Some say one thing, and some say something completely different

[Juan Rivera]

2 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

If it can be called cynicism at all, it is a consequence of the biblical statement that "man rules over man for his evil", Ecclesiastes 8:9. 

Finally, WTJWorg teaches in a similar vein, calling all authority that exists outside the JW Church today as "satanic", and thereby effectively asserting that people outside the JW community are incapable of imitating God in matters of righteousness or mercy and so on. 

Such a claim by GB should mean that the authority in WTJWorg is the only correct one and benefits everyone involved. At the same time, they justify some of their claims and actions with the mantra that they are imperfect and that Jesus did not promise that GB would distribute perfect food.

Well, that's pure cynicism and hypocrisy, not my philosophizing.  

 

@Srecko Sostar Your cynicism It’s not a consequence of Ecclesiastes 8:9. JW’s teach that “the existing authorities” can be said to “stand placed in their relative positions by God.” Relative to Jehovah’s supreme sovereign authority, theirs is by far a lesser authority. However, they are “God’s minister,” “God’s public servants,” in that they provide necessary services, maintain law and order, and punish evildoers. (Romans 13:1,4, 6) https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/library/r1/lp-e/all-publications/watchtower/the-watchtower-1996/may-1

People outside of the JW community are capable of imitating God righteousness and mercy: “The apostle Paul comments on the conscience, or at least a vestige of such, that still persists in fallen man, even though in many cases he has strayed from God and does not have his law. This explains why all nations have established many laws that are in harmony with righteousness and justice, and many individuals follow certain good principles. Paul says: “For whenever people of the nations that do not have law do by nature the things of the law, these people, although not having law, are a law to themselves. They are the very ones who demonstrate the matter of the law to be written in their hearts, while their conscience is bearing witness with them and, between their own thoughts, they are being accused or even excused.”—Rom. 2:14, 15. https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/publication/r1/lp-e/ad/3090

Here’s what you are missing about human nature : Unity with non-Christians is not something to be desired (other than to convert them), but we need to distinguish between different types of unity.Obviously we cannot be spiritually united with those who do not share our faith. And this is why we ought not marry unbelievers. But, we can and should strive for civil peace with unbelievers.  Paul teaches us "If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men." (Rom 12:8) The author of the letter to the Hebrews similarly writes, "Pursue peace with all men" (Heb. 12:14). And civil peace is a kind of unity. We can and should pursue the common good in society, together with unbelievers. They too have a conscience, and the desire for the common good in civil society. They too want peace in our society, a clean environment, safe neighborhoods, order and beauty in society, just judges, etc. In other words, in the realm of the civil society, we have a great deal of common ground with unbelievers, as we pursue with them a civic unity, the unity of a civil society in its pursuit of the temporal welfare of that society. And again, that's because faith builds on and perfects nature, faith does not destroy nature. So the same civic goods we rightly desired as unbelievers, we still desire as Christians, along with those who are still unbelievers.

You seem to think that what is heavenly or supernatural, must be the opposite of what is human and of nature.

Of course a tyrant does not serve those whom he rules. But tyranny is an abuse of government, not the proper use of government. The true ruler of any society serves that society through his leadership. Hence, when Jesus says that the Apostles should not "lord it over" them, as the Gentiles do, Jesus is not contrasting leadership in the Kingdom with the way leadership in the state should be (as though civic leaders should not serve those whom they lead). Jesus is instead contrasting leadership in the Kingdom with the way leadership in the state often is, i.e. tyrannical.

[Srecko Sostar]

5 hours ago, Juan Rivera said:

civic unity

I put this term into the JW Library search engine, but I didn't get any results. That is significant. Apparently there is no official position on this or, on the other hand, WTJWorg does not cultivate the kind of relationship you describe. In fact, you yourself have determined that the sole purpose of "fellowshipping" between JWs and "unbelievers" is to "convert" them. A relationship based on this kind of "unity" grounded on such a motive is truly .... shameful. I have no words to describe my disgust at this way JWs look at their neighbors.

Although the description you gave of the JWs striving to get along well with the "unbelievers" seems positive at first glance, I must add that the general attitude of the WTJWorg and thus the members is reflected collectively in the notion that the "unbelievers" are destined for destruction at Armageddon and that they are "minds darkened by Satan". You cannot expect a correct, healthy human relationship from such a mindset and feeling. This world is labeled as "hostile" to JWs, and this is constantly repeated in your meetings.

