From The Official web site of Jehovah's Witnesses:
Nowhere does the Bible command Christians to procreate. God told the first human couple and Noah’s family: “Be fruitful and become many and fill the earth.”
But this command was not repeated to Christians. (Genesis 1:28; 9:1)
Hence, married couples may decide for themselves whether they will raise a family, how many children they will have, and when they will have them.
The Scriptures, likewise, do not condemn birth control.
From a Biblical point of view, then, whether a husband and wife choose to use some nonabortive method of contraception is really a personal decision.
So, there we have it, commands in the Old Testament are meaningless if they are not repeated in the New Testament.
It makes one wonder why they reversed their teaching on vasectomy and say any brother who had one was not eligible to me a MS or Elder? If its the couple decision "and no one should judge them" why do they forbid it?
Isn't it clear that the Governing Body just makes this stuff up as they go along?
Here is a really ridiculous line of reasoning from the Watchtower:
1941 The prophetic picture seems to set forth the correct rule, to wit: The three sons of Noah and their wives were in the ark and were saved from the flood. They did not have any children, however, until after the flood. They began to have children two years after the flood. (Genesis 11:10,11) No children were taken into the ark and none were born in the ark, and hence none were brought out of the ark. Only eight persons went in and eight came out of the ark. (1 Peter 3:20; Genesis 8:18) That would appear to indicate that it would be proper that those who will form the "great multitude" should wait until after Armageddon to bring children into the world. (Children; 1941; 3,000,000 ed.; p. 312-313)
Oh, yeah! That makes sense!
17 comments:
I've heard that before (through relatives) that it is better not to have children. However, from what I can see, most Witnesses go ahead and have kids.
Wait! Does not that go against the idea that they are mindless zombies who follow the GB? lol
"Wait! Does not that go against the idea that they are mindless zombies who follow the GB? lol"
Actually they are mindless zombies who would follow the GB over a cliff if they had to. I know because not only have I spent years following the witnesses, but I was one myself. The majority do not have the ability to think for themselves.
The fact is, the GB emphatically does NOT disuade the witnesses from having children, so this article was mistaken, and your "lol" mocking was unnecessary. A large family is an asset in the JW congregation. The GB do have a few scriptures they think opposes having children, but they are rarely if ever cited.
I have to ask, are you a JW? Have you spent time as one in a Kingdom Hall for a reasonable number of years? I actually suspect that you oppose this blogger because your grandfather was a JW, not because you have any other reason for such affection.
My advice is to oppose the blogger for genuine reasons, not false ones. Your question was a straw man attack. This blog is useful for information sometimes, but its author can become a little over enthusiastic. Focus on the facts, that's what I do.
I know you have a soft spot for the JWs but the reality is somewhat different. There are mountains of evidence out there for hypocrisy, doctrinal absurdity and flip-flopping, and as I explained in my highly detailed last response to you, they are generally not nice people, with some notable, explainable exceptions. Moreover they are yet another group of people following supernatural fairytales.
W. Lockhart "A large family is an asset in the JW congregation."
I never knew that before. I do have a soft spot for the Witnesses- the people that is. All the ones I personally know are the nicest people.
I enjoy reading and talking about religion and also politics. Personally, I'm mostly neutral. I cannot label myself anything.
I made a little sarcastic joke that you called a 'straw man attack. I never heard that one before; what does it mean? Is that a British expression?
Actually apostle Paul said in 1 Timothy 2:15;5:14 (New world transl.): However, she will be kept safe through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and sanctification along with soundness of mind.
Therefore I desire the younger widows to marry, to bear children, to manage a household, to give no inducement to the opposer to revile.
So, do not believe speculations, but believe what the Bible says. I have 4 children. I've been a pioneer and served abroad and done a lot for the truth. Batised at 13 years, now disfelloshiped for witnessing about the truth.
Regards Jan Kosonen
No the Straw Man idea isn't British (I don't think). Actually I don't know it's origin but it's used globally now.
A Straw Man attack is where you create a false description of your opponents position in order to make it easier to tackle. This is supposed to be like setting up little 'staw men' so you can knock them down more easily.
@Kosonen
"So, do not believe speculations, but believe what the Bible says."
Why? Why believe what the bible says? Because the bible tells us to? Why does your scepticism lead you to seek the truth about your religion, but not the truth about anything else?
Well, since Jesus told us that no words of the Old Testament can be invalidated, why don't we all stop eating shellfish, or stone our children to death for giving cheek, or spread some sheep's blood on our left ear lobes and left big toes, or engage in a little bit of pillaging, rape and genocide, just for good measure?
It amazes me how blindly people follow that book. Or at least, they claim to follow it but have not read it. How can you base your entire life around a book that you've only read in little bits and pieces? How devastated would you be if you realised the years you've wasted on an ancient, largely irrelevant, mostly plain strange and sometimes horribly violent book?
Well, I didn't lose too many years because I was a witness primarily throughout my childhood and was only baptised for five years before I left. If you have the courage to face off against the falsehoods of the JWs, then have the courage to detect other falsehoods. The quest for truth does not stop with the grand and unwarranted assumption that the bible is still from God.
