Evolution[edit]
Watch Tower Society publications attempt to refute the theory of evolution, in favor of divine creation.[140][141] The Watch Tower Society's views of evolution have met with criticism typical of objections to evolution. Gary Botting described his own difficulty as a Jehovah's Witness to reconcile creation with simple observations of species diversification, especially after discussions with J.B.S. Haldane in India.[142]
The Society's 1985 publication, Life—How Did it Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation? is criticized for its dependency on Francis Hitching, who is cited thirteen times. The book presents Hitching—a TV writer and paranormalist with no scientific credentials—as an evolutionary scientist.[143] Richard Dawkins also criticizes the book for implying that "chance" is the only alternative to deliberate design, stating, "[T]he candidate solutions to the riddle of improbability are not, as falsely implied, design and chance. They are design and natural selection."[144]
The Watch Tower Society teaches a form of day-age creationism.[145] It dismisses Young Earth creationism as "unscriptural and unbelievable",[146] and states that Jehovah's Witnesses "are not creationists", based on the more specific definition of believers in a 'young' earth created in six literal days.[147] According to a 1986 article in The Watchtower, "Jehovah's Witnesses reject the unreasonable theories of 'creationism' in favor of what the Bible really teaches about 'creation'."[148]
Jehovah's Witnesses reject Young Earth creationism, yet they refute theory of evolution in favor of what they believe the Bible "really" teaches, which they believe is Old Earth creationism. JW's believe that humans are only 6,000 years, something that I don't think Wikipedia mentions.
The Watch Tower Society claims that biblical chronology is not always compatible with secular sources, and that the Bible is superior. It claims that secular historians make conclusions about 587 BC based on incorrect or inconsistent historical records, but accepts those sources that identify Cyrus' capture of Babylon in 539 BC, claiming it has no evidence of being inconsistent and hence can be used as a pivotal date.[123][131][132]
How does Cyrus' capture of Babylon in539 B.C.E have to do with the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 B.C.E., the WBTS accuses secular historians' given dates for the destruction of Jerusalem as being incorrect and based on inconsistent historical records, yet they don't cite how those records are inconsistent, how are the JW's not resorting to confirmation bias in this case? Most historians disagree with the 607 B.C.E date.
Rolf Furuli, a Jehovah's Witness and a lecturer in Semitic languages, presents a study of 607 BC in support of the Witnesses' conclusions in Assyrian, Babylonian, Egyptian, and Persian Chronology Compared with the Chronology of the Bible, Volume 1: Persian Chronology and the Length of the Babylonian Exile of the Jews.[133] Lester L. Grabbe, professor of theology at the University of Hull, said of Furuli's study: "Once again we have an amateur who wants to rewrite scholarship. ... F. shows little evidence of having put his theories to the test with specialists in Mesopotamian astronomy and Persian history."[134]
The Society has described its intolerance of dissident and divergent doctrinal views within its ranks as "strict", but claims its stance is based on the scriptural precedent of 2 Timothy 2:17,18 in which the Apostle Paul condemns heretics Hymenaeus and Philetus who denied the resurrection of Jesus. It said: "Following such Scriptural patterns, if a Christian (who claims belief in God, the Bible, and Jesus) unrepentantly promotes false teachings, it may be necessary for him to be expelled from the congregation ... Hence, the true Christian congregation cannot rightly be accused of being harshly dogmatic."[187] Sociologist Rodney Stark says that Jehovah's Witness leaders are "not always very democratic" and members are expected to conform to "rather strict standards," but says enforcement tends to be informal, sustained by close bonds of friendship and that Jehovah's Witnesses see themselves as "part of the power structure rather than subject to it".[188] In a case involving Jehovah's Witnesses' activities in Russia, the European Court of Human Rights stated that the religion's requirements "are not fundamentally different from similar limitations that other religions impose on their followers' private lives" and that charges of "mind control" in that case were "based on conjecture and uncorroborated by fact."[189] Despite the intolerance of dissident views within the organisation, the Watch Tower Society and its affiliates have, through litigation, been instrumental in establishing civil liberties in many countries, including Canada and the United States.[190]
are saved by the ransom sacrifice of God's Son and undeserved kindness, that there is no one that can earn salvation.[197] American religious scholar J. Gordon Melton,[198] cult deprogrammer John Bowen Brown II,[199] and Knocking producer Joel P. Engardio also reject the claims that Witnesses are a cult.[200][201] The two volume encyclopedia Contemporary American Religion stated: "Various critics and ex-members in recent years have wrongly labeled Jehovah’s Witnesses a 'cult.'"[202]
If people want to label the Jehovah's Witnesses as a "cult", they have the right to do so. J. Gordon Melton, John Bowen Brown II and Joel P. Engardio don't view the JW's as a cult and that is their opinion. Engardio is an ex-JW and is openly gay and has criticized the JW's beliefs and practices regarding homosexuality, though.