And here we see an example of how some say one thing and others another (within WTJWorg).

6 hours ago, Juan Rivera said:

Jesus is instead contrasting leadership in the Kingdom with the way leadership in the state often is, i.e. tyrannical.

Whether an individual JW feels good or bad under the "leadership of JW elders" should be left to the personal judgment of everyone in your congregations. I don't need to deal with that. What I feel I can say is how JW leaders (plus JW lawyers) "represent and testify for God" before courts and other public and government/al authorities and institutions. And that is something terrible to know and it would shake and scandalize many JWs to hear and see how they are deceiving the public. Jesus would probably have something to compare and point out if there are any contrasts.

 

[Srecko Sostar]

 

[Juan Rivera]

1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:

In fact, you yourself have determined that the sole purpose of "fellowshipping" between JWs and "unbelievers" is to "convert" them. A relationship based on this kind of "unity" grounded on such a motive is truly .... shameful. I have no words to describe my disgust at this way JWs look at their neighbors.

@Srecko Sostar We all share a common humanity, and it is important to recognize that we do. And diversity of the sort that does not compromise the truth is truly beautiful. But Christianity is about much more than our shared humanity. You can’t reduce religion to humanism or simply morality, that would be Kantianism. This is dangerous and repugnant to Jehovah’s Witnesses. Helping your neighbor and those in need is an essential aspect of a Christian’s life, but that is not all the life or the mission of the Congregation. Insofar as this type of unity is intrinsically inclined to humanism, it is intrinsically inclined to fall short of the truth of Christianity, which is a divine revelation of Jehovah through Jesus Christ who is the Truth. Love requires truth because love becomes authentic only as informed by the truth. Without truth, loves degenerates into sentimentality. Love becomes an empty shell, to be filled in an arbitrary way.

[Srecko Sostar]

16 minutes ago, Juan Rivera said:

your neighbor

I have 3 questions: Who is a neighbor according to the JW understanding and are there internal classifications of "neighbors"? Is the ex-JW a neighbor?

[Juan Rivera]

36 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

I have 3 questions: Who is a neighbor according to the JW understanding and are there internal classifications of "neighbors"? Is the ex-JW a neighbor?

Are these sincere questions, or merely rhetorical questions intended to scandalize (i.e. cause to stumble) those seeking to find Christ’s Congregation? If you have sincere questions I’ll be glad to answer them. But if your questions are merely rhetorical, then please refrain from making use of such questions. Questions do not establish anything, nor are they a substitute for an argument. That is sophistry and it suggests insincerity and an unwillingness to make a positive case.

[Pudgy]

I think SS’s questions, whatever else they may or may not be the case, need to be addressed, if you want to have a dialog … it’s a two-way street.

in a forum such as this one asking someone not to ask certain questions reeks of petty tyranny at worst, and arrogance at best.

The way to handle it is if you don’t think the question is appropriate … too bad.

You are in the wrong room.

Just ignore the question and leave it unanswered. 

 

[Pudgy]

… “Food at the proper time” means different things to different people.

Ice cubes should probably not be made with hot dog water.

 

[Pudgy]

sure…. lizards eat insects.

So did John the Baptist.

…. and that was before toothbrushes!

[Srecko Sostar]

The book of Job is full of provocative questions. Also on Quora I saw some asking questions about JW. Many times the person answering (I guess JW) says in the answer that it is not a question, that it should be asked in a different way, that the question is not sincere and similar things.

Jesus could afford the luxury of not answering the Pharisees' questions or silencing them with counter-questions. There is no place for such a strategy here or on Qoura or in other situations, because no JW (or non-JW) is comparable to Jesus.
The answer should not be withheld if one is sure of his answer and can argue it in further discussion and in new questions.

When JW lawyers or JW elders answer questions put to them by the Court, you will never hear them question the judge's sincerity. But you will hear "theocratic strategy."

[Srecko Sostar]

5 hours ago, Pudgy said:

asking someone not to ask certain questions reeks of petty tyranny at worst, and arrogance at best.

We touched on the topic of "tyranny" in previous comments. WTJWorg uses some forms that can be classified as "tyranny", because it does not allow members to question the GB, does not allow the asking of "uncomfortable" questions, does not allow the use of arguments that are not in accordance with the GB doctrines. 

[Pudgy]

…. When someone says “that’s not the question that should be asked…” because it’s offensive or inappropriate or awkward, or just plain embarrassing……

That’s the question you should be asking!