Re 2;10.</span></p><h3 style="text-align: left;">How many make up the "steward"?</h3><p><b><span style="color: #990000; font-size: medium;">Read:</span></b> <i>Matthew 23:9, 10; 18:1, 18-20; Acts 15:2, 6, 22, 28; 21:25.</i></p><p>Christ alone is our only leader. The steward is called both righteous and evil, based on their identifying actions, indicating more than one person. Thus it is to a governing body Jesus gave authority in the first century to take the lead among his people. (Heb 13:7; compare Acts 15:2) We will consider more evidence in the oppositional viewpoints.</p><h3 style="text-align: left;">What was the first appointment?</h3><p><span style="color: #990000; font-size: medium;"><b>Read:</b></span> <i>Matthew 24:3, 4, 45; Luke 12:47, 48; 1 Timothy 3:2-7; 5:22.</i></p><p>The account does not indicate a moment of appointment. But to make an appointment in the congregation requires the appointee having fulfilled certain qualifications and then being tested for fitness. (1Ti 3:1-10) Jesus said they should be: faithful, discreet and providing food supplies, continually waiting for the Master's eminent arrival (observing the fulfillment of prophecy) without relaxing, treating their fellow slaves with love and respect, and keep themselves from spiritual pollution.—Tit 2:13, 14; 1Pe 1:10-12; compare Mt 24:48, 49</p><h3 style="text-align: left;">What are the "domestics"?</h3><p><span style="color: #990000; font-size: medium;"><b>Read:</b></span> <i>Genesis 39:5; Compare Matthew 24:45 to Luke 12:42.</i></p><p>As steward of Potiphar's household, Joseph was over, not just the attendants "in the house" (like the heavenly abode), but also those "in the field" (the earth). (Ge 39:5) The "domestics" therefore include those in the field, the earth, but they are not <i>all people</i>. These are the "body of attendants", that is, those who accomplish their assigned duties, namely preaching and disciple-making while upholding God's word. Thus the "body of attendants", or "domestics", are those actively obeying Christ on the earth.</p><h3 style="text-align: left;">What are the "food supplies"?</h3><p><span style="color: #990000; font-size: medium;"><b>Read:</b></span> <i>Eze 3:16-21; </i><i>Matthew 14:14-22; 15:29-39; John 4:10, 34; 1 Corinthians 10:3, 4; Hebrews 5:11-6:3.</i></p><p>To claim Jesus did not want us to fixate on the food supplies, or any other outstanding feature except what is convenient to one's own interpretation is to promote a lie. The Scriptures are clear about our need for spiritual food.</p><p>Spiritual food is the way of the Christ in: how to become a Christian, how to do God's will, and how to distinguish right from wrong according to Hebrews 5:11-6:3. This group was to "give ... food," symbolized by Jesus' miracle of feeding the people through the apostles. (Mt 14:14-22; 15:29-39) The groups of 50 and 100 men with their families compares to Christian congregations. The loaves and fish are symbolic of having a heavenly source, indicated by the number "7" (5 + 2), representing the heavenly kingdom, "2" and "3" are a witness, and the total of 10 indicates earthly completeness. Thus no one will be unable to avail themselves of this heavenly manna because it is not subject to food shortages. —Compare Exodus 16:4-36.</p><h3 style="text-align: left;">When is the "proper time"?</h3><p><span style="color: #990000; font-size: medium;"><b>Read:</b></span> <i>Matthew 5:6; 1Peter 1:10-12; 2:1-3.</i></p><p>At Matthew 5:6, Jesus indicated one’s need to be fed spiritually when they are "hungering and thirsting for righteousness." These are counseled to rid themselves "of all badness and deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all backbiting" when asked to "form a longing for the unadulterated milk of the word."<span style="font-family: Libre Baskerville, serif;"><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;"> (</span></span>1Pe 2:1, 2) 1Pe 1:10-12 says that to know “what particular time or what season the spirit within them was indicating,” those with the responsibility to warn the people must ‘keep on investigating’ those things.</p><h3 style="text-align: left;">What is the second appointment "over all his belongings"? </h3><p><span style="color: #990000; font-size: medium;"><b>Read:</b></span> <i>Revelation 4:4; 5:10.</i></p><p>The second appointment after the Master arrives, when Christ executes judgment, comes after the anointed are taken to be with Christ in heaven. (1Th 4:16) The holy ones receive the kingship after Armageddon, then the "faithful and discreet slave" will be "appointed over all his belongings" (the heavenly kingdom of priests, the cherubs, the angels and the remnant of faithful mankind).—Ps 45:3, 4, 13-17; Re 21:1, 2. May 2022 Watchtower, Study Edition, p. 17, par. 12; 1Co 6:3; Re 5:9, 10; 14:3.</p><h3 style="text-align: left;">"Who Really is ... ?"</h3><p><span style="color: #990000; font-size: medium;"><b>Based on:</b></span> <i>14:14-22; John 4:34; 21:15; Hebrews 5:14.</i></p><p><span style="color: #990000; font-size: medium;"><b>Explained in:</b></span> "Feeding Many Through the Hands of a Few" and "Who Really Is the Faithful and Discreet Slave?" in the July 15, 2013 Watchtower, pp. 15-25.</p><p><span style="color: #990000; font-size: medium;"><b>Previously:</b></span> For a few years we understood the "steward" to be those anointed ones who actually plan and write the spiritual food. Though the understanding was not perfect, perfect knowledge is not necessary to the performance of the true steward’s duties according to Luke 12:48.</p><p><span style="color: #990000; font-size: medium;"><b>Now:</b></span> The "faithful and discreet slave" are a body of men who provide food supplies for the slaves by distributing what they need at the proper time to stay awake spiritually in order to accomplish Jehovah's will. (Matthew 25:1-4; Luke 12:35-37) They do not need to be the authors any more than the apostles needed to be the preparers of the food they distributed on the two occasions.</p><p>This group was initially identified as the directors of the Watch Tower Society in 1920 in the April 1 Zion's Watchtower (pp. 99, 100), though initially accepting there could be others and rejecting this channel should not be disqualified by disfellowshipping (This was later rightfully corrected). </p><p>This group proved their fitness by maintaining the Lord's affairs while enduring the loss of the Society's founder, ousting would-be usurpers, and severe persecution, resulting in the imprisonment of the Society directors on false charges, at the direction of Christendom’s churches from 1916 to 1919. Still later this group identified themselves as the Governing Body of the organization and eventually divorced themselves from being identified as the Watchtower Society's directors even while the aforementioned previous understanding remained until it was finally correctly understood in 2013.</p>
<p>They are not apostles (who are such by virtue of being eyewitnesses from the beginning of Jesus' ministry to his resurrection; Acts 1:21, 22). However, rejecting this channel means rejecting Christ, just as when many rejected Christ's apostles, who were the initial governing body of the first century and later incorporated non-apostles. (See <i>What was the first appointment?</i> above.)—Acts 15:2; Heb 13:17.</p><p>Some details may be clarified in the future, but it seems certain that it being a small group taking the lead will remain unchanged from now on.</p><p>Jehovah's Witnesses are not alone in this view that the steward represents leadership in the body of Christ. In fact, at least a third of all commentaries recognize this. But only Jehovah's Witnesses specifically associate it with a governing body for the reasons related in this post.</p><h3 style="text-align: left;">Who is the "evil slave"?</h3><p><span style="color: #990000; font-size: medium;"><b>Read:</b></span> <i>Mic 7:1-6; Zph 3:1-4; Mt 21:28-32; 24:48-51; Luke 12:45,46.</i></p><p>The "evil slave" is a hypothetical condition of those appointed to be the steward if they fail in their duties. They might claim to provide spiritual food but neither stay on the watch nor teach righteousness. They would be hypocrites not understanding the will of their master. They beat their fellow slaves with persecution and judgment. They feed on the flock in unseemly appetites with their fellow spiritual drunkards (Christendom). They would be “beaten with the greatest severity” during the Great Tribulation. They would have time to “weep and gnash their teeth” because they will be in fear of God's judgment (not in hellfire).—Mt 24:50, 51.</p><p><br /></p><p>These interpretations may seem odd to some because they are not familiar with them, but by exhausting the other interpretations we will see that a small group of men taking the lead is the only effective explanation of the "faithful and discreet slave" which remains.</p><br /><h2 style="text-align: center;">Not: Christ</h2><p><span style="color: #990000; font-size: medium;"><b>Based on:</b></span> <i>Ge 39:4-6, 21-23; 1 Corinthians 1:24; Philippians 2:7; Revelation 1:5; 3:14; 19:11.</i></p><p>Christ's being called "faithful" in Revelation does not prove him to be the "faithful and discreet slave." It is just a qualification he fulfilled. In fact, Christ is never once called a "steward" or "discreet" (though he is such).</p><p>At Philippians 2:7, Jesus did not become a slave, but rather took the physical form used by slaves. But all anointed Christians are called "slaves of our God".—Re 7:3.</p><p>Though Joseph typifies Christ in other places, there is no prophetic parallel to Christ in his acting as Potiphar's steward and as overseer in the Prison.</p><p>Since Jesus is the Master (like Potiphar), not the slave, he is already to be obeyed by direct command, so puzzling over the steward (who directs others) would be superfluous.—Colossians 3:24; Joh 14:15, 21.</p><p><br /></p><h2 style="text-align: center;">Not: Animal Owners</h2><p><span style="color: #990000; font-size: medium;"><b>Based on:</b></span> <i>Genesis 1:28; Proverbs 12:10.</i></p><p>Indeed, proverbs 12:10 should come to mind, but not in the literal sense because Jesus was not being literal. He spoke in non-literal illustrations. Why? He answers:</p><p>"To [the true disciples] it is granted to understand the sacred secrets of the Kingdom of the heavens, but to [the world] it is not granted. ... ‘You will indeed hear but by no means get the sense of it, and you will indeed look but by no means see. For the heart of this people has grown unreceptive. …’"—Mt 13:11-15; Isa 6:9, 10.</p><p>Besides, "domestics" is only used in Matthew, with no mention of animals. Luke refers to the same ones as a "body of attendants", very clearly referring to people, not animals.</p><p><br /></p><h2 style="text-align: center;">Not: Distributors of Physical Food to the Needy</h2><p><span style="color: #990000; font-size: medium;"><b>Based on:</b></span> <i>Matthew 25:37-40; Acts 6:3; Romans 12:20 (Quoted from Proverbs 25:21, 22); Jas 2:15, 16.</i></p><p>The apostles instructed the congregations to appoint a special committee to distribute physical food to a specific group of Christians in need during a famine, not all the time. They said: "It is not right for us to leave the word of God to distribute food to tables." (Acts 6:2, 3) So food distribution was not a duty of all Christians, nor distributed to all people and takes those in the lead away from their duty to study the word of God.</p><p>Now yes, they instructed the congregation to appoint men (not by Christ), and yes, they have "wisdom" ("sophias"), but there is no mention of being "faithful" or "discreet", though some translations mistranslate the Greek "phronimos"* as "wise" at Luke 12:45 in order to suggest this connection.</p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: #666666; font-size: small;">* See footnote "**" above.</span></p><p>Since Christ is to find the steward doing so when he arrives, then distributing food to the "body of attendants" is likely a continual practice. Though it could be argued that the famine will be happening when Jesus arrives. However, Jesus said, "Work, not for the food that perishes, but for the food that remains for everlasting life, which the Son of man will give you." (John 6:27) So, clearly, the food Christ wants us to be concerned with is spiritual, not physical.</p><p><br /></p><h2 style="text-align: center;">Not: a Succession From Peter</h2><p><span style="color: #990000; font-size: medium;"><b>Based on:</b></span> <i>Matthew 16:18, 19; John 21:15-17.</i></p><p><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>Note: See "Apostolic Succession" in Reasoning from the Scriptures for a full discussion.</i></span></p><p>Besides not proving an unbroken succession would happen, in the illustration at Matthew 16:17, 18, the Master in the steward riddle did not appoint anyone before he left. It simply says they are appointed for the purpose of feeding the domestic attendants.</p><p>The time of appointment is not given, except the riddle was said in connection to the end of the system of things, suggesting that it occurs before Christ's return. Succession is not indicated.</p><p><br /></p><h2 style="text-align: center;">Not: a Single Person</h2><p><span style="color: #990000; font-size: medium;"><b>Based on:</b></span> <i>Matthew 23:11.</i></p><p>Illustrative individuals often represent a group, like the bride of Christ representing the anointed congregation or the rich man representing the religious hypocrites.—2Co 11:2 (Compare Re 21:2); Lu 16:19-31 (Compare My 23:27, 28).</p><p>Additionally, Jesus said, "But you, do not you be called Rabbi, for one is your Teacher, and all of you are brothers. Moreover, do not call anyone your father on earth, for one is your Father, the heavenly One. Neither be called leaders, for your Leader is one, the Christ."—Col 3:24; Mt 23:8-10.</p><p>But someone might say, "The next verse says 'the greatest one among you must be your minister.'" Yes, but after washing the feet of his apostles, he said, "If I, the Lord and Teacher, washed your feet, you also should wash the feet of one another."—Joh 13:13-14.</p><p>Jesus also said, "To sit down at my right hand and at my left is not mine to give, but it belongs to those for whom it has been prepared by my Father." (Mt 20:23b) Therefore it is at least two or more people.</p><p><br /></p><h2 style="text-align: center;">Not: Stewards of Each Other</h2><p><b><span style="color: #990000; font-size: medium;">Based on:</span></b> <i>Ps 1:1-3; Ro 12:5; 1Co 12:25, 26; 1Pe 4:10, 11.</i></p><p>The context in Romans also says, “We have in one body many members, but the members do not all have the same function. ... the <i>one</i> who distributes, let him do it liberally; the <i>one</i> who presides, let him do it diligently.” (Ro 12:4, 6, 8) Indeed, 1 Corinthians continues: “And God has assigned the respective <i>ones</i> in the congregation: first, apostles; ... Not all are apostles, are they?” (1Co 12:28, 29) So we are talking about differences in duties and position.</p><p>While Christians are obligated to minister to each other, ministering is not about providing physical or spiritual food (though it can include such); it is about helping, just as when Jesus washed the feet of his disciples. Ministering is about the volunteer spirit. But Jesus was speaking to a future member of the first century governing body when he said to him: “feed my little sheep.”—John 21:15-17.</p><p>This mention of “stewards” in 1 Peter 4:10 is colloquial, like one might say, “You are the steward of this book. Keep it safe.” That said, being “stewards” of each other would demonstrate a lack of organization, and God “is not a God of disorder, but of peace.” (1Co 14:33) Instead, Peter was saying we are all stewards, not of the congregation, its members or anything else belonging to Christ, but “of God's undeserved kindness.” That is, each of us are stewards of gifting (or stewards of his grace). So we become responsible for showing God’s undeserved kindness to others through our actions by volunteering. That is not spiritual food.</p><p>Peter does not explicitly refer to food. But in line with the letters to the Romans and the Corinthians, Peter states, “If anyone speaks, let him do so as speaking pronouncements from God; if anyone ministers, let him do so as depending on the strength that God supplies, so that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ.” (1Pe 4:11a) So, then, teaching, ministering (serving as needed) and displaying faith are what is meant. In doing so, we are all “stewards of his undeserved kindness.” No food mentioned.</p><p>However, one might point out Jesus’ words: “My food is to do the will of him who sent me and to finish his work.” (Joh 4:34) Jesus, though, is the source of spiritual food and the domestics are provisioned with this food by “the faithful and discreet slave” who is not Jesus. (Lu 12:42; see <i>Not: Christ</i> above). So the food here is about instructing others in doing Jehovah’s will. This food is distributed broadly to all seeking it, and not simply related from one Christian to another, though no Christian should refrain from doing so.</p><p>Besides these things, women are not allowed to steward men. (1Ti 2:129 ) The direction to be “minister to one another as fine stewards” would therefore be limited to only being over the gift, not the person. This same problem persists if we claim that it is all the holy ones (anointed).</p><h3 style="text-align: left;">Are <i>You</i> a “Faithful and Discreet Slave”?</h3><p>If you say, we are all the “faithful and discreet slave,” then in what way do <i>you</i> personally provide spiritual food to the attendants? Do <i>you</i> distribute food supplies? Do <i>you</i> preach publicly? Do <i>you</i> minister? Do <i>you</i> correct yourself? Or do you withhold the gift and beat your former associates? Or do you partake of the world's ways without shame? How have <i>you</i> fulfilled the requirements of the steward of Jesus’ illustration?</p><p>The illustration in question says accurate knowledge is not a prerequisite to being the slave. (Luke 12:48) So even if the illustration turned out to be about every Christian or holy one, then they will not be rejected as long as they did their job as Christians or anointed ones. Even in that regard, Jehovah's Witnesses are still the only ones where all members are expected to do the work and therefore the only ones in line to receive the reward, even if we are mistaken about something. Our strokes would be few. What about you?</p><p><br /></p><h3 style="text-align: left;">Evil Slave Not: Unbelievers</h3><p><span style="color: #990000; font-size: medium;"><b>Based On:</b></span> <i>Mt 25:22, 31-46; 2Pe 3:4.</i></p><p>Some commentaries ignore the very first words regarding the evil slave. It says, "If ever that slave should say in his heart, ‘My master delays coming,’ So first, they recognize who their master is, and then believe he is delaying. Thus, these are believers, but ones who are losing faith in the Christ's return.</p><p>They are not already beating their fellow slaves, but only begin to after losing faith. So this cannot be simply unbelievers.</p><p><br /></p><h3 style="text-align: left;">Not: Just a Parable of Watchfulness</h3><p><span style="color: #990000; font-size: medium;"><b>Based on:</b></span> Matthew <i>24:42-44; Luke 12:37-40.</i></p><p>A common interpretation, this ignores all details in the illustration that followed those words. If that were all he were wanting to relate, why bother with the feature of giving food supplies to the attendants? Yes, watchfulness is important, but not directly identified as the role of the steward in this illustration, but is the responsibility of all who are invited to the marriage feast.</p><p><br /></p><h2 style="text-align: center;">Not: Bible Writers</h2><p><span style="color: #990000; font-size: medium;"><b>Based on:</b></span> <i>Matthew 4:4; Luke 4:4 (Jesus quoting Deuteronomy 8:4).</i></p><p>Note again the Bible's words: “Everyone who continues to feed on milk is unacquainted with the word of righteousness, for he is a young child. But solid food belongs to mature people, to those who through use have their powers of discernment trained to distinguish both right and wrong.” So one who takes milk is “unacquainted” with God's word, so God's word is not the spiritual food because it is not the milk. So what is?</p><p>Solid spiritual food is given only to those who “have their powers of discernment trained to distinguish both right and wrong.” So this connects spiritual food to those who are taught what is right and wrong. So then, the milk is for those who are still learning right and wrong. But note that the mature ones have “trained” their “powers of discernment” “through use.” So the milk helps to train them and they put it to use. So the spiritual food, then, is like a training program which helps a person learn to use and maintain their ability to distinguish right and wrong. For those who are new, they are given spiritual “milk” to bring them up to that level. But now, this raises a question about Bible teachers.</p><p><br /></p><h2 style="text-align: center;">Not: Bible Teachers or Clergy</h2><p><span style="color: #990000; font-size: medium;"><b>Based on:</b></span> <i>Titus 1:7-9.</i></p><p>Note that the words at Matthew 24:45 and Luke 12:42 do not say they <i>feed</i> the domestics (attendants), but only says they give them food.</p><p>A Bible teacher certainly feeds the person spiritual “milk” to become strong enough to distinguish right and wrong, but they are not the distributors of the “milk”. First of all, a Bible teacher is not needed after the student has reached spiritual maturity, so they do not distribute the “solid food” to them which keeps them in good spiritual shape for the rest of their lives. A teacher from a platform does feed the congregation spiritual “solid food” to help them maintain their ability to distinguish right and wrong, but are they the distributors of Jesus’ prophecy?</p><p>Think of a parent feeding their family. They may heat it up, but maybe someone else prepared it as when a neighbor has his wife prepare dishes to be friendly and he asks the child to choose which dish he will take to the other family. Today, a manufacturer prepares it and packages it and then a distributor or vendor makes the prepared food available to the parent. The parent then feeds it to their family. Neither the preparer nor the parent is the distributor. Congregation teachers are like the parent. The manufacturer is like the writers making the spiritual food from the recipe provided by Christ, but the distributor makes the spiritual food available to many, just as when the apostles distributed food to the many.—Matthew 14:14-22; 15:29-39.</p><p>Could, then, the distributors be those distributing Bibles? See the previous heading for the answer.</p><p>At Titus 1:7, an overseer is called a “steward”. A steward of what? As we saw above, a Christian is a “steward” of God’s loving kindness (grace). Likewise here, we are told what the overseers are stewards of. Verse 9 says they are stewards of “the faithful word,” not of the congregation (the domestics).</p><h3>How Has Christendom's Clergy Failed to Be "the Faithful and Discreet Slave"?</h3><p>The heads of Christendom's many religions have neglected their duty to provide spiritual "food at the proper time". Nearly all have entirely neglected their responsibilities to direct the spiritual welfare of their congregations from a central authority, or else do it from only one person (whether currently or from the past).</p><p>They push false doctrines that must be forced into the Scriptures and entrenching themselves in the political and social affairs of the world while cursing their enemies. They fleece their flocks for every penny they can squeeze out of them through commercial business ventures, donation drives, prayer requests for money, church yard sales and passing the plate. All the while they pay lip service to the signs of the times without using it to motivate their parishioners to righteousness, choosing instead to rebel against God and the authorities.</p><p><br /></p><h2 style="text-align: center;">Not: All in Positions of Power</h2><p><span style="color: #990000; font-size: medium;"><b>Based on:</b></span> <i>Ro 13:1-5; 1Pe 2:13, 14.</i></p><p>The suggestion by a few that this applies to authorities ignores that these ones are in expectation at any point of the master's coming. Many of the nations on earth are not Christian. Many of those in positions of authority have never had even the faintest glimmer of idea that Christ is their master. So this cannot apply to authorities.</p><div><br /></div><div><h2 style="text-align: center;">Not: Israel or Its Leadership</h2><div><span style="color: #990000; font-size: medium;"><p style="color: black;"><span style="color: #990000; font-size: medium;"><b>Based on:</b></span> <i>Isaiah 44:21; 65:13; Matthew 24:15-22.</i></p><p style="color: black;">The illustration is claimed by some to apply only to the last days of Israel. Christ is the Master. He did not appoint any Jewish leaders over Israel. He only appointed lowly Jewish men over the Christian congregation and below we will cover that they were not the steward. (Lu 22:14, 24, 28-30) Both Jewish and Greek Christians were later counted as the "Israel of God" according to the spirit rather than the Jewish nation.—Romans 2:28, 29; 9:6-16, 24; Gal 6:15, 16.</p><p style="color: black;">1 Corinthians 10:3, 4 says, "All [Israel] ate the same spiritual food and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they used to drink from the spiritual rock that followed them, and that rock meant the Christ." So "spiritual food" was not distributed in the nation of Israel by any intervening class, priestly or otherwise. Additionally, the analysis of what "spiritual food" is above (See Not: Bible Teachers or Clergy) shows that Israel did not present spiritual food in the way demonstrated by Jesus. Jesus even noted that the Pharisees did not do the job that they had taken upon themselves to do for money taken from the temple treasury.—Mt 23:13; Ro 2:22.</p><p style="color: black;">The fact is they never expected the messiah to be the actual Son of God nor to need resurrection, belief in which is a necessary part of Christian spiritual food according to Hebrews 5:13-6:2.</p><p style="color: black;">The service indicated at Isaiah 44:21 and elsewhere is referring to their being bought from Egypt as at 43:1, which leads into 44. It has nothing to do with giving food supplies to attendants, as Jehovah himself provided food to them.—Le 26:3-6.</p><p style="color: black;">Isaiah 65:13 is talking to the Jews about the Christian congregation, as the full first half of the psalm shows that the Jews were unwilling to listen. The second half of the psalm was never fulfilled on the nation, especially not in Jesus' day. It will ultimately be fulfilled on those having faith in Jesus in paradise.</p></span></div><div><br /></div><h2 style="text-align: center;">Not: Only Those With a Special Calling By God</h2><div><div><p><span style="color: #990000; font-size: medium;"><b>Based on:</b></span><i> Acts 9:3-5, 10-17.</i></p><p>Certainly, if anyone is given a calling by God in a vision, then they should obey God, but there is no indication in Jesus' prophecy that the appointment of the faithful and discreet slave be given only to those who receive such a vision or direct word from God, but instead are merely given requirements to fulfill.</p><p>Paul's words at 1 Corinthians 9:17 indicate the specific calling he spoke of at Acts 26:14-18. He refers to it again at Galatian 2:7 as the same sort Peter had. At Romans 11:13, he calls himself "an apostle to the nations," and at 1 Timothy 2:7, "a teacher of nations in the matter of faith and truth." This was a very specific stewardship, but one in which neither he nor Peter are described specifically as "faithful and discreet". But Paul was never told to "feed my sheep" as Peter had been. (John 21:15-17)</p><p>Let us now consider other special assignments.</p></div></div><h3 style="text-align: left;">Not: Prophets</h3><div><div><p><b><span style="color: #990000;">Based on:</span></b><i> De 18:15, 18, 19; Joh 1:21; 1Pe 1:10-12; Re 3:14-22.</i></p><p>There are requirements for the Prophet of Moses’ prophecy at Deuteronomy 18:15, 18, 19 that must be met. He must first of all say, “This is what Jehovah says …” They must also speak prophecies that come true and never lead people away from Jehovah. But the Prophet is never associated with any specific appointment, nor with the distribution of food, nor with attendants or domestics.</p><p>The ability to prophesy is nowhere associated with an appointed steward who provides food for domestics or attendants. No one today proclaiming "this is what Jehovah says" states a prophecy that comes true except accidentally in among many failed prophecies because they are unable to repeat it ("Even a broken clock is right twice a day").</p><p>At one time, some among the Bible Students attempted to declare Charles Russell to be the "faithful and discreet slave" because they claimed that he was a prophet, in fact “THE prophet” at John 1:21 and "the Laodicean messenger" of Revelation 3:14-22 because he was the means by which Jehovah was restoring true worship. However, Russell never claimed to be a prophet, let alone <i>the</i> Prophet. He never attempted to prophesy and he discouraged anyone from identifying him as "the faithful and discreet slave" of Jesus' prophecy. Those ones eventually either abandoned that belief or left the Bible Students all together.</p></div></div><h3 style="text-align: left;">Not: the Apostles</h3><div><p><span style="color: #990000; font-size: medium;"><b>Based on:</b></span><i> Mr 3:14, 15; Lu 12:41.</i></p><p>Some insist it is the apostles because Matthew 24:2, 16 specifically indicates the fall of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. However, there were only two major wars, one notable earthquake, and two food shortages in the years leading up to 70 C.E. (Mt 24:4-8; Lu 21:8-11; Acts 11:28) Only one other person besides Jesus pretended to be the messiah back then, but did not claim to be Jesus himself, as he had foretold. Those numbers are hardly worth noting. So clearly this prophecy was to occur on a scale more like we see today.—See <a href="https://dismythed.blogspot.com/p/supplemental-last-days-prophecy-not.html" target="_blank">Supplemental: "This Generation" Not Limited to First Century CE</a>.</p><p>While they did provide spiritual "food at the proper time," they were not the specific steward present in the last days when the Master comes to collect them. Christ never returned at the destruction of Jerusalem. (Mt 24:46; Lu 12:43) Thus there is little connecting them to the fulfillment of the last days. At best, they foreshadowed the group in question.</p></div><h3 style="text-align: left;">Not: Those Providing the Emblems</h3><div><p><b><span style="color: #990000; font-size: medium;">Based on:</span></b><i> </i><i>John 6:48-58.</i></p><p>Jesus spoke of his flesh and blood as food and drink, but it does not correspond to the food Paul spoke of and which Jesus implied when he said, “Feed my sheep” after feeding the apostles fish. That was healthful food. The food mentioned at John 6:48-58, on the other hand, was representative of the New Covenant and the Priesthood as at Luke 22:19, 20.</p><p>Just as with the human body, there are different varieties of food for different purposes. Like spiritual food nurtures the spirit, substantial food nurtures the body, keeps it healthy and helps it grow and repair damage as when Jesus fed the apostles fish. The emblems do not serve that purpose. They instead serve to sacrifice the body the way one cuts out corruption and to bind to a priestly covenant. (1Co 15:50) So the emblems are more like the offerings of the priestly altar, bringing salvation to many.</p><p>Additionally, in the example set when feeding the 4,000 and the 5,000, it was only loaves of leavened bread and fish served without wine. This indicated a nutritional purpose only.</p></div><h3 style="text-align: left;">Not: a Class in Heaven</h3><div><p><span style="color: #990000; font-size: medium;"><b>Based on:</b></span><i> Act 24:15; Re 21:2.</i></p></div><div>It is believed by some that Jesus will send resurrected holy ones to teach unrighteous people according to Re 21:2. However, the steward is to be found feeding the domestics upon the Master's return to earth. Unless Christ's return occurred after that event, which Revelation does not indicate, nor does any other scripture.</div><div><br /></div><h2 style="text-align: center;">Objections to the Feeding of the Many</h2><div><p>Some claim the small group of 12 apostles could not have handed out food individually to the around 20,000 men, women and children. However, Luke 9:12, 13 says that “the 12 now came up” and he said to them: “You give them something to eat.”</p><p>Afterward, all four accounts say that these same disciples picked up leftovers with 12 baskets, indicating the number of disciples doing the gathering. (Mt 14:15-20) According to Matthew 14:22 and Mark 6:45, these disciples entered into the same boat with Jesus; not much more than that could fit on a fishing boat no larger than a dingy.</p><p>The 12 apostles had delivered the food to and gathered fragments from, not each and every individual, but groups of 50 and 100 men (primarily family heads; Mr 6:40). There were 5,000 men on one occasion and 4,000 on another, so the apostles only needed to hand out baskets to around 5-8 groups each. That is not difficult to do within 1 hour.—Mt 14:14-22; 16:9, 10; Mr 6:35-44.</p><p><br /><br /></p></div><h2 style="text-align: center;">Does the Master's Departure Matter?</h2><div><p>Some claim Christ appointed a slave in order to depart and return later, based on Matthew 21:23 (Mr 12:1; Lu 20:9) and 25:14 (Mr 13:34; Lu 19:12), but no such departure is mentioned in the account at Matthew 24:45-47 (Lu 12:42, 43), which he is so careful to include in the other accounts where it mattered.—Mt 21:33 (Mr 12:1, 9; Lu 20:9); Mr 13:34; Lu 19:12 (Mt 25:14).</p><p>Jesus said: “If I go my way and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will receive you home to myself, so that where I am you also may be.” (John 14:3) But none of this is indicated by Jesus' words in Matthew 24. He merely talks about an appointment before his arrival and an appointment after his arrival.</p><p>In fact, it is completely possible to appoint caretakers over a property without being physically present. So their appointment does not require that they be appointed before he left. Thus, Christ's departure is not important to identifying when the steward was appointed, and that is why it is not mentioned.</p><p>In fact, the account in Luke 12, written after 70 C.E., says the words “will appoint”. Luke wrote his account to be interpretive, as with Jesus' prophecy about Jerusalem by being surrounded by encamped armies. (Lu 21:20) Matthew, however, used past tense as having already occurred by the prophecy's fulfillment. Luke thus indicates the appointment was still future, but past in relation to Jesus’ arrival. So the appointment would come any time after the fall of Jerusalem and before Christ's coming.</p><p><br /></p></div><h2 style="text-align: center;">Peripheral Illustrations Not the Same</h2><div><p>Some of the above interpretations come from thinking the surrounding illustrations in Matthew and Luke are important to understanding the steward prophecy.</p><p>However, the ten virgins in Matthew are not described as “faithful”, nor called a “steward” who are appointed over everything. (25:1-12) The male slaves of the parallel account in Luke are also not described as "faithful" (Though of course they are, as with any of God's servants). Like the virgins, this different group demonstrates what it means to be discreet, but not what it means to be a steward that feeds the sheep.—Lu 12:36-38.</p><p>The lamp oil illustration indicates that the oil (kerosene) feeds the light within themselves and must be acquired by some means and hoarded because it does not multiply on its own. They are, therefore, not the suppliers of the oil.</p><p>In the illustration of the talents or minas, none are described as stewards, nor discreet. (Mt 25:14-30; Lu 19:12-27) They are meant to show what it means for any Christian to be faithful in their preaching duties, not what it means to be a steward or to distribute food. The talents acquire more talents, therefore the talents are not the same as the food or the lamp oil.</p><p>In neither of these last two illustrations does waiting for the Master's arrival make them a steward. A steward is not such by virtue of them being entrusted with money, or else they would hoard the money, but by their being entrusted with a specific duty. Those with the talents were not assigned any specified task, but managed what they were given. Those with the oil were not entrusted with anything but managed what they had.</p><p>To arbitrarily say that either of the other two groups are the steward is to say that a cat is a cow because it has spots or to say the parts are the same as the whole. Neither of which makes any sense. It is simply a stretch beyond reach to claim that one commonality makes them all the same. Yes, the steward is among those with the talents and those with the lamps, but not all those with the talents or lamp oil are the steward.</p><p>Each of the three illustrations are highlighting the groups doing different things at the time of the Master's arrival. The first is the virgins or manservants who wait, described as discreet, they are not the anointed bride. There are also the slaves who act with what they are given, described as faithful. Finally, there are the stewards, described as both faithful and discreet; they both wait for the Master and faithfully fulfill their assigned task to provide food supplies to non-steward slaves and receive the highest appointment ”over all his belongings.” You could say these are the ones who provision the virgins (slaves) with the oil.</p><p>The servants in these illustrations also end up in different places. Jesus “comes alongside” the manservants (the virgins) to “minister to them.” (Lu 12:37) So after his arrival, they are still on earth. Luke 8:11, 12 also indicates an earthly banquet when those invited “come from east and west” and some are thrown out into mental darkness where they remain able to nash their teeth, so they have not yet been destroyed at Armageddon. Likewise, the indiscreet virgins were left pleading outside. (Mt 25:11, 12) This banquet began in 1914. But the steward is appointed to rule over all Christ's belongings, so they end up in heaven with the rest of the resurrected anointed ones where they judge angels.—1Co 6:3.</p><p>Also, Jesus in no other place has ever stated three parables to express a single point. Likewise, these illustrations are expressing three different points about faithfulness, discretion and stewardship as separate instructions to different groups.</p><p><br /></p><h2 style="text-align: center;">Conclusion</h2><div><p>By not arbitrarily choosing a meaning, but keeping at it until we found the correct understanding, we have a deeper understanding of the Bible and of how many other prophecies relate to this one. We are also not left with an understanding that does not benefit us. We are instead given a clear understanding of the importance of those taking the lead who provide for our spiritual needs by distributing spiritual food to congregations.</p><p><br /></p><p>If you know of more interpretations or details not included here, comment below or message us with the contact form in the sidebar.</p></div></div></div><p><br /></p>
<div id="Theologians" style="text-align: center; width: 100%;">
<img border="0" data-original-height="408" data-original-width="1450" height="90" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEilgh_h2qWgSwYE37j8aplfW82zuAaBGBX-CYOtqp1_C-Roeyh4dK6S-1oP4sdz2_KvG4mGLxe0Ly3RfZ42Or69IdSMKs0sCUeLTz1JPTnDCZeyymuimh8kDr3cM7VzF3Gpp0UKF77Ux9rrMBl5Ea7XOCr0LJIPnNGh-7NQrhbCHFR-ZYRe23jJMUmBVg=s320" width="320" /></div><div id="Opposers" style="text-align: center; width: 100%;">
<img border="0" data-original-height="408" data-original-width="1450" height="90" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiBC7iFjimozYma_8yN02S2mC4qXb_AQtjavN7CJlj6zf3L8x1pa9OFN5HqMPYrHCJyU1S87MhK-gr0paRMqqtqLwzY8psEDnjR5_9hyXhz1w9ohBW85PhRFrJ1DO6dz25xmNXErv-c_ADxtHFDd4-XfRlRZ2qWI3Vxx7w9v0nrYF0FJFdCSffawwluMg=s320" width="320" /></div><p><br /></p>
<hr /><p>If you find anything in this post that does not fully comply with our <a href="http://dismythed.blogspot.com/p/submission-guidelines.html" target="_blank">Submission Guidelines</a>, call us out on it. We want to know about it.</p><p><span style="color: #666666; font-size: x-small;">UPDATES: originally posted 1/9/23 11:52 PM. Updated Jan 16 at 10:38 PM: objections: Christ, animal owners and food distributors. Updated Jan 21 at 11:13 PM: objections: Apostolic Succession and Single Person. Added text to Author's note and "What Are the 'food supplies'"? Updated Jan 30 at 11:48 PM: objection: Stewards of Each Other; heading: Are <i>You</i> </span><span style="color: #666666; font-size: x-small;">a “Faithful and Discreet Slave”? Updated Feb 1 at 11:18 PM: objections: Bible Writers and Bible Teachers or Clergy. Updated Feb 8 at 5:27 PM: Evil Slave Not: Unbelievers; objections: Just a Parable About Watchfulness; All in Positions of Power. Feb 27 at 3:01 PM: How Has Christendom's Clergy Failed to Be "the Faithful and Discreet Slave"?: Not: Israel or Its Leadership. Mar 6 at 10:04 AM: objections: Only Those With a Special Calling By God; Prophets; Apostles; Those Providing the Emblems; a Class in Heaven. Mar 8 at 2:25 PM: Objections to the Feeding of the Many; Does the Master's Departure Matter?; Peripheral Illustrations Not the Same; Conclusion.</span></p>Dismythedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09872186295008632240noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-413969216273696296.post-41223476624652893282022-08-19T13:14:00.009-05:002022-11-23T10:07:25.967-06:00Jehovah's Witnesses Demonstrate Critical Thinking [Opposers Dismythed]<p style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">You would likely agree that today it is popular to equate critical thinking with abandoning belief in God and/or religion. Hence some of our opposers claim that Jehovah's Witnesses do not employ critical thinking for the very reason that they are still Jehovah's Witnesses. Obviously, such ones do not understand what critical thinking is. Others claim that we prohibit critical thinking. Is this so?</p><h3 style="text-align: left;">What Is Critical Thinking?</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">The fact is, critical thinking has less to do with what conclusion one arrives at and more to do with how one arrives at said conclusions. A person could accept the Trinity because he was told to accept it, or simply because he was raised in that belief system by his parents. He may then justify his belief by seeking support for it. Does justifying one's beliefs make them a "critical thinker"?</p><p style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">Critical thinking is best defined as: "the analysis of available facts, evidence, observations, and arguments to form a judgement," as per Wikipedia (August 2022) in accord with Edward M. Glaser. Google says: "the objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgment." Basically, it means to perform one's own personal study of a subject in order to come to their own conclusions based on all the factual evidence available to them.</p><p style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="text-align: left;">For example, when considering whether evolution is true, a critical thinker does not accept it simply because the majority of scientists claim it is true. Instead, they read papers on evolution, learn the meanings of terms used and ask questions of what they read in order to get at the answers to those questions. Then they ask, "does this point toward evolution, or does it point to something else?" When, after each analysis of a new paper they keep coming to the conclusion that the evolutionist scientists have not proved evolution, they accept, by inference of many samples, that evolution has not proved its case.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="text-align: left;">As an inverse example, when that same person looks at the evidence for God, they ask similar questions: "Does supreme organization point to a supreme designer?" "Does archaeology support the Bible accounts about acts of God?" "Does the Bible's proven accuracy point to God being a real person?" "Does fulfilled prophecy point to a divine source?" The answer to all these questions is "yes". A critical thinker even thinks about why those things are true.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="text-align: left;">At times, such conclusions can be very subjective due to conflicting evidence or due to ambiguous, little or non-existent evidence. Jehovah's Witnesses take the words of the Bible as infallible evidence due to its impressive track record. Thus their opinions may at times differ from mainstream archeologists who take the Bible's word only when there is corroborating evidence that they cannot forcefully reinterpret in any other way than what the Bible describes.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="text-align: left;">Jehovah's Witnesses do not, however, reject archaeological evidence outright, but reject any ancient writing that cannot be corroborated with, or is otherwise incompatible with, the Bible as they understand it.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="text-align: left;">That is why archaeologists and Jehovah's Witnesses may at times diverge in their opinions. This difference is based solely upon the weight they put on certain ancient documents, one over the other, which occasionally </span><span style="text-align: left; text-indent: 22.5pt;">conflict. But this difference is strictly and only subjective.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="text-align: left; text-indent: 22.5pt;">However, the Bible is one of the few written sources that has never been shown to have faulty information by internal contradiction, contradictory physical archaeology or multiple archaeological documents about the same event agreeing with each other, but disagreeing with the Bible.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="text-align: left; text-indent: 22.5pt;">By deciding the one source that is true, the two sides' opposing opinions tend to be internally consistent despite disagreement (See the post "</span><a href="https://dismythed.blogspot.com/2013/09/jerusalem-began-serving-babylon-607-bce.html" style="text-align: left; text-indent: 22.5pt;" target="_blank">Why Do Jehovah's Witnesses Point to 607 BCE for When the Jews Began Serving Babylon?</a><span style="text-align: left; text-indent: 22.5pt;">" for an example of this), though archaeology frequently updates to fit the evidence, while the view of Biblical history never needs to update because the Bible has never been proved wrong.</span></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><b>What Is Uncritical Thinking?</b></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">Failing to critically analyze can be demonstrated in a number of ways, including (but not limited to) giving in to popular opinions without question, accepting the professions of experts without challenging their evidence, adopting a belief system without review, accepting the word of a parent or mentor without reservation, or opposing a belief system just because one is trained to hate the people or organization that adheres to it.</p><p style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">For example, disgruntled former members demonstrate a lack of critical thinking by dedicating their lives to the obsessive pursuit of discrediting Jehovah's Witnesses, accepting any claim made against them without scrutiny while hiding and ignoring facts, no matter what Jehovah's Witnesses do, say, or believe. (There are many examples in the Opposers Dismythed series on this site. For one particular example, see the post, "<a href="http://dismythed.blogspot.com/2015/09/flip-side-news-organization-vindicated.html" target="_blank">Organization Vindicated of 'Smash and Grab' Lies</a>".)</p><p style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="text-align: left;">An uncritical thinker is subject to manipulation by means of fallacies and are often accustomed to practicing logical fallacies themselves. A logical fallacy is where a statement made is ambiguous, inflated, invalid, unsound, unwarranted or irrelevant.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="text-align: left;">There are a number of rules of constructing a proper argument, including properly connecting any number of grounds from which to derive a conclusion. There are many ways logical fallacies can happen. The most common logical fallacies include forcing a predefined conclusion or the conclusion bears little relation to the subject.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="text-align: left;">For example, in the post, "</span><a href="https://dismythed.blogspot.com/2017/04/shunning-violation-of-human-rights.html" style="text-align: left;" target="_blank">Is Shunning a Violation of Human Rights?</a><span style="text-align: left;">", we give attention to the claim by disgruntled former members that shunning violates Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="text-align: left;">In that post, putting aside that our beliefs do not depend on any human document, we point out that "Opposers never present that [leaving is their own choice]. Instead, they focus on the possible effects of shunning in an attempt to distract you from the facts and manipulate how others perceive us. They use emotive, non-neutral language such as: 'it breaks up families', 'separates children from parents', and 'causes emotional torture'." None of those claims are true and have nothing to do with article 18.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="text-align: left;">We, however, identify what it means to break article 18, such as "if a group uses [shunning as an excuse] to inflict financial harm or harassment through isolation, calling their employer, blacklisting them with businesses, spreading false rumors, threatening lawsuits or calling the police on them with anonymous phone calls," you know the way our disgruntled former members and opposers treat us, instead.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="text-align: left;">So are Jehovah's Witnesses critical or uncritical thinkers? Let's take a look at their history.</span></p>