Russian religious scholar Sergei Ivanenko, in a dissenting opinion to a report by a panel of experts to Moscow's Golovinsky Intermunicipal Court in 1999, stated, "It would be a serious mistake to represent the Religious Organization of Jehovah's Witnesses as a religion whose leadership forces its rank and file believers to engage in one form of activity or another, or place upon them strict restrictions or directives." Ivanenko, who based his view on a study of Watch Tower Society literature, concluded: "Jehovah's Witnesses strive to live in accord with Bible principles on the basis of an individual, voluntary choice ... This also applies in full measure to preaching." [208] James A. Beckford, a professor at the University of Warwick, England, who published a study of English Jehovah's Witnesses in 1975,[209] also told the court: "It is important for each of them to exercise free moral agency in choosing to study the Bible and to live in accordance with their interpretation of its message."[210] On June 10, 2010, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) stated in regards to a charge of coercion of family members, that "Quite often, the opposite is true: it is the resistance and unwillingness of non-religious family members to accept and to respect the [Jehovah's Witnesses] religious relative's freedom to manifest and practise his or her religion that is the source of conflict."[211]
Sure, the JW's may lived in accord with the Biblical "principles" as espoused by the WBTS which applies to the door-to--door peaching, yet for Ivanenko to state that they are not forced to engage in one form of activity or another and are not placed under strict directives or restrictions would be wrong, it may be a voluntary choice, but one cannot leave the religion in good terms. Sergei Ivanenko is acting like an apologist. James A. Beckford insists that the JW's are using free moral agency to study the Bible and live in accordance with the JW's denominational interpretation of it's message, however as mentioned, you cannot leave the group with dignity. The ECHR states that the charge of family members being coerced into doing things is not true and that it is the unwillingness of non-religious family members to accept and respect their JW's religious freedom to believe and practice their religious beliefs. Yet the JW's are not very respectful of family members, relatives and friends who may choose to join another religion.
Shunning[edit]
Main articles: Jehovah's Witnesses and congregational discipline and Shunning
Witnesses practice disfellowshipping of members who unrepentantly engage in "gross sin",[216] (most commonly for breaches of the Witnesses' code of personal morality),[217][218] and "remorseless apostasy".[219] The process of disfellowshipping is said to be carried to uphold God’s standards, preserve the congregation’s spiritual cleanness, and possibly prompt a change of attitude in the wrongdoer.[216] The practice requires that the expelled person be shunned by all members of the religion, including family members who do not live in the same home, unless they qualify for re-admission. A person who dies while disfellowshipped cannot be given a funeral at a Kingdom Hall.[220][221] Members often face difficulties and trauma once expelled because of their previously limited contact with the outside world.[222][223] The Watchtower 's description of those who leave as being "mentally diseased" has drawn criticism from some current and former members; in Britain some have argued that the description may constitute a breach of laws regarding religious hatred.[224][225]
They consider the Bible to be the final authority for all their beliefs,[142] although sociologist Andrew Holden's ethnographic study of the religion concluded that pronouncements of the Governing Body, through Watch Tower Society publications, carry almost as much weight as the Bible.[143]
; Witnesses are discouraged from formulating doctrines and "private ideas" reached through Bible research independent of Watch Tower Society publications, and are cautioned against reading other religious literature.[144][145][146] Adherents are told to have "complete confidence" in the leadership, avoid skepticism about what is taught in the Watch Tower Society's literature, and "not advocate or insist on personal opinions or harbor private ideas when it comes to Bible understanding."[147][148][149][150] The religion makes no provision for members to criticize or contribute to official teachings[151] and all Witnesses must abide by its doctrines and organizational requirements.[152
JW's are told in the WBTS' literature to not hold private ideas when it comes to the JW's official interpretation of the Bible, yet they must do thinking for themselves after accepting such teachings. Sounds like a contradiction to me.
