I KNEW the beard OK or not rational was familiar, but couldn’t place it!
That’s IT!
… on a related note … it’s hard to remember that the way French Poodles look is not their fault ….
————————————————————
Are cats for true Christians?
Is it appropriate for a Christian to own a cat, in light of their past pagan religious affiliation and the medical information that is now coming to light? -J.R., U.S.A.
It would be misleading to answer this question with either a simple 'Yes' or a 'No.' The Scriptural answer of necessity must be a 'qualified' one, and it is easy to see why. Many conscientious ones among Jehovah's people today have wondered if Christians should own cats in view of their somewhat sordid symbolic history and the many health risks associated therewith. While we would not wish to state an opinion on what must remain a matter of personal preference, what is acceptable to one person may, although unintentionally, stumble another. This can become a life-or-death issue since to move the steps of a brother away from the path of Christ's ransom sacrifice is tantamount to 'putting a millstone around the neck and being thrown into the sea.' -Matt. 18:6. Clearly, in a matter where our eternal salvation is involved, the mature Christian will not pursue a purely selfish course based on his own personal choices, but will adopt a congregational viewpoint as scripturally prescribed.
First, let us consider what most scholars agree is the etymology (word derivation) for the English term 'cat'. When analyzed with the Latin 'felis cattus domesticus', the original Koine Greek is 'cur.io huma bes-tia', means 'a contemporary housecat with all of its beastly identifying characteristics and behavior.' A faithful servant of Jehovah would quickly notice that the nature of a cat is so marked as being 'beastly'. The Bible makes clear reference to this condition when describing parts of Satan's organizations, both past and present. For instance, consider the fearsome 'beasts' as described in the book of Daniel or the 'scarlet colored wild beast' in Rev. 17:3. The demons entered the swine when rebuked by Jesus showing the potential harm and malevolent spirit control to which a Christian may be potentially exposed. Lest we forget the story of Nebuchadnezzar and the condition of God's enemy when being humbled by Jehovah, the student of God's Holy word would ask - is it by accident that the Bible in the book of Daniel describes his experience as a 'beast' of the field? Hardly so!
Clearly, the Bible - by using this kind of terminology - shows beyond any reasonable doubt that the basic nature of cats, while created perfect by God, has become evil or 'beastlike' since the fall of Adam six thousand years ago, and more probably, since the Great Flood of Noah's time (c2350 B.C.E.). This is a development of the condition borne by the 'Original Serpent', the 'Great Dragon' Lucifer himself. (Gen. 3:1) Indeed, modern studies of classification of cats, while not necessarily being reliable as they may be based on the discredited 'theory' of evolution, strongly associate felines with serpents (despite some external differences in physiology and morphology, which confuse those who do not study these matters deeply).
There are numerous reasons why a loyal dedicated servant of God should use his Bible-trained conscience to arrive at a proper understanding of why cats are not advisable as pets or companions for Christians. Consider, then, the following facts:
It was a common practice in ancient Egypt to worship or idolize cats as 'gods'. Indeed, after death many cats were mummified, venerated and sacrifices were made to them. As Christians we observe not only the Mosaic Law, but also the 'necessary things,' identified by the Apostles at Jerusalem, to include the following edict: '(1) Abstain from sacrifices to idols'. We are to 'guard ourselves from idols' and 'worship no other gods'. Such feline influence could lead to idolatry and thereby 'grieve Jehovah's Spirit' with tragic consequences. May we never take for granted Jehovah's wise and generous counsel brought to you by your spiritual brothers in the pages of this magazine!
The Bible does not say that cats were not present at Herod's birthday party when John the Baptist was beheaded. History shows that cats were most likely present at this tragic party that Jehovah did not approve of. Clearly then, as loyal Christians, why would we even want to associate with animals that are without a doubt of such bad influence, remembering how true are the Bible's words: 'Bad associations spoil useful habits'! -1 Cor. 15:33. Some have exposed themselves to possible spiritual contamination in this way. To invite cats in our house is to toy with disaster. Can one deny that the chance exists that the same grave consequences could visit your home that fell upon John? Clearly, God disapproved of this 'birthday' party. Should we not then disapprove (without showing any malicious intent, only Godly hatred) of cats the way the scriptures recommend?