<br />
<h2 style="text-align: center;"><span style="text-align: left;">Evidence Of Critical Thinking</span></h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">Jehovah's Witnesses have a rich history of analyzing their beliefs alongside Biblical evidence, looking, not only for what supports their beliefs, but also for where their previous understanding may be incorrect or need adjustment. Even on issues the Bible does not specifically comment on, discernment was instrumental in their thinking, reasoning, and logical conclusions.</p><p style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">This post would fill volumes if it were exhaustive, so we must be content with providing a few notable examples of how Jehovah's Witnesses have exercised and continue to promote critical thinking:</p><h3 style="text-align: left;">Doctrine</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">In the late 1800s, C. T. Russell and several others began a systematic analysis of the Bible. For what reason? Because the doctrines they were being obliged to accept did not line up with what they were reading from the Bible. So they embarked on a 5 year Bible study program and arrived at radically different conclusions from what they were previously taught.</p><p style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="text-align: left;">Some of these conclusions were that the teachings of hellfire, the immortality of the soul, and the Trinity were false. Questioning those core doctrines was, and still is, tantamount to blasphemy in many nominal "Christian" sects today. In fact, critical thinking has been dissuaded in many sects of Christendom since the fourth century.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="text-align: left;">But how did those brothers employ critical thinking? By not accepting what they were taught simply because they were told to accept it. They did not blindly follow religious tradition. Thus they questioned those beliefs in light of the Bible. This set the standard for how Jehovah's Witnesses form their beliefs today.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="text-align: left;"><b>Benefit:</b> Jehovah's Witnesses no longer go through life with unanswered questions of what it is all about. They are not confused by false doctrines and conflicting perceptions of God. They are free from a controlling clergy class. They know who Christ is in relation to God and have a clear view of God's divine plan. Most importantly, most have a very real reciprotive relationship with God.</span></p>
<h3 style="text-align: left;"><b>Political Neutrality</b></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">One of the things unique to Jehovah's Witnesses as an organization is the development of their political neutrality and their refusal to participate in patriotic observances and ceremonies, wars, and other conflicts based on their understanding of several scriptures, such as Isaiah 2:4, Matthew 4:8-10, John 6:15, John 17:16, and Acts 5:29. This stance is often misunderstood, resulting in them becoming victims of vicious lies and violent persecution.</p><p style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="text-align: left;">Their neutrality has helped shape human rights and religious freedom, and their persistence helped set legal precedents that we all benefit from. For example, in the late 1930s, Witness children were expelled from School without appeal and Witness teachers were fired from their jobs. Why? Because of exercising their conscience to not salute the United States flag and recite the Pledge of Allegiance. They viewed that as an act of unfaithfulness to God and idolatry. (1 John 5:21) In 1940, this issue went before the U.S. Supreme Court, and in the </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minersville_School_District_v._Gobitis" style="text-align: left;" target="_blank">Minersville School District v Gobitas</a><span style="text-align: left;"> ruling, it was decided children and teachers could be forced to salute the flag and recite the pledge.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="text-align: left;">However, in the 1943 </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia_State_Board_of_Education_v._Barnette" style="text-align: left;" target="_blank">West Virginia State Board of Education v Barnett</a><span style="text-align: left;"> case, this decision was overturned. The US Supreme Court ruled that the State could not force students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, deeming it "wrongly decided".</span></p><p style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="text-align: left;">Do we see evidence of critical thinking here? Yes, because while everyone else of other religions was unquestioningly saluting the flag and reciting the pledge, we could have simply "followed the crowd", but chose not to. (Exodus 23:2) Instead, we took an unconventional stance that required a thorough investigation of the Bible and reasoning on which Bible principles bear on the subject. (Ephesians 5:10) Following the crowd would have been the easy way out, but it would not have been the way prescribed by Jehovah.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="text-align: left;"><b>Benefit:</b> The Barnett case was a landmark case in establishing free speech and the freedoms of Jehovah's Witnesses, and everyone in the U.S., not to be told how or what to worship by governments. They have freedom of conscience and worship.</span></p>
<h3 style="text-align: left;"><b>Non-Blood Management</b></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">One of the most significant advancements in medicine during the 21st century is that of non-blood management. But long before this became an accepted practice, Jehovah's Witnesses refused blood on religious grounds and as a result, they had to deal with being labeled "fanatical", "mentally ill", "extremists" and other forms of discrimination and persecution as a result.</p><p style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt;"><span style="text-align: left; white-space: pre-wrap;">Where does critical thinking and evaluation come into play here? Jehovah's Witnesses did not take the prohibition on blood at Acts 15:29 lightly. When other groups were treating that verse as if it did not even exist, Jehovah's Witnesses took action.</span><span style="text-align: left; white-space: pre-wrap;">—Genesis 9:3, 4; Leviticus 17:10, 11; Acts 15:29.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="text-align: left;">For a time, this decision guided without considering any other factors. But as deeper issues came to light, then it was seen that a more nuanced approach to observing the rule was needed.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt;"><span style="text-align: left; white-space: pre-wrap;">Instead of being guided by their emotions and the "either/or" mentality to take a blood transfusion or die, Jehovah's Witnesses allowed their reasoning and discernment on key Bible principles to guide their decision making.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="text-align: left;">The predominant "black and white" thinking of the world, as regards blood transfusions, impeded the research and development of safer alternative treatments. But they asked themselves: "are there really just two possible choices? Might there be others?" which was very important in this development.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="text-align: left;">In time they came to realize that there was room for people to exercise their consciences. This led them to consider what constitutes "blood". As a result, careful research revealed that blood has many components that can be found outside the blood circulation. Thus members could choose to take those components, but leave whole blood and blood fractions as non-transfusable. Still many continue to reject any blood-derived products because they do not feel comfortable skirting the rule. Thus room for conscience is provided.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="text-align: left;">That said, they were instrumental in pioneering bloodless surgery. How? In the 1970s when bloodless surgery was a "radical" procedure, some anemic Jehovah's Witness patients made themselves available essentially as research subjects for Dr. Ron Lapin who was an advocate of bloodless surgery, but who also lacked support from the public and the medical community at large.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="text-align: left;">After a successful surgery on Dr. Lapin's first Witness patient without using blood, more came to him for their surgical needs. This gave birth to his practice of bloodless surgery. As a result of his successes, he founded several bloodless surgery centers in California, and other hospitals in the United States.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="text-align: left;"><b>Benefit:</b> Today, bloodless surgery is now the "gold standard" in surgery and has </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloodless_surgery#Benefits" style="text-align: left;" target="_blank">proven more beneficial</a>. S<span style="text-align: left; text-indent: 22.5pt;">urvival rates have increased while </span><span style="text-align: left; text-indent: 22.5pt;">recovery times have decreased, enabling patients to leave earlier. It has expanded into open heart surgeries, cancer treatments and hip replacements. This technique has also opened a safer medical option for everyone who requires surgery, thus, advancing medicine. This is a result, in large part, of Jehovah's Witnesses willingly making themselves available for these then rejected techniques as research subjects.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="text-align: left;">Besides this, landmark cases over treatment of Jehovah's Witnesses have paved the way for general patients' rights to choose whether and what kind of medical treatments they will receive.</span></p>
<h3 style="text-align: left;"><b>Study Before Baptism</b></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">Jehovah's Witnesses are known for their advocacy of a rigorous Bible study program that is required for people wanting to get baptized. Why can't potential members get baptized based merely on their positive feelings toward God and Jesus? Because we want you to fully understand what is involved in dedicating yourself to God.</p><p style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">This study program gives you ample opportunity to (1) research our beliefs, (2) to ask questions, (3) get to know Jehovah's Witnesses as a people, and (4) see how Jehovah's organization operates in order to make a well-informed decision. This is what critical thinking is all about—knowing exactly what you are accepting before you officially accept it.</p><p style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="text-align: left;">There are many people every year who have had a desire to become Jehovah's Witnesses, but upon going through our study program, decided it was not for them. If Jehovah's Witnesses were not advocates of critical thinking, why are you not able to walk into a kingdom hall and get baptized on a whim?</span></p><p style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="text-align: left;"><b>Benefit:</b> We are happy that we were given the opportunity to study and ask questions about our beliefs before accepting them. We do this because we are confident that a person's personal critical analysis of the information available to them will vindicate us and give people peace of mind in the choice they make.</span></p>
<br />
<h2>
<b>Maintaining the Standard</b></h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">Jehovah's Witnesses have published a comprehensive <a href="https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200277174?q=beliefs+clarified&p=par" target="_blank">list of changes and adjustments</a> to their sincerely held beliefs and practices based on an analysis of the Bible. This proves that Jehhovah's Witnesses examine their own beliefs with an open mind and a willingness to change when a Bible teaching is better understood.</p><p style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">We are able to do this because our study of the bible is a pure pursuit of truth, not one of defending dogma, tradition, or religious orthodoxy. Take note of how some adjustments at the above link are as recent as 2016, so we can expect this process to continue down to the end.</p><p style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="text-align: left;">This can be compared to how science generally understands information. Scientists also have some willingness to change their viewpoints when information is better understood or discovered. Science is known for having its list of abandoned or superseded theories. So we can say that science itself is largely objective and open to correction.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="text-align: left;">Jehovah's Witness have also proven, through their many changes and adjustments, that they are also open to correction when information is better understood, but they are criticized for it.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="text-align: left;">Why the double-standard of our detractors? Because bending to the mainstream is a societal expectation toward religions. Jehovah's Witnesses, however, do not bend to the mainstream. They are absolutely devoted to the pursuit of truth which they believe can only be acquired from God's word through direction from Jesus Christ rather than the whims of any age of men.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="text-align: left;">Their stand makes Jehovah's Witnesses very unpopular with all areas of society, politically, scientifically, religiously and archaeologically. They seek truth based on factual grounds, not peer pressure. (See the post "</span><a href="http://dismythed.blogspot.com/2013/08/failure-of-happy-gene-argument.html" style="text-align: left;" target="_blank">Failure of the 'Gay Gene' Claim</a><span style="text-align: left;">" for an example where a popular claim is thoroughly debunked citing scientific papers and using logical reasoning.)</span></p>
<br />
<h2>
Critical vs. Non-Critical Thinking </h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">So why can it be said that Jehovah's Witnesses are critical thinkers? Primarily because their beliefs were formed objectively. That is, they seek truth through their examination of the Bible apart from prevailing mainstream thought, opinion, and theology.</p><p style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">A second reason is because they have the courage necessary to stick to this method, even in the face of unfair criticism. Finally, they want you to get to know their beliefs before deciding to get baptized.</p><p style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">They also do not expect members to accept every word. The post "<a href="https://dismythed.blogspot.com/2021/05/are-jehovahs-witnesses-required-to.html" target="_blank">Are Jehovah's Witnesses Required to Believe Everything the Organization Teaches?</a>" shows that Jehovah's Witnesses simply ask that differences of opinion be shared through private channels with those with the authority to make adjustments rather than publically sowing dissension. This stand has been criticized, but it shows wisdom. An organization divided against itself cannot stand.—Matthew 12:25.</p><p style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="text-align: left;">Any group that does not allow its beliefs to be scrutinized, and ignores or vilifies alternative interpretations sent through proper channels, has stigmatized and rejected critical thinking.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="text-align: left;">Of course, no group is under any obligation to adopt the ideas of any one member. But they are under obligation, if critical thinkers, to consider the idea at some point, but only once if no evidence is added or not given more careful detail.</span></p>
<br />
<h2 style="text-align: center;">How have Jehovah's Witnesses Benefited?</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">The critical thinking of Jehovah's Witnesses has been upheld in over 50 U.S. supreme court decisions, and secured important human rights and religious freedoms worldwide. Many of their members are well-informed and critical thinkers.</p><p style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">Besides Jehovah's Witnesses literature and digital content, this independent blog provides many fine examples of critical thinking applied toward their beliefs and the claims of opposers. A good example of this is the post <a href="http://dismythed.blogspot.com/2016/01/look-out-for-deceivers.html" target="_blank">Look Out for: The Deceivers</a>.</p><p style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="text-align: left;">If you have been associated with Jehovah's Witnesses and feel like you have not been permitted to question what you believe, then free yourself, not from the organization, but from the influence of the individuals who have actively dissuaded you from a proper investigation. Then learn critical thinking and do research.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="text-align: left;">Feel free to ask us any question for which you honestly seek an answer in line with the purpose of this site. (However, please address questions of scripture interpretation with the proper channels in the organization.) We will be glad to provide you with the information you need to be informed and figure out what is true.</span></p><p style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="text-align: left;">Dismythed will continue to provide posts critically analyzing claims about God, the Bible, science and Jehovah's Witnesses by using the Bible and Jehovah's Witnesses literature. In the meantime, feel free to read the following links to posts from Dismythed and its sister sites we recommend about critical thinking and research:</span></p><p style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></p><div><div><a href="http://salvation-vs.blogspot.com/2016/10/do-not-be-afraid.html" target="_blank">Do Not Be Afraid</a></div><div><br /></div><div><a href="http://salvation-vs.blogspot.com/2016/12/research-and-interpretation.html" target="_blank">Deep Research Takes Effort</a></div><div><br /></div><div><a href="http://salvation-vs.blogspot.com/2017/01/testing-the-proofs.html" target="_blank">Testing the "Proofs"</a></div><div><br /></div><div><a href="https://dismythed.blogspot.com/2017/11/dont-stop-at-asking-question.html" target="_blank">Do Not Stop at Asking the Question</a></div><div><br /></div><div><a href="http://dismythed.blogspot.com/2013/09/jehovahs-witnesses-encourage-questions.html" target="_blank">Jehovah's Witnesses Encourage Questions and Research</a></div><div><br /></div><div><a href="http://dismythed.blogspot.com/2014/03/jehovahs-witnesses-have-freedom-to.html" target="_blank">Jehovah's Witnesses Have Freedom to Think—Do You?</a></div><div><br /></div><div><a href="http://dismythed.blogspot.com/2016/11/avoiding-independent-thinking-is-not.html" target="_blank">Avoiding Independent Thinking Is Not Refusing to Think for Oneself</a></div><div><br /></div><div><a href="https://dismythed.blogspot.com/2021/05/are-jehovahs-witnesses-required-to.html" target="_blank">Are Jehovah's Witnesses Required to Believe Everything the Organization Teaches?</a></div><div><br /></div><div><a href="https://jwadvisor.blogspot.com/2016/07/loverofwisdom.html" target="_blank">Isn't Philosophy Just Thinking Correctly?</a></div>
<br /><br /><div style="text-align: center; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: center; width: 100%;">
<img border="0" data-original-height="408" data-original-width="1450" height="90" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiBC7iFjimozYma_8yN02S2mC4qXb_AQtjavN7CJlj6zf3L8x1pa9OFN5HqMPYrHCJyU1S87MhK-gr0paRMqqtqLwzY8psEDnjR5_9hyXhz1w9ohBW85PhRFrJ1DO6dz25xmNXErv-c_ADxtHFDd4-XfRlRZ2qWI3Vxx7w9v0nrYF0FJFdCSffawwluMg=s320" width="320" /></div></div>Roberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16222067990028193076noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-413969216273696296.post-64322326836048855142022-07-24T08:36:00.007-05:002022-07-25T00:20:13.138-05:00You Can Help Improve the Content<p>Life happens from time to time, but you can help improve the Dismythed sites while you wait for posts.</p><p>Over at Salvation vs., we have many posts that provide info-dumps on the Trinity, hellfire, the Mosaic Law and other information. It is a lot of information. You can help find errors in posts there or here at Dismythed or at JW Advisor. There may be grammatical errors, spelling errors or information that should be brought more in line with Jehovah's Witnesses publications. I do recall there were a couple of points that needed adjustment to be in line with the publications, but I don't remember which. Maybe you think something could be stated in a way that reflects better on Jehovah, or maybe you have a scripture that should be addressed. You do not have to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses to make a suggestion. Only erroneous comments, rude people or former Jehovah's Witnesses get rejected.</p><p>If you are looking for an activity to fill downtime, feel free to help improve these sites. Any help is appreciated. Why not give it a try by taking a look at the following series of articles?:</p><p><a href="https://salvation-vs.blogspot.com/2016/09/trinity-binity-introduction.html" target="_blank">Salvation vs. the Trinity/Binity</a></p>Dismythedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09872186295008632240noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-413969216273696296.post-54194028089225458452022-07-02T18:11:00.004-05:002022-08-22T13:33:27.535-05:00How Can We Rely On the Counsel of Flawed Men? [JW Advisor]<p> A new post at JW Advisor discusses concerns over recent statements in the Watchtower study articles we discussed in the meetings the other month about obedience during the Great Tribulation.</p><p><b><a href="https://jwadvisor.blogspot.com/2022/07/unconfident-how-can-i-rely-on-counsel.html" target="_blank">Unconfident: How Can I Rely On the Counsel of Flawed Men?</a></b></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p>Dismythedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09872186295008632240noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-413969216273696296.post-19781446753397210452022-06-07T19:15:00.038-05:002022-09-18T12:03:14.490-05:00Have Jehovah's Witnesses Ever Prohibited Consulting a Psychiatrist? [Opposers Dismythed]<p style="text-indent: 0.25in;">I had withheld writing about this because I thought it was obvious what our unchanging stand has been on this subject, but some have been negatively affected by false and misleading claims so much that it is listed among the major claims against us by sociologists. (Perhaps, as psychologists, they take the accusation personally.)</p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;">Disgruntled former members claim that Jehovah's Witnesses used to prohibit consulting a psychiatrist. This claim originated with a former member, a psychiatrist who used to treat Jehovah's Witnesses. After leaving the way, he claimed that we had a higher number of those with mental disorders than the general populace. (I addressed this claim in <a href="https://dismythed.blogspot.com/2013/04/do-jehovahs-witnesses-have-higher-rate.html" target="_blank">another post</a>.) Obviously the claim was bogus. Being a JW at the time while treating JW's, of course he had a larger number of JW clients than non-JW clients because they trusted him to do their treatment over anyone from the world. (A trust which he ultimately betrayed.) Thus he got taken by data bias. He claimed that this high number was due to our stand against psychiatry, which of course is belied by the fact that his business catered to JW's. (Do you get the contradiction here? The facts are not supporting the claim, as per usual with disgruntled former members.)</p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;">Others like to take advantage of the confusion between us and the Church of Christ Scientists and Scientology (less so in the last decade as they have become more widely known) to dissuade our Bible students and people of the world from listening to us. But is the claim about us true? Let us base our opinion on actual facts and not the selective statements taken out of context by our accusers to paint a blatantly false picture about us.</p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;">I have gone all the way back in our publications where the psychological profession is mentioned and found the claims against us to be exaggerated, and found no evidence of so much as a negative opinion of psychiatry as a profession, except when connected to Freud, torture, misguded experimentations, or abuse. But what I have found is cautions against psychiatrists who push their own unbiblical and unscientific opinions without regard for one's person's beliefs. I hope you find it informative.</p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;">I have finally chosen to stick only to the timeframe of the claims made by our opposers, which is between 1952 and 1990, moving backward through the Watchtower and Awake! magazines. If you have come across a quote cited by our opposers, or statements made in books published by Jehovah's Witnesses not addressed here, comment below and I would be glad to add it. (Please do not include statements about the quote. The reader can deduce the claim by the text selected out of context.)</p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;">Though this post specifically addresses claims about psychiatry, it is important to cover all our claims about psychological professions up to now.</p><p><br /></p><h2 style="text-align: center;">A Brief History of Psychology</h2><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;">Ideas about psychology go all the way back to the days of the late Egyptian and early Greek empires, and perhaps earlier. <span alt="[1] 'Aristotle's Psychology'. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.">Fourth century philosophers like Thales, Plato, and Aristotle had ideas about psychology. [1]</span> But this does not make psychology a mere philosophy, fancifully speculating at how the world works, leading to superstition. Like science and logical reasoning, and being a type of science which utilizes logical and inductive reasoning, it has its roots in philosophy, but also in seeking actual facts, albeit with a lot of educated guessing, probing and analysis of human behavior.</p><p></p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;">Hippocrates (c. 460 – c. 370 BCE), who is called the father of modern medicine, <span alt="T.L. Brink (2008). Psychology: A Student Friendly Approach. 'Unit One: The Definition and History of Psychology', p. 9.">was the first to connect the conditions of one's bile to mental disorders [2]</span>, as has only truly been understood to any degree and explored in recent years. Though the concept of humors (or contributors to emotion) as it was then known, fell out of favor due to an "imbalance of the humors" or "bad bile" also being blamed for physical maladies, leading to treatments such as vomiting, purging and blood-letting, and misdiagnoses of many physical ailments, when in reality it is ailments of the body that are often responsible for digestive problems, which in turn can lead to chemical imbalance in the brain, potentially causing mental instability. Discovery of microbial pathogens and the need of Doctors to wash their hands, turned this around, but the link between intestinal and mental health was lost.</p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;">A culture of distrust arose around institutions housing the mentally ill as a result of such places as York Asylum and Bethlem Royal Hospital (a.k.a., Bedlam, from which we get the word, due not to its eventual infamy, but its presence in popular culture of the day), which eventually became known for their tortures and repository of political rivals. These things continued in United States hospitals into the 20th century.</p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;"><span alt="Schwarz, Katharina A.; Pfister, Roland (2016). 'Scientific psychology in the 18th century: A historical rediscovery'. Perspectives on Psychological Science. SAGE Publications.">Psychology was first proposed to be its own science, distinct from medical practice, by Christian Wolff in his text Psychologia Empirica in 1732. [3]</span> Experimental psychology, the true science of psychology, began with Gustav Fechner in the 1830's with his research in psychophysics, the relationship between physical stimulus and the brain's response to it through sensation, the precursor to neuropsychology. Other psychologists have explored areas of perception, cognition, attention, emotion, intelligence, subjective experience, motivation, brain functioning, pain control and resistance, interpersonal relationships, group dynamics, psychological resilience and family resilience.</p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;">There are seven themes of psychology: personality, unconscious mind, motivation, development, brain structure, genetics and environment. (Parapsychology, the ability of the mind to interact with and perceive its environment apart from physical processes, has also been explored without quantifiable results.) From these, much has come to be understood about the mind so that even the layman has a basic understanding of it. As a result, professions treating ailments of the mind have arisen, most notably psychiatrists who treat mental and physical ailments, clinical psychologists who only treat mental ailments, and counselors of psychology who only teach the person how to manage and mitigate their condition and educate their relatives on how to help them.</p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;">But early ideas about the mind were full of naive philosophical speculations and dangerous experimentation. In England they adopted phrenology, a now debunked pseudoscience, in which psychologists attempted to connect disorders of the mind to geographical features of the human head. Deranged and even deadly practices involving torture were visited upon the insane over the years by men whom themselves were in need of treatment. These early days of experimentation tarnished the reputation of mental health workers into the 20th century. Such scandelous tortures as extreme shock therapy (inducing the condition of mental shock in the patient), convulsive therapy and physical labotomy left the public with a bad taste in their mouths towards psychological professions and treatments. Then there were the parapsychologists and hypnotists who did not distinguish their profession from normal psychology in the beginning, leading to religious people in general castigating psychology as a spiritistic practice into the twentieth century.</p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;">Thus, from 1879 to 1940, people, especially religious people, held the psychological professions in low regard. This was reflected in articles submitted to the Watchtower and Awake! that quoted Christendom's preachers. But this was just a sign of the times. Most people at that time were skeptical. But as psychology gained respectability, despite occasional bad actors, so the public's opinion began to soften. But as people slowly became complacent, and the flood of distrust subsided, a solidified practical view of psychological treatment emerged among Jehovah's Witnesses that has remained unchanged to this day; though more clear over time as to how to navigate it.</p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;"><br /></p><h2 style="text-align: center;">Jehovah's Witnesses and Psychiatry</h2><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;">Yes, Jehhovah's Witnesses have discouraged seeking out psychiatrists, not because we don't think they can be helpful, but because they historically had the tendency to discourage any kind of religious belief (some still do) due to the teachings of Freud, as well as posing speculative, biased and unchristian ideas that always get debunked down to this day. Thankfully, the mental health community, by and large, eventually came to realize that belief in God and hope for the future can have a profound net positive effect on mental health. But before the 1980's, this was not the case. So we cautioned against seeking out psychiatrists to a certain point because they were inclined to lead people away from Jehovah. Obviously we had good reason for this.</p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;">From the beginning, our publications have always recognized the need for psychiatrists even among Jehovah's people, but in only severe cases. In fact, our publications have frequently quoted the research of psychiatrists, and referred to the need for psychiatrists, throughout the period our detractors claim we prohibited consulting psychiatrists and well before.</p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;">I concur with having caution. I have sought out psychiatric help in the past myself. I got diagnosed for ADHD-<i>pi</i> and generalized and social anxiety, and to treat severe depression and complex PTSD. I developed my depression, not because of the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses, but because of my choices, their consequences and my trust issues that continued to plague me from my youth (I was not raised in the truth and was baptized at 25 years old).</p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;">Out of a handful of psychiatrists, only two adequately helped me, and only because of their consummate professionalism that others lacked. They were keenly interested in a correct diagnosis and proper treatment, not just churning the grinder, the way others did. Group therapy only ever ballooned my social anxiety, though simple socialization helped with depression. It was ultimately a single chapter in a book about anger management that helped me get all my issues under control (and later recognizing that I cannot control the world around me or what it does to me). It was printed in a stapled stack of copy paper that was handed to me in an anger management seminar. It helped me contextualize how the Bible principles I had learned from Jehovah's Witnesses could be applied in my circumstances. So reading a single well-written chapter in a book on anger management that was in harmony with Bible principles did more for me than all those psychiatrists.</p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;">For subjects not covered here, see the subjects Mental Illness, Psychiatrists, Psychiatry and Psychology in the 1930-1985 and 1986-[Present] <a href="https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/library/r1/lp-e/all-publications/publications-index" target="_blank">Publications Indexes</a>.</p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;">For our views on hypnosis, see the <a href="https://dismythed.blogspot.com/p/the-problems-of-hypnosis.html" target="_blank">Supplemental: The Problems of Hypnosis</a>.</p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;">So with these things in mind, let us consider the things our opposers like to quote as "proof" of a stand against psychiatry as well as the actual information found in those articles and other articles in our publications. Let us start with 1990, the last point in our publications that our opposers claim we prohibit consulting a psychiatrist and then move backwards to find our historical stands on mental health professions to see if we can find any point where our opposers' claims become true in the time range selected by them.</p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;"><br /></p><p></p><h2 style="text-align: center;">1990</h2><span style="text-indent: 0.25in;">The Kingdom Proclaimers Report in the <a href="https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1990645" target="_blank"><b>September 1, 1990 Watchtower, p.15</b></a>, titled "From Depression to Happiness", starts off saying, "If one of his servants is depressed, Jehovah will help him to endure the pain and sometimes even to regain a happy spirit." It thus acknowledges that one of Jehovah's people can get depressed and says that Jehovah will help them endure it. It does not say he will always help them cure it, but says, instead, "<i>sometimes</i> even to regain a happy spirit." (<i>Italics mine.</i>) Thus, no claim is made about how only the Bible can help.</span><p></p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;">It gives the account of a sister who was telling a story to someone about how she had gone into deep depression (before becoming a Witness) when her 18-year-old daughter died. Did she say she was condemned for ever having visited a psychiatrist? No. It says, "Neither psychiatrists nor costly medications helped her to overcome this depression. Several times, she said, she was hospitalized, but no improvement resulted." So she was at the end of her rope. The article also does not say that psychiatrists are "evil" or "demonized". It said that "she did not return to the psychiatrist. Her will to live was stimulated by her knowledge of God’s Word, and this proved to be the best medicine." It was not anything she heard from us, but she had simply read something that gave her hope from the Bible.</p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;">So if she was helped by God's word, how can anyone say this is a condemnation of psychiatry, or say that this article claims that the Bible is the only cure for depression or any other psychiatric illness? There is not one negative word in the article spoken against psychiatry nor making any effort to keep anyone away from it. She simply was unable to find the help she needed before learning about the Bible's promises. The article is simply providing proof that the Bible has the power to change lives for the better. </p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;">A similar story appeared in the <a href="https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/101975568" target="_blank"><b>August 8, 1975 Awake!, p. 26</b></a>.</p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;"><br /></p><h2 style="text-align: center;">1988</h2><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;">In the article, "Mental Distress—When It Afflicts a Christian", in the <a href="https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1988768" target="_blank"><b>October 15, 1988 Watchtower, p. 29</b></a>, it says, "What, though, about accepting treatment from a psychiatrist or a psychologist? This would be a personal decision to be made with due caution." Clearly, a Christian seeing a psychiatrist was not prohibited. But why the caution? Our disgruntled former members won't share that part. What it says immediately after that is, "Therapists differ in their approaches to treatment. Some, for example, still practice forms of Freudian psychoanalysis, the validity of which is challenged by many in the mental health field." What? No mention of Satan and the demons? Oh my! How could this be? Might it be because we don't demonize psychiatrists?</p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;">It goes on to say, "Of even more concern is the fact that some well-intentioned practitioners have given advice that flatly contradicts the Bible." Well, since we are Christians, it makes sense that we would cling to God's word ahead of bad psychiatric advice. The Bible's time-tested counsel far surpasses human wisdom. But our opposers like to leave out the next words that say, "Failing to understand Christian principles—even viewing such as “foolishness”—some therapists have even concluded that following the Bible’s strict moral code is the source of a person’s difficulties!" I saw a psychiatrist's video that recommended reading the Satanic Bible as a form of exposure therapy to get out of an obsessive miopic mindset about one's limited religious beliefs in order to open them up to a broader range of thought and experience. (You know, because lying, greed, unrestrained sex, anarchy and reenacting human sacrifice every week are more psychologically healthy than peace, love and happiness.)</p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;">The article then asks, "Does the physician understand and respect the beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses?*" (The footnote says, "* If an ill one has difficulty explaining his Bible-based stand to a physician or therapist, perhaps some mature Christian can assist him." A friend is not required, but is available to help anyone who asks. That is a valuable survival skill.) Should a patient not expect a mental health professional to respect their beliefs? But now, leading up to that, it says, "... Some practitioners, including psychologists and psychiatrists, offer forms of talk therapy that are not really psychoanalysis but are a means of helping a patient to understand his illness, reinforcing the need for medication, and ironing out practical problems. A Christian may find such therapies helpful, but he needs to get his facts straight before accepting treatment: Just what does the treatment involve? What kind of advice will be given?" It then says afterward, "If talk therapy is agreed to, "test out the words’ of a doctor instead of just accepting everything unquestioningly.—Job 12:11, 12." That is good advice for anyone, not just Jehovah's Witnesses. Clearly the article is giving advice on how a Christian can exercise reasonable caution when choosing and visiting a psychiatrist.</p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;"><br /></p><h2 style="text-align: center;">1981</h2><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;">The article, "Attacking Major Depression—Professional Treatments", in the <a href="https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/101981768" target="_blank"><b>October 22 issue of Awake!, pp. 23-27</b></a> gave particular focus to what therapies are available (surgery, nutrition, talk therapy, antidepressants) for Christians suffering depression, how they can help, and how they may go too far or simply fail. It is an enlightening article well worth review as it reflects views that remain relevant today.</p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;">It had a poignant statement to make regarding talk therapy, saying, "There is also a danger here for persons who are endeavoring to live by high moral standards. Some therapists go too far, justifying attitudes that the Bible disapproves. This is done to alleviate the patient’s guilt. True, a person should neither be overwhelmed with guilt nor feel “condemned by God” if improper feelings enter his mind. Yet, rather than reasoning that such erroneous thoughts are not wrong, as some therapists would say, those who highly value the Bible’s counsel prefer to correct such ideas or dismiss them. So they have to weigh seriously (or have help to weigh) counsel offered by a therapist. Potential problems may be avoided if the patient, or a companion, explains to the therapist the importance of the patient’s religious beliefs.—Gal. 5:16, 19-21; Jas. 1:14, 15."</p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;">Indeed, it is better to put faith in God's forgiveness through Jesus Christ, cleansing our conscience, than to simply corrupt our conscience. As Christians, we need to protect our conscience and keep it responsive, rather than rendering it useless and insensitive by paying attention to wayward counsel. (Ps 119:70-72) Such insensitivity leads to those who would hurt or otherwise manipulate others, not to mention disregard God. (Ps 17:10) Having an advocate to help you maintain moral fortitude can be invaluable when getting psychological help.</p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;">The article ends with this sound advice: "So while there is a variety of professional treatments for major depression, never forget that a sound effort on the part of the depressed one must go along with all of them. Only then will one conquer major depression." Indeed, if I had not made the effort, I would only have gotten worse with each mental health professional that failed me. I didn't give up until I found what worked.</p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;"><br /></p><h2 style="text-align: center;">1977</h2><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;">"Insight on the News" in the <a href="https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1977807#h=2-6" target="_blank"><b>November 1 issue of the Watchtower</b></a>, in a piece called <i>Psychiatry Challenged</i>, <b>p. 668</b>, it cites an Ontario study in which delinquent children were found to be more likely to reoffend if they visited a psychiatrist than if they just went home. Of course, this is data bias in which the data given does not relate that the problem offenders are the ones sent to psychiatrists, and thus they already have a strong inclination to reoffend.</p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;">The concluding paragraph of the article plainly states in no uncertain terms, "For the most part, then, mental distress can be viewed as a medical problem—not a spiritual one. Understanding this fact, families, elders, and congregation members can better be of support to sufferers." But our former members won't show that to you. The focus of this information is to establish that "A basic problem of psychiatry is that counsel can differ with each psychiatrist. Also, there is no overall general acceptance of standards for human behavior. That is why those who turn to the Creator of the mind and body, Jehovah God, and observe his counsel for mental health find much more practical help than those who go to psychiatrists. The Bible’s counsel is time tested, applies to any period of history and is consistent." This is absolutely true even if the author used weak data to support his claims.</p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;"><br /></p><h2 style="text-align: center;">1975</h2><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;">1975 was a big year for mental illness in our publications. The April 22 Awake! magazine that year provided a long series of articles, from pages 3 to 21, covering mental illness and prodigiously quoted psychiatrists and their institutions. The April 15 issue of the Watchtower had a "Questions From Readers" that asks a question directly related to this post that we will discuss afterward.</p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;">But disgruntled former members ignore those entirely in order to quote the one article, "Psychiatrists Replacing Clergymen—Why?" in the <a href="https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/101975607" target="_blank"><b>August 22 Awake!, p.25</b></a>, out of context. Notice why. It says, "Is the turning of people from the clergy to the psychiatrists a healthy phenomenon? No, for it really is a case of jumping from the frying pan into the fire. They are worse off than they were before…" That certainly sounds like they are saying psychiatry is bad. Oh my! But the context they replace with an ellipse gives us a better picture of what is really being said: "for, as has well been noted by The National Observer, people need a “fundamental religious ground for their existence, the reason why you can still go on living in the face of tragedy.”" It then talks about the benefits of God's word. So, in other words, they are not worse off for turning to psychiatrists, but worse off for abandoning the word of God!</p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;">However, the following statement is, indeed a case of bias. It says, "That they are not the ones to go to for help when one is depressed and beset with all manner of problems is to be seen from the fact that suicides among them are twice as frequent as among the population in general." This means what it says. This was written by someone who does not understand statistics and was thus fooled by data bias. Psychiatry attracts people who are depressed and looking for help, so of course the number of suicides are going to be higher. That the number is not many times higher speaks to the effectiveness of psychiatry, not its ineffectiveness. In fact, we now know that there is as high a number as there is in the general populace for the very reason that people who need to do not consult a mental health professional. Those who make the effort to get any kind of help, psychological, religious or otherwise, are many times more likely to recover from depression.</p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;">So why did they make the above point? It is not that they are saying ALL psychiatrists are bad at preventing suicide, but as the next paragraph says, "many" buy into freudian psychology because Freud repudiated belief in God. So the author is trying to make the point that abandoning belief in God results in a higher suicide rate. But they also did not understand, back then, the need for compassion in psychiatry. Even today it is still slow to catch on. But Freud has long been left behind now and more effective means of treating mental illness and depression have been developed. So back then, the author's words were indeed warranted if slightly overstated.</p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;">Now there is certainly a copious amount of confirmation bias in that article. We have learned much about writing a good article since then and how to fact check and eliminate the personal bias of the author.</p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;"><br /></p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;">It is curious that our opposers found nothing to quote in the entire series of articles that appeared earlier that year addressing mental health in the <a href="https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/101975280" target="_blank"><b>April 22 Awake!, pp. 3-21</b></a>. This is because those gave a decidedly positive spin on seeking mental health professionals who do their jobs properly, while providing caution on shock therapy and medications that remain relevant to this day, some of which became controversial and were even outlawed. I will not cite all of them, but note a couple which you would think would be the easiest to find a negative quote in:</p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;">The article, <a href="https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/101975283" target="_blank">"Can Shock, Drugs or Psychosurgery Solve the Problem?", <b>pp. 10-12</b></a>, looks at common treatments, including risks and failures, and certainly expresses modern sentiments. As indicated in the 1981 article along similar lines, it says nothing against mental health professions, only some of the methods employed.