Are Jehovah's Witnesses taught not to answer hypothetical questions?

[Deeje]

Some of the posts in this thread so far actually demonstrate the very thing that I'm getting at. In my experience, when I ask a Jehovah's Witness to imagine a scenario where anything about reality is different from their religious expectations, they won't. Either they dismiss the question altogether or try explain why it's irrelevant.

As you identify as Christian, how would you answer the OP? Do you imagine scenarios that are different to your own beliefs and answer them? If you are a Christian, why would you even do that?

Here's a possible example:

Me: What would you do if one of the Hindu gods revealed that Hinduism is the true religion to you, personally?
JW: It's not true though.
Me: No, I mean what if they did? What would you do?
JW: That couldn't happen because of X, Y and Z.
Me: This is a hypothetical scenario, asking if it could happen.
JW: This question is meaningless and has no bearing on reality.

If it is impossible for us to even imagine, then why would we answer it? It really does have no bearing on reality for us...I live in the real world, not Fantasyland. I have real problems to deal with, so why even concern myself with something that makes no sense? Its a dumb question.

You say that you aren't taught to avoid hypothetical questions, so why do you do this? I find it very easy to consider the consequences of my fundamental beliefs being different. Surely you can do it too. I'm not saying that all of you are like that, but all of the ones that I, personally, have spoken to about this have been.

If you find it easy to imagine that your fundamental beliefs can be wrong, then you obviously have no Christian conviction. Indecision is not a good foundation for faith.

James 1:5-8:
"So if any one of you is lacking in wisdom, let him keep asking God, for he gives generously to all and without reproaching, and it will be given him. 6 But let him keep asking in faith, not doubting at all, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea driven by the wind and blown about. 7 In fact, that man should not expect to receive anything from Jehovah; 8 he is an indecisive man, unsteady in all his ways."

My conviction makes your hypotheticals seem ridiculous. So seriously, why would I even give them headroom?

 

[savagewind]

Jehovah's Witnesses will not answer hypothetical questions about what the Bible really teaches because they trust God gave all authority to answer such questions to the faithful and discreet slave i.e. the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses.

One thing they can't talk about is Jesus 1000 year reign. Might it be a symbolic 1000 years?
They are convinced it is going to be a literal 1000 years.

They can't talk about the 144,000 being not literal either.

They can't talk about the fact that Jehovah God is able to raise someone to heaven who had died before
Jesus died.

They can't talk about the probability that the rider of the white horse pictured at Revelation 6:2
is NOT picturing Jesus Christ.

They won't talk about the possibility that 2 Peter 3:4 is about what believers say, not unbelievers.

They will not consider that the Bible was changed at Matthew 28:19

They can not talk about the fact that some meaning in the Bible was changed (probably by the rider at Revelation 6:2) and that it is wrong to believe in it instead of believing in Jesus.

There is probably much, much more they can't talk about, but I think that is enough. Don't you?

 

[savagewind]

I agree with @Deeje - that is an odd question. I was a JW for well over a decade and there is plenty that I now find objectionable having been away from it for almost 17 years now. I do not recall ever even having been advised let alone instructed not to answer a hypothetical question. The Bible does discourage believers from engaging in "foolish controversies" or "foolish questions" - Titus 3:9 (which is why I am a bit surprised to see a few on RF) but you've gotta figure out what is "foolish" for yourself so if a JW declines a discussion of your hypothetical question maybe they just thought it was a foolish one. If you tell me the question I'll tell you whether I agree with them.

They say the rider on the white horse pictured at Revelation 6:2 pictures Jesus Christ.
Might it picture the many coming in his name Matthew 24:5?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

God places himself "in a box"...he isn't what we want to make him, but he is what HE says he is.

That would be weird. The creator the world, almighty, and all of that limits himself? To me, it sounds like people in the bible as well as people today-since they didn't all of the sudden turn undivine after a little after 2,000 years. Weird switch-limit god to the bible. That's the only way christians want to understand god is through physical text.