Throughout history, particularly in the middle ages and reaching its climax in the Salem Witch trials of the seventeenth century, cats were recognized by the forces of Christendom as familiars and carriers if not direct incarnates of demons. While, in common with most beliefs of the empire of false religion, no evidence has ever been found to support this, the symbolism of cats still remain within the public psyche, and involvement with them reflects poorly on God's footstools and footstep followers. Many pagan faiths still conclude that black cats bring ill-luck and possess demonic forces, while we have shown that it is, instead, all cats that share these perceived characteristics. Since cats were associated with the devil, could we as faithful and dedicated servants of God therefore contaminate ourselves by exposure to a 'living symbol' of satanic incarnation? How would this reflect on God's name and that of his visible, earthly organization? Would we want to be linked with a symbol of Satan, the 'god of this beastly system of things'?
The careful student of the Bible will acknowledge that nowhere within it is any species ('kind') of cat referred to in favorable terms. In fact, was it not lions of the first century who the Devil used to devour faithful Christians? Jehovah Himself 'stopped up the mouths of the lions' (Dan. 6:22) in Daniel's day. True, the small housecats of today are not quite lions, but being of the same accursed animal family used by God's enemies on numerous occasions throughout history, would it be wise or prudent to own one? In addition, by owing any type of cat (feline), would we not give an appearance of condoning their evil deeds throughout recorded Bible and secular history? The Bible makes clear that God's people are 'no part of this world' (John 15:19) and that we are 'not to share in the sins of others', consume lecithin within nutritive cereal or 'candy' bars, or do other things directly banned in Holy Scripture.
The demeanor of a cat is seen by many honest-hearted observers as reflecting some supernatural, unnatural proclivity towards malice or evil. And, it is a well-known fact that cats are impossible to tame, teach or raise in the truth. The cat has a rebellious, independent spirit. While the animal itself may be unaware of this tragic condition, it serves only its true master - Satan, the Devil.
The scriptures clearly indicate that neither Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, faithful Job, the Apostles, Jesus nor any other human bearing God's favor himself owned a cat. Should we simply assume that this is a mere coincidence? Surely not! This was most likely because they didn't want to be like the pagan contemporaries of their respective days who showed no regard for how God feels about owning a cat. In harmony with the pattern set by the faithful prophets and worthies of old, it would therefore not be fitting for the true Christian today to own a cat.
But, the most modern scientific evidence also supports the Biblical view. Contrary to popular beliefs among worldly people, cats are unhygienic animals. Recently the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) announced that 'Cats .. can shed Salmonella in their feces, which can spread the bacterial infection to humans'. Salmonella (salmonella typhimurium) creates a condition of 'week-long diarrhea, abdominal cramps and in some instances, hospitalization.' Would we be showing the proper respect to our life, Creator and to our 'neighbor' by exposing ourselves and others to this potentially deadly disease? Would this be seen by your brothers, and by those showing an interest in God's word, as giving a good witness?