Hello Mr. W.Lockhart
I did not have an intention to make you upset. I'm sorry.
But you do not know how many times I have read through the Bible, do you?
I have found that it works in life, and I love God's word.
And all things written in the Bible have something important to teach. I've found true Romans 15:4 (New world transl.): For all the things that were written aforetime were written for our instruction, that through our endurance and through the comfort from the Scriptures we might have hope.
And 2 Timothy 3:16,17 (New world transl.): All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.
Actually the Bible have changed big parts of the earth population to be more civilized. When people begun to read the Bible in Europe the life changed here. Then it spread to other parts of the world.
I hope you will see what God's word has already done for mankind, and imagine how the life would be now if there would not have been the Bible.
Best regards
Jan Kosonen
"I did not have an intention to make you upset. I'm sorry."
You did not make me upset my friend. I don't want you to apologise when you don't need to. It's easy to mistake pointed questions for me being upset, but I am not. At the least they represent genunine intrigue, at the most they represent genuine exasperation.
"But you do not know how many times I have read through the Bible, do you?
I have found that it works in life, and I love God's word."
I don't doubt that you've read the bible many times, but this is not the same as reading it cover to cover, and I suspect you've just read it in bits and pieces. It's also not the same as reading it slowly and carefully. If you had done, you would not be defending the position you are.
If you were to truly apply the bible, you would find that it does not "work in life" as you put it. Have you tried God's regulations on slavery and animal sacrifice? What about the dogmatic view that causes a christian to swot a fly containing millions of living cells, but to campaign tirelessly against stem cell research because "it [3 day old blastocyst] has a soul and is therefore precious to God"? According to this view, you commit genocide everytime you scratch your nose, since each cell is a potential human with today's advanced technology.
So I simply don't believe you that you apply the scriptures in your daily life, since if you did so you would be arrested. You simply follow basic human precepts about alleviating suffering, and you unfairly credit the bible as the cause. I contend that you have not in fact read this book in any reasonable detail.
Quoting 2Tim 3:16 to prove the inspiration of the bible is circular. I will not believe in a book simply because that very book tells me to. I do not take seriously claims of inspiration from an absurd and violent fairy tale book. Or did you not read my previous comments on this?
"Actually the Bible have changed big parts of the earth population to be more civilized. When people begun to read the Bible in Europe the life changed here. Then it spread to other parts of the world."
This is absurd beyond description, but let me try nonetheless. Europe became civilised and powerful when it embraced the scientific method. Before that it burned heretics at the stake on the basis of some scriptures in the very book you claim to cherish. If you really believe that people became civilised when they embraced scripture, then you are deluded in the most profound sense. Study some history, starting at the very basic level.
When Kepler, Galileo and Newton started to observe the universe, their conclusions were opposed at first. Galileo was opposed by christianity for his evil rationalism, and to this day religion opposes things which act against disease, such as contraception and stem cell research.
So I can certainly imagine what the world would have been like with no bible. Europe would not have been pitched into a dark age lasting many centuries in which the only acceptable form of learning was the Book of Blood, and even then only Monks could read, since this helped them monopolize knowledge. Galileo and others would not have been opposed and science would have advanced quickly due to the spirit of open inquiry, something we have only recently achieved and, surprise, our advancement is actually accelerating. In short, we'd be in the equivalent of the 58th century by now.
Mr W. Lockhart,
I'll tell you, how many times I have read through the Bible. It's more than 10 times, from cover to cover. Backwards and forewards. In french, swedish, russian, listened through it in english on mp3. Now listening it in swedish, following in the Bible, and not following in the Bible. Reading it aloud to my children every week. Always asking Jehovah my Father to guide me.
I hope you are now convinced that I have studied it well and continue to do it. On the forum www.paradisecafediscussions.net I write often, many times a week biblical comments and threads with bible-knowledge supported with Bible verses. So there you can see, if you like, what I have written and you will see that I have studied the Bible deeply and independently from people.
Then about the progress in Europe:
Probably if there would not have been the Bible in Europe the muslims would have taken the Europe. And where would the human rights be? Then also, there would not have been any such technical progress. Where have the Japanise taken their ideas? They have copied what was in the lutheran world. The Lutheran countries produced new dissenting churches of wich many went to North America. And it is from there human rights and modern technology has spread to the world. All thanks to the Bible.
What I wounder is why you say we should follow in every detail the mosaic law?
Jesus was the end of that covenant. If you have been raised as a Jehovah's witness you should now that well.
But you are welcome to see what I have written on paradise cafe
Best regards
Jan Kosonen
"I'll tell you, how many times I have read through the Bible. It's more than 10 times, from cover to cover. Backwards and forewards. In french, swedish, russian, listened through it in english on mp3. Now listening it in swedish, following in the Bible, and not following in the Bible. Reading it aloud to my children every week."