To many other god-believers and even myself that is very weird to depend on a book to speak for god. God should speak for himself without the prophets and disciples as well speaking for him when he should be able to speak for himself. If christians really believe in god, who is this god a part from the bible?

What appears to be "dumb" to one person, appears to make good sense to another depending upon your mindset. Upbringing has a lot to do with how we view things.

Upbringing does, yes. Though for me, if a question doesn't make sense to me, I'd say it sounds illogical. In my opinion, a person's words reflect their character so saying something is dumb is reflecting who said the dumb statement.

We cannot make God into our own version of him. We have to accept him as he presents himself, otherwise we are barking up the wrong spiritual tree. That leads us nowhere. (Hebrews 11:6)

Um. This supports my point.

if I believed in god I'd not use the bible as the only way to describe him. To me, that is a dumb way of seeing things. Unless god is made from my image, who am I to say god can't do whatever he wants?​

When you put god in a box and depend on scripture (other people's spiritual views rather than trusting your views as a christian), and you interpret scripture, you are literally making god an image of yourself: he becomes your interpretation (and Moses and the Apostles) rather than god's.

It's kind of weird the bible says this but then that's like using the bible to say the bible is true. You need other sources if it is a fact.

Since Roman Catholicism teaches that Jesus is Almighty God, (an equal part of the trinity) and that everyone who partakes of the bread and wine goes to heaven, then it makes Jesus teachings very confusing. That is so because nowhere in any part of scripture does Jesus ever say that he is God or that he is equal to his Father in any way. The trinity is a Catholic adoption from paganism.

Do you get the point? When all come to christ (regardless the church-just sharing my experience) we are in one communion as brothers and sisters. Since jesus is human and not god, this is made possible. If he were god, he would not be flesh nor blood. But if god were one of us is just a redundant question if people actually saw jesus as a human being rather than worship him as if he is not. Would you worship your friend? Jesus can do the same thing without anyone needing to worship him; especially, when he said worship his father not him.

Here is something else. I have to go by scripture to say these things because god does not talk to me directly. He talks to god-believers (Moses and Apostles included) so why can't you speak as god speak through you?

None of that fits the scenario you suggest. So unless you have a reason to suggest the scenario in the first place.....something other than just a random thought in your head....why bother bringing it up?

You asked:

If you believe that you have the truth, what are hypothetical questions or scenarios supposed to achieve? ​

Hyptheticals are used in most classes to express a person's point. Whether the other person thinks its true or not is not the point of the conversation. No one's quoting scripture and trying to prove things right or wrong.

It's just weird that you prove the OP. I find it odd that it's hard for you to understand hypothetical questions that challenges what you know is true. It's like you only want to see through your glasses, Moses, and the Apostles, and not other people's unless it lines with scripture.

Very limited view of the world if you don't want to understand others and how they express their point when it challenges your faith and what you know is true.

 

[james bond]

Or to entertain hypothetical scenarios? If so, why?

I placed this in the interfaith discussion forum instead of the Jehovah's Witnesses DIR because I wanted former Jehovah's Witnesses to be able to chime in as well.

It's not a fair question for anyone if you're representing a group or company. For example, NK and China just nuked Japan, do we respond Mr. Trump?

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

Since you identify as having no religion, can I assume that you are an atheist? Or an agnostic perhaps? Have you ever really studied the Bible to find out what it says? Or do you just take the word of unbelievers?

I am an agnostic atheist.

I have studied my scriptures very thoroughly over many years. I have researched all things to make sure that what I believe is true.

But did you look at them from a neutral viewpoint or with the assumption of what they should be?

The Bible convinces me that it is the word of God.

How? It could easily be the product of it's time and it's deity has done many amoral things according to that book.

If you are not convinced, then what can anyone say to change your mind?

To be frank the bible kind of shoots itself in the foot. When it comes to the deity of the bible I am actually a gnostic atheist. Since I think that the bible disproves itself.

When it comes to a deity in general I am an agnostic atheist since I think it is possible but improbable.