Additionally, cats practice many unclean habits not befitting a Christian household: coughing up fur balls, licking inappropriate body areas on their own bodies (inappropriate handling) and even, in some cases, on the bodies of their human owners (wrongful motive?), urination on the floor, vocal and blatant promiscuity (unknown to any other species, all others being endowed with Godly chastity and decorum) and widespread sexual misconduct without the benefit or sanctity of holy matrimony, even orgiastic practices, substance abuse of catnip (an intoxicating herb) which produces conditions akin to drunkenness, stealing food from the table, producing ungodly sounds, excessive playfulness and the employment of devices not known to have been used by Jesus, the conducting of its unholy business under the cover of the darkness of night, and so on. What sort of example does this give our young ones endeavoring to faithfully serve Jehovah? The Bible clearly shows that 'neither fornicators .. nor thieves .. nor drunkards .. nor revilers .. will inherit the Kingdom.' (1 Cor. 6:9-11)
It must not be forgotten that the feline is a killer. It eats mice and their kind, which is forbidden to Christians and their pets (Lev. 11:29, Isa. 66:17). But, far more serious, is the matter of the wanton consumption of the undrained corpses of the victims of this nocturnal creature; eating bodies filled with God's sacred blood is not a matter to be trifled with (Gen. 9:3,4; Lev. 3:17; Deut. 12:16,23,24; Acts 15:20,28,29). In an earlier article in The Watchtower, we have shown that it would be improper for a Christian to permit a veterinarian to give blood transfusions to his pet, for animal feed known to contain blood to be served to a pet or a farm animal under one's jurisdiction, or to employ any fertilizer that is known to have blood in it (w64 2/15 127-8). By allowing one's cat to roam uncontrolled, the Christian becomes a willing party to, even a conspirator within, this serious breach of God's law of life.
In addition, the Apostle Paul admonishes us to 'quit mixing in company .. not even eating with such an unclean [one].' -1 Cor. 5:9-11; Mark 2:13-17. Although Paul was speaking primarily about Christians who fell into sin, there is no reason to conclude that this inspired Biblical principle cannot be applied to association with cats. Uncleanness in any form is condemned by Jehovah and the fact that the Apostle Paul made no distinction when it came to associating with housecats proves beyond a doubt to the right-thinking worshiper of Jehovah that loyal Christians must avoid all association with all sources of uncleanness. This would logically include animals that either harbor these tendencies or indulge in such practices.
Of course, while demonstrating one's obedience to God's lovingly-issued commandments, one must do so without any spirit of meanness or ill-will towards these Satanic creatures, though they represent God's enemies. Instead, mature Christians 'feel a loathing' toward those, including cats, who have voluntarily or otherwise made themselves God's enemies, and they leave it to Jehovah to execute vengeance. -Job 13:16; Romans 12:19; 2 John 9,10.
Are we not grateful for this insight on God's viewpoint regarding such matters? True worshipers follow closely God's mandates on cleanness to their eternal benefit! Sister N.K. from Virginia, U.S.A. tells us that since getting rid of her cat, she has not had to be preoccupied with cleaning the litter box or wasting valuable time better spent pursuing kingdom interests with the burden of purchasing cat food. This has allowed her to become a full-time pioneer; she finds that it is now easier to meet her allotted hours in field service. Godwin, a brother from Sierra Leone, puts it this way: 'I'm so grateful that God's organization is kept clean! It has freed me from the burden of owning a cat and all the spiritual pitfalls and financial commitments that go with it. I hope all the brothers will realize how the Devil subtly uses cats to corrupt and distract us from the disciple-making work.' (Matt. 24:14). What fine examples of faithfulness!