</p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;">Why do our opposers not at least cite the article, <a href="https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/101975285" target="_blank">"Does the Solution Lie With Psychiatrists?, <b>pp. 15-18</b></a>? Surely with a title like that, they could find something negative! But under "Help Provided", it says, "... It cannot be denied that some persons have received genuine help from psychiatrists. A man in California writes: “The help I received from that kind man was extremely beneficial, and my problem was resolved quickly.” Posing the question, “What did this psychiatrist do for me?” he answered: “He listened. He really listened. . . . he helped me to realize that within myself I had the ability to develop self-control.”</p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;">"This disturbed man had a behavioral problem, one that evidenced a serious sexual aberration. But through kindness and encouragement the psychiatrist helped him to correct his weakness. Even extreme cases have responded to such psychiatric treatment."</p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;">It also states: "Such successes in helping the mentally disturbed point to the type of treatment they especially need. Sir Geoffrey Vickers, as chairman of the Mental Health Research Fund, years ago explained: “By far the most significant discovery of mental science is the power of love to protect and restore the mind.”</p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;">"Yes, love, kindness, patience and understanding are now generally recognized as vital in the successful treatment of mental patients."</p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;">Under "Basic Failure of Approach", the article points out that people question the reason for their existence in the face of tragedy, but psychiatrists do not provide satisfactory answers, and thus many whose difficulties are based on such questions are left adrift. But God answers those questions in satisfying ways. It goes on to note that psychiatrists themselves have the highest suicide rate among all the medical professions. Even after therapy for therapists became a part of their education, <a href="https://www.apa.org/monitor/2011/11/suicide" target="_blank">psychotherapists today are at least as likely to commit suicide as any other medical profession</a>.</p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;">It then relates how a non-Christian father was unable to get help from a psychiatrist and eventually he received counsel to throw his son out of the house until he sought drug rehabilitation, and after doing so, the son came to realize how much his parents loved him to do that and sought treatment and recovered. It was a story that did not involve being a Witness! Besides that, it was an example of shunning.</p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;">The reason that our opposers do not quote the article is because there is not one statement that can be taken out of context because every sentence contains context or is dependent upon the context. An excellent example of good writing.</p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;"><br /></p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;">Earlier that month, the <a href="https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1975287" target="_blank"><b>April 15 Watchtower</b>, "Questions From Readers", <b>pp. 255, 256</b></a>, asks the question, "Do Jehovah’s Witnesses feel that it is proper to consult a psychiatrist?" The answer?: "Whether a Christian will consult a psychiatrist, or any other doctor, is a matter for personal decision." Or how about this statement, relevant to the present day, that discusses health problems that cause mental stresses and decries blaming demons for mental health problems, saying, "... Those with mental or nervous problems may find it advisable to have a thorough physical examination, as frequently there is a health problem of which they are not aware. Even some who thought they were going insane, or suffering from demonic harassment, have found that they had “low blood sugar” or another ailment." Today, as I mentioned, they are finding out that bowel health has a significant impact on mental health. I even found out by my own experience that seeing humanoid shadows out of the side of your eye is a common trait of depression and is a function of your brain to identify threats. After I recovered, I no longer experience such corner eye shadows.</p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;">The article goes on to state: "... If a Witness does consult such he should carefully scrutinize any treatment recommended." How can that be bad counsel for anyone seeking a mental health professional? It is certainly not a prohibition!</p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;"><br /></p><h2 style="text-align: center;">1973</h2><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;">The <a href="https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/101973684#h=6-15" target="_blank"><b>September 22 Awake!</b></a>, in the article, "Home Care for the Mentally Ill?", headings, Institutional Care Not Always a Blessing and Why Home May Be a Better Place, on pp. 17-19, after mentioning a psychiatrist who lauded someone for caring for their mentally ill relative at home, points out an experiment to explain why home therapy may be best. Eight people posed as mentally ill. Four were either entirely ignored by staff or slighted three fourths of the time. The researchers concluded that "the consequences to the patients hospitalized in such an environment—the powerlessness, depersonalization, segregation, mortification, and self-labeling—seem to be undoubtedly counter-therapeutic."—Medical World News, February 9, 1973.</p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;">Noting the words of a couple of psychologists, the article cited a piece in the January 1969 Mental Hygiene magazine, entitled “Making Chronic Schizophrenics,” saying, "[Attendants] recurrently humiliate patients and emphasize the low esteem in which they are held," and take the view that patients "are essentially different, and what is bad for us is not necessarily bad for them." The Awake! article summarized that "Tragically, the way the attendants treated the patients caused the patients to act in the very ways that the attendants claimed they wanted to suppress."</p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;">The Awake! then states, "No doubt there are many sincere and dedicated doctors and staff members in such institutions, so what is wrong? Ever so much! For one thing, institutions often are unable to pay for quality help or are understaffed. And it is just too much to expect that every mental patient will get the sort of sympathetic personal help that he needs. …</p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;">"Then, too, experience has shown that mental patients are generally more sensitive to the behavior of others than they were in their normal state; this is because of their helplessness. A mental patient needs the care of someone with a steady hand and controlled sympathy, things that he is more likely to find at home than in an institution."</p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;">It then quotes the World Health Organization as stating, "With the extension of education on psychiatric topics, more and more relatives have developed sufficient insight to be able to tolerate the patient in home surroundings, provided they are given (professional) help. . . . It is not always advisable to admit the patient to a hospital if his family is prepared to maintain him in the close emotional relationship of the home."</p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;">It then states the Biblical responsibility of parents toward underaged children and adult children toward aging parents. Then it acknowledges that "not every emotionally ill person can be cared for at home."</p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;"><br /></p><h2 style="text-align: center;">1971</h2><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;">The article discussing a similar subject, "Research in Psychotherapy", in the <a href="https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/101971689" target="_blank"><b>September 22 Awake!, p. 23</b></a>, focussed on "psychotherapists, physicians who treat mentally and emotionally disturbed patients, tend to look down on the help that anyone outside their profession may give to those having emotional problems." The article then asks, "But do they do so with good reason, in view of what is stated in the book Research in Psychotherapy?" The book is quoted, saying, "Indeed, several studies are presented which suggest that nonprofessionals are no less effective or possibly even better than well-trained professionals!”</p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;">The article then states: "In view of the foregoing, who is to say that unselfish, mature Christian ministers may not be effective in giving help to lovers of righteousness who come to them with emotional problems? The facts show that they have helped ever so many persons" and quotes Matt. 11:28-30. Indeed, modern psychiatry promotes building a strong emotional support system among family and friends.</p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;"><br /></p><h2 style="text-align: center;">1968</h2><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;">The article, "Schizophrenia Is Not Hopeless", in the <b>August 22 Awake!, pp. 12-16</b>, a thoughtful consideration of schizophrenia was provided along with a discussion of helpful psychological and medicinal treatments on p. 15. An article well worth reading.</p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;"><br /></p><h2 style="text-align: center;">1963</h2><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;">The <b><a href="https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1963041" target="_blank">January 15 Watchtower, pp.37-39</a></b>, in the article, "Where to Turn for Counsel", identifies Julius Wellhausen (a higher critic), Charles Darwin, Sigmund Freud and Karl Marx as enemies of the Bible with good reason. Wellhausen and Marx made blatant attempts to discredit the Bible and Freud and Marx outright opposed religion. Darwin spearheaded a belief that directly contradicts the Bible's creation account; a belief that has failed to be proved for the past 3,000 years since it was first proposed in Hindu Vedic literature.</p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;">Another paragraph identifies Freud's desire to see an end to religion. I verified this. In the book, <i>Obsessive Actions and Religious Practices</i> (1907), Freud called religion a "universal obsessional neurosis". In <i>Totem and Taboo</i> (1913), he stated his belief that gods (no exception made) are created by the "psychic powers of man." In <i>The Future of an Illusion</i> (1927), he said that all religious beliefs are "illusions and insusceptible of proof." In fact, most of his books make some kind of negative claim about religion despite none of them establishing any sort of negative effect of religious belief in general beyond his personal insults. So clearly Freud's opinion of the Bible and religion were negative personal bias unsupported by facts. They were pervasive and highly influential, not to mention wrong, though he identified as a non-religious Jew and admits little knowledge of the Tanakh (the Hebrew Bible) beyond stories told to him as a child.</p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;">So, again, this only attacks Freudian psychology, which has been largely discredited in the psychiatric community since most of his claims about human psychology were wholly speculative, extremely biased and unscientific. His views also reflected his own psychological quirks, such as his fascination with incest and a strange preocupation with the rare idea of killing one's own father, which he inexplicably tied to religion.</p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;">That article says that psychiatry is not in the lump that should be rejected for bad counsel, but instead highlights that the counsel varies according to the skill and experience of the giver and is expensive to acquire. So the complaint is not about psychiatry being anti-biblical, but about its limited accessibility. It also highlights that "Its aim to help people achieve a normal capacity for living is not wrong, but some of its methods are." That is when it discusses Freud, as shown above.</p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;">It then refers to the tendency of some analysts to "impose his own values on you, confusing his personal ideals with impersonal truths." One of the psychiatrists I mentioned previously did just that when he attempted to apply so-called "Christian psychology" on me (More on that in a later Cult Myths post). It quotes Abraham Kaplan, professor of philosophy and member of the Academy of Psychoanalysis, as saying: “The danger here is that the analyst may accept the role of omniscient moral authority in which the patient casts him. … Psychoanalysis cannot tell us what is virtuous and what is not. It cannot establish premises to deduce the principles of morality.” So if their own prominent educators view psychoanalysis that way, how can we think any differently?</p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;">It also identifies psychoanalysts as being among the "broken cisterns, that cannot contain the water" that the Jews turned to in ancient Judah at Jeremiah 2:13 (NWT Reference). The point is that people turn to analysts for counsel on how to live their lives, a role traditionally held by religion. But psychoanalysts really have no clue.</p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;">After mentioning people who turn to syndicated columns in newspapers for advice and professional marriage and family counselors who charge fees for their services and set up many return visits, it states, "While some psychoanalysts may take religion seriously in their personal lives, the profession generally ignores man’s vital relationship to God." Then it briefly discusses the dependence of many analysts on Freud.</p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;">It goes on to say, "In psychoanalysis there is also the great danger that the analyst may impose his own values on you, confusing his personal ideals with impersonal truths. Patients often develop an exaggerated admiration for their analysts. Abraham Kaplan, professor of philosophy and member of the Academy of Psychoanalysis, warned: “The danger here is that the analyst may accept the role of omniscient moral authority in which the patient casts him.” But the analyst is not an all-wise authority on morals, as Kaplan readily admits: “Psychoanalysis cannot tell us what is virtuous and what is not. It cannot establish premises to deduce the principles of morality.” Obviously, psychoanalysis is not the answer to some very basic questions. If it helps people get on the go again, it does not point them in God’s direction. Being able to travel is not enough; you must know where you are going. If psychoanalysis cannot tell us what is moral or immoral in the sight of God, who judges our actions, then it is hardly a safe guide."</p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;">So that article is not againsts psychoanalysts doing their job, but against such ones going well beyond the role they are actually meant to serve, namely, "the science and practice of treating mental, emotional and behavioral disorders."</p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;">The rest of the article simply points out the Bible as the best source of counsel. Psychiatry, as a profession, was never maligned here.</p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;"><br /></p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;">In fact, in the <a href="https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1963370#h=9-11" target="_blank"><b>May 15</b> "Questions from Readers", <b>pp. 319, 320</b></a>, we get a very clear statement. I will simply quote the entire text of the question and answer here:</p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;">"● <b>Would it be necessary for a psychiatrist to change his profession before he would be eligible for baptism and recognition as one of Jehovah’s witnesses?—R. W., United States.</b></p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;">"No, it does not seem that this would be necessary. The fact that the Watch Tower publications have discouraged dedicated Christians consulting worldly psychiatrists except in extreme cases does not mean that a psychiatrist cannot and does not help those who consult him. Whether a psychiatrist continued to practice his profession upon dedication or not would be entirely his decision to make. It is possible that he could be a far better psychiatrist by reason of his now understanding and appreciating Bible principles, and especially because of his faith in Jehovah God and his dedication to do God’s will. See “Scriptural Aspect of Psychosomatic Medicine,” in The <a href="https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1954283" target="_blank">Watchtower, April 15, 1954, pages 232-236</a>.</p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;">"However, a dedicated Christian psychiatrist would need to be very careful not to unduly influence other Christians so that they would come to him for worldly wisdom instead of going to their overseers for heavenly wisdom. In fact, he would have to lean over backwards, as it were, so as not to imply that his psychiatry is a higher wisdom than that found in the Bible. The Bible contains far better advice for making over our personalities than does either psychiatry or psychoanalysis. And only its wisdom leads to everlasting life.—1 Cor. 13:1-13; Gal. 5:19-23; Col. 3:1-25."</p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;">Obviously, then, we were not against psychiatry. Also, our stand is succinctly stated as "discourag[ing] dedicated Christians consulting worldly psychiatrists except in extreme cases."</p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;"><br /></p><h2 style="text-align: center;">1960</h2><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;">Our disgruntled former members like to highlight the following text from the <b>March 8, Awake! article</b>, "Should a Christian Consult a Psychiatrist?", <b>pp. 27, 28</b>, which says:</p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;">"As a rule, for a Christian to go to a worldly psychiatrist is an admission of defeat, it amounts to 'going down to Egypt for help.' Isaiah 31:1." [p. 27]</p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;">"Often when a Witness of Jehovah goes to a psychiatrist, the psychiatrist will try to persuade him that his troubles are caused by his religion, entirely overlooking the fact that the Christian witnesses of Jehovah are the best-oriented, happiest and most contented group of people on the face of the earth. They have the least need for psychiatrists. Also, more and more psychiatrists are resorting to hypnosis, which is a demonic form of worldly wisdom." [p. 27)</p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;">"... what is needed at such times is not worldly psychiatrists who may wholly ignore the change that the truth and God's holy spirit have made in one's life and who know nothing of their power to help one put on a new Christian personality. Rather, what is needed at such times is a mature Christian in whom one has confidence and who is vitally interested in one's welfare and who will not shrink back from administering needed reproof or counsel so that one may get healed." [p. 28]</p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;">Indeed, this sounds damning. But let us examine the entire article. Before the first statement above, the article starts with these words: "SHOULD a Christian consult a psychiatrist? That is a question that sincere Christians have asked time and again. The answer <i>depends upon the circumstances</i> and the psychiatrist. Serious cases of mental unbalance or breakdown of nerves <i>may make it necessary to do so</i>. If so, however, the psychiatrist should be one who respects the importance and power of religion in one's life." (<i>Italics mine.</i>) So, clearly this article is not taking a stand against consulting psychiatrists, nor any prohibition, but is indicating a need for caution, as well as saying that sometimes psychiatrists are indispensable. So what were the above quotes really saying, then? Let's find out.</p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;">When the article says, "as a rule," it is using a colloquialism that is used in multiple articles that same year for things that clearly were not rules, but used in the sense of "in the mean," or "generally speaking." Thus it was not a rule to be enforced among Jehovah's Witnesses.</p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;">To say "an admission of defeat" is not meant to say that the person believes that God's holy spirit has been defeated, but rather that the person's faith and reliance on Jehovah has been defeated, which, to some extent is true. This does not, however, preclude the idea that maybe Jehovah wants the person to see a psychiatrist to untangle their mind or balance their chemistry because this is not the day for miracles and we have never taught such. In fact, when I finally gave in to the need to see a psychiatrist myself, I indeed felt defeated. But now I am glad I did and did not stop until I got past it. It was Jehovah's will because not only did I find what I was looking for, I came out of it stronger in faith when that chapter I mentioned expressed ideas compatible with Bible principles that helped me and consequently my relationship with Jehovah was strengthened. I came out of it with a deeper understanding of how Jehovah's will is expressed.</p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;">Then when the article says, "it amounts to 'going down to Egypt' for help," the author was not intending to condemn consulting a psychiatrist. They were trying to communicate that the psychiatrist is worldly with unchristian ideas (just as I explained previously), as if a Jew going to an Egyptian for help. Unfortunately, quoting the scripture communicates condemnation, even though it is clear that the article is not meant to indicate such judgment. So given the statement opening the article, we must conclude a lighter meaning than what the isolated quote suggests. Though granted, some will take what they want from the article, even among Jehovah's people. So no doubt some ran with the latter part of the paragraph, oblivious to the actual intent, accidentally facilitating a culture of condemnation in some geographical areas where psychiatry may already be looked down on by some.</p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;">After making points we have already discussed previously and basically saying that Jehovah's Witnesses are the most well-rounded group of people in the world (which I agree), it then discusses the questions asked by psychiatrists and says, "Surely, regarding such matters, a Christian can make his own examination," citing 2 Corinthians 13:5 as support, which says, "Keep testing whether you are in the faith; keep proving what you yourselves are. Or do you not recognize that Jesus Christ is in union with you? Unless you are disapproved."</p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;">Let us examine that. The questions the psychiatrist asks are designed to dig out what may be causing the Christian problems. In other words, it is asking the Christian to be reflective and self-aware, instead of lazy-minded. Examine yourself. Get at the heart of your motivations and what is nagging at you. If you are not unapproved, the mercy through Christ will help you.</p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;">If, however, you have become disapproved by sinning, and your conscience is thereby striking you, causing mental turmoil, then get the help of the elders who can help you clear your conscience. (Jas 5:14-16) The questions asked in a disciplinary hearing of Jehovah's Witnesses are designed to help you do this. The article then states that clearing one's conscience and accepting discipline is generally more helpful than letting people grope about in the dark with dangerous pitfalls. (Mt 15:14) Some of the same questions get asked, but with more concern for spiritual health among true Christians.</p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;">Certainly, though, elders are most helpful when their questions feel less like an inquisition and focus more on trying to lovingly seek the heart and extent of the problem (The fewer people in the room, the better). There is really not much difference from what a psychiatrist does beyond the additional concern for spiritual health. But I would caution that the elder should not pretend to be a psychiatrist if they are not trained as such. Still, they may dig down to the heart of the matter with well-considered and considerate questions.</p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;">The remaining balance of the article encourages talking to fellow Christians. This is an important survival tactic that even psychiatrists encourage. Having a support system of family and friends whom you feel safe talking to about your problems is indispensable to mental health. It encourages both seeking out those who will be concerned with your personal needs and also to be that person for others, not thinking only of your own problems especially between marriage partners. (Php 2:4) The article counsels, "In fact, it might be said that at least ninety·nine times out of a hundred when a Christian asks, Should I consult a psychiatrist? he should be consulting some mature Christian, in keeping with the counsel of James (5:14·16)." Even a psychiatrist will tell you that. Note that there is still that 1% need to consult a psychiatrist.</p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;">And that is where the quote I started with comes in. It is not saying a psychiatrist is never needed, but rather a fellow Christian is usually needed instead of a psychiatrist. If your problem can be addressed by talking to a friend, then there is no need to see a psychiatrist. A psychiatrist is for when nothing else works. In other words, they are a last resort, not a first resort. And that is the message of the entire article.</p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;"><br /></p><h2 style="text-align: center;">1956</h2><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;">The <b>September 8 issue of the Awake!, p. 19</b>, in a short piece called "Psychoanalyzing the Psychoanalysts", in a single very long paragraph, it defines a psychoanalyst as "one who analyzes the <i>psy'chē</i> or soul … to help people by revealing to them their unconscious motives." This, of course, is grossly oversimplified. At this time, though, "psychoanalysis" was a reference to freudian psychology as it usually maintained Freud's antireligious stance.</p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;">However, the piece goes on to quote an unflattering opinion by a particular psychoanalyst in an unnamed book, in discussing psychoanalysts who gather together, saying that they are like children comparing marbles. But then suggests the quoter may simply have been jealous over his being rejected by the New York Society of Psychoanalysts and then says that Freud did not think a higher education was necessary or desirable for someone to be a good psychoanalyst. The point of this opinion piece seems lost on me and was obviously tossed in as filler.</p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;">The piece gives no stated stand and leaves the reader confused as to whether we are to have a negative or positive view of psychoanalysts, or a negative view of the author of the book, and a positive view of Freud, or a positive or negative view toward higher education for psychoanalysts. Of course, if we know the history of our stand and consider the title of the piece, and the quote about it being "easier to make a new idea enter the head of the Statue of Liberty than into the minds of many psychoanalysts," then we understand that the goal was likely to establish that psychoanalysts are difficult to read and maybe that they are prone to human jealousy. But the statements about the book author and Freud badly muddle the point.</p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;"><br /></p><h2 style="text-align: center;">1954</h2><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;">The <b>October 22 Awake!, p. 24</b> says: "Without doubt psychologists ... have a lot to learn and they think they know more than they actually do, or they would not have let two chimpanzees make such monkeys out of them."</p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;">This quote that disgruntled former members use from the supplemental section, "Chimpanzees Make Monkeys Out of Psychologists", attached to the article, "The Concept of Psychoanalysis" simply talks about how psychologists were shown paintings that they incorrectly diagnosed as belonging to children years older than the chimpanzees that actually painted them. Different psychologists have diametrically opposed diagnoses of the same paintings. It was just a case in point to accurately demonstrate that "psychologists ... have a lot to learn and they think they know more than they actually do." It is not saying that psychologists know nothing, but that they think more of their skills and collective body of knowledge than they should.</p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;">The main article to which it is attached is an unbiased discussion of psychoanalysis in the outdated Freudian theories of the conscious, preconscious and unconscious divisions of the mind, the id, ego and superego personality aspects, and the life and death instincts and indicates that some of Freud's students broke away to develop their own theories of the mind. It really provides no point that I could define beyond what perhaps was meant in the supplemental.</p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;"><br /></p><h2 style="text-align: center;">1952</h2><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;">Disgruntled former members quote the article, "God's Word a Sure Guide" from the <b><a href="https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1952044" target="_blank">January 15 Watchtower, p.53</a></b>, which says, "So we must shun the false guides of men and their false religions, babbling psychologists, wordy psychiatrists and polluted politicians, all of which have built up such tremendous reputations as colossal failures. Look at the messes they have made, know them by their rotten fruits, reject them for their fruits."</p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;">The "babbling psychologists" and "wordy psychiatrists" part was based on the testimonies of mental health professionals themselves that it quoted earlier, saying, "Doctor James Tucker Fisher, a leading psychiatrist, said in his book A Few Buttons Missing: the Case Book of a Psychiatrist: “If you were to take the sum total of all the authoritative articles ever written by the most qualified of psychologists and psychiatrists on the subject of mental hygiene—if you were to combine them and refine them and cleave out the excess verbiage—if you were to take the whole of the meat and none of the parsley, and if you were to have these unadulterated bits of pure scientific knowledge concisely expressed by the most capable of living poets, you would have an awkward and incomplete summation of the Sermon on the Mount.” It is as Anthony Standen says in his book Science Is a Sacred Cow, page 151: "A social scientist prefers the more long-winded expression every time, because it gives an entirely spurious impression of scientificness to what he is doing." (p. 51)</p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;">The point is clearly that psychologists and psychiatrists, for all their word-making, are unable to do better than God's word, so turning to them for wisdom is pointless. There was no condemnation of the profession here, just practical sense. When you need wisdom, God's word has it in abundance, and mental health professionals do not. Though the article doesn't say it, it is referring only to generalized dependence on the mental health professions rather than the specialized help required in extreme cases, as consistently stated in other places. Since the article was about the reliable guidance in God's word, and not about psychiatrists or represent any change in our view of the profession, it simply remained on point and was not a declaration about the uselessness of psychiatry, but rather on relying on it for wisdom in daily life, simply establishing that human wisdom, in general, is unreliable.</p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;"><br /></p><h2 style="text-align: left; text-indent: 0.25in;">"Healthy people do not need a physician, but those who are ill do."—Matthew 9:12</h2><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;">Clearly, then, we have not decried psychiatry as a profession or questioned its legitimacy in any of the articles cited by former members and have only consistently and mercilessly attacked parapsychology, hypnosis, Freudian psychology and psychiatric exploitation with sound reason. Throughout this time we have always and consistently maintained a need for mental health professionals, but also for caution, and only after exhausting every other avenue.</p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;">This kind of analysis is what results when you put loyalty above hearsay. And still our opponents will prefer hearsay, even though they have not once performed a detailed analysis of the things that corrupted them, preferring a lie over the truth. (Ro 1:25; 2Th 2:9-12) Will you be someone who favors truth? It takes courage to face the truth and feeble-mindedness to accept the lie without question.</p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;">If there are other quotes about psychiatry in our publications that you think need explaining, please post them below. I already have much of a second article going further back that was cut from this article if any members are concerned with such.</p><div style="width: 120px;"><hr /></div><span id="docs-internal-guid-5c9e3a61-7fff-99ea-d06d-40a5468d08ab" style="font-family: "Libre Baskerville", serif; font-size: 9pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">[1] "Aristotle's Psychology". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.</span><div><span id="docs-internal-guid-75ddfaee-7fff-f43a-e0a2-b9e62b42b545" style="font-family: "Libre Baskerville", serif; font-size: 9pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">[2] T.L. Brink. (2008) Psychology: A Student Friendly Approach. "Unit One: The Definition and History of Psychology." p. 9.</span><div><span id="docs-internal-guid-260c4a5d-7fff-0154-dd52-441ce0ae15e1" style="font-family: "Libre Baskerville", serif; font-size: 9pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">[3] Schwarz, Katharina A.; Pfister, Roland (2016). "Scientific psychology in the 18th century: A historical rediscovery". Perspectives on Psychological Science. SAGE Publications.</span><p style="text-align: center; text-indent: 0.25in;"><br /></p><div style="text-align: center; width: 100%;">
<img border="0" data-original-height="408" data-original-width="1450" height="90" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiBC7iFjimozYma_8yN02S2mC4qXb_AQtjavN7CJlj6zf3L8x1pa9OFN5HqMPYrHCJyU1S87MhK-gr0paRMqqtqLwzY8psEDnjR5_9hyXhz1w9ohBW85PhRFrJ1DO6dz25xmNXErv-c_ADxtHFDd4-XfRlRZ2qWI3Vxx7w9v0nrYF0FJFdCSffawwluMg=s320" width="320" /></div><p style="text-align: center; text-indent: 0.25in;"><br style="text-indent: 0px;" /></p><h2 style="text-align: center;">Links</h2><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;">The following links support claims made by Watchtower Society publications. If you already know these things, there is no need to go through these, but if you need convincing, please read. If you find anything objectionable in the following info dump, let us discuss it below. If you suspect you may be having mental difficulties, read through these articles to learn what you can do to help yourself. You might even test out Jehovah's Witnesses to see if their love actually does help. If, however, you are in immediate need of help for suicidal or violent thoughts, you can call 988 for local mental health crisis prevention if you are in the U.S., or contact your local hotline in your country if available. There is absolutely nothing wrong in seeking a mental health professional. Just be cautious.</p><h3 style="text-align: left;">Religion and Spirituality Is Good for Mental Health</h3><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;"><a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3705681/">https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3705681/</a></p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;"><a href="https://www.hindawi.com/journals/isrn/2012/278730/#B2">https://www.hindawi.com/journals/isrn/2012/278730/#B2</a></p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;"><a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicolefisher/2019/03/29/science-says-religion-is-good-for-your-health/?sh=692b5d2b3a12">https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicolefisher/2019/03/29/science-says-religion-is-good-for-your-health/?sh=692b5d2b3a12</a></p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;"><a href="https://www.mentalhealth.org.uk/sites/default/files/impact-spirituality.pdf">https://www.mentalhealth.org.uk/sites/default/files/impact-spirituality.pdf</a> [PDF]</p><h3 style="text-align: left;">Need for Caution</h3><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;"><a href="https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/view/doing-psychiatry-wrong-critical-and-prescriptive-look-faltering-profession">https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/view/doing-psychiatry-wrong-critical-and-prescriptive-look-faltering-profession</a></p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;"><a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-psychiatry-shrink/whats-wrong-with-psychiatry-one-shrinks-view-idUSTRE64O45T20100525">https://www.reuters.com/article/us-psychiatry-shrink/whats-wrong-with-psychiatry-one-shrinks-view-idUSTRE64O45T20100525</a></p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;"><a href="https://www.bridgestorecovery.com/blog/the-dangers-of-mental-health-misdiagnosis-why-accuracy-matters/amp">https://www.bridgestorecovery.com/blog/the-dangers-of-mental-health-misdiagnosis-why-accuracy-matters/amp</a>/</p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;"><a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_about_psychiatry">https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_about_psychiatry</a></p><h3 style="text-align: left;">Negativity Erodes Mental Health</h3><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;"><a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3000745/">https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3000745/</a></p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;"><a href="https://www.verywellmind.com/focus-on-negative-moments-impacts-mental-health-5119174">https://www.verywellmind.com/focus-on-negative-moments-impacts-mental-health-5119174</a></p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;"><a href="https://www.marquemedical.com/damaging-effects-of-negativity/">https://www.marquemedical.com/damaging-effects-of-negativity/</a></p><h3 style="text-align: left;">Positivity Bolsters Mental Health</h3><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;">This is not toxic positivity, but positive thinking, positive interactions, giving and receiving compliments and avoiding toxic people.</p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;"><a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4760272/">https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4760272/</a></p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;"><a href="https://positivepsychology.com/positive-thinking/">https://positivepsychology.com/positive-thinking/</a></p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;"><a href="https://paradigmtreatment.com/positive-thoughts-benefit-mental-health/#:~:text=By%20focusing%20on%20positive%20thoughts,tend%20to%20be%20more%20pessimistic.">https://paradigmtreatment.com/positive-thoughts-benefit-mental-health/#:~:text=By%20focusing%20on%20positive%20thoughts,tend%20to%20be%20more%20pessimistic.</a></p><h3 style="text-align: left;">Forgiveness Boosts Mental Health</h3><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;"><a href="https://www.apa.org/monitor/2017/01/ce-corner">https://www.apa.org/monitor/2017/01/ce-corner</a></p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;"><a href="https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/adult-health/in-depth/forgiveness/art-20047692">https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/adult-health/in-depth/forgiveness/art-20047692</a></p><h3 style="text-align: left;">The Need for a Non-psychiatric Support System</h3><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;"><a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5633215/">https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5633215/</a></p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;"><a href="https://www.apa.org/topics/stress/manage-social-support">https://www.apa.org/topics/stress/manage-social-support</a></p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;"><a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0265407505049320">https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0265407505049320</a></p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;"><a href="https://highlandspringsclinic.org/blog/the-benefits-and-importance-of-a-support-system/">https://highlandspringsclinic.org/blog/the-benefits-and-importance-of-a-support-system/</a></p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;"><a href="https://www.verywellmind.com/social-support-for-psychological-health-4119970">https://www.verywellmind.com/social-support-for-psychological-health-4119970</a></p><h3 style="text-align: left;">Showing and Receiving Love Protects Against Mental Illness</h3><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;">I was unable to find anything but personal opinions about love being unable to cure mental illness, and while psychiatrists say that love is important to the healing process of strictly mental disorders, they say that mental illness should only be treated by a mental health professional, which is what should be expected, since it means their jobs. Of course, illnesses caused by physical defects in the brain cannot be cured by love any more than it can be cured by a mental health professional, but love surely helps.</p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;"><a href="https://www.psychiatryadvisor.com/home/topics/mood-disorders/the-positive-effects-of-love-on-mental-health/">https://www.psychiatryadvisor.com/home/topics/mood-disorders/the-positive-effects-of-love-on-mental-health/</a></p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;"><a href="https://www.mentalhealth.org.uk/statistics/mental-health-statistics-relationships-and-community">https://www.mentalhealth.org.uk/statistics/mental-health-statistics-relationships-and-community</a></p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;"><a href="https://meritagemed.com/improve-your-mental-health/">https://meritagemed.com/improve-your-mental-health/</a></p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;"><a href="https://www.mind.org.uk/information-support/tips-for-everyday-living/nature-and-mental-health/how-nature-benefits-mental-health/">https://www.mind.org.uk/information-support/tips-for-everyday-living/nature-and-mental-health/how-nature-benefits-mental-health/</a></p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;"><a href="https://news.asu.edu/content/study-expressing-love-can-improve-your-health">https://news.asu.edu/content/study-expressing-love-can-improve-your-health</a></p><h3 style="text-align: left;">Private Journaling Helps</h3><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;"><a href="https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/encyclopedia/content.aspx?ContentID=4552&ContentTypeID=1">https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/encyclopedia/content.aspx?ContentID=4552&ContentTypeID=1</a></p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;"><a href="https://positivepsychology.com/benefits-of-journaling/">https://positivepsychology.com/benefits-of-journaling/</a></p><h3>Gut Health and the Mind</h3><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;"><a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7438757/">https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7438757/</a></p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;"><a href="https://thejournalofheadacheandpain.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s10194-020-1078-9">https://thejournalofheadacheandpain.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s10194-020-1078-9</a></p><p style="text-indent: 0.25in;"><a href="https://medicalxpress.com/news/2022-06-gut-bacterial-metabolite-neural-cell.amp">https://medicalxpress.com/news/2022-06-gut-bacterial-metabolite-neural-cell.amp</a></p></div></div>Dismythedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09872186295008632240noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-413969216273696296.post-32366421309281374172022-05-04T12:54:00.012-05:002022-08-20T10:31:29.136-05:00Areas of Cult and Non-cult Identification [Cult Myths]<p style="margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><sup>Originally posted: Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 10:52 PM. Some paragraphs have been added or modified.</sup></p><p style="margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">When filling a jar up with sand, if you fail to pick out the rocks, then the rocks limit the sand. That is why so many cult lists fail. The anti-cultist is so busy trying to catch cults in his figurative cult jar with a bunch of identifiers that he forgets about what is not a dangerous or destructive cult so that the non-cults get caught in the jar. Thus, in order to identify what is a cult, we must first take out the rocks by identifying what is not a cult.</span></span></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">In each cult identifier post, we will be considering the differences between what is reasonable and unreasonable and possible areas in between. Each post will clearly identify the effects of the related traits under discussion, whether positive or negative, or both. Some may seem to have a negative impact at first blush, but actually have a net positive result in the end, such as reasonably penalizing someone who breaks a rule, as when restricting the person from accessible privileges in the group for a time.</p><h2><i>How These Posts Are Organized</i></h2>
<p style="margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">Each post will start by considering a </span></span><b><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">healthy</span></span></b><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"> practice that we should all like to see in a group if applicable, then consider any </span></span><b><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">harmless</span></span></b><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"> trait that has no negative impact on the group, the individual or society. Then we will look at the gray area that could send up a </span></span><b><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">potential red flag</span></span></b><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"> if not properly handled. Every group is going to have a couple of potential red flags. This does not identify a group as dangerous or destructive unless it actually does harm to anyone, but we will distinguish between what is actually harmful and what is an entitled person playing opossum. Finally, we will look at true </span></span><b>dangers</b> that always and consistently do harm. If a group practices even one of these things, then they are behaving in a dangerous or destructive way. But it does not always make the group irredeemable if they are willing to make changes to correct the situation. That also goes for red flags that tip into dangerous or destructive.</p><p style="margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt;"><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">The posts will be written in a similar format to the clear reasoning of the Salvation vs. website. With each subject in a post, <b>definitions</b> will be provided, followed by clear, concise <b>examples</b>. <b>Facts</b> will be provided and analyzed, then a proper <b>defense</b> will be given of a positive or negative viewpoint. Then, relevant questions will be asked to incite the reader to seriously contemplate the information and what it leads to.</span></p><p style="margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt;"><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">A careful effort will be made to eliminate biases. At times, you may be uncomfortable at first, only to discover that the facts point to no harm, while other times you may be confident in the harmlessness of an idea only to realize the damage it has done. One group you were certain was a cult you may find completely vindicated, while another group you considered innocent may be more guilty than the manson family, but without any mention of any particular group.