You have the same choices as everyone else. Your reasons for making them are your own. Free will is granted to all.

Well for one thing, I think that "choosing" what you believe in is lying to yourself. You cannot make yourself be convinced of something without self-deception. If it where obviously true then it would not require people to do that.

Second of all, I think that both in reality and in the bible that free-will is an illusion. So not really.

 

[savagewind]

. If you tell me the question I'll tell you whether I agree with them.

They say the rider on the white horse pictured at Revelation 6:2 pictures Jesus Christ.
Might it picture the many coming in his name Matthew 24:5?

 

[Parsimony]

OK let's play then - I don't know what I would do in that situation, so, as a Christian, what would you do?

If the situation occurred as described, then I would have to accept that Hinduism is the true religion. I wouldn't have any choice in the matter. A person does not have the luxury to not believe in something that they know for a fact is true. The most that a person could do is enter a state of denial where they pretend that it isn't true and try not to think about it. They would still know it was true, however.

As you identify as Christian, how would you answer the OP? Do you imagine scenarios that are different to your own beliefs and answer them? If you are a Christian, why would you even do that?

In a scenario where I was provided proof (or more appropriately, strong, compelling evidence) that one or more of my core beliefs were wrong, I'd obviously have to change my perspective, wouldn't I? That seems to be a pretty straightforward answer. Is it that you don't know what you would do in such a scenario, or you do know but just don't want to talk about it?

If it is impossible for us to even imagine, then why would we answer it?

It isn't impossible to imagine. If I asked you to imagine a 5-dimensional object, then that would be impossible to imagine. However, imagining alternative historical scenarios is very much within the human mind's capability.

It really does have no bearing on reality for us...I live in the real world, not Fantasyland. I have real problems to deal with, so why even concern myself with something that makes no sense? Its a dumb question.

By that reasoning, you won't be able to answer any hypothetical questions at all, since all hypothetical questions are a form of fantasy (i.e. none of them are about how reality is, but rather about how reality might be). Considering your initial post, that's a bit odd, given that you said you are capable of imagining at least some hypothetical scenarios. Can you imagine what the world would be like if everyone was a Jehovah's Witness? I'm sure you can, despite the fact that the world isn't like that.

If you're like the rest of us, I'm sure you've had moments where you regretted a decision or two and imagined what you would do if you could travel back into the past and warn yourself against making a mistake. The scenario is a hypothetical fantasy and not possible in real life (you can't go back into the past to change your decisions), yet it's something humans think about all the time. Have you ever done that? If so, why did you spend time contemplating if it has no bearing on reality?

If you find it easy to imagine that your fundamental beliefs can be wrong, then you obviously have no Christian conviction. Indecision is not a good foundation for faith.

Because I know the difference between a hypothetical scenario and reality. I am 100% convinced that the Earth is round, but I can just as easily imagine what the consequences could be if the Earth was flat. I'm not asking you to change your beliefs, but merely asking what your beliefs would be if reality was different.

James 1:5-8:
"So if any one of you is lacking in wisdom, let him keep asking God, for he gives generously to all and without reproaching, and it will be given him. 6 But let him keep asking in faith, not doubting at all, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea driven by the wind and blown about. 7 In fact, that man should not expect to receive anything from Jehovah; 8 he is an indecisive man, unsteady in all his ways."

My conviction makes your hypotheticals seem ridiculous. So seriously, why would I even give them headroom?

It's not about conviction. You can be absolutely convinced of a truth and still be quite capable of imagining how the world would be different if it wasn't true. You can be convinced that humans went to the Moon and yet still imagine a world where we never went.

It's not a fair question for anyone if you're representing a group or company. For example, NK and China just nuked Japan, do we respond Mr. Trump?

If I was mistaken, then the Jehovah's Witnesses here are more than welcome to correct me. So far, however, Deeje seems to be confirming what I was saying: they won't address hypothetical scenarios outside of their faith, even if it is indeed possible to answer the question. I also acknowledged that not all JW's are necessarily like this: only the one's I've interacted with personally have been. Please also note that this thread is not meant to be insulting to the JW's. It's an attempt to understand them.