The question of how to dispose of one's unwanted cat is a serious matter. Would it be proper to hand over such a creature of Satan to a person of the world? We see no immediate problem with this, as such a person is already immersed in the wicked ways of this system of things, and so a beastly companion would be a fitting one indeed. They could accompany eachother on the road to destruction, through ignoring God's generous gift of life proffered via His spirit-begotten earthly organization. It is on this same sound principle that a Christian doctor would have no reason to deny blood transfusions to a worldly patient. If, on the other hand, one took the view stated on page 128 of the abovementioned Watchtower, and consider that the pet or any other animal is under the ultimate jurisdiction of a Christian, who therefore bears responsibilities (Eccl. 12:13,14; Jas. 4:17, 1 Pet. 3:21) that are essentially parental in nature. The cat is a dependant. In harmony with this, surely it is the parent's obligation before God to ensure the feline pet is treated as one would an unruly child who repeatedly refused to obey its parents, or of one who committed apostasy. Unfortunately in the case of human offspring, one is limited by the laws of the higher authorities of the land as to what scripturally-ordained punishment may be meted out, as compliance with both sets of laws is necessary in such areas. This may not always be the case in terms of felines, where the fact that we are not living in theocratic countries may not prove such an impediment to what God requires of us, as manmade law may not afford such unmerited protection to cats as it does to humans. God's soldiers would be mindful to apply, where the case merited it and local custom did not prohibit it, the principle of Deut. 21:18-21 which states that: 'In case a man happens to have a [dependant] who is stubborn and rebellious, he not listening to the voice of his [guardian], and they have corrected him but he will not listen to them, his [guardian] must also take hold of him and bring him out to the older men of his city and to the gate of his place, and they must say to the older men of his city, 'This [dependant] of ours is stubborn and rebellious; he is not listening to our voice, being a glutton and a drunkard.' Then all the men of his city must pelt him with stones, and he must die.' The mature follower of Jehovah will do well to be reminded of God's advice in page 503 of The Watchtower of November 15, 1952 where it was held that 'In the case where a father or mother or son or daughter is disfellowshiped, how should such person be treated by members of the family in their family relationship? .. We are not living today among theocratic nations where such members of our fleshly family relationship could be exterminated for apostasy from God and his theocratic organization, as was possible and was ordered in the nation of Israel in the wilderness of Sinai and in the land of Palestine. 'Thou shalt surely kill him; thy hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him to death with stones, because he hath sought to draw thee away from Jehovah thy God, .. And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is in the midst of thee.' -Deut. 13:6-11, AS.' Of course, we can take no legal responsibility for anything which results from your voluntary application of your interpretation of such Biblical principles as you may believe that we have brought to your attention.
As loyal followers of Jehovah's thinking on this matter, we can rejoice in the fact that in the new system, the incoming theocracy and World Order, the 'lion will lie down with the lamb' -Isa. 11:6-7. Yes, when Satan is finally abyssed, the 'beastly' nature of felines will be forever abolished, and they will be fit companions for humans on Paradise Earth! But until that rapidly-approaching time, God will reward all of our efforts to maintain integrity by loyally submitting to the leading of his spirit expressed through the loving guidance of the 'faithful and discreet slave'. -Matt. 24:45-47
You gave me an excellent new perspective through the example of Aaron and the Golden Calf and the Stockholm Syndrome.
That is why I commented before that the spiritual condition of JWs is in great danger.
They agree to have Modern Aaron (GB) tell them who and what YHVH is. They have come to love their Kidnappers, they depend on their words so much and most JWs cannot leave them, cannot escape.
Is it possible, Georgie, that you you and your transparent up and down voting sock puppet that AI is an acronym for “Applied Ignorance”?
It’s clear your TDS has evolved to include WDS … “… the sword that cuts both ways …”.
I should ask ChatGBT … it’s only wrong 55% of the time.
I think the current GB realizes it has a compilation of messes on its hands that can only accrue problematically. It's trying to dig itself out. But the fear is the pile is too deep. Ultimately the 1914 thing will implode on itself. Just a matter of time. Ultimately the blood policy will implode on itself. Just a matter of time. I think the society is looking for an exit ramp. Too many problems, too many informational sources. It'll only snowball.
I understand about the “Organization” that their stated goals are righteous, wholesome, and good.
I understand that of all the religions on Earth Jehovah’s Witnesses alone have the core truths.
I even understand why it is normal and to be expected as normal why 85% of Watchtower Policies are irrational, dangerous drivel.
Robots will never be human until they become as naturally ignorantly evil as we are.
There are several codified “Cowboy Codes” which I also use for guidance.
One item states “You should feed your animals before you feed yourself …”.
A really good idea, but to imply it is a command from God is BOGUS.
Lett also stated that we should not judge anyone on any subject about which the Bible is silent.
I fully agree with that, but people have their own standards about every conceivable subject and do judge others accordingly.
I may judge someone for any reason I want … that is what Adults should do. The Universe will “determine” if that is good or bad, automatically.
If I ride a motorcycle or skydive, or choose to carry weapons, as the Apostles did, is not a theocratic issue.