</span></p><div style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 30px;"><br /></div><h2><i>Areas of Identification</i></h2><p style="margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">The posts are divided into eight areas of identification. These include:</p><p style="margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;"><b>Communication.</b> Communication is essential for any group to share a common cause. But communication can be misused to go beyond sharing ideas and move into the area of stopping thinking, spreading misinformation, suppressing information, oppressing and even hypnotizing. It is important to identify things things in order to protect yourself from bad forms of communication.</p><p style="margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;"><b>Structure.</b> Every group needs structure. Without structure, the group falls apart and nothing productive results to achieve the group's common goal. Strife can result and the group is left wide open for someone to come in and impose a structure on the group that they may not like. This section explores rules, facilities and attitudes of leadership that can help or harm a group.</p><p style="margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;"><b>Autonomy.</b> Personal autonomy is the most important feature of human rights without exception. There are times when autonomy must be restricted to ensure the autonomy of others. For an extreme example, a person's autonomy to kill at will is curtailed by laws and imprisonment, or even death for violators. There is nothing cultic about this. So autonomy is limited, but should only be limited as much as absolutely necessary for the safety of the group and every individual in the group. These posts focus on the limits of these freedoms and restrictions and how not to let yourself be duped into joining dangerous or destructive groups.</p><p style="margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;"><b>Community Relations.</b> Every group exists within a wider comunity, whether locally, nationally, internationally or wordwide. How the group interacts with the larger community in these areas goves clear indicators as to the health of the group. If they are helpful to the community without nefarious ends, then they are heathy, but if their activity is harmful or causes the moral degredation of local communities, then they are unhealthy, even cultic in the dangerous or destructive sense.</p><p style="margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;"><b>Teachings.</b> A groups teachings about improving the life of its members or the world shows the mindset they want their members to have. Promoting equality and member health is a healthy teaching. Not speaking on such things may be negligent, but not necessarily harmful, but can be a red flag. But teachings can reveal a lot about the dangers of a group to its members or the world.</p><p style="margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;"><b>Internal Conduct.</b> How the group treats its members is an important indicator of its health. If it promotes peace and happiness among its members, then it may be a healthy group. But if its happiness is arbitrary (a facade) or it does harm to its members then it is sickly and disturbing. Abuse of any kind, as a result of group poicies or permission shoud not be tolerated by any member.</p><p style="margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;"><b>View of Life.</b> The group's view of life has a profound effect upon all their practices. If they value life, they will likely be very healthy, but if they promote involvement in violent acts or try to devalue anyone's life or view soe as expendable, then the group's insidious nature could lead to attrocities.</p><p style="margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;"><b>Worship.</b> So far, no one type of worship assures that a group is or is not a cult. This category is to show that the form of worship has no bearing upon the determination of whether a group is a cult or not, contrary to counter-cultists.</p><p style="margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">See the the post, Debunking Myths About Cults for a breakdown of each of the sections in the Cult Identifier Areas section. </p><h1 style="text-align: center;"><small>Proposed Posts</small></h1><p style="margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">Below is the list of planned subjects for identifying healthy, harmless, potentially harmful and absolutely harmful traits in alphabetical order by area. The titles may change and subjects may be added, moved or titles altered, but this is the current planned list of posts. After many of the titles are a list of additional traits considered in light italic parentheses.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">Honestly consider how the points in these posts apply to groups you think may be dangerous or destructive cults.</p><br />
<div style="align-items: center; display: flex; flex-direction: row;"><div align="left" style="flex-grow: 0; text-align: left;">
<b><i>Communication </i></b></div><div style="background-color: #9f9f9f; flex-grow: 1; height: 1px;"></div></div>
<ul><li><p>Doctrinal Instruction From Healthy to Abusive <i><span style="color: #999999;">(child training, "indoctrination" logic)</span></i></p></li><li><p>Encouraging and Discouraging Questions <i><span style="color: #999999;">(promoting seeking answers to honest questions, discourage dishonest questions, discourage honest questions, demonize honest questions)</span></i></p></li><li><p>From Truth to Fabrication <i><span style="color: #999999;">(propaganda, deceit)</span></i></p></li><li><p>Instruction Before Membership</p></li><li><p>Levels of Scriptural Support <span style="color: #999999;"><i>(steadfast adherence, selective interpretation, oral tradition, cherry picking, rejecting own scriptures)</i></span></p></li></ul><div><ul><li><p>Limiting Information Access—From Transparency to Opacity <span style="color: #999999;"><i>(free access to all information, history, discouraging higher education, hiding information, forbidding education, historical revisionism, milieu control)</i></span></p></li></ul></div><ul><li><p>The Problems of Foretelling and Interpreting <span style="color: #999999;"><i>(true prophecy, ambiguity, wrong expectations, false prophecy)</i></span></p></li><li><p>The Problems of Rhetoric <span style="color: #999999;"><span><i>(tricks of language, logical fallacies, antisocial rhetoric, mentalism, control methods, </i></span><i>neuro-linguistic programming</i></span><i style="color: #999999;">)</i></p></li><li><p>The Usefulness and Dangers of Language <i><span style="color: #999999;">(appropriate terminology, unique terms and expressions, unusual and foreign words, cliches, loaded language, redefinition)</span></i></p></li><li><p>Is It Wrong to Distribute Literature? <span style="color: #999999;"><i>(Uses and Abuses of Literature)</i></span></p></li></ul><div></div>
<div><div style="align-items: center; display: flex; flex-direction: row;"><div align="left" style="flex-grow: 0;"><b><i>Recruitment </i></b></div><div style="background-color: #9f9f9f; flex-grow: 1; height: 1px;"></div></div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>From Focus to Stockholm <span style="color: #999999;"><i>(process of conversion [e</i></span><i style="color: #999999;">ducation, restating, attending, building relationships, building trust, confessing faith], </i><i style="color: #999999;">forced conversion [</i><i style="color: #999999;">coercion, programming, reprogramming, deprogramming or re-education], </i><i style="color: #999999;">inducing Stockholm [isolation, </i><i style="color: #999999;">threats and intimidation, rapport, </i><i style="color: #999999;">abuse])</i></li><li>Selective Recruiting <span style="color: #999999;"><i>(demographic customization, demographic targeting)</i></span></li><li>Ways of Attraction <span style="color: #999999;"><i>(giving hope, promise of sense fulfillment, flirty fishing, bait-and-trap, bait-and-switch, deceitful recruitment)</i></span></li><li>Savaging <span style="color: #999999;"><i>(dark pact, rough-housing, hazing, beatdown, dark act)</i></span></li></ul></div>
<div style="align-items: center; display: flex; flex-direction: row;"><div align="left" style="flex-grow: 0; text-align: left;">
<b><i>Structure </i></b></div><div style="background-color: #9f9f9f; flex-grow: 1; height: 1px;"></div></div>
<div><div><ul><li><p>Between Sexism and Structure <i><span style="color: #999999;">(Headship, sexual equality, Stepford obedience, polygamy, stolen wives)</span></i></p></li></ul></div><div><ul><li><p>Direction From a Divine Source <span style="color: #999999;"><i>(scriptural guidance, divine guidance, inspiration, divine messages, spiritism)</i></span></p></li></ul></div><ul><li><p>From Organization to Anarchy <i><span style="color: #999999;">(hierarchy, charismatic or divine leadership, organs, compartmentalization)</span></i></p></li><li><p>From Responsive to "Infallible" <i><span style="color: #999999;">(willing to course correct, unerring leadership)</span></i></p></li><li><p>How Donations Are Used And Abused <i><span style="color: #999999;">(collection boxes, passing the plate, voluntary tithing, literature for a donation, literature for a fixed donation, leadership in luxury, prosperity gospel, fleecing the flock, "give until it hurts", demand property [enforced tithing, all property])</span></i></p></li><li><p>Open, closed and Secret Meetings <i><span style="color: #999999;">(reasonably open meeting, meetings for worship, secret society)</span></i></p></li><li><p>The Reasons Churches Should Be Separate From States <i><span style="color: #999999;">(state religion)</span></i></p></li><li><p>Reasons for Facilities <i><span style="color: #999999;">(churches, Facilities, communal living, monasteries and compounds)</span></i></p></li><li><p>The Road to Legalism <i><span style="color: #999999;">(suggestions, guidelines, rules (laws), standards, and procedures, arbitrary rules, ancient/modern standards, dietary restrictions, dress code [also formal military trappings], behavioral restrictions (social), approval for personal decisions)</span></i></p></li></ul><div><ul><li><p>From Syncretism to Parasitism <span style="color: #999999;"><i>(Orbital religion)</i></span></p></li></ul></div><ul><li><p>The Use and Abuse of Rewards and Penalties <i><span style="color: #999999;">(appointment, sanctions, representational rewards and punishments, humiliation, corporal punishment)</span></i></p></li></ul></div>
<br />
<div style="align-items: center; display: flex; flex-direction: row;"><div align="left" style="flex-grow: 0; text-align: left;">
<b><i>Autonomy </i></b></div><div style="background-color: #9f9f9f; flex-grow: 1; height: 1px;"></div></div>
<div><div><ul><li><p>Association Matters to Self-determination <i><span style="color: #999999;">(avoiding critics, shunning [a.k.a. ostracism], expelling family, blacklisting)</span></i></p></li></ul></div><ul><li><p>The Balance Between Self and Others <i><span style="color: #999999;">(hedonism, self-interest, reasonably others before self, self-denial, self-abandonment)</span></i></p></li></ul><ul><li><p>Between Independence and Domination <i><span style="color: #999999;">(</span></i><i><span style="color: #999999;">permissiveness, </span></i><i><span style="color: #999999;">benefits and pitfalls of obedience, accept human error, </span></i><i><span style="color: #999999;">promote relative obedience, encourage analytical self-determination, holistic, </span></i><i><span style="color: #999999;">"totalism", promotes blind obedience, totalitarian, blind faith-testing)</span></i></p></li><li><p><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">Confession is for Repentance </span></span><i><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="color: #999999; vertical-align: inherit;">(reasonably confidential confession, absolute confidential confession, reporting, thought confession, confession abuse)</span></span></i></p></li><li><p><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">Cherish Your Ability to Think </span></span><i><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="color: #999999; vertical-align: inherit;">(freedom to think, reasoning, reasoning is evil, thought-stopping techniques)</span></span></i></p></li><li><p><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">The Dangers of Isolationism </span></span><i><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="color: #999999; vertical-align: inherit;">(isolation [abandon family and friends])</span></span></i></p></li></ul><div></div><ul><li><p><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">The Difference Between Hope-bringing and Doomsaying </span></span><i><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="color: #999999; vertical-align: inherit;">(hope of cleansed world, apocalyptic message, doomsday message, fear mongering, doomsday threatening)</span></span></i></p></li></ul><div><ul><li><p><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">The Differences Between Temporary Partners and Perpetual "Buddies" <span style="color: #999999;"><i>(task partners, buddy system, accountability system)</i></span></span></span></p></li></ul></div><div><ul><li><p><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">Does a Radical Personality Change indicate a Danger? <span style="color: #999999;"><i>(application, no change, pretense, zombification)</i></span></span></span></p></li></ul></div><ul><li><p><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">Dominance Tactics <span style="color: #999999;"><i>(intimidation, forcing submission, verbal abuse, physical abuse)</i></span></span></span></p></li><li><p><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">The Dark Side of Eastern Meditation </span></span><i><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="color: #999999; vertical-align: inherit;">(focused meditation, prayer, mindfulness and transcendental meditation)</span></span></i></p></li><li><p><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">How Joy Can Be Used to Manipulate You </span></span><i><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="color: #999999;">(celebration, sharing, feeling loved, tempered joy, emotional suppression, allow only positive thinking, toxic positivity, manufactured happiness, artificial ecstasy [a.k.a. Rapture])</span></span></span></i></p></li><li><p><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">Loss of Self in "Sexual Liberation" </span></span><i><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="color: #999999; vertical-align: inherit;">(sexual self-control, suppressing desires, sexual freedom, "sexual enlightenment", sexual abuse and exploitation)</span></span></i></p></li><li><p><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">How Much Is Too Much? </span></span><i><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="color: #999999; vertical-align: inherit;">(singing, chanting, "excessive meditation and prayer, "excessive" singing, constant meditation, chanting, singing, prayer or preaching)</span></span></i></p></li></ul><ul><li><p><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">The Morality of Activity Tracking </span></span><i><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="color: #999999; vertical-align: inherit;">(census, involuntary information collection [background checking, spying])</span></span></i></p></li></ul><div></div><div><ul><li><p><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">Protecting Members From Government Overreach </span></span><i><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="color: #999999; vertical-align: inherit;">(unprotective)</span></span></i></p></li></ul></div><ul><li><p><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">Standards of Membership </span></span><i><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="color: #999999; vertical-align: inherit;">(disqualification of criminals, membership for life)</span></span></i></p></li></ul><div><ul><li><p><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">Staying Busy vs. Staying Exhausted </span></span><i><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="color: #999999; vertical-align: inherit;">(Self-denial, keep busy, major time commitments, sleep deprivation, <i style="color: black;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="color: #999999; vertical-align: inherit;">food and water deprivation [40 day fasting]</span></span></i>)</span></span></i></p></li></ul></div><ul><li><p><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">Using People as a Resource </span></span><i><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="color: #999999; vertical-align: inherit;">(random volunteering, qualified volunteering, paid workers, conscription and enslavement)</span></span></i></p></li><li><p><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">Value Your Sense of Self and Your Potential </span></span><i><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="color: #999999; vertical-align: inherit;">(value identity, abandonment of self, identity rejection)</span></span></i></p></li></ul></div>
<br />
<div style="align-items: center; display: flex; flex-direction: row;"><div align="left" style="flex-grow: 0; text-align: left;">
<b><i><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">Community Relations </span></span></i></b></div><div style="background-color: #9f9f9f; flex-grow: 1; height: 1px;"></div></div>
<div><ul><li><p><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">The Benefits and Dangers of Child Services </span></span><i><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="color: #999999; vertical-align: inherit;">(childcare latchkey programs, child counseling)</span></span></i></p></li><li><p><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">Between Pacifism and Militancy </span></span><i><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="color: #999999; vertical-align: inherit;">(pacifism, non-violence, neutrality, relative non-violence, non-participation, uninvolvement, promote military volunteering, wartime propaganda, incite to violence, stockpiling weapons, day world assaults the devout, Jihad [Holy Uprising] Teaching)</span></span></i></p></li><li><p><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">Environmental awareness or Destruction? </span></span><i><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="color: #999999; vertical-align: inherit;">(knowingly polluting with dangerous substances)</span></span></i></p></li><li><p><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">The Claim to "True" or "More Right" Religion Is Assumed By the Group's Existence </span></span><i><span style="color: #999999;">(denominations, sects, "true religion" or "orthodoxy", "heterodoxy" or "false religion", teach interference techniques)</span></i></p></li><li><p><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">The Faces of Relief Ministries </span></span><i><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="color: #999999; vertical-align: inherit;">(genuine philanthropy, cultivating a reputation, false front)</span></span></i></p></li><li><p><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">From Realistic to Poisonous Views of Society and Social Reform </span></span><i><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="color: #999999; vertical-align: inherit;">(socio-political reform gospel)</span></span></i></p></li><li><p><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">It's a Long Road From Peace to Persecution </span></span><i><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="color: #999999; vertical-align: inherit;">(kindness to strangers, prohibit religious hatred, </span></span></i><i><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="color: #999999; vertical-align: inherit;">persecution forbidden, </span></span></i><i><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="color: #999999; vertical-align: inherit;">persecuting others not discouraged, persecution disavowed, litigious, persecution sanctioned, persecuting others demanded)</span></span></i></p></li><li><p><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">Politics, Pride and Nationalism </span></span><i><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="color: #999999; vertical-align: inherit;">(respect for government, government opposition</span></span></i><i><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="color: #999999; vertical-align: inherit;">)</span></span></i></p></li><li><p><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">Proper and Improper Uses of Public Ministry </span></span><i><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="color: #999999; vertical-align: inherit;">(door to door ministry, persecution awareness, </span></span></i><i><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="color: #999999; vertical-align: inherit;">inciting own persecution, </span></span></i><i><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="color: #999999; vertical-align: inherit;">pushy preaching, guilting, condemnation, browbeating, public protest)</span></span></i></p></li><li><p><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">Relationship to Outside Groups </span></span><i><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="color: #999999; vertical-align: inherit;">(inside/outside, "them against God", "them against us", "God against them", "us against them", antisocial rhetoric, obsess over former group)</span></span></i></p></li><li><p><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">Secular Acceptance, Nepotism and Exclusion </span></span><i><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="color: #999999; vertical-align: inherit;">("no part of the world", views of the world, group employment)</span></span></i></p></li><li><p><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">Should a Group Be Condemned for Historical Sins? <span style="color: #999999;"><i>(Historical Sins, Condemning for Historical Sins, Historical Pattern)</i></span></span></span></p></li><li><p><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">When Good Deeds Go Wrong </span></span><i><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="color: #999999; vertical-align: inherit;">(cleaning neighborhoods, cleaning houses)</span></span></i></p></li></ul><div><div style="align-items: center; display: flex; flex-direction: row;"><div align="left" style="flex-grow: 0;"><b><i>Teachings </i></b></div><div style="background-color: #9f9f9f; flex-grow: 1; height: 1px;"></div></div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><p>From Equality to Genocide <i><span style="color: #999999;">(racial acceptance, tribal calling, familial Selection, classes, elitism, bigotry, castes, segregation, racial purity, genocide)</span></i></p></li><li><p>From Paragon to Corruption <i><span style="color: #999999;">(encourage good behavior, high moral standards, demand for purity, guard against corruption, insufficient criminal prevention, promoting criminal activity)</span></i></p></li><li><p><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">The Good Deeds Between Apathy and Perfectionism </span><i><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="color: #999999; vertical-align: inherit;">(good works, slave for others)</span></span></i></p></li><li><p><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">Remove the Weight That Terrorizes </span><i><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="color: #999999; vertical-align: inherit;">(discourage scrupulosity, no judgment, implanting seguilt)</span></span></i></p></li><li><p><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">The Value of Unity </span><i><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="color: #999999; vertical-align: inherit;">(cultivate peace, sense of community, demand for unity, polarization)</span></span></i></p></li><li><p><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">How Good Health Is Viewed </span><i><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="color: #999999; vertical-align: inherit;">(promotes Good health, demand bodily fitness)</span></span></i></p></li><li><p><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">What Importance Should Safety Have? </span><i><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="color: #999999; vertical-align: inherit;">(promotes safety, disregards safety, snortcuts, jeopardizes safety, endangers)</span></span></i></p></li><li><p><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">Learn the Difference:</span></p></li><ul><li style="line-spacing: 10px;">Between Knowledge and Speculation <i><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="color: #999999; vertical-align: inherit;">(flat earth, conspiracy theories)</span></span></i></li><li style="line-spacing: 10px;">Between Science and Pseudo-science <i><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="color: #999999; vertical-align: inherit;">(sacred science)</span></span></i></li><li style="line-spacing: 10px;">Between Faith and Superstition <i><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="color: #999999; vertical-align: inherit;">(belief, credulity, blind faith, </span></span></i><i><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="color: #999999; vertical-align: inherit;">purposeful exposure to harmful creatures or substances)</span></span></i></li><li style="line-spacing: 10px;">Between Psychiatry and Pseudo-psychiatry</li><li>Between Medicine and Snake Oil <i><span style="color: #999999;">(</span></i><i><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="color: #999999; vertical-align: inherit;">harmful diet, </span></span></i><i><span style="color: #999999;">"faith healing", reject specific medications or treatments, reject all medical treatments, required or forced medical treatment or substance</span></i><i><span style="color: #999999;">)</span></i></li><li>Between Reality and Fantasy <i><span style="color: #999999;">(reality testing, cognitive dissonance, fantasy-feeding, self-deception, mystical manipulation, unverifiable beliefs)</span></i></li></ul><li><p><i><span style="color: #999999;"><br /></span></i></p></li></ul></div>
<br />
<div style="align-items: center; display: flex; flex-direction: row;"><div align="left" style="flex-grow: 0; text-align: left;">
<b><i><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">Internal Conduct </span></span></i></b></div><div style="background-color: #9f9f9f; flex-grow: 1; height: 1px;"><br /></div></div><div><ul><li><p><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">Inflicting Pain Is Always Wrong </span></span><i><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="color: #999999; vertical-align: inherit;">(abuse of the body)</span></span></i></p></li></ul><ul><li><p><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">Familial Bonding <i><span style="color: #999999;">(brotherhood, </span></i></span></span><i><span style="color: #999999;">loyalty-building, </span></i><i><span style="color: #999999;">roughhousing, father/mother, loyalty-testing, threat-mongering)</span></i></p></li><li><p><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">Family Lives of the Group </span></span><i><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="color: #999999; vertical-align: inherit;">(healthy family life, abusive family life)</span></span></i></p></li></ul><ul><li><p><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">How Love Is Displayed </span></span><i><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="color: #999999; vertical-align: inherit;">(welcoming, forgiving, discipline, tough love, false flattery, love-bombing)</span></span></i></p></li><li><p><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">Branding is for Commodities, not people </span></span><i><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="color: #999999; vertical-align: inherit;">(branding or tattooing)</span></span></i></p></li><li><p><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">Recognize Gaslighting and Reject It <span style="color: #999999;"><i>(accountability: distinguishing who is to blame: the group, the family, the individual</i></span></span></span><span style="color: #999999;"><i>, guilting, blame-shifting, "you're crazy", identify the bad actor, pin down, hold your ground)</i></span></p></li></ul></div>
<br />
<div style="align-items: center; display: flex; flex-direction: row;"><div align="left" style="flex-grow: 0; text-align: left;">
<b><i><span style="vertical-align: inherit;"><span style="vertical-align: inherit;">View of Life </span></span></i></b></div><div style="background-color: #9f9f9f; flex-grow: 1; height: 1px;"></div></div>
<div><ul><li><p>Holy War or Cult Dominance? <i><span style="color: #999999;">(stockpiling weapons)</span></i></p></li><li><p>The Value of Life <span style="color: #999999;"><i>(protection of life, doctrine over p</i><i>erson, </i><i>authority to execute</i><i>)</i></span></p></li><li><p>The Value of Religious Freedom <span style="color: #999999;">(all rights matter, sacrifice rights for greater good, "only our rights matter", "they have no rights")</span></p></li></ul></div>
<br />
<div style="align-items: center; display: flex; flex-direction: row;"><div align="left" style="flex-grow: 0; text-align: left;">
<b><i>Worship </i></b></div><div style="background-color: #9f9f9f; flex-grow: 1; height: 1px;"></div></div>
<div><ul><li><p>Historical Types of Worship <span style="color: #999999;"><i>(monotheism, </i><i>polytheism, </i><i>animal worship, idolatry, cult of personality)</i></span></p></li><li><p>Sacrifices from objects to people <span style="color: #999999;">(money, objects, animals, people, babies)</span></p></li></ul></div><br />
<p style="margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">There is some overlap between a small number of these posts, even some overlap between the areas of discussion, but mostly these posts have fairly distinct subject matter.</p><h2><i>What Do You Want to See?</i></h2>
<p style="margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">Which post would you like to see first? Comment below.</p><p style="margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">If you have suggestions or opinions on these subjects as they apply to cults and non-cults in general (Not to any one group), feel free to post here. Please avoid experience bias. We're going for hard data and commonly observable phenomena that can be shown to be healthy, harmless, or potentially or factually dangerous or destructive. Feel free to provide reading recommendations and links not focussed on any specific religion or other group. (Though we are not likely to approve comments with such, they will be considered.) A post's author is under no obligation to include any comment in any post written. Even if a <a href="http://dismythed.blogspot.com/p/a-note-to-our-visitors.html" target="_blank">comment is rejected</a>, fair points may still be used from a rejected comment. All suggestions are considered fair use and any concepts used will not be credited. (Commenters are not authorities and truths are not copyrightable.) Please keep posts brief and to the point.</p></div>Dismythedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09872186295008632240noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-413969216273696296.post-50916134015842015342022-04-25T16:17:00.002-05:002022-04-25T16:17:36.378-05:00Conquering Intrusive Thoughts<p>We have plenty of posts in the pipeline for Dismythed. For now, if you have not already read it, please enjoy this recent post from our sister site, JW Advisor:</p><p><a href="https://jwadvisor.blogspot.com/2022/03/doubtdoubts-how-can-i-stop-rehashing.html?m=1" target="_blank">DoubtDoubts: How Can I Stop Rehashing Doubts?</a></p>Dismythedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09872186295008632240noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-413969216273696296.post-53179276731653376992022-04-05T23:19:00.020-05:002022-04-08T11:30:08.440-05:00Flip-side News: Scientist Highlights a Problem with Evolution While Doubling Down [Science Myths]<div style="text-align: center; width: 100%;"><img border="none" data-original-height="945" data-original-width="1413" height="113" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjZQhPufnN1nEYfJ_JtHVGaO5t0lXrpn93b87amHBNVO9bIPOORpPRQU_HWLz7LTo3TWabT9g8825Czyj-Pbc48aC-7opzxrXxq0eqp-2iqhGEOTWu2o41-6NaUqcLj4tKxvztoARcjfu1IfGthMCPg4oQmGWXbWdRWSXnWxsA5VQ5wXi5HwBSk61giXQ/w200-h134/Untitled28_20220402180929.png" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px 10px 10px; text-align: center;" width="170" /></div>
<p style="margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></p><p style="margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">L.A., CALIFORNIA. Most of us have heard of the merging branch theory of evolution that fails to sufficiently hide the fact that evolution should be able to be consistently traced in an unbroken succession to previous forms. Evolutionists try to hide it because they have never found evidence for it in even a single animal species.</p><p style="margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">The "tangled branches" model is a modified version of Ernst Haeckel's "tree of life", or "evolutionary tree". The latter version takes Darwin's theory, modeled as a tree, and tangles the branches, supposedly making it impossible to trace how the branch relates to the trunk. This represents that groups that split off often remerge, so that it is difficult to trace the lineage. This is known as "reticulate evolution", meaning that the evolution spreads out in an interwoven network.</p><p style="margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">Of course, the difficulty that evolutionists ran into with this analogy is that no matter how tangled up the branches are, you can still trace them back to the trunk. The logic thus falls apart on evolutionists every time creationists, or adaptation creationists, confront them with this logic hole.</p><p style="margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></p><h1 align="center" style="text-align: center;"><small>Like a Python Skin</small></h1><p style="margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">But now, in an <a href="https://aeon.co/essays/why-evolution-is-not-a-tree-of-life-but-a-fuzzy-network" target="_blank">article at Aeon</a>, Juli Berwald, an ocean botanist and educator at USC, instead of abandoning this fallacious route of explanation, has doubled down on the merging lines aspect by abandoning the tree illustration altogether and replacing it with another. With the first illustration, she says: "The tree of life doesn’t look like a tree so much as the reticulated pattern of a python’s skin." To explain it, after she describes the hybridizing of corals, she says, "Roving genes have been found in every branch of the tree of life where geneticists have looked."</p><p style="margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">Do you see the problem? If genetics is so well blended among all species, it should be even easier to find connecting forms randomly selected out of this vast treasure trove of blending, called "introgression" or "admixture". Even though there are many differences, their commonalities would stand out even more.</p><h2>The Problem Visualized</h2><p style="margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">She then showed an image of this "introgression" among one kind of fish. Completely opposite to being unable to trace back to a common ancestor, it traces back to a fish, not some early intermediate form, but a fish with all the same essential traits. Yes, they blend along the way, but the two original ancestral lines were able to be identified. All the differences can be attributed to preprogrammed adaptation and every single member of this introgressive mesh is a fish. But not only a fish, but following a very specific body plan. Though the list terminates with two hypothetical breeds at the beginning (Read: dead end, or rather, the first creation of the species).</p><p style="margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">Likewise, The article spoke of a man's confusion over trying to clearly identify corals. The problem is that there are no intermediary forms between corals and any other species. No untraceable blending between species, just corals whose adaptations are built into their DNA.</p><br /><h1 align="center" style="text-align: center;"><small>Just Another Evolution Dud</small></h1><p style="margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">Though offering reticulating evolution as a solution and illustrating it in the scales of a snake, Ms. Berwald highlights its weaknesses through gene security in hybridization causing great difficulties in adaptations taking hold. Her collegue, Misha Matz, concurred, saying, 'Maybe hybridisation would mix things together. Or maybe not,'</p><p style="margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">Though the article is labeled "The Web of Life", it never mentions a web illustration. That would be easily torn apart. A spider's web is made up of radiating strings from the center held together by a single thread in a spiral pattern. The webs never merge and every single string is traceable to the center. Besides this, each one has a different starting and ending point and all are separate strings.</p><p style="margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">Thus an evolutionist has taken themself out of the frying pan and jumped straight into the fire in hopes that we would not notice that not only has the original problem remained, but now they have compounded the difficulty for themselves. It has become as flemsy as a python's discarded scales, but without its flexibility.</p><p style="margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="text-align: left;">So what she identified was not proof of evolution, but another roadblock to proving evolution. Yet this otherwise very intelligent scientist treats it as if affirming her faith in evolution and being one step closer to properly explaining it, though having taken two steps back. Evolutionists like Ms. Berwald are so bent upon their faith that they refuse to recognize clear evidence of God's hand.</span></p><br />
<div id="Atheists" style="text-align: center; width: 100%;">
<img align="center" border="0" data-original-height="408" data-original-width="1450" height="90" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgmpVkv-1_e_J8E2Enhm89ltpvE_yop5-5BL3hN5o_Ce7c5bI-Eie7jzvpFuFZlIg1q2uK2TV0swBb283LMG0Xmaubw9anx9IVezb5ZVWMn4-4iKhb8GpB-NZiML2siiH0pOUKhm9sysJkfLb4vp2O77qP7VeuYkkNwEniclu8IwUFja_1vJ79XXxUKYg=s320" width="320" /></div>Dismythedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09872186295008632240noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-413969216273696296.post-64643921788454700332022-04-02T23:57:00.032-05:002022-04-16T20:29:20.497-05:00Flip-side News: Proof of Older Bible Timeline? [Theology Myths]<p style="margin-top: 0px;"><sup>Originally posted Saturday, March 26, 5:47 PM. Updated.</sup></p><div style="text-align: center; width: 100%;"><img border="none" data-original-height="945" data-original-width="1413" height="113" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjZQhPufnN1nEYfJ_JtHVGaO5t0lXrpn93b87amHBNVO9bIPOORpPRQU_HWLz7LTo3TWabT9g8825Czyj-Pbc48aC-7opzxrXxq0eqp-2iqhGEOTWu2o41-6NaUqcLj4tKxvztoARcjfu1IfGthMCPg4oQmGWXbWdRWSXnWxsA5VQ5wXi5HwBSk61giXQ/w200-h134/Untitled28_20220402180929.png" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px 10px 10px; text-align: center;" width="170" /></div><p style="margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">MOUNT EBAL, ISRAEL. The oldest occurrence of the name of God, in the letters YHWH, appears to have been found that may force archaeologists to accept the existence of the cult of YHWH possibly as far back as less than a century after the Exodus, some time after 1500 B.C.E., nearly 800 years prior to their previous estimates.</p><p style="margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">The 2 cm x 2 cm folded-lead “curse tablet” (or defixio) amulet was found by Dr. Scott Stripling and his team at Joshua's altar on Mount Ebal in a mound of archaeological debris that was originally dry-sifted between 1983-1989. This find confirms Deuteronomy 11:29 which indicates that Mount Ebal is a place of curses.</p><p style="margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">A <a href="https://www.timesofisrael.com/archaeologist-claims-to-find-oldest-hebrew-text-in-israel-including-the-name-of-god/" target="_blank">Times of Israel article</a> by Amanda Borschel-Dan says that <span style="text-align: left; white-space: normal;">Haifa University Prof. Gershon Galil assisted [with Stripling] in deciphering the hidden internal text of the folded lead tablet using [multi-spectral] scans carried out in Prague at the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic.</span> The article reported that it shows "that the Israelites were literate when they entered the Holy Land, and therefore could have written the Bible as some of the events it documents took place. ... Galil told The Times of Israel that the text is largely written in an archaic proto-Canaanite script, with some letters coming from hieroglyphs." Galil stated: "No longer should the conversation be about whether the Israelites were literate during the time of King David, The person who wrote this text had the ability to write every text in the Bible."</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">According to a <a href="https://m.jpost.com/archaeology/article-702271/amp" target="_blank">Jerusalem Post article</a> by Judith Sudilovsky, the tablet was "3,000-year-old." However, in a <a href="https://www.houstonchronicle.com/neighborhood/katy/amp/Ancient-curse-tablet-found-by-Katy-archaeologist-17026823.php" style="text-indent: 22.5pt;" target="_blank">Houston Chronicle article</a>, Claire Goodman reported that "the tablet discovered by Stripling’s team was written about 1500 B.C.," some 500 years earlier. The Times of Israel article reported that it was from before "1,200 BCE" (13th century BCE) according to Stripling, but "11th century BCE" according to Prof. Israel Finkelstein, and "12th century BCE" according to Galil.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">Sudilovsky reported that it "came to light in December 2019 when Scott Stripling, ABR’s director of excavations and the director of the Archaeological Studies Institute at the Bible Seminary in Katy, Texas, led an ABR team to wet sift the discarded material from excavations conducted in 1982-1989 by the late University of Haifa archaeology Prof. Adam Zertal, a former head of the university's Archaeology Department, who discovered what has been called the Altar of Joshua on Mount Ebal in Samaria."</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">This find once again gives credence to the Biblical narrative. The Bible has never been proved wrong, but archaeologists who deny its historicity have been proved wrong time and again since the earliest days of archaeological exploration. Archaeologists are not only slow to adopt the Bible's history, they are outright resistant to it. They do not care about accuracy. They only care about proving the Bible wrong.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">That said, this was reported by a Bible Seminary. Religious sources of such information have, on more than a few occasions, proved exaggerated, misrepresented or downright fraudulent. So take this news with a wait-and-see attitude and cautious optimism.</p><p style="margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">Whether 3,000 years old or 3,500 years old, this would be a major coup for Judeo-Christian history, if confirmed, and provide a major shift in the historical narrative of the Bible's detractors and false friends as they uncofortably move to spin a new collection of false stories to account for this inconvenient evidence.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">This post will be revised and expanded when Dr. Stripling's paper is released and as more information becomes available.</p><p><br /></p><div style="text-align: center; width: 100%;"><img align="center" border="0" data-original-height="408" data-original-width="1450" height="90" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEilgh_h2qWgSwYE37j8aplfW82zuAaBGBX-CYOtqp1_C-Roeyh4dK6S-1oP4sdz2_KvG4mGLxe0Ly3RfZ42Or69IdSMKs0sCUeLTz1JPTnDCZeyymuimh8kDr3cM7VzF3Gpp0UKF77Ux9rrMBl5Ea7XOCr0LJIPnNGh-7NQrhbCHFR-ZYRe23jJMUmBVg=s320" width="320" /><div style="color: transparent; font-size: 47px; font-weight: bold; margin-left: 322px; margin-top: -77px; text-shadow: rgb(240, 58, 58) 0px 0px 2px; transform: rotate(-12deg);">?</div></div>Dismythedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09872186295008632240noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-413969216273696296.post-26081658877177798852022-03-21T09:30:00.148-05:002022-08-20T11:17:01.278-05:00Do Not Be a "Victim" [Cult Myths]<p style="margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><sup>Updated Monday, April 25, 2022 at 10:02 PM.</sup></p><p style="margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">If you are leaving something you have known for a long time, the effect on your psyche can be profound. You do not need to have been "brainwashed" or "mind controlled" for it to affect you severely. That is why people who leave loved ones or move to a new city or change long time careers, or get divorced, often need counseling, someone to talk to, to deal with the change. This is normal. A simple part of life.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">Humans don't like big changes, and a change or abandonment of religious belief is certainly difficult. Religion is a large commitment, an investment of time, energy, thought, money and emotion. When you leave all that behind without something to replace it, it can seem like it was all wasted and you can suddenly feel taxed.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">For those joining a religion, on the other hand, it is easier because they believe they are trading up and they find joy in doing so. They don't view the past as a waste of time, but as a stepping stone to their new reality. The latter trumps the former. This is simply human. It doesn't matter the religion one joins or leaves, whether it is a dangerous cult or a benevolent group, whether true or false religion, it is always the same.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">The abandonment of the past is so much worse for the one who leaves what they believe to have been a cult or abusive relationship. Why?</p>
<h1 style="text-align: left;"><small>The Victim Perspective</small></h1>
<p style="margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">The impact of believing that one was formerly taken in by a cult or abuser, whether such a claim is factually true or not, has the exact same effect either way because they believe it is true, regardless. What the person believes about past events has a profound effect on their psyche. In the case of believing that one has belonged to a cult, their feelings will always be, "How could I have let myself be duped like that? Here I saw all these warning signs that match this list, but I ignored them. Why couldn't I stop myself? How could I believe that this and that were the right choice?" These thoughts will invade that person's mind whether the group they left was factually damaging or not because they believe themselves to be victims.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">This is exactly what happens to those joining the Me Too movement. They perceive themselves as victims and suddenly become sensitive to every slight in their past and present. They develop overly sensitive reactions to such slights. Their skin grows thin and their reactions more volatile. Forgiveness becomes unimaginable and foreign. All because of how they view their past and a certain list of identified behaviors that they have become aware of.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">Yes, someone who has been branded, tortured, raped, kidnapped, abused or otherwise physically, mentally, or emotionally traumatized, has a right to feel that way, and needs help to find their way back to a healthy frame of mind and learn to forgive. Everyone involved with that person is under obligation to treat them with dignity whether they just left that situation or are still head deep in it. Anyone who treats them worse is just as bad as the cult or narcissist and are themselves inflicting damage.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">But people who have a healthier mindset do not view themselves as victims if they were not actually scarred. Instead, they think of it as just another experience. To view oneself as a victim when they are not undermines and minimizes the trauma of those who have actually been damaged by a dangerous or destructive person or cult. It may even cause some to not take true victims seriously when they see the prevalence of those who were not truly damaged.</p>
<h2 style="text-align: left;">Cults, Narcissists and the Greedy</h2>
<p style="margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">But when someone makes another person believe that their past dealings with another individual or group was harmful to themselves and others, even though they were not harmful at all, then that first person becomes the abuser and the person they have convinced becomes their victim. Yes, even an exit counselor who promotes the victim mindset in this way is an abuser. For what purpose? Usually money and job security.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">The healthy person does not look for damage, or even for healing, if they were never actually damaged. If they do not feel damaged, they should not be made to look for damage that isn't there. This is not the same as opening one's eyes to the world around them or to new truths. Those things should bring joy, not pain. If a "truth" brings pain that wasn't there previously even though having the same set of facts as previously, then that "truth" is a lie and is in itself abuse.</p><p style="margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">Now if the damage is apparent to everyone because of the victim's behavior, or comes out during an emotional reaction in therapy, then the cause should be ascertained, and if it leads to events related to their former group, then the victim should be made aware of it in order to address it. Otherwise, there is no damage needing to be addressed.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">Everyone who is human, existing in the flesh, undergoes some amount of damage in their relationships. They also dish out damage. That damage in no way indicates a cult or narcissism, but merely highlights human frailty and human imperfection. This simple, accidental damage is not the kind of damage a real destructive or dangerous cult or narcissist inflicts.</p><p style="margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">The damage they inflict is real, not imagined, not inflated, not a one-off. The impact they have is actually and truly devastating. It is not as though if you squint and shape your eyeglasses in a specific way and cast a shadow you can see where the damage <i>might</i> be. No, the damage is clearly apparent without having to change perspectives, without anyone having to make the victim aware of it.</p>
<h2 style="text-align: left;">Love, Acceptance and Kindness</h2>
<p style="margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">Yes, some victims have to be woke up from their delusion, but not by telling them they are being damaged, but by showing them what a life free from that damage looks like. When they see what a life of love and acceptance looks like, they will be able to easily see the havoc their own cultic situation is wreaking on their life. They do not need to be told what the damage is. It will be plainly apparent to them by contrast.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">The message is: do not be a victim if you are not actually a victim, and do not let an exit counselor turn you into one. If you have been taken in by an exit counselor that made you believe that you were a victim of a destructive cult, but in careful hindsight you realize that your former group did not, in fact, abuse you in any way, do not view yourself as a victim of that exit counselor. Affected, yes, perhaps even doing you harm with the pretense, but you can choose not to let it affect you by just viewing him or her as a shyster, a thief and a lesson learned. Do not let them make you into a victim any further. Escape the victim mindset and live your life.