 

[savagewind]

I wonder why hypothetical questions OF their religious belief should not be included in this discussion. Does anyone know? Do you know @siti?

 

[savagewind]

Do you understand the question?
The talk has been why Jehovah's Witnesses will not talk about the rightness of another faith.
Why should they?

I am saying that they can't say anything about their own faith other than what they have been told to say.
Hypothetically, can any of the precepts about what "The Bible Realy Teaches" be other than what
they believe the Bible really teaches? They can't talk about that.

They are not actually taught to ignore or ridicule such questions, but they are warned that if they
are not one mind with the Watchtower they can't be considered righteously inclined.

Ask @Deeje. She calls it "eating at the table of Jehovah", and she has said that if not at that table, then the only other one is Satan's table.

That's why.

 

[siti]

I find that those who can forsake him, never really knew him.

Maybe you're right - but I certainly thought I did, I felt I did. And I worked very hard to "please" him. Maybe I got it all wrong. Maybe I never really knew him. But maybe that was because "he" wasn't really there after all. (Sorry - I can't expect anyone to understand without knowing my "story" - and I really don't want to go into details here).

 

[siti]

I wonder why hypothetical questions OF their religious belief should not be included in this discussion. Does anyone know? Do you know @siti?

I'm not sure I understand the question. Do you mean questions like "what if you're wrong about...a religious idea that is fundamental to JW beliefs?". I have no idea why they should not be included in the discussion - its in an "interfaith discussion" forum. You could try a specific question and see what happens. In my experience - though this is now somewhat dated and may very well not represent current approaches - I would not have even entered and "interfaith" discussion when I was an active JW. But if someone I was talking to asked, I would always have tried to answer honestly. Try the question and see what happens.

 

[siti]

If the situation occurred as described, then I would have to accept that Hinduism is the true religion. I wouldn't have any choice in the matter. A person does not have the luxury to not believe in something that they know for a fact is true. The most that a person could do is enter a state of denial where they pretend that it isn't true and try not to think about it. They would still know it was true, however.

I agree - so would I. Now, since most of us are not privileged with direct divine revelations, how can the rest of us determine which is the true religion?

 

[siti]

They say the rider on the white horse pictured at Revelation 6:2 pictures Jesus Christ. Might it picture the many coming in his name Matthew 24:5?

Sorry - I'm reading the posts back to front (silly me) so I now realize that you have in fact already posted the question I just asked for.

White horse - many coming in "my name" and leading astray. So you're saying there is a correspondence between the ride of the four horsemen in Revelation and the sequence of events in Matthew 24 that Jesus referred to as the "tribulation"? But why do you suppose the rider of the white horse in Revelation was given a crown? And might it not be that Revelation 6:2 corresponds more closely with Matthew 24:29-30?

 

[savagewind]

Sorry -

I don't hear that much on the forums. Have I ever? LOL Thanks. No need to be sorry though.

I'm reading the posts back to front (silly me) so I now realize that you have in fact already posted the question I just asked for.

I thought so.

White horse - many coming in "my name" and leading astray. So you're saying there is a correspondence between the ride of the four horsemen in Revelation and the sequence of events in Matthew 24 that Jesus referred to as the "tribulation"?

I am saying that it is possible, but that Jheovha's Witnesses are not allowed to think it isn't Jesus Christ.

But why do you suppose the rider of the white horse in Revelation was given a crown?

It is SO OBVIOUS! It never says Jehovah gives it to it. The people give it to it i.e. false religious leaders. The people obey the imitation Jesus Christ as though it wears a crown. A crown is to obey. They even teach it is to be obeyed. They mistranslate Hebrews 13:17 to read "OBEY", but it says yield. Yielding and obeying are different. The meaning of the word
Πείθεσθε is another thing they can't talk about.

And might it not be that Revelation 6:2 corresponds more closely with Matthew 24:29-30?