Tyranny is when you think it is, and have the power to enforce it using Congregational Authority attributed to God, or beat scripture to fit whims of lunacy.
How could you have POSSIBLY missed that GB notice No. 2023- 8 as narrated by GB Bro. Stephen Lett several times SPECIFICALLY STATED the reason for the change on beards was that they were conforming to THE EVER-CHANGING NORMS OF THE WORLD.
Did you even WATCH the video even once?
You gave me an excellent new perspective through the example of Aaron and the Golden Calf and the Stockholm Syndrome.
That is why I commented before that the spiritual condition of JWs is in great danger.
They agree to have Modern Aaron (GB) tell them who and what YHVH is. They have come to love their Kidnappers, they depend on their words so much and most JWs cannot leave them, cannot escape.
Stockholm syndrome is a psychological response where hostages or victims develop positive feelings, empathy, or even loyalty toward their captors or abusers.
It often occurs in situations of intense fear, isolation, and perceived threat to one's life. The term originated from a 1973 bank robbery in Stockholm, Sweden, where hostages developed a bond with the perpetrators. Even loyalty.
The syndrome involves a complex interplay of psychological mechanisms, including identification with the aggressor, survival instincts, and a coping strategy to endure the traumatic experience. Victims may rationalize their captor's behavior, empathize with them, and form a sense of dependency.
As usual, Georgie, as always you have missed the point.
I am sure everyone who comes here fully understands the symbolism …
…. but many hate how it has neen consintamtly been misapplied as a tool to manipulate the Brotherhood, to maintain ecclestical power to keep the money waterfall flowing.
Remember it was Aaron that misrepresented Jehovah by making the Golden Calf, declaring
“This is Jehovah your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt!”.
He convinced the Jews to contribute tons of gold to the project.
Someone should have searched his tent.
There is a reason that above the circuit or district level there is ZERO accountability for contributed funds to the Brotherhood.
I have carefully considered your agenda driven perspective, and what I see is a classic case of Stockholm Syndrome.
My speculations are optional. They can become effective if you take them seriously. But it is mostly an option of one's free choice.
In contrast, speculations coming from GB are dangerous at the start. To forbid the wearing of beards in Rutherford's time was nothing more than distancing, by those who caused the schism, to break any resemblance to Russell.
Later, the leadership of WTJWorg found excuses for the ban in the appearance of some "worldly" people who participated in various social movements of the society. They claimed that wearing a certain model of hairstyles and external appearance of the face (beard in men in this case) should be avoided because this way JW can be mistakenly identified with, for example, rebels in society.
At the same time, wearing suits and ties and flawless hair and shaved face, GB has never identified with a certain number of corrupt politicians and businessmen who are dishonest. For some reason, they forgot to mention that detail when they were giving advice to their followers about their appearance.
I agree that it is nice to see neat and tidy people (with or without beard). But we don't live in a perfect world, whatever that means.
The Spiritual Slavery that reigns within JW followers requires a "clear and unequivocal answer/instruction" as to what is allowed and what is not allowed with a beard. That demand for "answers" from GB is actually a reflection of the devastating spiritual condition of the flock in so called true Christianity aka JW Church.
If so many people in WTJWorg are unable to have/achieve unity in diversity and freedom of choice over something the Bible has never questioned, then there is no "salvation" for all of you either literally or figuratively. You, JWs, are unfortunately condemned to total dependence on a few men who are not even capable of knowing right from wrong. WTJWorg cannot reform itself for the better.
I agree with @Pudgy, WTJWorg is run by accountants and lawyers.., and by religious leaders who willingly, voluntarily agree to falsehood.
My speculations are optional. They can become effective if you take them seriously. But it is mostly an option of one's free choice.
In contrast, speculations coming from GB are dangerous at the start. To forbid the wearing of beards in Rutherford's time was nothing more than distancing, by those who caused the schism, to break any resemblance to Russell.
Later, the leadership of WTJWorg found excuses for the ban in the appearance of some "worldly" people who participated in various social movements of the society. They claimed that wearing a certain model of hairstyles and external appearance of the face (beard in men in this case) should be avoided because this way JW can be mistakenly identified with, for example, rebels in society.