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">So what kind of damage does indicate a dangerous or destructive cult? That is what we will be considering in this series.</p>Dismythedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09872186295008632240noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-413969216273696296.post-63573779140654351012022-03-15T10:00:00.014-05:002022-04-06T21:25:32.511-05:00The “God of the Gaps” Hypocrisy [Science Myths]<p style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">There are many fallacies in claiming that God does not exist. One of these is the claim that God only exists in the gaps in science. Is this true? Inversely, are atheists immune to filling the gaps with the unfounded claim that God does not exist?</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">It is true that many religious people have used “God of the gaps” excuses for not exploring further, but only because they feared the retaliation of their church, not because they genuinely felt they were not allowed to go further by God. Being religious does not automatically mean that the person is going to ever resort to a God of the gaps excuse. I have yet to hear of a single modern example of this from religious scientists because churches are no longer allowed to torture people and burn them at the stake.</p><br /><h1 style="text-align: center;"><small>Burden of Proof Applies Both Ways</small></h1>
<p style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">Atheists certainly are not immune to this fallacy. The very claim that “evolution did it” is itself a “God of the gaps” argument that gets used by evolution communicators ad nauseum. The fact that there is no proof of evolution makes it such an argument. (We will get to that lack of evidence in other posts.)</p><p style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">The failure of “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” cuts both ways. You cannot establish anything, one way or another, upon an absence of evidence. But as I will show, there is ample physical and logical evidence and witnesses to God's existence that atheists cannot claim for atheism at all. It is “an abrogation of the intellect” (<a description="from an interview with Robert Lawrence Kune in Fallacies in Proving God Exists, Closer to Truth, ep. 901. timestamp: 2:30. <a href="https://youtu.be/lpkYIk1qqaE">https://youtu.be/lpkYIk1qqaE</a>." href="https://youtu.be/lpkYIk1qqaE" target="_blank">Peter Atkins</a>, a devout atheist) whether theists do it or atheists do it. It is hypocritical to claim that one's own use of such bad reasoning is somehow immune to its fallaciousness. If they do not know one way or the other, then they should not make a claim one way or the other. Making a claim without support just closes them off to any proof to the contrary.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">The claim that it is theists alone who are under obligation to provide proof is itself fallacious. Burden of proof is only one-sided where it contradicts the known facts. No known facts can be declared about where the universe came from in the atheist perspective. Also, as I will show, there is ample evidence for God's existence, so the onus is now on atheists to prove otherwise, which they have spectacularly failed to do, as this site seeks to establish.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">Besides this, atheism is the interloper, not theism, as atheism is a late development in human history. If the Bible is correct (I speak hypothetically), then God was known by Adam and knowledge of God passed to his offspring. Even if theism is an invention of cavemen (polytheism aside), it maintained dominance for ages with little to no opposition. Also, before one can claim God does or does not exist, they are proto-agnostic (Having no knowledge of God one way or the other), not atheist. Both theists and atheists are therefore under equal obligation to prove their sides to the agnostic. Thus, any gap argument will fail no matter which side uses it.</p><br />
<h1 style="text-align: center;"><small>“Abiogenesis Did It” and the Self-Existence of the Gaps</small></h1>
<p style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">Atheism, <em>itself</em>, by necessity of the absence of God in its assumption, is a spontaneous self-existent universe argument. It is therefore a gap and atheists just handwave it. Theirs is therefore a faith argument. A deist agnostic, on the othe hand, needs no faith because he follows the evidence and ignores the implications. Abiogenesis and a self-existent universe are both absolutely necessary to any atheist claim. How is abiogenesis not a “god of the gaps" argument? It lacks any evidence whatsoever, saying simply, “abiogenesis did it.” How is spontaneous self-existence of the universe not a "god of the gaps" argument? It is filling a gap without knowledge. It fills it with atheism, but no facts that make any sense, as I will show. It says, simply, “the universe itself did it."</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">Even Peter Atkins, quoted above, acknowledged that science is still in need of a [provable] mathematical model for a spontaneous self-existent universe. <span style="text-indent: 22.5pt;">The idea that the universe has always existed is an untenable argument. That is why many scientists, by and large, reject it. There are a few who support it, but there is no argument they can make to support it that is not circular. The very claim itself begs the question, which is a terrible position from which to begin any argument. It takes more faith than believing in God.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">Roger Penrose's conformal cyclic cosmology, in which the universe springs eternal from a finite point in the past that forever remains at a fixed point in the past in relation to the observer, is the best explanation of such a universe, but it remains to beg the question and unabashedly embraces the circuity of the argument. But neither ignoring the fallaciousness of the argument nor embracing it improves the argument, which is why it has not superseded the big bang theory, which points directly at a first cause.</p><br />
<h1 style="text-align: center;"><small>Complexity Speaks</small></h1>
<p style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">There are many witnesses to God who have left thorough and cooperative accounts and many who exist today. That there are many false witnesses to the claim does not nullify the true witnesses to his activity, who not only have direct dealings with him, but observe the fulfillment of his prophecies. Even the endless complexity and organization of the universe testifies, but where are their witnesses to a self-generated universe, to abiogenesis?</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">Abiogenesis requires a staggering number of astronomical coincidences to occur. One “little" change in the single-celled organism requires a whole host of accidents and complex organic machinery to happen according to evolutionists. Many of these have proved impossible to crack and all of them must occur in a lab because they have never been shown to occur in nature, except those changes explained by preprogrammed adaptation (not random evolution) which is now accepted as fact.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">Gaps in our understanding are unavoidable. How we fill those gaps is what defines whether we are being intelligent or obtuse. Certainly, “God did it” is not a scientific explanation. There can be no question about it. We might as well say “Tim did it.” Okay, but where's the proof? What prevents us from exploring further? The Bible certainly does not tell us not to. It simply says that we will not be able to figure out <em>how</em> God did it (in the sense of repeating it ourselves), not whether he did it or what it consists of. (Ecclesiastes 3:11) We have full reign to seek to figure out the history of the universe and what it is made of.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">All of it shouts that it was designed. A gap can only be created there by rejecting that evidence, and then the gap belongs to the atheist, not the theist. How does such organization speak to no Creator? That is a gap that has never been explained by atheists because it contradicts entropy. All the things atheists suggest are just more gap arguments because they have no evidence.</p><br />
<h1 style="text-align: center;"><small>Occam's Razor</small></h1>
<p style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">But the most common problem with filling gaps with theories is when the theories get burdened by complexity. Thus it is important to ask if the theory is multiplying too many steps to the process until the likelihood is reduced to absurdity. At what point does it break down?</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">It takes fewer postulates to claim that God is pure consciousness arising from waveform perturbations in the nothingness, than consciousness arising after many millions of cosmic coincidences only to generate waveform perturbations generating thought patterns. They claim that <span style="text-indent: 22.5pt;">matter just pops out of the darkness to generate between 10</span><span style="font-size: 0.6em; text-indent: 22.5pt; vertical-align: super;">78</span><span style="text-indent: 22.5pt;"> to </span><span style="text-indent: 22.5pt;">10</span><span style="font-size: 0.6em; text-indent: 22.5pt; vertical-align: super;">82</span><span style="text-indent: 22.5pt;"> atoms in the universe each made from many smaller particles and waves, each and every one requiring great amounts of energy to generate, but they cannot imagine consciousness arising from an infinite number of mild perturbations in that darkness.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">Occam's razor easily destroys the self-generated universe theory, especially when comparing it to an eternal consciousness, which relies only on the tiniest of perturbations, not matter, which is said to be made of bundles of wave packets made of extremely strong waves.</p><br />
<h1 style="text-align: center;"><small>Proof of God</small></h1>
<p style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">Atheists love to generate the gap claim that theists have no evidence that God exists. They claim that the universe does not testify to God's existence. But calling evidence "not evidence" does not magically make that evidence for God disappear. The sheer complexity of the things that exist, and the minutia, abundance and complexity of sub-microscopic robots prove God's existence.</p><p style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">If you walk into a house, well-furnished, its food stores fully stocked, its walls decorated, its surfaces dusted and full of furnature and books, you conclude that the house is lived in and take it for granted that it had a designer. No one has to prove that to you. Thus, the Bible says, “Of course,” because it is obvious, “every house is constructed by someone, but the one who constructed all things is God.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">But now imagine someone walks in and says, I see no evidence of a designer and it certainly wasn't designed to be lived in. Look, it has knives and outside there are dangerous dogs and cars that could kill us. Clearly it's not designed, no one would design it to kill us.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">If the universe wasn't designed, it wouldn't organize. In fact, entropy is the natural inclination of matter and energy to dissipate, yet it collesces, yet it organizes, yet it makes life possible. To assume that this is the natural state of the universe is against all other observed phenomena.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">But is the universe really trying to kill us as atheists claim? No. The fact that we exist in spite of the odds testifies to exactly the opposite. All the cosmic coincidences claimed by atheists testifies that something wants us to exist. That is a fact that many scientists claiming to be atheist have ackowledged.</p>
<h2>God's Personality Is Evident</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">Likewise, we have evidence for God's personal qualities in the creation. God's power is evident by the immense power needed to create just one atom. His wisdom is evident in his creating a universe that is self-sustaining without needing to constantly tweak it. His love is evident in his taking care of life on earth with abundance, taking care of even the unrighteous in hopes they repent. His eternality is evident in his creating a universe that has existed for billions of years and will continue to exist without end.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">The Bible puts it succinctly where it says, “What may be known about God is clearly evident among them, for God made it clear to them. For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable. For although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God nor did they thank him, but they became empty-headed in their reasonings and their senseless hearts became darkened."—Romans 1:19-21.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">God's love for life on earth up to this point speaks to the truth that he will soon step in to stop the destruction of the earth's ecosystem that mankind is heading inexorably towards by getting rid of those who disregard their stewardship and responsibilities towards God, the earth and mankind. (Genesis 1:27, 28; Revelation 11:18) They can't say they didn't know because he gave everyone the same information and opportunity to get to know him. Some have responded, but most have wilfully disregarded him. (Psalm 19:1, 7, 8; Jeremiah 29:18, 19) But the fact that some have responded condemns the rest.—Hebrews 11:7.</p>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center; width: 100%;">
<img align="center" border="0" data-original-height="408" data-original-width="1450" height="90" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgmpVkv-1_e_J8E2Enhm89ltpvE_yop5-5BL3hN5o_Ce7c5bI-Eie7jzvpFuFZlIg1q2uK2TV0swBb283LMG0Xmaubw9anx9IVezb5ZVWMn4-4iKhb8GpB-NZiML2siiH0pOUKhm9sysJkfLb4vp2O77qP7VeuYkkNwEniclu8IwUFja_1vJ79XXxUKYg=s320" width="320" /></div>Dismythedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09872186295008632240noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-413969216273696296.post-44628882351791581412022-02-27T20:05:00.006-06:002022-03-26T10:46:16.206-05:00The New Dismythed<p style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">Our site is taking on a change of direction going forward. I originally started this site to help my brothers and sisters who had been negatively impacted by the lying claims of our apostates who just want to justify their course. As the testimonials in the sidebar show, we have been very successful in this regard.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">We eventually stopped writing those posts because they have come to the point that the major issues have been discussed and we do not wish to encourage anyone to seek out apostate lies to debunk. I've grown weary of repeating information on atheist science videos, so I thought it time to broaden the scope of this site to suit its ultimate purpose of debunking faith-damaging lies.</p>
<br />
<h1 style="text-align: center;"><small>Dismythed</small></h1>
<p style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">This site has been renamed simply "Dismythed" to express the move to covering a greater range of subjects. We will be poking holes in the unscientific anti-God claims and so-called cult identifiers of atheists and false religious teachers.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">Dismythed will now broaden its scope to debunk evolution, cosmological arguments, false claims about the Bible, such as the claim that the Bible is unhistorical or inaccurate in matters of science, as well as claims by those professing to serve God that undermine faith, as when a theologian or pseudo-archaeologist claims that Abrahamic religion is just a mishmash of pagan beliefs borrowed from idol-worshipping nations. But we will impeach these claims with hard facts from scientific papers, archaeology and psychology papers and news reports about modern events that bear upon cult issues.</p>
<h2 style="text-align: left;">Sections</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">There are now four (4) major sections in the Posts menu: Science Myths, Cult Myths, Theology Myths and Opposers Dismythed, each with its own introduction.</p>
<p><b>Science Myths.</b> Atheism is rampant in the science community. Many who do not pursue careers in science think that atheism is a prerequisite to being a scientist in today's age, but we will give attention to the fact that theists, atheists and agnostics alike recognize that much of the universe points to design. We will also debunk theories that attempt to convince people of God's non-existence.</p>
<p><b>Cult Myths.</b> This section will address false claims about what constitutes a cult. If there comes a point that this section has enough material, and this system continues, a new site by that name may be established and those articles ported over to it for the benefit of all people, not just Jehovah's Witnesses because of the neutrality necessary to disprove the false claims. Creating a new site will not likely occur for the other sections.</p>
<p><b>Theology Myths.</b> Theologians and historians alike have attempted to attack the Bible's reputation both unintentionally and, to their own discredit, very purposefully. We take a hard line against people pretending to be friends of Christ, but who are enemies of the Bible. We will definitively show where the Bible wins out over its detractors.</p>
<p><b>Opposers Dismythed.</b> Though we are no longer focussed on opposers of Jehovah's Witnesses, there is still a chance an occasional post may address debunking our opposers for the purpose of helping those who may be damaged by their claims. However, we are largely satisfied with our library of articles to date and have found no reason to write more at this time. Our articles on the subject have sufficiently proved that all our opposers are constant liars with zero credibility.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">The Sections and categories have all been preset in the menus to the left to indicate and inspire future pieces. If you have a subject that you wish to suggest, go to the Contact Us dropdown and click on the related link under Suggestion Box. Be sure to subscribe to individual posts on which you comment and especial to this site so that you can be informed of the latest subjects. We do not post regularly, so you might not want to miss when we do.</p>
<br />
<h1 style="text-align: center;"><small>For Our Spiritual Brothers</small></h1>
<p style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">As usual we will continue to avoid subjects for which the organization has written sufficiently, and remember that we do not present spiritual food, only matters of factual interest to help you get past stumbling blocks.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">We hope these articles will help some overcome doubts that have plagued their minds caused by anti-God theorists, false religion and our religious opposers. And as we had come to develop previously, we will continue to seek to provide evidence and strong arguments with a positive, respectful attitude toward the reader. We understand that the reader who has been affected by the claims of atheists and enemies of the Bible is only human and may not have considered certain viewpoints for whatever reason.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">If you have been negatively affected by such claims, we hope to help you overcome your difficulties so that you may return to Jehovah, assured by having your doubts put to rest. We can't be perfect in this system of things in the same way Jesus is, but we can at least overcome the difficulties that arise from our imperfections with the help of others in Jehovah's organization who have the facts to help us. That is why being united in worship is so important. We can all help each other stay faithful.</p>Dismythedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09872186295008632240noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-413969216273696296.post-3183076174717787242022-01-07T09:49:00.007-06:002022-01-08T09:31:37.875-06:00Changes Coming<div style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><img border="0" data-original-height="527" data-original-width="1595" height="133" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjTrUoPmBtm4In3AXpNJcAWHuJurkvz1zbQ-uNnLl4zWrstwqLxW6fE112LOfd9nypVkRwpPsFlyVLbJMJ-dS7QqnJ2BgrgGw0pzhSsKYNWNc6ETGTmMQUGvoGwa2dC0Yqf3bnmw736js6mjciFjFRRm_8KGVqfeNzOjcoqDcZAICb-tDkVIGb_wJR8ag=w400-h133" width="400" /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="text-align: left;">We have plans to revamp the site and move it in a little different direction. Stay tuned.</span></div>Dismythedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09872186295008632240noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-413969216273696296.post-11232245764862211522021-05-18T16:54:00.023-05:002022-08-20T07:53:18.037-05:00Are Jehovah's Witnesses Required to Believe Everything the Organization Teaches? [Opposers Dismythed]<p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.8; margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt;"><span style="font-family: "Libre Baskerville", serif; font-size: 10pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Being required to believe something in order to be a member of the organization and speaking in agreement so as not to cause contention are two different, but related things. ("Two sides of the same coin.")</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.8; margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt;"><span style="font-family: "Libre Baskerville", serif; font-size: 10pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The faithful and discreet slave (FDS) has laid out that anyone who wants to be a member of Jehovah's organization </span><span style="font-family: "Libre Baskerville", serif; font-size: 10pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">must</span><span style="font-family: "Libre Baskerville", serif; font-size: 10pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> believe in the salvation message we preach, which includes rejecting the Trinity, hellfire, the immortality of the soul and eternal security ("Once saved, always saved"), and they must live morally clean lives. (Any viewpoint that promotes a different understanding will be immediately flagged as apostate as there can be no doubt that we have the correct salvation message.) When a person is baptized, they are declaring their faith in the salvation we preach in line with the Scriptures. If, at some point, they change their view of salvation, then their view ceases to be compatible with membership in the organization, regardless of whether they talk about it or not.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.8; margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt;"><span style="font-family: "Libre Baskerville", serif; font-size: 10pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">On the other hand, any non-salvation-related interpretation is governed by 1 Corinthians 1:10, in which if you cannot agree with something, such as an interpretation of a prophecy, then you simply keep silent about it, not sharing your difference of opinion with anyone. 'Speaking in agreement' does not mean believing everything you are told in the organization without question, but means not disturbing the peace and unity of the congregation. (1Co 1:10) As long as you hold your peace where you cannot speak in agreement, you cannot dishonor yourself. (Pr 11:2; 17:27, 28) If someone asks you about something you cannot give an answer to in agreement with the organization, just direct them to one of the organization's publications and let it do the talking so that you don't have to.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.8; margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt;"><span style="font-family: "Libre Baskerville", serif; font-size: 10pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Salvation is not dependent upon our understanding all things perfectly (except the correct salvation message), otherwise no one could be saved. Salvation is dependent upon love toward God, faith in Jesus' sacrifice, love toward our brothers, obedience and our personal ministry (1Jo 5:1-4; Ro 10:9; 1Pe 3:21).</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.8; margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt;"><span style="font-family: "Libre Baskerville", serif; font-size: 10pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">There are good discussions of this subject in the article, "Is your Personal Opinion Paramount?" in the February 15, 1989 Watchtower, pp. 18-20 (Or go to: </span><a href="https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1989124#h=6:161-24:171" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="color: #1155cc; font-family: "Libre Baskerville", serif; font-size: 10pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1989124#h=6:161-24:171</span></a><span style="font-family: "Libre Baskerville", serif; font-size: 10pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">) and the article "The Bible's Viewpoint: Does Christian unity Require Uniformity?" in the May 8, 2003 Awake!, p. 18 (Or go to: </span><a href="https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102003329#h=4:0-8:562" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="color: #1155cc; font-family: "Libre Baskerville", serif; font-size: 10pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102003329#h=4:0-8:562</span></a><span style="font-family: "Libre Baskerville", serif; font-size: 10pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">).</span></p><br /><h2 dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.8; margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 10pt; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: "Libre Baskerville", serif; font-size: 14pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Promoting Differences of Opinion Is Unloving</span></h2><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.8; margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt;"><span style="font-family: "Libre Baskerville", serif; font-size: 10pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">To speak about a difference of opinion is to promote one's own ideas before others. So let us consider what doing so means in the face of love.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.8; margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt;"><span style="font-family: "Libre Baskerville", serif; font-size: 10pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Is it loving to let members be confused by contradictory ideas? Is it loving to let an idea grow until it starts conflicting with the established message by a circuitous route? Is it loving when your brother says one thing, thinking he is right, but you contradict him, thinking you are right, but neither of you have authority to declare anything about it? Is this not the source of all conflicts that ever existed? Can it truly be said that we are "speaking in agreement" at that point?</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.8; margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt;"><span style="font-family: "Libre Baskerville", serif; font-size: 10pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">But now, who is to say one man's opinion is more valid than another's? Such a question applies to every single person who openly speaks about their own ideas about the Bible. It should be comforting that we are not governed by one man on earth, but by a body of men who prayerfully decide on suggestions from around the world and don't pretend to be infallible. Letting everyone have their say about a scripture is just the far extreme from one man deciding doctrine while claiming to be infallible, and far extremes, in my experience, are typically wrong. A proper balance must be struck, and I think the organization has struck that balance because they base that balance on God's word.</span></p><br /><h2 dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.8; margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 10pt; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: "Libre Baskerville", serif; font-size: 14pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Should the FDS Decide About Non-salvation-Related Beliefs?</span></h2><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.8; margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt;"><span style="font-family: "Libre Baskerville", serif; font-size: 10pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Enumerating the possible answers to this question will help us see what is the wisest course:</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.8; margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt;"><span style="font-family: "Libre Baskerville", serif; font-size: 10pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: 700; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Restricting the FDS.</span><span style="font-family: "Libre Baskerville", serif; font-size: 10pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> If the FDS were not allowed to make a decision on a non-salvation-reated interpretation, but everyone could have their own ideas, what would qualify anyone with the right to decide on it in their speech? It would be chaos and divisiveness as people take sides for one view over another.—Php 2:14.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.8; margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt;"><span style="font-family: "Libre Baskerville", serif; font-size: 10pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: 700; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Restricting everyone.</span><span style="font-family: "Libre Baskerville", serif; font-size: 10pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> If it was made so that no one, not even the FDS, could decide on it, then both are stuck and no determination can ever be made about a scripture and we would hardly have anything to talk about, let alone anything in common beyond our silence. We could not even build each other up with God's word because of differences in interpretations, and no one would get ready for battle because the declaration would never come.—1Co 14:8, 16, 17.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.8; margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt;"><span style="font-family: "Libre Baskerville", serif; font-size: 10pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: 700; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">No restriction at all.</span><span style="font-family: "Libre Baskerville", serif; font-size: 10pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> Inversely, if everyone is allowed to freely contradict the FDS's interpretation, then there would be no respect for the FDS's judgments and it would be chaos and divisiveness as people take sides.—1Ti 6:3-5.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.8; margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt;"><span style="font-family: "Libre Baskerville", serif; font-size: 10pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: 700; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Restricting everyone but the FDS.</span><span style="font-family: "Libre Baskerville", serif; font-size: 10pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> But if only the FDS is permitted to decide, then there is peace, everyone is on the same page, and you can always send a proposal for reviewing the scripture if you have a different interpretation. (Just make sure to prove your case thoroughly.)—2Th 2:15-17.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.8; margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt;"><span style="font-family: "Libre Baskerville", serif; font-size: 10pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Several are greater than one, which is why Jesus said to the future governing body of the day, the apostles, "Truly I say to you, whatever things you may bind on earth will be things already bound in heaven, and whatever things you may loosen on earth will be things already loosened in heaven. Again I tell you truly, if two of you on earth agree concerning anything of importance that they should request, it will take place for them on account of my Father in heaven. For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there I am in their midst." (Mt 18-20; Note that they must agree.) This applied to the apostles only, and later the governing body they produced. Letting many groups study is chaos.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.8; margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt;"><span style="font-family: "Libre Baskerville", serif; font-size: 10pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">So what is the benefit of just one study group? They have a single cohesive understanding that they can build upon, deconstruct or replace bit-by-bit. The problem with many groups is that they are all pulling in different directions. Imagine 100 artists working on the same stone statue. How long would it be before that statue is in dust or completely mangled by different viewpoints? The same with a painting. How many paintings do you know are painted by multiple teams? The worst movies are the ones that get handed from team to team, resulting in a frankensteined mess, but a movie with a single team comes out with a cohesive story. Likewise, a single study group is able to work together to address issues as they move forward.</span></p><br /><h2 dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.8; margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 10pt; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: "Libre Baskerville", serif; font-size: 14pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Paul's Counsel</span></h2><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.8; margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt;"><span style="font-family: "Libre Baskerville", serif; font-size: 10pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">In 1 Timothy, Paul gives direction to Timothy about being an elder. In 1 Timothy 1:3, 4, he gives clear counsel about curbing dissent. There are a few features here: 1) An elder is to "command certain ones not to teach different doctrine," 2) to "command certain ones not to … pay attention to false stories and to genealogies," and 3) speculations do not provide "anything from God in connection with faith."</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.8; margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt;"><span style="font-family: "Libre Baskerville", serif; font-size: 10pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Note that he does not say that Timothy should do this because the doctrine comes from inspired teachers or from the apostles. In verses 5-7 he explains why. His statement has multiple features: 1) One objective is "love out of a clean heart," 2) a second objective is "love ... out of a good conscience," 3) A third objective is "love … out of faith without hypocrisy," 4) and he gives the reason that "some have been turned aside to meaningless talk," 5) with the motivation that "they want to be teachers of law," 6) and failure resulting from the fact that "they do not understand ... the things they are saying," 7) and their pride in their own ability leads them to "insist on so strongly."</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.8; margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt;"><span style="font-family: "Libre Baskerville", serif; font-size: 10pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Note that all three objectives (1-3) are based on love. "A clean heart" is the seat of one's motivation, contrasted with the lifeless motivation "to be teachers of law." "A good conscience" means that we have the Christ, not the law, the breaking of which befouls our conscience. But law is not specifically what Paul is getting at. He means anyone claiming special knowledge or ability. "Faith without hypocrisy" contrasts with one's seeking to appear righteous by their appearing to be knowledgeable, when, in fact, they know nothing. Later Paul labels these men "puffed up with pride." Let us look at that as well.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.8; margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt;"><span style="font-family: "Libre Baskerville", serif; font-size: 10pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">At 1 Timothy 6:3-5, he refers to two types of information from two sources: 1) "doctrine … from our Lord Jesus Christ", and 2) "wholesome instruction … in harmony with godly devotion." So doctrine is from the things taught by Jesus and passed on through the apostles. "Wholesome instruction" is that which involves "godly devotion." This comes, not from the average member, but is the duty of the elders and the governing body, as they are the ones specifically commissioned for that very purpose. (Tit 1:5-9) One of those wholesome instructions is to speak in agreement and not to contradict, and the governing body of the day proved to be the last word on both congregational and doctrinal matters in Acts 6 and 15.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.8; margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt;"><span style="font-family: "Libre Baskerville", serif; font-size: 10pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The reason certain ones defy these things is that they are 1) "puffed up with pride," 2) "does not understand anything," just as covered in chapter 1, 3) "obsessed with arguments and debates about words," 4) "corrupted in mind," 5) "deprived of the truth," and 6) "thinking that godly devotion is a means of gain." Such things result in 1) envy, 2) strife, 3) slander, 4) "wicked suspicions," and 5) "constant disputes about minor matters".</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.8; margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt;"><span style="font-family: "Libre Baskerville", serif; font-size: 10pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">That is what happens when you let members speak about things that are not in agreement with what is being taught or with each other. The ones who are corrupted in mind end up corrupting others. (Gal 5:9; 2Ti 2:16-18) Thus, it should not be given room to breathe. What happens when you give a weed its optimal environment? It takes over. In order to prevent weeds, you need to make the environment directly hostile to weeds. Not permitting the expressions of contradictions prevents apostates from having any room to grow in the congregation.—1Co 5:7.</span></p><br /><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.8; margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt;"><span style="font-family: "Libre Baskerville", serif; font-size: 10pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">A contradiction made public is contention. Keeping a disagreement between you and the speaker alone promotes peace.</span></p>
<div style="text-align: center; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: center; width: 100%;">
<img border="0" data-original-height="408" data-original-width="1450" height="90" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiBC7iFjimozYma_8yN02S2mC4qXb_AQtjavN7CJlj6zf3L8x1pa9OFN5HqMPYrHCJyU1S87MhK-gr0paRMqqtqLwzY8psEDnjR5_9hyXhz1w9ohBW85PhRFrJ1DO6dz25xmNXErv-c_ADxtHFDd4-XfRlRZ2qWI3Vxx7w9v0nrYF0FJFdCSffawwluMg=s320" width="320" /></div>Dismythedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09872186295008632240noreply@blogger.com14tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-413969216273696296.post-26846864558850187242020-09-24T10:00:00.036-05:002022-08-20T10:55:08.763-05:00Can You Progress to Baptism Without Bible Study Aids? [Opposers Dismythed]<p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt;"><span style="font-family: "Libre Baskerville", serif; font-size: 9pt; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">The purpose of our publications is to provide a standard of knowledge in line with 2 Timothy 1:13 so that all who are baptized may "speak in agreement" in line with 1 Corinthians 1:10. The Bible is indeed the source of truth from God, but as Peter said, "However, some things in them are hard to understand, and these things the ignorant and unstable are twisting, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction."--2 Peter 3:16</span></p>