Well then if you can read about murder rape and pillage without being even slightly concerned, and you can read this stuff to your children, then you certainly won't listen to anything I say, will you?
By the way Jesus said that nothing in the Old Testament can be invalidated, and then anyone that so much as disobeys the least law in the old scriptures will be "least" in relation to the kingdom of heaven. He did NOT negate the old law. Only his dim witted apostles, some of whom never met him, tried to claim otherwise. It says all this in that book which you claim to have read numerous times.
If you happily read scriptures to your children about God's wish to spread dung in his enemies' faces, then you are doing something utterly repugnant.
W.Lockhart. You should read How Jesus Became Christ. In it you will see how Paul usurped Jesus and the Jewish tradition to preach things he didn't say. The book of Acts is a fabrication, used to bolster Paul's prestige. The book of Daniel is a late addition to the OT, and not a book of reliable prophecy.
The bible is not from god. Sorry Kosonen, it might be an interesting read for you, but it is a waste of time to study. God does not care about you, if he exists.
Flood = myth
Adam = myth
Eve = myth
Moses' exodus = myth
Archeological evidence shows that the Israelites were native to Canaan.
That don't leave much.
Nothing to do with the post but it is an alert:
Pyramidal Scam involving mormons and jw altogether:
http://noni.worldwidewarning.net/www/noni-utah-mormon-and-mlm
I remember that Watchtower and how angered I felt that they tried to say that elders didn't police married couples and that people could make up their own minds, then stating that if it became known that a brother had had a vascetomy he would lose priviledges.
Talk about coercion!
their whole reasoning on sterilization for women is so flawed, as well.
the Bible remains silent on this matter. Too bad the GB doesn't learn from this.
I remember hearing about Witnesses who decided not to have children, following the Society's statements. One statement in particular, stated that is wasn't scriptural to have children because the end was so close.
When the end didn't come, some Witnesses felt distressed that they had given up having precious children.
How do you put a value on that?
The Society has damaged so many lives in so many ways.
Of course, it was later believed that those who did not have children had made a personal decision--but that is not the case. In the 1930's it was a teaching that gained hold, then was later quietly discarded.
To Athlyn Green
I agree with you concerning the 'no kids' dogma.
However, in their defense, Jesus and the Apostle Paul both encouraged singleness. So, at least there is some scriptural basis for those statements.
1) Not only does the statement made by JW’s invalidate Old Testament commands because they are not repeated in the New Testament but that would include anything else written in the Old Testament that’s not repeated in the New Testament, why stop at commands?
2) I remember an assembly I attended a few years before I got married where, during the final public talk for that Sunday afternoon, the GB encouraged all JW’s not to have children as the end was very near and it would be terrible for woman to be pregnant during that period of time. My son turned 21 last year! Had I listened to the GB then, I would not have had my son! Where is Armageddon?
Not 100% related to this topic but it did get me thinking that they require there rank and file who have a disfellowshipped member living in there home to refrain from spiritual conversation with such a one, even if such a disfellowshiped person is at a spiritual low and probably needs all the encouragement they can get to get well spiritually and return to the congregation. Instead the medicine that could make this person spiritually well again is being withheld. Why? That’s because any attempt to discuss “Apostate” material with the upstanding member of the congregation will be rebuffed because of this rule so they will never get to hear the real truth. Disfellowshiped family members aren’t a problem because you’re not allowed to talk to them at all, about anything, at any point in time. Score!
“ALL SCRIPTURE IS INSPIRED OF GOD”
The Watchtower/JWs and many fundamentalists take this verse "all scripture is inspired..." to mean that every word in all 66 books of the bible are literally God's words. However, reading that verse in context(see 2 Tim. 3:15-16) shows something quite different.
Paul reminds Timothy "you have known the sacred writings from childhood" referring to the young man’s early Jewish education in Hebrew scriptures. Clearly, Paul did NOT mean the NT/Greek Scriptures because at the time this letter was sent much of it had yet to be written!
The Apostles James and Paul, make clear the difference between things they were given by God, and their own opinion. Look over the following verses which have been used by JW's and others to change forever the teachings of Jesus--based on the opinion’s of men taken as “the inspired word of God” in spite of the fact that those authors took such great pains to explain that they were speaking out of their own ideas.
James: "Now HERE IS MY OPINION. We should not make it hard for the non-Jews who are turning to God. Acts 15:19
Paul: "Now concerning virgins, I HAVE NO COMMAND OF THE LORD, but I give MY OPINION as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy…" 1 Cor 7:25
Paul: "I'm giving you MY OPINION because it will be helpful to you…" [Clearly he did not mean this as a commandment.]2 Cor 8:10
Paul: "For IN MY OPINION, I am in no way less than the most important of the Apostles." [Note: Those ‘most important Apostles’ didn’t make that statement.]
2 Cor 11:5
Paul: "IN MY OPINION it is right for a woman not to be a teacher, or to have rule over a man, but to be quiet." [A personal opinion with no scriptural corroboration.]1 Tim 2:12
Think on this...
Post a Comment