At the same time, wearing suits and ties and flawless hair and shaved face, GB has never identified with a certain number of corrupt politicians and businessmen who are dishonest. For some reason, they forgot to mention that detail when they were giving advice to their followers about their appearance.
I agree that it is nice to see neat and tidy people (with or without beard). But we don't live in a perfect world, whatever that means.
The Spiritual Slavery that reigns within JW followers requires a "clear and unequivocal answer/instruction" as to what is allowed and what is not allowed with a beard. That demand for "answers" from GB is actually a reflection of the devastating spiritual condition of the flock in so called true Christianity aka JW Church.
If so many people in WTJWorg are unable to have/achieve unity in diversity and freedom of choice over something the Bible has never questioned, then there is no "salvation" for all of you either literally or figuratively. You, JWs, are unfortunately condemned to total dependence on a few men who are not even capable of knowing right from wrong. WTJWorg cannot reform itself for the better.
I agree with @Pudgy, WTJWorg is run by accountants and lawyers.., and by religious leaders who willingly, voluntarily agree to falsehood.
Since neither have any physical bodies, and any beards are just human artist’s concepts, and neither is there any air to support flapping giant wings (… not to mention shoulder blades as big as a hippo’s … and robes with wing holes …), I like to visualize Jesus’ and the Angel’s beards being giant multi- colored light year diameter Brillo pads.
Of course, this beggers the question, do the wings molt and the pads rust?
It is quite possible that there are a number of men in JW congregations who wear beards. Because of this, they cannot be excluded, but they are rather "unused" for various functions within the Church. In the chronic shortage of "manpower" for "congregational positions of responsibility", it is possible that this change is aimed at this target group.
It is also possible that some who wear beards have put themselves in that position on purpose, for the reason that they do not want to be burdened with any responsibilities in the Organization.
Also, a certain number of PIMO members (physically inside, mentally outside) chose to wear a beard just to stay connected with the congregation only for free social contacts (because they are not excluded), and on the other hand, so that they cannot be held accountable because they are in the category "spiritually weak individuals".
Changes are made because the Organization is in trouble, not because God has loosened the reins of His Chariot.
It is quite possible that there are a number of men in JW congregations who wear beards. Because of this, they cannot be excluded, but they are rather "unused" for various functions within the Church. In the chronic shortage of "manpower" for "congregational positions of responsibility", it is possible that this change is aimed at this target group.
It is also possible that some who wear beards have put themselves in that position on purpose, for the reason that they do not want to be burdened with any responsibilities in the Organization.
Also, a certain number of PIMO members (physically inside, mentally outside) chose to wear a beard just to stay connected with the congregation only for free social contacts (because they are not excluded), and on the other hand, so that they cannot be held accountable because they are in the category "spiritually weak individuals".
Changes are made because the Organization is in trouble, not because God has loosened the reins of His Chariot.
I wonder if head coverings will be next....Out in service this morning I asked the car group (of six) who wants to come with me (on a study), they can't be male though because I haven't got anything to put on my head...
The answer to that is simple to give. View all illustrations in WTJWorg publications. Angels have beards. Jesus has a beard. If Jesus and the angels are the image of the invisible God, then YHVH also has a beard.
Another reason for this is that no one from the WTJWorg Art Department has ever seen the angels or Jesus before and after he ascended into heaven, yet they portray them as if they saw them wearing beards.
So, the perception of the "guardian of the doctrine" and the artist set the rule.
WTJWorg publications have Jesus without a beard in the past and Jesus with a beard after doctrine have changed.
Srecko Sostar reacted to Pudgy in New Light on Beards
Srecko Sostar got a reaction from Alphonse in New Light on Beards
Srecko Sostar got a reaction from Pudgy in New Light on Beards
Srecko Sostar got a reaction from George88 in New Light on Beards
Srecko Sostar got a reaction from Anna in New Light on Beards