<p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt;"><span style="font-family: "Libre Baskerville", serif; font-size: 9pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">It is true that the Bible provides all we need. We do not need to draw truths from other sources. But drawing up those truths may require a spiritual bucket as with Bible study aids and a person to draw it up with in the form of your Bible teacher.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt;"><span style="font-family: "Libre Baskerville", serif; font-size: 9pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></p><h2 dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 10pt; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: "Libre Baskerville", serif; font-size: 14pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Reasoning From the Scriptures</span></h2><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt;"><span style="font-family: "Libre Baskerville", serif; font-size: 9pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">It is each individual's choice in what they will believe, but if anyone is to be baptized, they should be properly convinced with reasoning in line with 2 Timothy 3:14.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt;"><span style="font-family: "Libre Baskerville", serif; font-size: 9pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">You will not find anyone as devoted to reasoning on the Scriptures as Jehovah's Witnesses. This is because the Scriptures encourage it. "According to Paul’s custom he went inside to them, and for three sabbaths he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving by references that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead." (Acts 17:2, 3) "Entering the synagogue, for three months [Paul] spoke with boldness, giving talks and reasoning persuasively about the Kingdom of God." (Acts 19:8) "Present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, a sacred service with your power of reason [* or, thinking ability]." (Romans 12:1) However, not all have the same teaching ability, and the publications help make up for any deficiency.</span></p><br /><h2 dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 10pt; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: "Libre Baskerville", serif; font-size: 14pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The Benefits of Study Aids</span></h2><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt;"><span style="font-family: "Libre Baskerville", serif; font-size: 9pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The best quality teaching that you are going to receive is from our publications. They take you into the Bible in exactly the same way as a Bible teacher, if not more so. What claim can you make about learning from a Bible-based publication that does not also apply to a Bible teacher? What is the difference between a study aid and an email, for instance? But publications have the added benefit of making sure that what you are being taught is in line with what Jehovah's Witnesses teach. Without the publications, you have no idea if your Bible teacher is teaching God's thoughts or his own ideas.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt;"><span style="font-family: "Libre Baskerville", serif; font-size: 9pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">There are many Bible study programs in the world, and they will all tell you different things, but most just expect you to buy into whatever they say with little question. We, on the other hand, expect you to think and to do study in your own time and ask questions, which is why we ask you to study the publication ahead of time, so that you can "make sure of all things; hold fast to what is fine."—</span><span style="font-family: "Libre Baskerville", serif; font-size: 9pt; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">1Thessalonians 5:21</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt;"><span style="font-family: "Libre Baskerville", serif; font-size: 9pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Consider a new viewpoint about your formal Bible study. The formal Bible study is not <i>your</i> personal study time. It is <i>your teacher's</i> time that they are sacrificing out of love to show you what we teach based on the Scriptures. Before and afterward, in your personal study time outside the formal study, you may check the scriptures cited in our publications to make sure that the scriptures in their context really mean what we claim they mean. You will not get that encouragement from anyone else in my experience. You can do as much personal Bible reading as you care to in your own time. Our motto is "Read your Bible daily."</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt;"><span style="font-family: "Libre Baskerville", serif; font-size: 9pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">We also encourage notetaking so that you may record key concepts and investigate matters that interest or concern you. Later, you can discuss the results of your investigation with your Bible teacher to find out if they might have study material that can help your investigation further in your own time. This allows you to make sure that your concerns get addressed. If your Bible teacher is a bit flaky on subjects, the publications make sure you get the full picture.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt;"><span style="font-family: "Libre Baskerville", serif; font-size: 9pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">If this is not good enough, then we will not force you to believe anything. You are free to continue or discontinue your Bible study at any time.</span></p><br /><h2 dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 10pt; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: "Libre Baskerville", serif; font-size: 14pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Spiritual Food</span></h2><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt;"><span style="font-family: "Libre Baskerville", serif; font-size: 9pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The Bible is like a 12 lbs. beef roast. The study aids are like the slicing of the beef into digestible portions. Along with it they make it easy to swallow the way a drink does. But as Paul said, new Bible students need milk, not solid food. (1 Corinthians 3:1, 2; Hebrews 5:13, 14) Study aids help students to develop to the point of eating solid food. A study of the Bible from front to back does nothing to help you understand the Bible's words, but a topical study as provided in study aids helps you to see how subjects relate to each other in the Bible.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt;"><span style="font-family: "Libre Baskerville", serif; font-size: 9pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">But now, if you are not willing to study using our publications in order to reach baptism, it means a number of things that disqualify you for baptism: 1) a lack of humility, 2) a lack of obedience, 3) a lack of respect and appreciation for the spiritual food painstakingly prepared by spiritual men whom you can be certain are faithful and discreet. It was prepared for you and all Jehovah's people to feast upon. (Compare 1 Corinthians 10:1-4) If you understood the pains and years of development that they go through to make those study aids, you would surely trust the aids over your teacher.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt;"><span style="font-family: Libre Baskerville, serif;"><span style="font-size: 12px; white-space: pre-wrap;">Sometimes something seems harmless by the world's standards, but after a time of spiritual maturity, we may come to realize the underlying principles. Pride is not always overtly noticeable. At some point, the student will need to become comfortable with study aids. Every week we have congregation studies using those aids twice a week. If a person is not willing to use study aids, then they will never feel at home in our meetings. They will also find the ministry very difficult without them. The publications make the ministry much easier on the preacher (we call publishers), and on the teacher as much as the student.</span></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt;"><span style="font-family: Libre Baskerville, serif;"><span style="font-size: 12px; white-space: pre-wrap;">Appreciation involves more than just accepting the use of study aids. It means realizing their benefit and looking forward to receiving that benefit and acknowledging the effort put into making sure you are well fed spiritually. The other thing I mentioned was obedience, which principle is found at Hebrews 13:17. To resist that direction is to defy the scripture. For what reason? Again, that goes back to pride, a lack of humility.</span></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt;"><span style="font-family: "Libre Baskerville", serif; font-size: 9pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></p><h2 dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 10pt; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: "Libre Baskerville", serif; font-size: 14pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Make Sure</span></h2><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt;"><span style="font-family: "Libre Baskerville", serif; font-size: 9pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">When the disciples were writing the letters we now call Scripture, do you think anyone was allowed to reject them because they were not the Hebrew Scriptures? While our publications do not claim inspiration, how do you know that something will not end up being called scripture in the far future? But neither should our publications be accepted as such. "Now [the Beroeans] were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they accepted the word with the greatest eagerness of mind, carefully examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so." You see, even though they happily received the words of men, they still checked the Scriptures to make sure that what they were being taught was true.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt;"><span style="font-family: "Libre Baskerville", serif; font-size: 9pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Yet some rejected their letters as brought out at 2 Corinthians 10:9-11 and 3 John 9, 10. Besides, if one never reads them, how could they investigate them? Yes, investigate what is written, but a student would be being prideful to reject them without reading and investigating them. Paul expected his letters to be read aloud in the congregation, which was also the custom for the Scriptures. (Colossians 4:16)</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt;"><span style="font-family: "Libre Baskerville", serif; font-size: 9pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The fact that his letters came to be spread to all congregations so that they were copied many times until they came to be preserved in the Bible shows that they had an appreciation for what he provided in those letters. Most people had to attend a congregation to even hear the Scriptures, but now every person can have their own copy for free along with study aids in abundance. The letters recorded in the Bible are the first examples of Bible study aids.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt;"><span style="font-family: "Libre Baskerville", serif; font-size: 9pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Imagine someone coming up to a first century disciple and saying, "I have studied the Scriptures on my own and am ready to get baptized." Considering 2 Peter 3:17, do you think that the disciple would be convinced that the person understands the Scriptures in line with truth? Instead, he would test out what he knows and make sure he understands in line with truth and is willing to give up his worldly ways and pursue a Christian life. (Read Luke 18:18-23) Then that person could be baptized. That is why we need a Bible study teacher, and the publications not only make sure we teach in line with truth, they help us check all the boxes in our teaching and in identifying the student's level of advancement. It was a provision that they did not have in the first century because of the late advent of the printing press.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt;"><span style="font-family: "Libre Baskerville", serif; font-size: 9pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Today people are far less likely to believe and are often quite savvy. Judaism and religions claiming to be Christian are so far removed from first century teachings in the Bible that they fight against every truth. It makes overturning their teachings very difficult and time-consuming. Jehovah's Witnesses are very grateful to have study aids to help ensure and abbreviate this process.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt;"><span style="font-family: "Libre Baskerville", serif; font-size: 9pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Additionally, as according to 1 Corinthians 13:8-10, we no longer have the spiritual gift of knowledge, so that we always know what to say and that it is always correct. (See the box "The Ethiopian Eunuch" below.) Our human imperfection makes us faulty in memory. Even what we once knew perfectly can slip after a time. The publications help the teacher as much as the student.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt;"><span style="font-family: "Libre Baskerville", serif; font-size: 9pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">So no, you cannot progress to baptism without Bible study aids. Those study aids will be the very reason you acquire enough accurate knowledge and become convinced of the truth so that you eventually come to obey the word of God in order to qualify for baptism. (Mt 28, 19, 20) Through them God's name is being sanctified in correct teaching in line with truth. It is not MY truth, nor your Bible study teacher's truth, nor the truth of a single man, nor a body of men, </span><span style="font-family: "Libre Baskerville", serif; font-size: 9pt; text-indent: 22.5pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">but is God's truth that the publications teach as far as God has made known to his people.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt;"><span style="font-family: "Libre Baskerville", serif; font-size: 9pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></p>
<div style="background-color: #eee2ee; border-radius: 10px; border: 2px solid rgb(153, 144, 153); margin-left: 10px; margin-right: 10px; padding-bottom: 20px; padding-left: 10px; padding-right: 10px; padding-top: 10px; padding: 10px 10px 20px;"><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 22.5pt;"><span style="font-family: "Libre Baskerville", serif; font-size: 9pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span></p><h3><span style="font-family: "Libre Baskerville", serif; font-size: 9pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The Ethiopian Eunuch</span></h3><span style="font-family: "Libre Baskerville", serif; font-size: 9pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The account of the Ethiopian eunuch gives us several details that tell us that his was a special case of qualifying for baptism. Let us examine them:<br /></span><p></p><ul><span style="font-family: "Libre Baskerville", serif; font-size: 9pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><li>An angel spoke directly to Philip to go to where the eunuch would be. This was only one of two very important instances when God got directly involved in the ministry of an apostle in order to spread the good news to far away nations.—Acts 8:26</li></span><span style="font-family: "Libre Baskerville", serif; font-size: 9pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /><li>Philip himself was an apostle of Jesus Christ, a personal witness and friend of Jesus himself.—John 12:21, 22</li><br /><li>The man was from Ethiopia where there was a substantial community of black Jews of which he was clearly a proselyte (Convert).</li><br /><li>He was a eunuch and court official with trusted authority over the treasures of queen Candace, which almost certainly meant he was a scribe.—Acts 8:27</li><br /><li>Being a proselyte and trusted with treasures, and courtier also meant that he was already morally and physically clean.</li><br /><li>He was already familiar with the scriptures and was an avid reader of them which is why he had his own scroll and was in middle of reading it aloud at the time.—Acts 8:30; Psalm 1:2</li><span style="font-family: "Libre Baskerville", serif; font-size: 9pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline;"><br /></span><li>Philip had a Bible study with the eunuch and took time to explain the prophecies regarding Jesus, which the man accepted.—Acts 8:30-35.</li><br /><li>He was returning from a festival of the Jews. Likely he had attended previous festivals. He might even have heard about the commotion regarding Jesus, but had no prior opportunity to learn about him in detail.—Acts 8:27, 28</li><br /><li>He loved God enough to travel hundreds of miles to attend the festival.</li><br /><li>Philip had direct intervention of holy spirit to help him know that the man could be baptized.—Acts 8:29, 39</li></span></ul><span style="font-family: "Libre Baskerville", serif; font-size: 9pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /> With all these facts in mind, all that was left was for him to put faith in Jesus Christ as the promised Messiah having come in the flesh, which he did and declared his desire to get baptised. (Acts 8:36-39) But as shown at Acts 19:8, it was not always so easy to make disciples. This demonstrates why studying the scriptures alone is not enough.</span><p></p></div>
<div><br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center; width: 100%;">
<img border="0" data-original-height="408" data-original-width="1450" height="90" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiBC7iFjimozYma_8yN02S2mC4qXb_AQtjavN7CJlj6zf3L8x1pa9OFN5HqMPYrHCJyU1S87MhK-gr0paRMqqtqLwzY8psEDnjR5_9hyXhz1w9ohBW85PhRFrJ1DO6dz25xmNXErv-c_ADxtHFDd4-XfRlRZ2qWI3Vxx7w9v0nrYF0FJFdCSffawwluMg=s320" width="320" /></div>Dismythedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09872186295008632240noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-413969216273696296.post-52877524754899761322019-10-29T18:54:00.004-05:002022-08-20T12:19:03.322-05:00Flip-side News: Jehovah's Witnesses Not in Decline [Opposers Dismythed]<i><b>Originally posted:</b> February 5, 2017</i><br />
<i><b>Updated:</b> October 29, 2019</i><br />
<br />
For many years, our opposers have claimed we are declining and they want you to believe that our decline or prosperity is
inextricably linked to the number of individuals active in any one country as Jehovah's
Witnesses and how much money we earn from any given property. Does that mean, then, that we are
prospering when we baptize one additional person or purchase an
additional property? Not according to opposers. Their inconsistency
means that they are cherry picking information to suit their own agenda. <br />
<br />
To know if the claims of our opposers are
true, it is important to understand how God views decline and prosperity. Those looking for truth will
examine it in light of the Bible and disregard the liars who try to
contradict it.<br />
<br />
<h2>
<u>Let the Evidence Speak</u></h2>
Firstly, we do not view high membership numbers or financial success as the <i>primary </i>evidence of prosperity. We do believe, however, that those successes can make up a small part of the evidence of God's blessing. But the Bible teaches that Jesus' true followers would number relatively few. (Matthew 7:13,14)<br />
<br />
We also teach that what the Bible identifies as false religion has had material success and high religious adherence, yet it is destined to be destroyed by God. (Revelation 17:15,16; 18:11-14) Likewise, we do not view low adherence or financial hardship as the only or primary evidence of decline. The Bible teaches that Jesus and his followers would be hated and persecuted. (Isaiah 53:1-12; John 15:20) Furthermore, the Bible further states that only 8 people survived the Flood of Noah's day, and that only 3 people made it out of Sodom and Gomorrah alive. (1 Peter 3:20; Genesis 19:15)<br />
<br />
The Bible makes it clear that Jehovah is not concerned with numbers. The richest and most populous religions are said to be false, while those declaring the truth would be insignificant. (Revelation 17:4,5; Acts 28:22) This means that we need to accept the idea that prosperity and decline from a scriptural standpoint has less to do with pure numbers and tangible details, and more to do with something willfully ignored by our opposers.<br />
<br />
<h2>
<u>See Beyond the Numbers</u> </h2>
Jehovah Himself gave convincing evidence for what would mark true success and prosperity. Through the prophet Amos, he prophesied <b><i>spiritual</i></b> famine (or decline) for false worshippers. (Amos 8:11) In contrast, he prophesied <b><i>spiritual</i></b><i> </i>prosperity for his true worshippers. (Isaiah 65:13) Jesus said his true followers would put spiritual things <i>ahead</i> of material success. (Matthew 5:3; 6:33) Do Jehovah's Witnesses believe this? As far back as 1961 and perhaps even further, we have linked prosperity with spiritual things:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Nourished by these grand Bible truths, the united worshipers of Jehovah joyfully bear witness to the ends of the earth, <b><i>comforting millions with the hope of life in God’s new world</i></b>. What joy they find in ministering God’s message to others! <b><i>How strikingly their spiritual prosperity contrasts with the spiritual famine among the sectarian religions of this modern world!</i></b> 1961 <i>Watchtower</i> p 102. <i>[Emphasis ours]</i></blockquote>
<br />
What does this teach us? That decline is linked with spiritual want, and prosperity is linked with spiritual plenty. There can also be a combination of both membership growth and as a consequence, material growth because of this spiritual plenty. When reading the Bible, we can clearly see this connection. (Micah 4:2-4; Zechariah 8:23)<br />
<br />
We can appreciate that a balance is struck here. We cannot take a pure black and white approach to whether or not we are "declining". Opposers who look at Yearbook numbers only are missing the bigger picture. They are missing the fact that we are being more educated in the Bible than we have ever been. That is a sign of prosperity as Jehovah himself promised.<br />
<br />
So by our opposers focusing strictly on numbers and finances means they are spiritually blind and either cannot or will not take the Bible into consideration, so they cannot be trusted. Should you listen to such individuals?<br />
<br />
<h2>
<u>See Through the Lies</u></h2>
On a rainy night, you can see the road ahead if you train your eye to look past the raindrops. Likewise, you can clearly see the prosperity of Jehovah's Witnesses if you learn to look past the downpour of lies and dishonesty of our opposers.<br />
<br />
Keeping the above in mind, how have Jehovah's Witnesses shown that claims of decline are outright lies? Over the past several years, we have shown convincing evidence of spiritual prosperity. <br />
<br />
<h3>
The Digital Initiative</h3>
We have shown the ability and the willingness to use and stay up-to-date with modern technology throughout our history. Think about the "Photo Drama Of Creation", newspapers, radio, and now the Internet. Each of these initiatives marked a period of spiritual growth for us, and we have no reason to believe the digital age will be any different. How so?<br />
<br />
<h4>
<u>
2012 Revised Website</u></h4>
In 2012, we discontinued the Watchtower.org and jw-media.org websites and consolidated them into the website <a href="http://jw.org./">jw.org.</a> This was part of a redesign to make the website more attractive and user-friendly, and a revamping to accommodate growth. For example, in 2013, publications on jw.org were available in 440 languages. Today, publications are made available in more than 1,000 languages and counting. This points to spiritual <i>growth </i>in more and more language groups.<br />
<br />
<h4>
<u>2013 JW Library App</u></h4>
The JW Library app is convenient for mobile devices. It gives users the ability to access information on the go and offline (no internet connection). This app requires significant training and manpower resources to build and maintain, and has been expanded and optimized for use in meeting preparation and participation, as well as for our field ministry. The provision of and demand for the mobile app is strong evidence that we are prospering!<br />
<br />
<h4>
<u>2014 JW Broadcasting</u></h4>
October 2014 saw the official introduction of the <a href="https://tv.jw.org/#en/video/VODOurActivities/pub-jwbrd_201410_1_VIDEO" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">JW Broadcasting</span></a> internet station and its studio. What makes this a significant endeavor in context of this discussion is the cost needed to design and build the studio, and the cost of hosting the website. Though the exact dollar amount is not disclosed to the public, judging by the quality and professional nature of the studio and station, we can safely assume the cost is significant. In addition, the Monthly Programs contain videos shot on location in various parts of the world. None of this comes cheap. The response to and success of JW Broadcasting has been <a href="http://dismythed.blogspot.com/2017/01/flip-side-news-jw-broadcasting-proves.html" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">outstanding</span></a>.<br />
<br />
<h4>
<b><u>2016 Regional Convention Videos and Movies</u></b></h4>
The 2015 "Imitate Jesus" Regional Convention marked the beginning of video productions having significant use at subsequent Conventions. In 2016, we had a whopping 32 videos shown at Regional Conventions world-wide, with the introduction of two <span style="color: blue;"><a href="https://tv.jw.org/#en/video/VODMovies" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">feature-length spiritual movie productions</span></a> </span>that year, one in 2018 and another in 2019, with ever improving production values.<br />
<br />
Some may argue that we are "going broke" since we did not make those movies available on DVD, but that makes no sense as an organization "going broke" would not have the financial resources to make two movies at all, let alone cover the cost of DVDs. Video productions both large and small costs money. Besides, the videos are available for online streaming, which also costs money with every stream.<br />
<br />
Even more, each Convention site had to be upgraded with state-of-the-art sound and video equipment for the showings, or equipment would need to be rented. The investment was designed to accommodate all the spiritual food coming our way now and in the future.<br />
<br />
<h4>
<u>2019 Mobile Website</u></h4>
Better late than never, the organization revealed the new mobile-friendly website design that will make the site accessible to more users around the world.<br />
<br />
<h4>
<u>2021 Media Center</u></h4>
In 2019 the organization began building a massive media center that will be finished in 2021. There they will perform all their video production, including their movies and JW Broadcasting. Some might view that as excessive, but there is one thing that is not happening with that money: it is not lining anyone's pocket in the organization.<br />
<br />
Ask yourself: <i><b>If Jehovah's Witnesses are financially declining, how can they afford a brand new studio, digital equipment for conventions and state-of-the art online services, and a state-of-the-art media center?</b></i><br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<h3>
A New Era in Publication</h3>
While the digital age reduced the need for some printed publications, Jehovah's Witnesses did not see this as an opportunity to abandon printed material altogether, neither did we see this as a reason to skimp on quality. Just the opposite, we improved the quality on some publications, and introduced an entirely new one to use during our revamped mid-week meeting. Can we see examples of this?<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<h4>
<u>
2013 Revised New World Translation</u></h4>
In 2013, Jehovah's Witnesses introduced the revised New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures at their annual meeting. How is this evidence of prosperity? Nothing draws you closer to Jehovah than reading the Bible, and this is enhanced when the words are modern and easy to understand, so this revision paid immediate dividends spiritually. Not only that, but this attractive Bible is made of high-quality, durable materials so that it can withstand high-usage in our ministry. We can clearly see the spiritual and financial investment in this Bible.<br />
<br />
<h4>
<u>2016 Our Christian Life and Ministry </u></h4>
One of the most significant evidences of prosperity in decades is the revision of our Mid-Week meeting, formerly known as the Theocratic Ministry School and Service Meeting, now known as Our Christian Life and Ministry. Why can we say that? Firstly, something as insignificant as the amount of colors used in the printing of <i>Our Kingdom Ministry </i>led opposers to assume that we could no longer afford to print in more than two colors. Then in October 2015, it was announced that we would replace the Kingdom Ministry with fully-colored and illustrated Workbooks as part of the new Mid-Week meeting. In addition, new videos introducing all 66 books of the Bible are being created to be used at this meeting. This new meeting and material would come at an additional cost to the organization.<br />
<br />
<h4>
<u>
2016 New Song Book</u></h4>
Besides these things, a new song book has been produced using the same durable materials used in the production of the 2013 NWT. Granted, we hope many members will rely upon the JW Library app for their songs, we would still ask the same thing even if the song book were in paperback. In other words, we did not have to produce it with a durable cover, but our surplus allowed us to.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<h4>
<b><u>2017 Warwick Headquarters</u></b></h4>
Our <b>brand new world Headquarters</b> has officially been open to public tours since April 3, 2017. It was completed 6 months ahead of schedule. And if you did not already know, these tours are <i>free of charge!</i> <b> </b>Think about that. Why aren't we charging? Are we not "declining" and are in desperate need of cash? This is what apostates want you to believe. But the organization can justify charging <i>non-Witnesses </i>for guided tours, but they are not. (Matthew 10:8) Sure, we sold our Brooklyn properties which helped fund the new building, but ask yourself: Would a declining organization sell properties so to fund building new ones? Would it not simply pocket the money from the sales and stay put?<br />
<br />
<h4>
<u>2019+ New Remote Translation Offices</u></h4>
As of 2019 the organization is providing translation services for 1,000 languages. This outstrips any other translation service in the world. No other religious organization has a comparable outreach.<br />
<br />
<h4>
<u>2018 Ezekiel Commentary</u></h4>
While the printing of publication has been reduced to lower our impact on the environment and make way for the digital initiative, it has not been eliminated. In 2018, the book <i>Pure Worship of Jehovah Restored at Last</i> was released. It is an update to the former Ezekiel commentary, <i>"The Nations Shall Have to Know That I Am Jehovah"</i>.<br />
<br />
<h4>
<u>2020 Branch Office in Britain</u></h4>
It must be pretty fishy that the organization is spending so much money on branch offices in Britain comparable to Warwick. Don't they have a responsibility to pay off their debts? Maybe it's because they have no debts. Gasp! That's criminal!<br />
<br />
<span style="color: red;"><span style="color: black;">Ask yourself:</span></span> <i><b>Is brand-new high-quality printed material'</b></i><b><i> state-of-the-art world headquarters and British headquarters, and the largest and ever-growing translation service on the planet evidence of decline?</i></b><br />
<br />
<h2>
<u>The Meaning of Reductions</u></h2>
It is not lost on us here at Opposers Dismythed that the organization has reduced unnecessary expenses recently, such as reducing the amount of members serving at Bethel, the amount of printed literature, and even the construction of various Branch Offices, which is discussed <a href="http://dismythed.blogspot.com/2015/09/flip-side-news-organization-vindicated.html" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">here</span></a>.<br />
<br />
The reason for the cutbacks is not because we are declining, but in order to give more congregations kingdom halls in which to worship. Here is how that is taking place:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>Merging congregations in one country means more congregations with kingdom halls in another</li>
<li><a href="http://dismythed.blogspot.com/2015/09/flip-side-news-organization-vindicated.html" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">Congregations no longer have to buy or maintain their own kingdom halls, but the RBC and LDC take care of building kingdom halls where the need is greater</span></a></li>
<li><a href="http://dismythed.blogspot.com/2015/09/flip-side-news-organization-vindicated.html" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">Congregations now send their excess money to the organization so that the wealth gets distributed to where the need is greatest so that kingdom halls can be built in less affluent lands</span></a></li>
<li><a href="https://tv.jw.org/#en/video/VODProgramsEvents/pub-jwbrd_201503_5_VIDEO" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">Redesigned Kingdom Halls reduce expenses, allowing more kingdom halls to be built</span></a></li>
</ul>
<br />
However, the above adjustments and changes prove that far from declining, we are prospering spiritually and being even more fiscally responsible. Redirecting funds to where they are most needed has always been a concern for the organization. This is seen in the spiritual provisions being made available in addition to those mentioned above, such as:<br />
<ul>
<li>Simplified Bible Teach book</li>
<li><a href="https://tv.jw.org/#en/video/VODMinistry/docid-702012013_1_VIDEO" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">Witnessing carts for metropolitan witnessing</span></a></li>
<li><a href="https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/binav/r1/lp-e/nwtsty/E/2018/40" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">Study Bible being released book by book</span></a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.jw.org/en/publications/music-songs/original-songs/" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">Original casual music for personal enjoyment</span></a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/online-lessons/" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">Online Bible study lessons</span></a></li>
<li>Ever expanding translation ability</li>
</ul>
. . . and there are more evidences of spiritual prosperity that we could enumerate on, but the point we are making is clear. As you can see, restructuring and cost cutting to provide more kingdom halls to more congregations is not the same as going broke, but shows both fiscal responsibility and concern for our less privileged brothers and sisters.<br />
<br />
<h2>
<u>So What about Those Numbers?</u></h2>
Jehovah's Witnesses publish their membership numbers every year, whether or not there is growth, so we have no interests in keeping our numbers hidden. Does moderate or sharp reductions in baptisms indicate actual "decline"? No, because in the face of any membership decline, we have shown steady overall growth over the past 15 years or so.<br />
<br />
For example, by the end of the 1999 service year, there were almost 6 million Jehovah's Witnesses worldwide. By the end of the 2016 service year, there were 8.3 million Jehovah's Witnesses worldwide. That averages about 153,000 new members a year during that time frame. In 2019 we exceeded 300,000 baptisms. Declining memberships would show steady <i>decreases,</i> not increases, would they not?<br />
<br />
What is the point? That <b>overall</b> growth even from a pure numbers standpoint debunk lies of decline. Look at most Christian religions worldwide. They have been steadily declining in number since the turn of the 20th century and that will continue. <br />
<br />
So from a pure overall growth standpoint, and especially from a spiritual standpoint, we are growing and that does not appear to be slowing down. Even if our numbers take a hit, we are trending upward. We recognize that spiritual food is needed to accommodate our growth, we are thus naturally prospering spiritually as a result. <br />
<br />
What do you think:<b><i> Are Jehovah's Witnesses declining?</i></b><div style="text-align: center; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: center; width: 100%;">
<img border="0" data-original-height="408" data-original-width="1450" height="90" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiBC7iFjimozYma_8yN02S2mC4qXb_AQtjavN7CJlj6zf3L8x1pa9OFN5HqMPYrHCJyU1S87MhK-gr0paRMqqtqLwzY8psEDnjR5_9hyXhz1w9ohBW85PhRFrJ1DO6dz25xmNXErv-c_ADxtHFDd4-XfRlRZ2qWI3Vxx7w9v0nrYF0FJFdCSffawwluMg=s320" width="320" /></div>Roberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16222067990028193076noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-413969216273696296.post-82747211466916783262019-04-15T07:32:00.006-05:002019-04-20T21:57:34.539-05:00Memorial Reminder: Do Not Partake Unworthily<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>Note:</b> This subject has been covered in recent years in the Watchtower, but I want to explain it to ones who may not understand or need a refresher. I explain this to Bible students who need help understanding.</span></i></blockquote>
<br />
The feelings of those who come out of Christendom about partaking of the Memorial emblems is understandable. It is a religious custom to them as ingrained as any other practice or holiday. But this is no little matter to be treated lightly or observed as a formality.<br />
<br />
Paul wrote: "Whoever eats the loaf or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will be guilty respecting the body and the blood of the Lord." (1Co 11:27) Was Paul referring to those who fail to imagine the body and blood of Christ in the emblems, or who fail to maintain moral cleanness, or who simply fails to be committed to the faith? Or was there something more involved?<br />
<br />
In the context, Paul was speaking to those who were treating the occasion as an ordinary meal without solemn consideration because of their sectarian divisions or their need or desire for food or their desire to get drunk. (1Co 11:17-22) So in line with that, are you desiring to eat and drink because you discern the body and blood of the Lord or because of sectarian custom that you are simply accustomed to?<br />
<br />
<h2>
Discerning the Body</h2>
What does it mean to discern "the body and the blood of the Lord"? Does it mean that we must simply visualize that the bread is Christ's flesh and the drink is his blood? Or is there something more involved?<br />
<br />
Paul gives the answer: "First let a man approve himself after scrutiny, and only then let him eat of the loaf and drink of the cup." (1Co 11:28) Thus, this is not about the bread or the wine themselves, but about us individually, scrutinizing ourselves over whether we ourselves are worthy to eat and drink the bread and the wine.<br />
<br />