Main article: Eschatology of Jehovah's Witnesses
A central teaching of Jehovah's Witnesses is that the current world era, or "system of things", entered the "last days" in 1914 and faces imminent destruction through intervention by God and Jesus Christ, leading to deliverance for those who worship God acceptably.[186] They consider all other present-day religions to be false, identifying them with "Babylon the Great", or the "harlot", of Revelation 17,[187] and believe that they will soon be destroyed by the United Nations, which they believe is represented in scripture by the scarlet-colored wild beast of Revelation chapter 17. This development will mark the beginning of the "great tribulation".[188] Satan will subsequently attack Jehovah's Witnesses, an action that will prompt God to begin the war of Armageddon, during which all forms of government and all people not counted as Christ's "sheep", or true followers, will be destroyed. After Armageddon, God will extend his heavenly kingdom to include earth, which will be transformed into a paradise similar to the Garden of Eden.[189] After Armageddon, most of those who had died before God's intervention will gradually be resurrected during "judgment day" lasting for one thousand years. This judgment will be based on their actions after resurrection rather than past deeds. At the end of the thousand years, a final test will take place when Satan is released to mislead perfect mankind. Those who fail will be destroyed, along with Satan and his demons. The end result will be a fully tested, glorified human race. Christ will then hand all authority back to God.[190]
Sociologist Ronald Lawson has suggested the religion's intellectual and organizational isolation, coupled with the intense indoctrination of adherents, rigid internal discipline and considerable persecution, has contributed to the consistency of its sense of urgency in its apocalyptic message.[261]
Sociologist James A. Beckford, in his 1975 study of Jehovah's Witnesses, classified the religion's organizational structure as Totalizing, characterized by an assertive leadership, specific and narrow objectives, control over competing demands on members' time and energy, and control over the quality of new members. Other characteristics of the classification include likelihood of friction with secular authorities, reluctance to co-operate with other religious organizations, a high rate of membership turnover, a low rate of doctrinal change, and strict uniformity of beliefs among members.[285] Beckford identified the religion's chief characteristics as historicism (identifying historical events as relating to the outworking of God's purpose), absolutism (conviction that the Watch Tower Society dispenses absolute truth), activism (capacity to motivate members to perform missionary tasks), rationalism (conviction that Witness doctrines have a rational basis devoid of mystery), authoritarianism (rigid presentation of regulations without the opportunity for criticism) and world indifference (rejection of certain secular requirements and medical treatments).[286]
Sociologist Bryan R. Wilson, in his consideration of five religions including Jehovah's Witnesses, noted that each of the religions:[287]
1."exists in a state of tension with the wider society;"
2."imposes tests of merit on would-be members;"
3."exercises stern discipline, regulating the declared beliefs and the life habits of members and prescribing and operating sanctions for those who deviate, including the possibility of expulsion;"
4."demands sustained and total commitment from its members, and the subordination, and perhaps even the exclusion of all other interests."
Religious commentator Ken Jubber wrote that "Viewed globally, this persecution has been so persistent and of such intensity that it would not be inaccurate to regard Jehovah's witnesses as the most persecuted group of Christians of the twentieth century."[289]
Authors including William Whalen, Shawn Francis Peters and former Witnesses Barbara Grizzuti Harrison, Alan Rogerson and William Schnell, have claimed the religion incited opposition to pursue a course of martyrdom under Rutherford's leadership during the 1930s, in a bid to attract dispossessed members of society, and to convince members that persecution from the outside world was evidence of the "truth" of their struggle to serve God.[300] Watch Tower Society literature of the period directed Witnesses to "avoid unnecessary opposition or prejudice", stating that their purpose is not to get arrested.[301]
Many of the claims are denied by Jehovah's Witnesses and some have also been disputed by courts and religious scholars.
Well, of course the JW's are going to deny any criticisms of themselves, what religious group doesn't?
Doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses are established by the Governing Body, without consultation with other members.[307]The religion does not tolerate dissidence about doctrines and practices;[138][308][309][310] members who openly disagree with the religion's teachings are shunned.[226] Watch Tower Society publications strongly discourage followers from questioning its doctrines and counsel, reasoning that the Society is to be trusted as "God's organization".[310][311][312][313] It also warns members to "avoid independent thinking", claiming such thinking "was introduced by Satan the Devil"[314][315] and would "cause division".[316] Those who openly disagree with official teachings are condemned as "apostates" who are "mentally diseased".[317][318][319]
Former members Heather and Gary Botting compare the cultural paradigms of the religion to George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-four,[320] and Alan Rogerson describes the religion's leadership as totalitarian.[321] Other critics charge that by disparaging individual decision-making, the Watch Tower Society cultivates a system of unquestioning obedience[144][322] in which Witnesses abrogate all responsibility and rights over their personal lives.[323][324] Critics also accuse the Watch Tower Society of exercising "intellectual dominance" over Witnesses,[325] controlling information[226][326][327] and creating "mental isolation",[328] which former Governing Body member Raymond Franz argued were all elements of mind control.[328]
Watch Tower Society publications state that consensus of faith aids unity,[329] and deny that unity restricts individuality or imagination.[329] Historian James Irvin Lichti has rejected the description of the religion as "totalitarian".[330]
I don't agree with James Irvin Lichti that the denomination is not totalitarian, it is totalitarian in that members and leaders do not deviate from the supposed "truth" that they claim to hold and expel those who may openly disagree with them as open criticism of the group is not to be tolerated since Jehovah's Witnesses believe themselves to be Yahweh's representatives on earth and the Governing Body serve as his "mouthpiece" and members are to have complete trust in them.
Independent thinking is from "Satan". I thought thinking for yourself was "gift" from Yahweh?
Sociologist Rodney Stark states that while Jehovah's Witness leaders are "not always very democratic" and members are expected to conform to "rather strict standards," enforcement tends to be informal, sustained by close bonds of friendship and that Jehovah's Witnesses see themselves as "part of the power structure rather than subject to it."[87] Sociologist Andrew Holden states that most members who join millenarian movements such as Jehovah's Witnesses have made an informed choice.[331] However, he also states that defectors "are seldom allowed a dignified exit",[317] and describes the administration as autocratic.[332]
Some Bible scholars including Bruce M. Metzger, former Professor and Bible editor at Princeton Theological Seminary, have said that the translation of certain texts in its New World Translation of the Bible is biased in favor of Witness practices and doctrines.[333][334][335][336][337] The Bible editor Harold H. Rowley criticized the pre-release edition of the first volume (Genesis to Ruth) published in 1953 as "a shining example of how the Bible should not be translated."[338]
On the other hand, in his study on nine of "the Bibles most widely in use in the English-speaking world", Bible scholar Jason BeDuhn, Professor of Religious Studies at the Northern Arizona University, wrote: “The NW [New World Translation] emerges as the most accurate of the translations compared.” Although the general public and many Bible scholars assume that the differences in the New World Translation are the result of religious bias on the part of its translators, BeDuhn stated: “Most of the differences are due to the greater accuracy of the NW as a literal, conservative translation of the original expressions of the New Testament writers.” He added however that the insertion of the name Jehovah in the New Testament "violate[s] accuracy in favor of denominationally preferred expressions for God".[339]
Failed predictions[edit]
In June 2012, the Superior Court of Alameda, California, ordered the Watch Tower Society to pay $21 million in punitive damages, in addition to compensatory damages, after finding that the Society's policy to not disclose child abuse history of a member to parents in the congregation or to report abuse to authorities contributed to the sexual abuse of a nine-year-old girl.[364][365] A subsequent motion in September 2012 resulted in a reduction of the punitive damages to $8.61 million.[366] The Watch Tower Society appealed the revised ruling, and the case is ongoing.[367]
The Wikipedia articles on the Jehovah's Witnesses mention that victims of pedophiliac behavior may report such allegations of abuse to legal authorities and that Jehovah's Witnesses will consider medical evidence of abuse and testimony of a second witness who claims to have been abused by an alleged pedophile as evidence, however this section where it is mention that the Superior Court of Alameda, California ordered the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society to pay $21 million dollars compensation to the family of a nine-year-old girl after the Court discovered that the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society has a policy of not disclosing the history of child sexual abuse to an under -aged member of the congregation whose parents are Jehovah's Witnesses and that the Jehovah's Witnesses being required to pay compensation to the victim's family was also due the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society stance that allegations of child sexual abuse is not to be reported to the authorities. The amount of money in damaged was reduced to $ 8 million and the JW's appealed the revised ruling and the case in still ongoing.
So, apparently their JW's claim that their method of dealing with the sexual abuse of children is "superior" to other religions, yet the reasons for why the WBTS was forced to pay money to the victim's family seems to indicate otherwise. Also, where is it written anywhere in the Bible that having sex with children or teenagers is wrong? Most people know that having sex with people under the age of 18 is wrong, yet the Bible never mentions pedophilia, so aren't the JW's relying on their own morality to determine the punishment for those who molest children compared to their god's "view" on the issue?
No comments:
Post a Comment