Paul continued: "For the one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment against himself." (1Co 11:29) Do you not agree that this statement is very weighty? Do you want to be judged because you did not carefully scrutinize yourself before partaking of the emblems? Obviously not. Thus a personal assessment is absolutely necessary.<br />
<br />
<h2>
What We Ourselves Are</h2>
He wrote further: "That is why many among you are weak and sick, and quite a few are sleeping in death." He obviously meant a spiritual sickness and death. Then he says, "But if we would discern what we ourselves are, we would not be judged."—1Co 11:30, 31<br />
<br />
Note that he is not talking about our level of commitment or whether our brother has something against us or if we have desisted from sin. Instead he asks us to "discern what we ourselves <b><i>are</i></b>," as if asking us to consider our breed or species, our kind. (1Co 11:29)<br />
<br />
So what is your "kind"? What kind are you? Remember, this involves discernment, distinguishing what something is and is not. Since this is about ourselves, then we are discerning, not the emblems, but something about ourselves regarding the body of Christ.<br />
<br />
Earlier in the same letter, Paul wrote: "Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Should I, then, take the members of the Christ away and join them to a prostitute? By no means! Do you not know that anyone who is joined to a prostitute is one body with her? For 'the two,' says he, 'will be one flesh.' But whoever is joined to the Lord is one with him in spirit."—1Co 6:17<br />
<br />
So this is the body we must discern in order to partake worthily. We must discern whether we ourselves are part of the body and blood of the Christ. What does that mean?<br />
<br />
<h2>
They Were Bought With a Price</h2>
Paul explains: "Do you not know that your body is the temple of the holy spirit within you, which you have from God? Also, you do not belong to yourselves, for you were bought with a price. By all means, glorify God in your body."—1Co 6:19, 20<br />
<br />
So then, the person partaking must discern that they were purchased with a price and that they no longer belong to their self, but to Christ's body. But what purchase is Paul talking about?<br />
<br />
He is referring to the purchase to be with Christ in heaven. (Rev 14:3) Note at 1 Corinthians 6:17 that they are one with Christ, not just in purpose or a figurative sense, but just as Christ "emptied himself and took a slave's form and became human" and later gave up his physical form and became a spirit, likewise an anointed Christian will also give up his physical slave's form and take on a higher form and become a spirit.—Php 2:7-9<br />
<br />
<h2>
They Groan for a New Body</h2>
In what way do the anointed sense this spirit calling? Paul again answers: "All who are led by God's spirit are indeed God's sons. ... You received a spirit of adoption as sons, by which spirit we cry out: "Abba, Father!" The spirit itself bears witness with our spirit that we are God's children. If, then, we are children, we are also heirs—heirs indeed of God, but joint heirs with Christ—...so that we may also be glorified together [in heaven]. ... Not only that, but we ourselves also who have the firstfruits, namely the spirit, yes, we ourselves groan within ourselves while we are earnestly waiting for adoption as sons, the release from our bodies by ransom."—Ro 8:14-23<br />
<br />
Notice the deep groaning for release from the body that the anointed have. At 2 Corinthians 5:2 he says, "For in this house we do indeed groan, earnestly desiring to put on the one for us from heaven." Their groaning leads them to cry out with an impassioned plea to their heavenly Father to be with him where he is. When a reptile sloughs off its skin, it scrapes against every course surface to be free from its husk. Likewise also an insect liberating itself from its shell or a chic from its egg, works furiously to be freed from it and it calls out instinctually for its mother.<br />
<br />
So you must scrutinize yourself and see if you discern the body of the Christ, that is, the adoption as a spirit son of God who will rule with Christ for the thousand years. (Rev 20:6) Scrutinizing requires brutal honesty, recognizing what the cause of your desire is. Is it coming from a deep groaning to be with your heavenly Father in heaven alongside Christ to rule as a king-priest, (Rev 5:9, 10) or is it merely the desire for maintaining familiar trappings of former religious training, or something more fleshly?<br />
<br />
<h2>
They Are Chosen As a Special Possession</h2>
John 1:13 and Heb 5:4-6 demonstrate that one does not choose to become an adopted son of God by partaking of the emblems, but God chooses them to be such and then they partake.<br />
<br />
He does draw them. But this specifically is a choosing to be a priesthood for special possession. (1Pe 2:9) If there is a special possession, then there are those who are not, but are still possessions. The ones who are special possessions have been born again in spirit. They are born again because of God’s choosing of them. It is not because of their water baptism, but because of their spirit baptism from God. (John 3:3-8)<br />
<br />
In your house, you have many possessions with which you would feel the loss if they are destroyed. But you also have things that have an even greater value which you take pains to secure. Those are your special possessions. You decide what your special possessions are. They do not choose for you. Likewise Jehovah is the one who chooses. You do not choose for him.<br />
<br />
<h2>
Be Careful, Be Sure</h2>
Therefore, if you are not certain whether you are anointed to be an adopted son, king and priest of God in heaven, then that is your answer. (1Co 4:8) The anointed are certain. Not out of ego, as a narcissist or any other psychological condition, nor because of a feeling, but out of a witness born to them through holy spirit within themselves.<br />
<br />
Also, if your vision of your resurrection is waking up to green grass and paradisaic gardens and trees, your hope is not heavenly.<br />
<br />
Only you can determine if you have the calling, but determine it you must in order to partake of the emblems if you do not want to be adversely judged by God.<br />
<br />
Finally, if you can be judged for not discerning the body according to 1 Corinthians 11:27-29, then this is not the same judgment that we escape through faith in Jesus Christ. In fact, there is no place in the Scriptures that says that we will be judged if we do not partake of the emblems, but the above verses say that we will be judged if we do partake unworthily. Thus you can still be saved through faith in Jesus without partaking of the emblems.<br />
<br />
Now if a person can be judged for partaking because of fleshly desire, ego or mere formality, how much more the person who partakes out of spite for the religion practicing it.<br />
<br />
For more on this subject, see the articles <a href="https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2016045"><b><span style="color: blue;">The Spirit Bears Witness With Our Spirit</span></b></a> and <a href="https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2016046" target="_blank"><b><span style="color: blue;">We Want to Go With You</span></b></a> in the January, 2016 Study Edition of the Watchtower.Dismythedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09872186295008632240noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-413969216273696296.post-76610364819097452402019-02-19T11:00:00.006-06:002022-04-06T21:30:05.387-05:00New Members Tend to Make Mistakes [Opposers Dismythed]A couple of incidents in Hollywood and the sports world in 2018 regarding a couple of our brothers and sisters that does not reflect well on the organization got me to thinking about the need to help some to consider those incidents from a different perspective.<br />
<br />
The people in question were both raised in the truth and one was baptized at a young age and the other was not. Both spent decades away from the truth and have recently returned. In so doing, they display the typical affectations of those who are new in the truth, including: strict adherence to rules and unattractive displays as sin works itself out under the adherence to those precepts. If you know a person claiming to be one of Jehovah’s Witnesses who demonstrates similar unattractive traits, please look at these two aspects of new members and I think you will gain a new understanding.<br />
<br />
<h2>
Strict Adherence to Rules</h2>
It is true that Jehovah’s Witnesses are very strict in regard to health, (2 Corinthians 11:1) neutrality (Matthew 26:52), avoiding false religion, (1 Corinthians 15:33) sexual immorality and blood. (Acts 15:29) That is because the Scriptures make it clear that Christians are not to practice things that contradict a godly life. However, when a new member is not accustomed to how these things are understood, they can tend to be rather zealous in their application and this can come into conflict with things that they have not considered under those rules. But in actuality, these things are not always as cut and dried as they believe them to be, and because of their inconsistency in application, the resulting conflict in choices can reflect badly on their religion.<br />
<br />
So if one makes a choice to avoid entering a church, while choosing to depict a cop in a production of some kind, this can come into conflict. In depicting a fictional character, you are going to more likely be depicting a character who is not a Witness. Certainly, playing a cop means your character will carry a gun and be called upon to use it. Being a cop is incompatible with being a Witness. But if you can get past that hurdle, and accept that you are playing a role, then anything else that character does should equally be about playing a role, so long as they are not flat out depicting immorality, such as a sex scene. So entering a church to play out that role would not be in conflict with that decision unless the character enacts false worship. But if you are willing to do one thing and not the other, it is inconsistent. And this is the quagmire that a new member can find theirself in. If you are not willing to enter a church simply to play a role, then you should not be playing that role.<br />
<br />
The fact is, there are circumstances in which it is okay to enter a non-Witness place of worship as long as worship services are not in progress, and playing a role is one of them. Certainly, if it sears one’s conscience to do so, then they should not, but again, such a person should seek consistency in their decision-making.<br />
<br />
Now, if you are someone on the outside looking in on such a situation with one of our members, then recognize that this conflict is due to that inconsistency in applying what they are learning. Understand that they are trying to be the best Christian they know how and it is not easy for them. They are conflicted in that their old life is clashing with their new one and they have not yet learned how to cleanly navigate the new situation.<br />
<br />
Think of it like learning how to ride a bike or drive a car. At first the person is not very good at it, trying to recall every rule and often doing the opposite of good driving, but eventually they become familiar with driving and are no longer concerned with rules so that it is second nature, and can drive a defensive driving course with little difficulty. It just takes time. New drivers make poor choices that lead to wrecks, while longtime drivers often become safer drivers, more adept at making good choices. Such is the case with those who become Christians.<br />
<br />
<h2>
Bad Behavior</h2>
Because the new member is trying to adhere to a strict set of rules, they may find themselves frustrated and unfamiliar with how to conduct themselves. Knowing that they are not supposed to get wrathful, they may, in trying to avoid such displays, be led right into doing exactly that. The result to them will be feelings of guilt and embarrassment. Paul put it this way:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“Really, I would not have come to know sin had it not been for the Law. For example, I would not have known covetousness if the Law had not said: ‘You must not covet.’ But sin, finding the opportunity afforded by the commandment, worked out in me covetousness of every sort, for apart from law sin was dead. In fact, I was once alive apart from law. But when the commandment arrived, sin came to life again, but I died. And the commandment that was to lead to life, this I found led to death. For sin, finding the opportunity afforded by the commandment, seduced me and killed me through it. … </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“For I do not understand what I am doing. For I do not practice what I wish, but I do what I hate. However, if I do what I do not wish, I agree that the Law is fine. But now I am no longer the one doing it, but it is the sin that resides in me. For I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, there dwells nothing good; for I have the desire to do what is fine but not the ability to carry it out. For I do not do the good that I wish, but the bad that I do not wish is what I practice. If, then, I do what I do not wish, I am no longer the one carrying it out, but it is the sin dwelling in me. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“I find, then, this law in my case: When I wish to do what is right, what is bad is present with me. I really delight in the law of God according to the man I am within, but I see in my body another law warring against the law of my mind and leading me captive to sin’s law that is in my body. Miserable man that I am! Who will rescue me from the body undergoing this death? Thanks to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So, then, with my mind I myself am a slave to God’s law, but with my flesh to sin’s law.”—Romans 7:7-25</blockquote>
<br />
In other words, because one has a rule on mind, they end up doing exactly what they are trying to avoid for the very reason that they are trying to avoid it. The behavior is thus “induced” by the rule. But Paul shows us that there is an answer to this: “Thanks to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!”<br />
<br />
You see, Jesus freed us from the commandment. No more are we to think about the commandment. Instead, we are to think about how to apply the law of the Christ: love. If that is what preoccupies our minds, then it becomes easy to deal with people fairly. Out of love we will not be interested in choosing sides, publicizing another’s fault in social media and gossip, using harsh words or threats, worshipping anyone but Jehovah God, infringing upon the sexual autonomy of another, our mate or ourselves, or violate the sanctity of Christ’s blood.<br />
<br />
Again, if you see one of our members behaving in any of those ways, understand that they have not yet learned how to free themselves from rules and as a result end up enticed by those rules. And again, remember that this is no doubt a source of guilt and embarrassment for them. On behalf of those with more experience, we ask that you be patient with such ones. They are doing the best they know how. With time and patience they will learn how to love from the heart and let go of strict, self-imposed rules.<br />
<br />
But if you yourself are a new member and know that you have been doing things like these, you should know that Jehovah understands, which is why he included Paul’s words above in the Bible. Just keep striving to understand what it means to love and rules will no longer be necessary because you ill fulfill them as you learn to view all people with love. As the apostle also said:<br />
<br />
Love is patient and kind. Love is not jealous. It does not brag, does not get puffed up, does not behave indecently, does not look for its own interests, does not become provoked. It does not keep account of the injury. It does not rejoice over unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth. 7 It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails.—1 Corinthians 13:4-8<br />
<br />
Indeed, when love is properly applied, it will never fail you in any of those ways, but adhering to rules often will. So rely upon Jehovah and respect others the way you would want to be respected. (Matthew 7:12) Be convinced in your own mind and love Jehovah and your neighbor from the heart, then everything will fall into place. (Matthew 22:36-40)
<div><br /></div><div><div style="text-align: center; width: 396.19px;"><img border="0" data-original-height="408" data-original-width="1450" height="90" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiBC7iFjimozYma_8yN02S2mC4qXb_AQtjavN7CJlj6zf3L8x1pa9OFN5HqMPYrHCJyU1S87MhK-gr0paRMqqtqLwzY8psEDnjR5_9hyXhz1w9ohBW85PhRFrJ1DO6dz25xmNXErv-c_ADxtHFDd4-XfRlRZ2qWI3Vxx7w9v0nrYF0FJFdCSffawwluMg=s320" width="320" /></div><br /><div style="text-align: center; width: 396.19px;"><img border="0" data-original-height="408" data-original-width="1450" height="90" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgYIYriccmOIy_sXZstAS6YgWMtaaouVENW_ADnflmmysGTuhDx3RIWxG0mF-8b0qcTMygxyeF6yt-8pTEcGhrTW2fPNS0v3ES9HMLnITz1sIYWveKEnUE7yU1Q3wQyBcrqLFZ7VJqBHVA-2vbki7pkchqZQQcHVKq5vVHupWjoXIP7Padzl8KFJeW2QQ=s320" width="320" /></div></div>Dismythedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09872186295008632240noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-413969216273696296.post-8316153600690220772018-08-10T10:50:00.018-05:002022-04-06T21:31:51.095-05:00What "This Generation" Is Not [Opposers Dismythed]There are many views of what a “generation” is. Thus, the most significant question is why “this generation” spoken of by Jesus Christ as recorded at Matthew 24:34, Mark 13:30 and Luke 21:32 is not one of those many other beliefs? So I have collected them all here for a thorough examination.<br />
<br />
<h1>
Source: “This Generation”</h1>
The reason the discussion of a generation is of prime importance to Christians is because of the following scripture. Jesus said:<br /><br />
<div style="margin-left: 0.25in; margin-right: 0.25in;">
<b>Matthew 24:34, Mark 13:30 and Luke 21:32</b><br />
<i>“Truly I say to you that this generation will by no means pass away until all these things happen.”</i></div>
<br />
The words “this generation” (or similar) is used in many scriptures, including:<br />
<br />
<table style="width: 100%;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="width: 33%;">Genesis 7:1</td>
<td>Numbers 32:13</td>
<td>Deuteronomy 1:35</td></tr>
<tr><td>Deuteronomy 2:14</td>
<td>Psalm 12:7</td>
<td>Jeremiah 2:31</td></tr>
<tr><td>Jeremiah 7:29</td>
<td>Matthew 11:16</td>
<td>Matthew 12:41, 42</td></tr>
<tr><td>Matthew 23:36</td>
<td>Matthew 24:34</td>
<td>Mark 8:12</td></tr>
<tr><td>Mark 13:30</td>
<td>Luke 7:30-32</td>
<td>Luke 11:31, 32</td></tr>
<tr><td>Luke 11:50, 51</td>
<td>Luke 17:25</td>
<td>Luke 21:32</td></tr>
<tr><td>Heb 3:10</td><td></td><td></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
In <a href="https://tv.jw.org/#en/mediaitems/pub-jwban_201509_1_VIDEO" target="_blank">this video</a>, David Splane of the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses illustrated well how those who mark the first part of the generation, would have to have been able to see and understand the signs when they occurred in 1914 in order to be counted as part of the first group in line with verse 33. Anyone observing the sign after 1914, before the death of the last of that first group, would be part of the second group that is contemporary with the first. The key is in that word “contemporary”, explained by a reading of the symbolism at Exodus 1:5, 6. (See below.):<br />
<br />
For an explanation of why “this generation” is not limited to Jesus' first century disciples, see the supplementary page: “<a href="http://dismythed.blogspot.com/p/supplemental-last-days-prophecy-not.html"><span style="color: blue;">Matthew 24 Not Limited to the First Century</span></a>”.<br />
<br />
<h2 style="text-align: left;">
Is: Contemporary Witnesses of the Signs </h2>
<div style="margin-left: 0.25in; margin-right: 0.25in;">
<b>Genesis 50:23</b><br />
<i>Joseph saw the third generation of Ephraim's sons, also the sons of Machir, Manassah's son. They were born upon Joseph's knees.</i><br />
<br />
<b>Exodus 1:5, 6</b><br />
<i>And all those who were born to Jacob were 70 people, but Joseph was already in Egypt. Joseph eventually died, and also all his brothers and all that generation.</i></div>
<br />
The most recent understanding of Jesus’ words by Jehovah's Witnesses is based upon Exodus 1:5, 6. It is not referring to the lifespan of a single individual, but of the 70 descendants of Jacob who entered Egypt at Joseph's request. (Exodus 1:5) The following Scriptures also refer to this type of generation.<br />
<div style="margin-left: 0.25in; margin-right: 0.25in;">
<table style="width: 100%;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="width: 33%;">Judges 2:10</td>
<td>Isaiah 53:8 (Acts 8:33)</td>
<td>Acts 13:36</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
<br />
At Exodus 1:5, 6 the referrant of "that" is the 70 in verse 5. This would seem to indicate a period in which a certain people lived who experienced the same event(s) and only concludes when the people who witnessed those events all die. Some modern Jewish scholars have interpreted it this way.<br />
<br />
However, these verses and Genesis 45-50 also indicate that those 70 who entered Egypt were contemporary with Joseph's brothers and that no other people are indicated. A single contemporary understanding is further supported by the fact that 3 generations began in Joseph's day in Egypt, each identified with consecutive descendants of Joseph., and the fourth generation was around when tbe Israelites left Egypt 400 years later, thus belying the claim that they have to be witness to any one event, world condition or rulership. (Genesis 50:23) This shows us that generations begin with individuals, not conditions. They begin with individuals and end with contemporaries of that individual as Exodus 1:6 shows.<br />
<br />
More importantly, the symbolism apparent in the 45th to 50th chapters of Genesis happen to perfectly represent the last days. We have long taken Joseph to be a type of Christ. (w87 5/1, pp. 10-14) So we have to look at the account very carefully.<br />
<br />
Joseph and his 11 brothers do not represent Jesus and the faithful apostles while he was on earth. How do we know? Because Joseph’s brothers threw him in a pit and sold him, while later Joseph kept himself hidden from his brothers until he had ascertained their repentance. Jesus, however, preached repentance from the start. Also, when Joseph was thrown into the pit represents when Jesus was betrayed and executed by those claiming to be children of God. Later, apostate Christendom sold the Christian congregation into spiritual slavery to idols. (Gal 4:8) So what happened later occurred after Jesus’ resurrection. But many years passed while Joseph was alone in Egypt—not just three—so Joseph reuniting with his brothers does not represent Jesus’ resurrection, nor the outpouring of holy spirit at Pentecost.<br />
<br />
So what does Joseph reuniting with his brothers represent? It represents Jesus reuniting with repentant anointed ones sometime after the Passover, of 1914. They knew that he had been enthroned in heaven that year, as represented by the rider on the white horse, because of the 7 times prophecy. (Revelation 6:1, 2; Daniel 4:1-37) At that time, they became aware of his presence when they observed the signs of his presence, most notably the outbreak of the first world war, represented by the second rider on the red horse, (Revelation 6:3, 4) as well as the outbreak of the Spanish flu among many other diseases and famines that decimated the world’s population at that time, represented by the black and pale horses. (Revelation 6:5-8)<br />
<br />
So those anointed ones at that time, like Joseph’s brothers, became aware of Christ’s presence at the same time in 1914. And just like Joseph’s brothers, tbey provided convincing evidence of Christ’s presence to others who later became anointed and they called them to join them to come to a spiritual land of plenty. Those ones came in while the first group was still alive who became aware of Christ’s presence in 1914. Later, the first group of anointed ones died. Eventually, so will the ones whom they called to spiritual Egypt.<br />
<br />
Note that there are two groups present here. The group that was present when Jesus revealed his presence in 1914 and those of the second group whom the first group then called through the preaching work. Since the first group can no longer call anyone to spiritual Egypt because they have all died, there are no more being added to the second group, though there may still be anointed ones being called who will be resurrected to heaven along with the rest, but they are simply not part of the second group that constitutes "this generation" that is not to pass away before everything Jesus said in Matthew 24 takes place. There are just those who were present in 1914 and those whom they at one time called. <br />
<br />
Since a group was present in the beginning, and a group will be present when Jesus comes and calls them to heaven, no one or two individuals can be considered the first or last except hypothetically when trying to determine the maximum possible length of this period. It is strictly hypothetical.<br />
<br />
For example, let us say you are trying to determine how long a banquet lasted the night before. You know that the doors opened at 7pm and a group of 12 people came in. They are considered the first ones to the banquet. They called others to the banquet as the night progressed. To find out who the last person invited to the banquet by the previous group was, you go to the first 12 through the door, and ask who the last of them was. You then ask that person who was at the banquet when they left. You now go to the people that person identified and determine who the last of that second group was at the banquet. Thankfully, you do not have to keep doing this. There are only those two groups to work through. So in the second group you find the person who was last at the banquet. So to determine its length, you start with the time the doors opened: 7pm, and you determine that the last of the second group invited by the first group left the banguet at 1am. Thus you determine that the banquet lasted 6 hours. All the people between the two last ones of their groups were not important to that calculation, but this does not mean that they were not guests present at the banquet. Nor do you conclude that the banquet ended when the first group all left.<br />
<br />
Now we consider the greatest possible length of the last days using a similar method. We know that the last days began in 1914. We also know that a person’s maximum possible life in these last days is approximately around 115 years old. Jesus said that his chosen ones, anointed ones, would recognize the signs. (Matthew 24:33) We cannot be exact, but since a person would have to be of such an age as to be able to understand the meaning of the signs, then they are not likely to be much less than 7 years old at the time of their understanding the signs after their anointing. Thus 115 years minus 7 means 108 years. Since there was one group called in 1914, and they all called others up to the last one of that first group, then the same maximum ages of those later called is added to the maximum of the first group. This results in a figure of approximately 216 years. Thus the latest possible date for Armageddon seems to be around the year 2130, give or take a few years.<br />
<br />
That, however, is only a window. It is just the longest possible period. That does not mean that the last days will last that long. We already see the signs leading to Armageddon taking place right now. The governments are beginning to turn on the Roman Catholic Church, resulting in many leaving; and the Russian Orthodox Church is riding on the back of the eastern block of governments like a decked out prostitute to rile them against Jehovah’s chosen people. Soon those governments will turn on them as well. But not just on the Roman Catholic Church or the Russian Orthodox Church, but upon all false religion. (Revelation 17:16)<br />
<br />
These are the groups as found at Exodus 1:6:<div><br />
<div style="margin-left: 0.25in; margin-right: 0.25in;">
<b>Beginning:</b> <i>1st group:</i> "Joseph ... and his brothers [who were present when Joseph revealed himself]." (Exodus 1:6; read Genesis 45:3) </div>
<div style="margin-left: 0.25in; margin-right: 0.25in;">
<b>End:</b> <i>2nd group:</i> " ... and all that generation [who entered Egypt later]." (Exodus 1:6)</div>
<br />
These are the groups of anointed that parallel with this account:<div><br />
<div style="margin-left: 0.25in; margin-right: 0.25in;">
<b>Beginning:</b> <i>1st group:</i> Anointed who saw the signs of Jesus' presence in 1914. </div>
<div style="margin-left: 0.25in; margin-right: 0.25in;">
<b>End:</b> <i>2nd group:</i> Those who were anointed after 1914 who were called by the first group while alive.</div>
<br />But now, why does a generation not mean the other popular theories? Keep reading to find out. We will cover each of the scripture-based theories as we go along, and not bother with any unscriptural speculations.<br />
<br />
<h2 style="text-align: left;">
Not: “A Crooked and Twisted Generation”</h2>
<div style="margin-left: 0.25in; margin-right: 0.25in;">
<b>Philippians 2:14, 15</b><br />
<i>Keep doing all things free from murmuring and arguments, so that you may come to be blameless and innocent, children of God without a blemish in the midst of a crooked and twisted generation, among whom you are shining as illuminators in the world,</i></div>
<br />
<table style="width: 100%;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="width: 33%;">Numbers 32:13</td>
<td>Deuteronomy 1:35</td>
<td>Deuteronomy 32:5, 20</td></tr>
<tr><td>Psalm 78:8</td>
<td>Psalm 95:10</td>
<td>Proverbs 30:11-14</td></tr>
<tr><td>Jeremiah 7:29</td>
<td>Matthew 12:39</td>
<td>Matthew 12:45</td></tr>
<tr><td>Matthew 16:4</td>
<td>Matthew 17:17</td>
<td>Mark 8:38</td></tr>
<tr><td>Mark 9:19</td>
<td>Luke 9:41</td>
<td>Luke 11:29</td></tr>
<tr><td>Acts 2:40</td>
<td>Philippians 2:15</td><td></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
Previously, in the November 1, 1995 Watchtower, Jehovah's Witnesses began teaching that a generation is an unspecified period of time in which an unbroken string of contemporaries of that period demonstrate a particular trait. Yes, this viewpoint was based upon the scriptures you see here. However, that article also reveals another reason for that view: it is not good to be looking to specific dates.<br />
<br />
However, while this was good because it did not hold us to any specified period, we must stick faithfully to as accurate an understanding of the Scriptures as we can. Therefore, when a clear understanding of a generation was discovered, we did not ignore it and stick to the generalized interpretation just because it was convenient or left it open-ended. The adjustment was made because a clear understanding of the meaning of a generation was finally discovered.<br />
<br />
The fact is, there is nothing that definitively points to this as the meaning of a generation and does not preclude the contemporaries understanding. And as we saw by looking at the context, “this generation” applies to the faithful ones who recognize the signs, not those who do not. (Matthew 24:33)<br />
<br />
<h2 style="text-align: left;">
Not: “The Generation of Those Seeking Him”</h2>
<div style="margin-left: 0.25in; margin-right: 0.25in;">
<b>Psalm 24:6</b><br />
<i>This is the generation of those seeking him,
Of those seeking your face, O God of Jacob.</i></div>
<br />
<table style="width: 100%;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="width: 33%;">Psalm 14:5</td>
<td>Psalm 24:6</td>
<td>Psalm 112:2</td></tr>
<tr><td>Luke 16:8</td><td></td><td></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
The inverse viewpoint to the previous header is the idea that the personality of “this generation” is those serving Jehovah. No doubt the governing body considered this one before settling on our current understanding. Here is how that reasoning can be understood. Psalm 24:6 does say those that seek the “God of Jacob”, Jehovah, in the last days mark the generation that Jesus was speaking of, as it is a prophecy of the same time period.<br />
<br />
The problem with this, though, is that it does not refer to the only time that a generation seeks Jehovah, otherwise it applies every time they do so. What Psalm 24:6 is actually saying is that anyone who ascends his holy mountain and is innocent, as in verses 3 and 4, when He takes his station in heaven as in verses 7-10, marks the generation, but it still begs the question of when the starting point is. Thus, this Psalm is not an answer, but may be the basis for Jesus’ statement.<br />
<br />
<h2 style="text-align: left;">
Not: A Single Lifespan</h2>
<div style="margin-left: 0.25in; margin-right: 0.25in;">
<b>Matthew 24:13</b><br />
<i>But the one who has endured to the end will be saved.</i></div>
<br />
<table style="width: 100%;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="width: 33%;">Genesis 10:25</td>
<td>1 Kings 3:13</td>
<td>1 Kings 11:12</td></tr>
<tr><td>Psalm 30:5</td>
<td>Isaiah 23:15</td>
<td>Matthew 24:34</td></tr>
<tr><td>Mark 13:30</td>
<td>Luke 21:32</td><td></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
Before we taught that “this generation” was an undefined string of contemporaries exhibiting particular negative traits, we taught that “this generation” meant the lifespan of a single human being who was there to witness the fulfillment of the sign from the beginning and lives all the way to the end. What led to this understanding was in seeking, restrictively, to let the context define what “this generation” meant, including the verse itself. Thus, our proof scriptures came from chapter 24 itself. This is actually the ideal way to interpret most scriptures, but in this instance, it blinded us to a more accurate understanding that could be gained by focusing on the usage of the term throughout the Scriptures, which is another legitimate way to interpret a scripture should the context not be clear as to meaning, and this context is quite nebulous.<br />
<br />
The reason we left this behind had nothing to do with the old generation having died off, as there were still plenty of members around at that time who understood the signs in 1914. Obviously, it would be impractical to rethink it on those grounds if they had not actually all died off yet, and they had not. But that is not to say that the possibility of such leading to embarrassment did not cross their mind. So a review was certainly in order so as to make sure that they had the correct understanding before that time passed. Though their conclusion was still flawed, it was based upon a broader exploration of the Scriptures because the context was too nebulous.<br />
<br />
<h2 style="text-align: left;">
Not: A Race</h2>
<div style="margin-left: 0.25in; margin-right: 0.25in;">
<b>Luke 16:8</b><br />
<i>And his master commended the steward, though unrighteous, because he acted with practical wisdom; for the sons of this system of things are wiser in a practical way toward their own generation [or pos. “race”/”kind”] than the sons of the light are. [Compare NAS. See also G1074 in Strong’s Concordance.]</i></div>
<br />
Despite the weak scriptural support, the idea that "generation" means "race" is a fairly common view. However, G. R. Beasley-Murray, D.D., a former professor of New Testament Interpretation at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, observed: “The phrase ‘this generation’ should cause no difficulty for interpreters. While admittedly genea in earlier Greek [most often] meant birth, progeny, and so race, . . . in the [Greek Septuagint] it most frequently translated the Hebrew term dôr, meaning age, age of humankind, or generation in the sense of contemporaries. . . . In sayings attributed to Jesus the term appears to have a twofold connotation: on the one hand it always signifies his contemporaries, and on the other hand it always carries an implicit criticism.” Notice that even scholars comprehend a generation as “contemporaries”.<br />
<br />
To demonstrate the weakness of the racial interpretation of "generation", notice how these scriptures use the same word indicating a temporal meaning without quoting Hebrew texts:<br />
<br />
Jesus repeatedly refers to the generation demonstrating bad qualities, being “wicked”, “evil”, “crooked”, “twisted”, “adulterous”, “perverse”, “no faithfulness”, “faithless”, and “sinful”. But of course, the Jews are Jehovah’s chosen people and were cleansed. (Mt 12:39; 17:17; Mr 8:38; Php 2:15) So it cannot be referring to the entire race apart from temporal reference.<br />
<br />
At Luke 16:8, Jesus compares the “sons of this system”, who are clearly made up of many races as being part of the same “generation” as “the sons of the light.”<br />
<br />
At Acts 13:36, Paul said that David “rendered service to God in his own generation”, as a reference of time, and “fell asleep in death.”
<br />
<br />
Clearly these refer to a “generation” in the modern sense, rather than a race. Now this does not prevent every verse from being interpreted as “race”, but neither do they definitively prove it in any place, but some are ambiguous. But since there are so many that can be clearly proven to refer to a generation in a period of time, then it is more likely that the ambiguous verses also refer to such type of generation. And since many of the signs Jesus indicated in Matthew 24 were not fulfilled and apply to the whole world, and some were repeated in Revelation, then “generation” cannot refer to a race.<br />
<br />
<h2 style="text-align: left;">Not: Contemporaries of an Event or Reign</h2><div><i>See "Is: Contemporary Witnesses of the signs".</i><br />
<br />
<h2 style="text-align: left;">
Not: 20, 40 or 60 Years</h2>
<div style="margin-left: 0.25in; margin-right: 0.25in;">
<b>Numbers 14:29</b><br />
<i>In this wilderness your corpses will fall, yes, the whole number of you from 20 years old and up who were registered, all of you who have murmured against me.
</i><br />
<br />
<b>Ps 95:10</b><br />
<i>For 40 years I felt a loathing toward that generation.</i></div>
<br />
Psalm 95:10 is no more than a specified timeframe within which Jehovah intended to get rid of that generation. It is not the full span of that generation, given that the generation was already around for at least 20 years.<br />
<br />
But neither is 60 years a generation since most of that generation was born before 20 years prior and none were born after. Twenty is only associated with the minimum age of enrollment in the military, (Numbers 1:3) not the end of their generation, as Numbers 14:29 says, “20 years old and up,” not “20 years old and below.”<br />
<br />
<h2 style="text-align: left;">
Not: 38 Years</h2>
<div style="margin-left: 0.25in; margin-right: 0.25in;">
<b>Deuteronomy 2:14</b><br />
<i>The time it took us to walk from Kadesh-barnea until we crossed the Valley of Zered was 38 years, until the entire generation of the men of war had perished from the camp, just as Jehovah had sworn to them.</i></div>
<br />
Deuteronomy 2:14 is not a statement of how long a generation is. It is a statement of how long (The remaining years) it took those who were counted as "the men of war" at the time of the curse to pass away.<br />
<br />
Neither is this an indicator that there was any set number of years to be fulfilled. Joshua and Caleb were both part of that generation and Joshua lived to be 110 years old. (Joshua 24:29) Caleb's age at his death is not given, but we know that he was 40 years old when he spied out Kadesh-barnea. (Joshua 14:7)<br />
<br />
<h2 style="text-align: left;">
Not: 70, 80 or 120 Years</h2>
<div style="margin-left: 0.25in; margin-right: 0.25in;">
<b>Psalm 90:10a</b><br />
<i>The span of our life is 70 years, or 80 if one is especially strong.
</i><br />
<br />
<b>Genesis 6:3</b><br />
<i>Then Jehovah said: “My spirit will not tolerate man indefinitely, because he is only flesh. Accordingly, his days will amount to 120 years.”
</i><br />
<br />
<b>Deuteronomy 34:7</b><br />
<i>Moses was 120 years old at his death. His eyes had not grown dim, and his strength had not departed
</i><br />
<br />
<b>Isaiah 23:15</b><br />
<i>In that day Tyre will be forgotten for 70 years, the same as the lifetime of one king.</i></div>
<br />
Many have tried variously associating the numbers 70, 80 or 120 with the generation that Jesus spoke about. However, none of these scriptures mention or are associated with a generation. Therefore they cannot be defined as a generation at all.<br />
<br />
120 years was not Jehovah’s stated length of human life, but the stated time frame that system of things had before being destroyed in the flood.<br />
<br />
Deuteronomy 34:7 is simply stating the lifespan of Moses alone.<br />
<br />
Isaiah 23:15 is referring to the lifetime of a specific king, namely the regent of Babylon, who was Nabonidus, who was imprisoned in the tower by the Persians after the fall of Babylon two years before the Jews were released from Babylonian captivity, suggesting that he died at that time.<br />
<br />
Again, the presence of the word "generation" is essential to defining it. A generation is not mentioned in any of these scriptures and therefore cannot define what a generation is.<br />
<br />
<h2 style="text-align: left;">
Not: 100 or 110 Years</h2>
<div style="margin-left: 0.25in; margin-right: 0.25in;">
<b>Genesis 15:13, 16</b><br />
<i>Then [Jehovah] said to Abram: “Know for certain that your offspring will be foreigners in a land not theirs and that the people there will enslave them and afflict them for 400 years. . . . But they will return here in the fourth generation, because the error of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure.”</i></div>
<br />
At Genesis, 15:13, Jehovah says that Abraham’s descendants would serve a foreign nation for 400 years, and in verse 16 Jehovah says that they would return to the land “in the fourth generation”. However, these things are not actually congruous.<br />
<br />
Jehovah was saying that the Israelites were to serve the Egyptians 400 years, and indeed, like clockwork, Moses came and freed them from Egypt after 400 years. But it was not until 40 years later that they returned to the promised land at Numbers 32:13. So it was actually a total of 440 years before they returned to the promised land while contemporaries of the fourth generation were still alive.<br />
<br />
But was one quarter of that (110 years) really a generation? No. Jehovah was talking about the first four generations born in Egypt. (Ge 50:23) However, this does not require that the contemporaries of generations two, three and four all ended in Egypt. It only needs to be contemporaries of the ones that Joseph saw born in Egypt according to Exodus 1:6 and his great-great grandchildren, the start of the fourth generation, whereas the contemporaries of the fourth generation are the ones who entered into the promised land, not the ones who were the first part of the fourth generation.<br />
<br />
This actually further supports the idea that a generation is contemporaneous, as some of those that entered the promised land were contemporaries in the fourth generation, especially Joshua and Caleb. They could not possibly have been born as original members of that fourth generation, but they certainly could have overlapped with them.<br />
<br />
<h2 style="text-align: left;">
Not: “The Generation of his Forefathers”</h2>
<div style="margin-left: 0.25in; margin-right: 0.25in;">
<b>Psalm 49:19</b><br />
<i>But he finally joins the generation of his forefathers. They will never again see the light.</i></div>
<br />
Psalm 49:19 refers to a generation for something they all have in common. They are all contemporaries in both death and resurrection. (Gen 15:15) But they are not stated to be contemporaries in any other way. However, it is possible that his forefathers (Lit. “fathers”) are those he has known personally, and thus contemporaneously, including his father, grandfather and great grandfather.<br />
<br />
<h2 style="text-align: left;">
Not: Sons</h2>
<div style="margin-left: 0.25in; margin-right: 0.25in;">
<b>Genesis 50:23</b><br />
<i>Joseph saw the third generation of Ephraim’s sons, also the sons of Machir, Manasseh’s son. They were born upon Joseph’s knees.</i></div>
<br />
<table style="width: 100%;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="width: 33%;">Genesis 15:16</td>
<td>Genesis 50:23</td>
<td>Exodus 20:5, 6</td></tr>
<tr><td>Exodus 34:7</td>
<td>Numbers 14:18</td>
<td>Deuteronomy 29:22</td></tr>
<tr><td>Deuteronomy 32:7</td>
<td>2 Kings 10:30</td>
<td>2 Kings 15:12</td></tr>
<tr><td>Job 42:16</td>
<td>Matthew 1:17</td><td></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
Genesis 20:23 and these other scriptures in no way indicate that one generation ends when the next begins. It is simply the beginning of three generations. Based on this, it is not possible for one generation to begin when one ends. The only way that could happen is if children are born at the moment their parents die. Overlapping is unavoidable. So the question remains in these scriptures of "What constitutes a generation?" Clearly it is not answered in the scriptures listed here.<br />
<br />
<h2 style="text-align: left;">
Not: “The Next Generation”</h2>
<div style="margin-left: 0.25in; margin-right: 0.25in;">
<strong>Psalm 102:18</strong><br />
<em>This is written for the future generation;
And the people that is to be created will praise Jah.</em></div>
<br />
<table style="width: 100%;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="width: 33%;">Deuteronomy 29:22</td>
<td>Job 8:8</td>
<td>Psalm 22:30</td></tr>
<tr><td>Psalm 48:13</td>
<td>Psalm 71:18</td>
<td>Psalm 78:4</td></tr>
<tr><td>Psalm 78:6</td>
<td>Psalm 102:18</td>
<td>Psalm 109:13</td></tr>
<tr><td>Joel 1:3</td><td></td><td></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
The expressions “future generation”, “generation following”, “generation to come” and “to the generation” are also translated as “the next generation”, or “future generation”. This does not mean that the next generation begins when the previous one ends. It simply refers to the sons yet to be born after the current generation, no matter how far into the future. (Thus, “the people that is to be created”.)<br />
<br />
The current generation includes all the people still alive up to this point, whether just born, or about to die.<br />
<br />
These expressions generally apply to anyone reading or singing the words, thus indicating all future generations.<br />
<br />
This also goes for “past generations” at Deuteronomy 32:7, “succeeding generations” at Judges 3:2 and “other generations” at Ephesians 3:5.<br />
<br />
<h2 style="text-align: left;">
Not: “Generation After Generation”</h2>
<div style="margin-left: 0.25in; margin-right: 0.25in;">
<b>Psalm 100:5</b><br />
<i>For Jehovah is good; his loving-kindness is to time indefinite, and his faithfulness to generation after generation. </i></div>
<br />
<table style="width: 100%;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="width: 33%;">Exodus 3:15</td>
<td>Exodus 17:16</td>
<td>Esther 9:28</td></tr>
<tr><td>Psalm 10:6</td>
<td>Psalm 33:11</td>
<td>Psalm 49:11</td></tr>
<tr><td>Psalm 61:6</td>
<td>Psalm 72:5</td>
<td>Psalm 77:8</td></tr>
<tr><td>Psalm 79:13</td>
<td>Psalm 85:5</td>
<td>Psalm 89:1</td></tr>
<tr><td>Psalm 89:4</td>
<td>Psalm 90:1</td>
<td>Psalm 100:5</td></tr>
<tr><td>Psalm 102:12</td>
<td>Psalm 106:31</td>
<td>Psalm 119:89, 90</td></tr>
<tr><td>Psalm 135:13</td>
<td>Psalm 145:4</td>
<td>Psalm 146:10</td></tr>
<tr><td>Proverbs 27:24</td>
<td>Isaiah 13:20</td>
<td>Isaiah 34:10</td></tr>
<tr><td>Isaiah 34:17</td>
<td>Isaiah 60:15</td>
<td>Jeremiah 50:39</td></tr>
<tr><td>Lamentations 5:19</td>
<td>Daniel 4:3</td>
<td>Daniel 4:34</td></tr>
<tr><td>Joel 2:2</td>
<td>Joel 3:20</td>
<td>Luke 1:40</td></tr>
<tr><td>Luke 1:50</td><td></td><td></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
The words “generation after generation”, “generation to generation”, “every generation” or “one generation to the next” also do not mean the next generation begins when the previous one ends. It simply refers to the children of children, etc. as with “sons”.<br />
<br />
This does not indicate a series of punctuated periods. It is only meant to indicate that something goes on indefinitely, handed down from fathers to sons, just as the prophet Joel said, “Tell about it to your sons, and let your sons tell about it to their sons, and their sons to the next generation.” (Lit., “. . . and their children another generation.”)<br />
<br />
This also covers terms such as “all future generations”, “throughout their generations”, “all their generations”, “during their generations”, “for their generations”, “thousandth generation” and generations “going, and . . . coming.”<br />
<br />
The only exception is Isaiah 61:4, in which “for generation after generation” refers to the period between Jerusalem’s destruction in 607 BCE and the rebuilding of certain places in it. And only Exodus 17:16 and Luke 1:50 are not clarified, though “forever” is implied. It indicates the birth of generations, not the end of them. (See <i>Not: 100 or 110 Years</i> above.)<br />
<br />
<h1>
Understand?</h1>
We hope you appreciated this breakdown of why Jehovah's Witnesses do not follow other popular theories about the meaning of “this generation”. If you have an interpretation not found here, or an adjustment to information found here, we want to hear about it. Leave your comment below and we will update our post to reflect it if it qualifies. It must be based on a scripture and must also mention a “generation” unless it is a popular theory and relies upon the Scriptures.</div></div></div>
<div><br /></div><br />
<div style="text-align: center; width: 100%;">
<img border="0" data-original-height="408" data-original-width="1450" height="90" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEilgh_h2qWgSwYE37j8aplfW82zuAaBGBX-CYOtqp1_C-Roeyh4dK6S-1oP4sdz2_KvG4mGLxe0Ly3RfZ42Or69IdSMKs0sCUeLTz1JPTnDCZeyymuimh8kDr3cM7VzF3Gpp0UKF77Ux9rrMBl5Ea7XOCr0LJIPnNGh-7NQrhbCHFR-ZYRe23jJMUmBVg=s320" width="320" /></div>
<div style="text-align: center; width: 100%;">
<img border="0" data-original-height="408" data-original-width="1450" height="90" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiBC7iFjimozYma_8yN02S2mC4qXb_AQtjavN7CJlj6zf3L8x1pa9OFN5HqMPYrHCJyU1S87MhK-gr0paRMqqtqLwzY8psEDnjR5_9hyXhz1w9ohBW85PhRFrJ1DO6dz25xmNXErv-c_ADxtHFDd4-XfRlRZ2qWI3Vxx7w9v0nrYF0FJFdCSffawwluMg=s320" width="320" /></div>Dismythedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09872186295008632240noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-413969216273696296.post-60118221984790443392018-07-17T11:21:00.008-05:002022-04-06T21:32:15.862-05:00Do the Scriptures Really Take a Stand on Blood Transfusions? [Opposers Dismythed]Many have challenged our stand on Blood transfusions because such ones claim that the prohibition on blood refers only to eating blood. But is that true? Does the Christian prohibition on blood only extend to eating blood? Let us take a close look at all the scriptures relevant to this stand and not just the few that our opposers like to exclusively focus in on.<br />
<br />
<h4>
A Decision by the Apostles</h4>
Jehovah's Witnesses stand by the standard set by the first century Christians. This was the result of a decision based upon whether non-Jewish Christians from among the nations were under obligation to observe the law.<br />
<br />
The first century centralized body of apostles and elders in Jerusalem, (Acts 15:2) by the influence of the holy spirit, (Acts 15:28) concluded that there were three things in the law that were still binding upon all Christians because they precede the Law of Moses. (Acts 15:29)<br />
<br />
This was no doubt because they were restrictions on all of mankind that existed before the law and were informed by the law. These are listed below. As you read them, look up the Scriptures. Each one has 3 sets of scripture citations. The first scripture demonstrates that the listed restriction existed upon all mankind before the law, the second set shows an example in the law, and the third set shows that the apostles held all Christians to those standards throughout the first century.<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li><b>“Abstain from things sacrificed to an idol.”</b> (Genesis 4:3, 4; Exodus 20:4, 5; 1 John 5:21)</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><b>“Abstain … from blood,”</b> (Genesis 9:4; Deuteronomy 12:16; Acts 21:25) and <b>“from what is strangled.”</b> (Genesis 9:4; Leviticus 17:13; Acts 21:25)</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><b>“Abstain … from sexual immorality.”</b> (Genesis 2:22-25; Deuteronomy 22:28-29; 1 Corinthians 6:18)</li>
</ul>
<br />
Back then, there were no blood transfusions, so a command to not put blood in one's veins would not have made any sense and might have given them ideas.<br />
<br />
The Jews considered the Law on blood binding, as they did not even include it in poultices, as the Egyptians did, or as any other ingredient.<br />
<br />
<h4>
What It Means</h4>
Regarding how blood was to be handled, the Mosaic Law stated, "you should pour it out on the ground like water." (Deuteronomy 12:16; 15:23) Thus, instead of putting the blood to use, we perceive "abstain" to mean to pour it out, that is, consider it unfit for use, not having anything to do with it, just as we would abstain from (have nothing to do with) idolatry, sexual immorality or things strangled.<br />
<br />
We do not view the restriction on blood as applying only to food. You will note that sexual immorality (Gk. “pornea”) is not food. It is an activity, and applies to all sexual relations not related to clean relations between a man and a woman. including heterosexual immorality, (Deuteronomy 22:28-29) adultery, (Leviticus 18:20) incest, (Leviticus 18:6-13, 17) bestiality, (Leviticus 18:23) anal sex (Deuteronomy 23:13-14; Proverbs 30:12; Romans 1:27) and homosexuality. (Leviticus 20:13; 1 Corinthians 6:9)<br />
<br />
Likewise, what is sacrificed to idols (Genesis 4:3, 4; Exodus 35:15; 1 Corinthians 8:4-13) includes, not just food, but anything we view as sacrificed to an idol, such as utensils or temple gifts, (2 Kings 23:4) and by its very mention, it extends to idolatry itself. (Genesis 35:2; Exodus 20:4, 5; 1 John 5:21) Paul instructed Christians to "flee from idolatry", (1 Corinthians 10:14) and "flee from sexual immorality," (1 Corinthians 6:18) so we view the use of blood in similar terms.<br />
<br />
Just as sexual immorality would include all laws regarding sex outside the marriage arrangement, and things sacrificed to idols includes idolatry, likewise abstaining from blood would include not only laws on eating blood, but also regarding menstruation, (Le 15:19-27) and blood handling. (Genesis 4:4; 9:4; Deuteronomy 12:16; Hebrews 10:29) If even choosing to have sex with a menstruating woman was enough to cause one to be “cut off from his people,” then clearly to “abstain … from blood” means to abstain from any use of blood, just as one abstains from any form of sexual immorality and idolatry, not just things eaten.<br />
<br />
Note also that it adds “and from what is strangled.” This is the reference to eating blood, not the previous mention of blood, as the law spoke against eating meat that was killed without draining the blood. (Referred to as “strangled” because the animal is not eviscerated, but left undamaged by a knife.) So the restrictions on Christians extended to anything that caused contamination with blood. It is also interesting to note that it has been scientifically proven that actual strangulation produces capillary hemorrhaging in the animal, which cannot be bled from the carcass.<br />
<br />
So anything written in the law regarding those things is also binding upon Christians, except for the punishments and sacrifices. (Ro 7:6; 2 Corinthians 3:5-9) Therefore, the admonition to “abstain … from blood” is absolute and not restricted to food. According to the law, the blood was specifically to be poured out on the ground. (Deuteronomy 12:16) Does that sound like it leaves any room for other uses? So if Satan offers a blood transfusion as we exsanguinate, what would Jesus expect us to say? “Go away, Satan! For it is written: ‘You should pour it out on the ground like water.’”<br />
<br />
Really, if we are allowed to drink Christ’s blood only symbolically, how is it we should accept the literal blood of sinful men, whose diseases may be passed to us in the process? Had we not refused blood transfusions from 1944, how many of us would have died from the AIDS pandemic that contaminated the blood supply, or from the many strains of hepatitis, chagas disease and other diseases that still cannot be screened? How many of us would have died from other blood-related complications, all so they could prolong their lives a little longer in this system of things?<br />
<br />
<h3>
God's Word Has Not Changed</h3>
Besides sinful human blood being a carrier and cause of disease, why is the Bible’s stand on blood so important? Because it expresses God's view of blood and why he restricted its use only to sarifices, which prefigured Christ's sacrifice, saying:<br /><br />
<div style="margin-left: 0.25in; margin-right: 0.25in;">
"For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I myself have given it on the altar for you to make atonement for yourselves, because it is the blood that makes atonement by means of the life in it." (Le 17:11)</div>
<br />
Paul reconfirmed this when he explained that Christ’s blood is for cleansing away nearly all sins, saying:<br /><br />
<div style="margin-left: 0.25in; margin-right: 0.25in;">
“Yes, according to the Law nearly all things are cleansed with blood, and unless blood is poured out no forgiveness takes place.” (Hebrews 9:22)</div>
<br />
Note that the blood must be “poured out” for the forgiveness to take place. In other words, it is not the sprinkling with blood that brings forgiveness. (Hebrews 10:22) Nor is it the blood of animals or of “ordinary” men that brings salvation, but the blood of the Christ that was poured out on the torture stake is what cleanses us from sin. (Hebrews 9:11-14; 10:1-4, 29)<br />
<br />
Now if it is because of the atonement on account of the life given in Christ's blood that Jehovah restricts eating blood even to Christians, why would that logic not also apply to blood transfusions? The blood of animal sacrifices brought life for a period of time and we are prohibited from using it to sustain our flesh, and Christ's perfect human sacrifice, once for all time, provides us with life everlating.<br />
<br />
Thus, to seek to preserve our lives with the blood of men or of animals would be a disrespect of the life-saving value of the blood of our savior, Jesus Christ. How much greater value his blood is than the blood we would try to prolong our lives with in this system of things!<br />
<br />
<h3>
Do Blood Transfusions "Save Lives"?</h3>
Blood transfusions have failed to actually prove "life-saving". Life-prolonging and "life-saving" are two different things. Blood transfusions are actually about blood volume expansion and carrying oxygen through the body. There are alternatives to this discussed in the organization's publications and videos, and at the point where those alternatives stop being effective, there is little chance blood transfusions will do more than prolong and may even add to suffering because of rejection factors and other undesireable side effects. In fact many people die because of the blood transfusions themselves.<br />
<br />
What is the point to the trade off of the mortality of seriously ill people for the mortality of otherwise healthy people? And if the sickly person is reducing their health so that they only prolonging their suffering and the inevitable, then what kind of choice is that?<br />
<br />
<h3>
But What About Mark 3:4?</h3>
At Mark 3:4, Jesus referred to the Jewish Pikuach, a special ruling which says that it is okay to save a life on the Sabbath.<br />
<br />
The question of blood is of greater concern than whether someone's life is saved on the Sabbath. The Maccabees even went to war on the Sabbath. But the Sabbath has nothing to do with giving us salvation. Salvation comes through the blood of a sinless man spilled as a lawbreaker. He gave up his life for us and we are under obligation to give up our lives for our brothers. (1Jo 3:16) Why not for Christ? Jesus himself said: "Whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it."—Matthew 16:25<br />
<br />
Paul wrote:<br />
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 0.25in; margin-right: 0.25in;">
"For if we practice sin willfully after having received the accurate knowledge of the truth, there is no longer any sacrifice for sins left, but there is a certain fearful expectation of judgment and a burning indignation that is going to consume those in opposition. Anyone who has disregarded the Law of Moses dies without compassion on the testimony of two or three. How much greater punishment do you think a person will deserve who has trampled on the Son of God and who has regarded as of ordinary value the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and who has outraged the spirit of undeserved kindness with contempt? For we know the One who said: 'Vengeance is mine; I will repay.' And again: 'Jehovah will judge his people.' It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God."—Hebrews 10:26-31</div>
<br />
Now note the fundamental points in those verses. Practicing sin willfully, trampling on the Son of God by regarding his blood as ordinary, which is a greater sin than breaking the Law, and contemptuously outraging the spirit of undeserved kindness.<br />
<br />
It is one thing to submit to sin in a moment of fear, which is why the GB has allowed for moments of weakness in their most recent update regarding blood transfusions, but to continue to make that decision over and over, as in the case of some with chronic conditions, is to treat the blood of Christ as having an ordinary or mundane value. It is disregarding the value of Christ's sacrifice. If one does not value the blood of Christ, then they do not value the gift it brings: everlasting life.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Allowing Room for Conscience</h3>
But now, we also permit ones to put their own conscience to use by allowing them to decide for themselves what they believe constitutes "blood" up to a certain point that does not include genetic material found only in blood, namely whole blood and major blood fractions. Some will not touch anything that comes from the human circulatory system in which blood resides. Others, however, will accept any non-genetic "minor blood fractions" because they can be found apart from blood. But those things having to do directly with red and white blood cells and platelets themselves are kept off-limits.<br />
<br />
<h4>
A Question Every True Christian Must Ask</h4>
The question is how sacred we view the blood he spilled on the torture stake. Is it something precious that provides everlasting life or just basic human blood that may or may not keep us breathing a little longer? Are we so attached to this life that we are willing to sacrifice our prospects for everlasting life? Is our limited view so important that it prevails in interpretations that could mean our prospects of everlasting life?<br />
<br />
This is not simply a matter of following a rule. It is a matter of faithfulness to God and Christ. We put God before all other things, even our own lives. Performing one of the other sins, such as bowing to an idol, simply to keep living a little longer in this system would mean we hold our own lives as more important than God. (Acts 20:24) It would likewise ruin our prospects for everlasting life. But by remaining faithful to God, it shows what place God serves in our lives and demonstrates our faith in the resurrection hope. We put God first and everything else follows, rather than the other way around.<br />
<br />
When Satan offered Jesus all the kingdoms of the world in exchange for an act of worship, he was effectively saying "worship me and I will not kill you." But Jesus told him, "Go away, Satan! For it is written: 'It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.'" (Matthew 4:8-11) That same choice is put before us whenever one of our lives is on the line to compromise our loyalty to Jehovah.<br />
<br />
By our pouring out blood, rather than accepting it as a means to temporarily prolong our sinful life, we show our faith in the permanent atoning sacrifice of Jesus and in the Scriptures and our hope of everlasting life. (Leviticus 17:11, 12; Heb 9:22; 10:29)<br />
<br />
This is our stand and we will not compromise.<br />
<br />
For a more medically relevant and scientific understanding of the issue, see the post: <a href="http://dismythed.blogspot.com/2013/09/positive-media-for-bloodless-surgery.html">Positive Media for Bloodless Surgery and Non-Blood Management</a><br />
<br />
Also, this video by the Australian National Blood Authority is very enlightening:<br />
<a href="https://www.blood.gov.au/patient-blood-management-pbm">Patient Blood Management (PBM)</a><br />
<br />
Our official stand is posted here:<br />
<a href="https://www.jw.org/en/medical-library/strategies-downloads/religious-and-ethical-position-medical-therapy/#?insight[search_id]=a975cac5-1ec3-4d60-8117-5a3aff650809&insight[search_result_index]=3">Religious and Ethical Position on Medical Therapy and Related Matters</a>
<div style="text-align: center; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: center; width: 100%;">
<img border="0" data-original-height="408" data-original-width="1450" height="90" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiBC7iFjimozYma_8yN02S2mC4qXb_AQtjavN7CJlj6zf3L8x1pa9OFN5HqMPYrHCJyU1S87MhK-gr0paRMqqtqLwzY8psEDnjR5_9hyXhz1w9ohBW85PhRFrJ1DO6dz25xmNXErv-c_ADxtHFDd4-XfRlRZ2qWI3Vxx7w9v0nrYF0FJFdCSffawwluMg=s320" width="320" /></div>Dismythedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09872186295008632240noreply@blogger.com14tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-413969216273696296.post-31479851920657473602018-05-21T14:40:00.005-05:002022-08-20T08:53:19.427-05:00Flip-side News: Lauren Stuart Did Not Do It Because of Shunning [Opposers Dismythed]We withheld writing this response to the Lauren Stuart murder-suicide until we had all the facts regarding the incident from the police. Now that the actual police report has been completed and filed by the police, let us take a look at the real facts.<br />
<br />
First, we would like to express our condolences to Lauren's father and 11 siblings, whose feelings the media has failed to consider because of their religious affiliation. We know that this time cannot have been easy for them. Jehovah is with them and the love of their families and friends in their congregations and their worldwide brotherhood is with them.<br />
<br />
On February 15th, the day after Lauren Stuart celebrated Valentine's day together with her family, Lauren killed her son, daughter, husband and family dog and then turned the gun on herself.<br />
<br />
Both the media and our apostates have been quick to prejudiciously and publically humiliate Jehovah's Witnesses over the shunning issue without any evidence except the word of one single apostate close to Lauren. That apostate had been quick to invade a local kingdom hall the very next day and tastelessly use Lauren's death as a publicity stunt to highlight her own anti-disfellowshipping agenda. One reporter we were in contact with stated that her goal for her article was to "show how shunning hurts". However, the police report shows that shunning had nothing to do with this incident.<br />
<br />
This public lynching has been comparable to a doctor misdiagnosing a patient because he has already decided what the problem is before he collects the facts, or a cop planting evidence to support his narrative. It is an abuse of power, in this case, journalistic power, resulting in yellow journalism.<br />
<br />
In her suicide note, Lauren Stuart herself wrote that the cause is that "I allowed evil into my heart when I chose not to accept God’s free love and it made me sick inside," and that she "can't do it anymore." Did you catch that? She herself believed that she became "sick inside" as a result of her personal choice, and <b><i>not</i></b> because she was shunned. She did not blame her shunning, but merely identified it in a video as a symptom of her "path of destruction".<br />
<br />
Then she said in her note, "I killed my family because I know my death would stumble them" because of the pain it would cause them. Nowhere does her note or recorded videos cite her having been shunned 10 years earlier as the direct cause, or a contributing factor, of her actions.<br />
<br />
What was the conclusion of the police? They concluded: "It would appear that Lauren immersed herself in her own world of her version of religion and increased depression.” Again, did you catch that? "Her own world of her version of religion". They do not believe her religious views lined up with the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses. Along with that, they cite "increased depression".<br />
<br />
The fact is, it is common for some to conclude on their own, and not as a result of our teachings, that they are somehow beyond God's mercy. We fight that viewpoint all the time. It is a viewpoint, not caused by our teachings, but by the depressed person's own view of themselves as a result of their depression alone, which leads to a low self-image. Our publications have outspokenly identified such a viewpoint as "a satanic lie," that is, a lie that paints God as unloving and harsh.<br />
<br />
If you have tried saying that she committed suicide because she was shunned, then you need to eat your crow and correct this lie or else you make yourself a liar. If you try to twist the facts to justify your shunning claim, it will not make it any less a lie. Her act was neither a protest nor statement about shunning at all. She was a severely depressed woman who used her own erroneous reasoning, based on some perversion of what she was once taught, as justification for what she herself called a "selfish act".<br />
<br />
You can find these facts reported in this skewed article: <a href="https://www.freep.com/story/news/2018/05/18/keego-harbor-murder-suicide-lauren-stuart/620709002/?from=new-cookie" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">How shunned Jehovah's Witness mom killed her entire family</span></a>. Note how the title and content once again tries to emphacize the shunning aspect, even though the facts presented in the article itself show that shunning played no role in Lauren's decision to kill herself and her family. She also did <b><i>not</i></b> identify it as contributing to her depression, identifying, instead, her own choices and childhood trauma as the sole causes of her depression. She made <b><i>no mention</i></b> of the organization's policies on shunning or any other issue.
<div style="text-align: center; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: center; width: 100%;">
<img border="0" data-original-height="408" data-original-width="1450" height="90" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiBC7iFjimozYma_8yN02S2mC4qXb_AQtjavN7CJlj6zf3L8x1pa9OFN5HqMPYrHCJyU1S87MhK-gr0paRMqqtqLwzY8psEDnjR5_9hyXhz1w9ohBW85PhRFrJ1DO6dz25xmNXErv-c_ADxtHFDd4-XfRlRZ2qWI3Vxx7w9v0nrYF0FJFdCSffawwluMg=s320" width="320" /></div>Dismythedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09872186295008632240noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-413969216273696296.post-76299495980350818752018-05-02T13:35:00.006-05:002022-08-20T12:35:44.620-05:00Child Abuse: Child Sexual Abuse Information Packet [Opposers Dismythed]The organization posted their internal memo online today. It is linked below.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.jw.org/en/news/legal/legal-resources/information/packet-jw-scripturally-based-position-child-protection/" target="_blank"><b><span style="color: blue; font-size: xlarge; text-decoration: underline;">Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Scripturally Based Position on Child Protection</span></b></a><br />
<br />
<h2>
Highlights </h2>
State authority punishes crimes, not us. <b>(#3, #10)</b><br />
<br />
Membership review is strictly religious, not a matter for the state. <b>(#10)</b><br />
<br />
Parents/Guardians are solely accountable for their own child's safety, not the organization. <b>(#6)</b><br />
<br />
We do not isolate children from parents for any activity. <b>(#7)</b><br />
<br />
Elders must be kind to abuse victims. <b>(#8, #9)</b><br />
<br />
Elders contact the branch to ensure compliance with child abuse reporting laws. <b>(#5)</b><br />
<br />
Elders are never to punish reporting and inform parents and victims of their right to report. <b>(#4)</b><br />
<br />
Reporting to the legal authorities may even be encouraged for specific reasons. <b>(#5)</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
Mental health consultation is never discouraged. <b>(#8)</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
Elders do not protect known perpetrators of child sexual abuse, <b>(#3)</b>
<div style="text-align: center; width: 100%;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: center; width: 100%;">
<img border="0" data-original-height="408" data-original-width="1450" height="90" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiBC7iFjimozYma_8yN02S2mC4qXb_AQtjavN7CJlj6zf3L8x1pa9OFN5HqMPYrHCJyU1S87MhK-gr0paRMqqtqLwzY8psEDnjR5_9hyXhz1w9ohBW85PhRFrJ1DO6dz25xmNXErv-c_ADxtHFDd4-XfRlRZ2qWI3Vxx7w9v0nrYF0FJFdCSffawwluMg=s320" width="320" /></div>Dismythedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09872186295008632240noreply@blogger.com22tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-413969216273696296.post-80038677538394021042017-11-19T07:16:00.018-06:002022-09-22T11:22:41.213-05:00Do Not Stop at Asking the Question [Opposers Dismythed]Just before he finally passed away, Jesus asked a potent question: "Eʹli, Eʹli, laʹma sa·bach·thaʹni?" This translates as "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" or "My God, my God, why have you left me?"<br />
<br />
This was a profound question. One could even see it as the question a vengeful opposition member might ask to cause others to abandon God. That former member could pose the question as an accusation, then say, "It is because you did not care about me! You pretended to care! But inside, you were just using me and you used me up! And at the moment I needed you most, you turned your back on me. You should be ashamed of yourself! No one listen to God! He is deceiving you for selfish reasons! He doesn't care about you!" But, of course, anyone who believes Jesus is the Son of God and knows the Scriptures, knows that this is not the kind of question Jesus was asking.<br />
<br />
Jesus' question was a quote from a Scripture that gives us a way of handling a question for which we do not have a clear answer. Yes, he was not querying God. Jesus was querying his disciples. Even with his dying breaths he was teaching us. No wonder he is called "the great teacher". Jesus was giving his disciples homework to do.<br />
<br />
The Hebrew Scriptures are where the question was first asked. Surely, if we ignored those Scriptures, we would never have the answer to that question. That is why it is vitally important for a Christian to have an intimate knowledge of the Scriptures. Without that knowledge, we will get mislead by wayward thinking. So what was the answer to the question?<div>
<br />
If you read Psalm 22, you will see the question asked in the first verse, then the psalmist goes on to recount that Jehovah saves his people even when it seems they have no hope. And then he relates his situation to God, how hopeless it seems. Then he makes his very specific request and proceeds to declare his faith in God, promising to make Jehovah's name known. He proceeds to recount, in general, Jehovah's history of saving his people, then he promises to recount Jehovah's saving acts to others and the purpose of doing such: so that they may repent and turn back to God. Then he recalls the hope that Jehovah has given to everyone putting faith in God's name and states that they will recount firsthand accounts of Jehovah's saving acts to all generations so that they too will have faith.<br />
<br />
So what was the true answer to his question? What was the thing that we have no way of knowing without a knowledge of the Scriptures? Isaiah gave the answer when he prophesied about Jesus' death: "It was Jehovah’s will to crush him, and he let him become sick. If you will present his life as a guilt offering, he will see his offspring, he will prolong his days, and through him the delight of Jehovah will have success. Because of his anguish, he will see and be satisfied. By means of his knowledge the righteous one, my servant, will bring a righteous standing to many people, and their errors he will bear."<br />
<br />
Thus, it was not any complacency or malicious negligence on Jehovah's part that Jesus suffered and died. It was for a very specific purpose: in order that many may be saved through faith that Jesus' sacrifice carried off their sins far away so that they would not be used against us.<br />
<br />
But more than that, Jesus' question was a personal expression of faith meant to show us how to overcome feelings of despair and anguish and to overcome questions of faith. What was Jesus trying to tell us? That when we undergo severe trials, or have been bit with opposition poison, we must not get caught up on the question and instead seek the answer in what we know about the one who seems to be the cause of our anguish, or who appears to have neglected us. By reviewing what he knew about Jehovah, Jesus was able to accept what was taking place and we can too, no matter how distressing the circumstances.<br />
<br />
Additionally, like Jesus, in trying times we should draw closer to Jehovah through prayer and the preaching work. Helping others to have and strengthen faith will help us to have and strengthen our own faith as we look to the hope.<br />
<br />
<h2>
A Lack of Faith</h2>
Now why did I just go through that? What does that have to do with the purpose of this blog? Because our disgruntled former members are all victims of their own lack of faith. Instead of thinking about what they know of others in the faith, of the elders in their congregation, of the governing body and of Jehovah, they obsess over their circumstances or feel Jehovah's spirit go away from them.<br />
<br />
That is why the apostle John said: "They went out from us, but they were not of our sort; for if they had been of our sort, they would have remained with us. But they went out so that it might be shown that not all are of our sort." (1 John 2:19) What sort is that? "The sort who have faith for the preserving of our lives." (Hebrews 10:39) "For faith is not a possession of all people." (2 Thessalonians 3:2)<br />
<br />
A person with faith has faith, not just in Jehovah God, but also in others who serve him faithfully. They don't expect the circumstances to always be perfect. However, to think that one imperfect man, namely oneself, knows better than anyone else is arrogant and is what has led to all the various sects of Christendom. Such a person lacks both humility and insight.<br />
<br />
The person without faith immediately goes to the negative answer. Consider, when a mother disciplines her child, does she do it because she hates the child? The child might think so, but if the child had faith in their mother, the child would reconsider its thought, knowing her mother, remembering her expressions of love, the scraped knees she mended, and how some of her discipline protected the child. So the child with faith would know that the mother loves the child and has the child's best interests at heart. So the child stops looking for the worst in their mother and accepts the discipline, then remembers next time not to look for the worst because they do not want to cause their mother undue distress or experience the discipline all over again.<br />
<br />
Jehovah's Witnesses can have that faith, not just in Jehovah and Jesus, but also in those taking the lead among us, because we are convinced that they genuinely have our best interests at heart. No other religion can claim that. When you look around, you see priests being allowed to molest children by the thousands while our opposers lyingly compare us, and see evangelists fleecing their flocks, popes vying for political leverage for their own advantage and sending their own members off as fodder in unholy wars about greed for their own gain, or rousing their members against Jehovah's people, purposefully misleading them with doctrines they know to be false simply to fill their coffers from which they embezzle right before their eyes and betray the one whom they claim to serve.<br />
<br />
<h2>
Examine Your Own Experience Before You Make a Judgment</h2>
Now look at yourself. Do you make perfect decisions? When you make what you believe to be the right decision, do others always view your decisions as selfless, right or perfect, even when it proves to be such? Did you learn all you know about the Bible because you learned it on your own, in a vacuum? Do you go around accusing everyone of being ignorant because they don't know something you think you know? Are you always right? Is there some religion that you think has perfect knowledge? Do you think you have that perfect knowledge of the Bible? Has God commissioned you through an angel? Has his Son commissioned you?<br />
<br />
Look at the ones who caused you to question. Have their lives improved by opposing the organization? Have they become better people? More loving? More fair? More knowledgeable about the Bible and God's will? Are they performing the house to house ministry that Christ commanded? (Luke 10:1-10) Or have they abandoned belief in God altogether? Answer those questions and you will know the truth about them and that truth will free you from their lies. It is all about recognizing fruitage as to whether it is good or bad. (Matthew 7:15-20)<br />
<br />
Examine your own motives. Are you just looking for a way out of performing the ministry? Why? Might it be because you are tired of the disrespect by people of the world? Fearing the judgmental glances or false rumors by family and former friends? Are you seeking to be free of obligations and responsibilities? Free of being told what to do and how to live? (Really, no one tells you, do they? Is it not just your own perception that you are being told what to do? Are you not relying too much on the words of others and not making your own informed choices?)<br />
<br />
Did someone you care deeply about get shunned? Is your anger at the circumstance not because you care more about what you want than what Jehovah wants? Do you scoff at "speaking in agreement" because you are so arrogant as to demand you not only be heard, but obeyed? Should others obey you? Should the elders obey you? Should the governing body obey you? Should Christ? Should God? Who put you in the judgment seat? Who declared your word so important? Whom do you obey? Is it not your own belly, or the opposition member who misleads you?<br />
<br />
Don't just gloss over those questions. Answer them completely and objectively, not to conveniently fit the paradigm you have created for yourself, but to find the actual facts. Think about why you come to the answers you do and whether it is selfishly motivated or not.<br />
<br />
<h2>
"Moment of Clarity"</h2>
Some claim to have "a moment of clarity" as they like to call it, yet it is anything but clarity. If they had clarity, instead of jumping to conclusions, they would think more deeply about what they know and what they have known. Clarity comes from objective analysis, not a feeling and jumping to conclusions about that feeling.<br />
<br />
A "moment of clarity" is the feeling that you are in an <i>external</i> mindset. Some might describe it as a feeling of being disembodied. Others will feel like they are being snapped back into a former mindset. It is often confused with "cognitive dissonance", which is actually something different, though may relate to it in most cases.* It is also not to be mistaken for one's "calling".** But a "moment of clarity" occurs when your entire reality experiences a massive shift to a completely different perception, as if it is the only perception you have ever known.<br />
<ul><span style="font-size: small;">* Cognitive dissonance is when a former way of thinking is trying to reassert itself through decision-making, such as when a person who normally does bad things is wanting to do good, but desiring to do bad, or inversely when someone who normally does good things turns to do bad, only to have their conscience strike them. It also occurs when one is accustomed to doing something by habit, but then tries doing it differently. The former way tries to reassert itself, making it difficult to perfectly execute the new action or think in a new way. We experience cognitive dissonance any and every time we try to change a habit or learn something new or retain conflicting viewpoints in mind. Everyone experiences it innumerable times throughout their lives. It is a normal part of learning and growing. This may precede a "moment of clarity", (see below) but is not the same.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: small;">** The "calling" occurs when one recognizes the truth and is inexorably drawn to it through Jehovah's holy spirit, becoming convinced that it is the truth. For some, such as myself, this can be the result of seemingly miraculous circumstances, and for others, it may simply occur as a revelation. A second calling may also occur later, whether through heavenly anointing or spiritual assignment. For example, Paul was called to the truth by Jesus himself at Acts 9:3-9, but did not receive his heavenly anointing and spiritual assignment until a few days later, shown in verses 15, 17 and 18. A "moment of clarity" can occur at any time after the calling to the truth, or anointing or spiritual assignment, but is not that experience.</span></ul>
<br />
In "a moment of clarity", the person perceives that they could easily walk away from the life they have been living at that moment, without any connection to it, and go off into the world as if it is what is supposed to be. To that person, it is like a fog lifting, like waking up from a dream. In reality, it is Jehovah lifting his spirit to allow them to make up their mind whether to return to the world or continue in the truth with unwavering conviction. (For some people, a similar experience may occur as a result of a dissociative experience or psychotic break. The cause is different, but the experience may be quite similar and the results can be harmless or just as devastating.)<br />
<br />
For someone who has never been away from the truth, such "moment of clarity" would seem new and alien, and may seem seductive as they would suddenly see Jehovah's organization from a worldly perspective, as if experiencing reality for the very first time, when, in fact, it is just the opposite. They are experiencing the absence of Jehovah's spirit and guidance for the first time. For those of us who have ever spent any time in the world, whether not raised in the truth or gone inactive for any time, it is like returning to our former life before becoming involved in the truth.<br />
<br />
I myself experienced that "moment of clarity" back when I was still studying. (Others may experience it years after baptism.) It was like waking up from a dream, but waking up in a waterless wasteland void of humidity. But the second it happened, I knew exactly what it was. It frightened me because I knew it was wrong. But instead of just assuming I had woke up from some kind of brainwashing, as some of our opposers like to call it, or that it was "evil" or from Satan, as someone lacking in objectivity might call it, I understood that it was a chemical reset in my brain that was allowing me to objectively resolve conflicting viewpoints that had been warring in my subconscious. (The cognitive dissonance that preceded it.) That moment allowed me to objectively compare what I had been taught by Jehovah's Witnesses―and how much my thinking and circumstances had improved by having that knowledge―to what I had beforehand.<br />
<br />
I also thought about how it was I got the truth in the first place, through circumstances that in no way could be counted as coincidence, and I thought about the genuine concern my congregation showed that no other church I had visited ever showed. Thus, by knowledge, by careful examination, I was able to objectively examine why I was doing it and what it meant for me. I also thought about what my life would be like without it, and who I would be, returning to old ways. I remembered the unsavory attitudes of every single one of our disgruntled former members I had ever seen up to that point, both in person and online, and I knew I did not want to be that person, bitter and void of spirituality. So I voluntarily chose, with soundness of mind, to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses, and then my thinking snapped back to the reality I chose, simply by choosing it. It felt like returning to a well-watered region.<br />
<br />
<h2>
Think</h2>
So if you are a Witness, and something or someone causes you to question the organization, do not get stuck on the question, jumping to the conclusion that the answer is only bad. Instead, think about what you know about your brothers and sisters in the organization, about their intentions and about their desire, not to protect themselves, but to protect all of us. Think about what you know about Jehovah from the Scriptures. Compare your circumstances to your past or to others you preach to.<br />
<br />
Think about who you are and your own motivations and priorities. Be objective and honest instead of jumping to conclusions that happen to be convenient and self-serving. Be brave with yourself and face who you are rather than giving in to self-pity and desire, laying blame on everyone else.<br />
<br />
Don't be an opposer's tool. Be accountable to yourself and to Jehovah God. You decide who you are going to be. You decide what you are going to hope in. Do not be suckered into false decisions by your own desires and false justifications. But every decision has an outcome controlled only by the decision itself and you are in control. The choice is being put before you and you are the one who needs to look at what you actually know, not getting caught on the question.—De 11:26-28.<br />
<br />
Eve got caught on the question, adopting Satan's views without question, letting him deceive her, failing to consider what she knew about Jehovah. She did not think about the fact that Jehovah created her, that he created her husband first and that she should have gone to him first. She should have sought clarifications from Jehovah about the situation. But instead, she took a disgruntled angel at his word and it cost her, her husband and their descendants their lives and happiness. The rest of their brief lives were miserable as they watched their offspring descend into madness, disease, miscarriages and violence and Eve found out just how much Jehovah had been helping her, but it was too late. She lost out on life and eternal happiness because she did not think deeply about the answer to the question, but let someone else do her thinking for her.<br />
<br />
Are you going to stop thinking at the question and let our opposers do the thinking for you? Or are you going to look past convenient answers and think deeply about something more than your own belly?<br />
<br />
For more on this style of critical thinking, see the video: <a href="https://youtu.be/dItUGF8GdTw" target="_blank">5 tips to improve your critical thinking</a></div><br /><br />
<div style="text-align: center; width: 100%;">
<img border="0" data-original-height="408" data-original-width="1450" height="90" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiBC7iFjimozYma_8yN02S2mC4qXb_AQtjavN7CJlj6zf3L8x1pa9OFN5HqMPYrHCJyU1S87MhK-gr0paRMqqtqLwzY8psEDnjR5_9hyXhz1w9ohBW85PhRFrJ1DO6dz25xmNXErv-c_ADxtHFDd4-XfRlRZ2qWI3Vxx7w9v0nrYF0FJFdCSffawwluMg=s320" width="320" /></div>
Dismythedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09872186295008632240noreply@blogger.com44tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-413969216273696296.post-26930620723956854392017-09-30T21:20:00.000-05:002017-10-18T12:02:04.597-05:00JWs Understood: How Common Is Shunning?<div style="text-align: center;">
This is our first video. It shows how common, and even mundane shunning is. In fact, it is that mundanity that allows our opposers to highlight our specific use of it because people do not realize that they themselves do it, even frequently.<br />
<br />
Let us know how you enjoy the video either here or in our <a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/415861045476146/" target="_blank">Facebook Group.</a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="true" allowtransparency="true" frameborder="0" height="285" scrolling="no" src="https://www.facebook.com/plugins/video.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fjwsunderstood%2Fvideos%2F1832735607056829%2F&show_text=0&width=500" style="border: none; overflow: hidden;" width="500"></iframe></div>
</div>
<br />
Be sure to check out our media pages to find out which way you would like to use to keep up with our videos:<br />
<br />
<b>Facebook</b> (Recommended)<br />
<a href="https://www.facebook.com/jwsunderstood/">https://www.facebook.com/jwsunderstood/</a><br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/jwsunderstood/">https://www.facebook.com/groups/jwsunderstood/</a><br />
<br />
<b>Twitter</b><br />
<a href="https://twitter.com/JWs_Understood">https://twitter.com/JWs_Understood</a> (@JWs_Understood)<br />
<br />
<b>G+</b><br />
<a href="https://plus.google.com/u/3/113982320677380127227">https://plus.google.com/u/3/113982320677380127227</a><br />
<br />
<b>Youtube</b> (Not recommended)<br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCST1pMAN-oZqv8DqIhci7kA">https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCST1pMAN-oZqv8DqIhci7kA</a>Dismythedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09872186295008632240noreply@blogger.com8