Yes, Jesus does not bring the tribulation. People do.

 

[siti]

I am saying that it is possible, but that Jheovha's Witnesses are not allowed to think it isn't Jesus Christ.

It is SO OBVIOUS! It never says Jehovah gives it to it. The people give it to it i.e. false religious leaders. The people obey the imitation Jesus Christ as though it wears a crown. A crown is to obey. They even teach it is to be obeyed. They mistranslate Hebrews 13:17 to read "OBEY", but it says yield. Yielding and obeying are different. The meaning of the word Πείθεσθε is another thing they can't talk about.

On the white horse thing, who is the rider on the white horse in Revelation 19:11?

On the Hebrews 13:17 thing - don't both the KJV and the ASV also render the word "obey"? Πείθεσθε is the present imperative tense of a verb that literally means "to be persuaded about" or "to have confidence in". I think the word you are thinking of is ὑπείκετε which occurs later in the verse and does mean "yield". This is rendered "submit" in the KJV and "be submissive" in the New World Translation.

If you wanted a more literal translation of this verse then one might go for something like: "Have confidence in those leading you and be submissive..." - that certainly implies obedience to the teachings of those taking the lead in the Christian congregation - but the Greek word Πείθεσθε also implies an active attempt to develop or build the confidence (to be "persuaded about" rather than unquestioningly accept the ability of the leaders to lead properly) so its not blind obedience - rather, it is a confident "obedience" based on observing their teaching and life course (compare Hebrews 13:7).

 

[Deeje]

Maybe you're right - but I certainly thought I did, I felt I did. And I worked very hard to "please" him. Maybe I got it all wrong. Maybe I never really knew him. But maybe that was because "he" wasn't really there after all. (Sorry - I can't expect anyone to understand without knowing my "story" - and I really don't want to go into details here).

The devil is clever at giving causes for stumbling; he knows our weak spots better than we do, but those with a close personal relationship with God and unshakable faith, will see through it. When emotions are involved, our vision can be clouded, especially by injustice (perceived or real) God does not prevent tests of our faith (think Job) but he will take us through them if we don't lose our confidence and bail on him.

I wish I could share the countless times that God has directed me in my life...in ways that I sometimes rebelled at initially. Yet when I yielded to his will, I received the most amazing blessings. My life has not been without tragedy or injustice, but through it all I never lost my focus. Imperfect men have guided God's people since the beginning, but they are all he has at present. Due to imperfection, they can let us down, but Jehovah never will. He will not leave us unless we leave him first.

Many people have a "story" but many of them are still faithfully carrying out their commission in spite of what they have suffered. Their reward will be great. (Like Job) Disgruntled and bitter people who have left our ranks are among the most miserable and vindictive people on the planet.....mostly because they came to realize that they can't find another spiritual home that teaches the truth....and pride won't let them return.
To defect back to Christendom is not a spiritually fulfilling move. Once you learn the truth...you can't 'unlearn' it. No one else is teaching it....and atheism gives no hope for a better life or future.

There is no point to our existence without Jehovah....

 

[Deeje]

In a scenario where I was provided proof (or more appropriately, strong, compelling evidence) that one or more of my core beliefs were wrong, I'd obviously have to change my perspective, wouldn't I? That seems to be a pretty straightforward answer. Is it that you don't know what you would do in such a scenario, or you do know but just don't want to talk about it?

I have seen no strong compelling evidence for defecting to any other belief system. Do you have strong compelling evidence for any of them? Hinduism? Buddhism? Islam? If you don't, what is the point of this exercise? The conduct of their adherents speaks louder than their holy writings.

When I was in Christendom, someone showed me strong and compelling evidence that what I was taught in that belief system was completely false. It made me leave Christendom and become a JW. So if I can't accept a different scenario, presented in a compelling way that struck a chord in my heart immediately......don't look now, but I already did.

 

[siti]

Disgruntled and bitter people who have left our ranks are among the most miserable and vindictive people on the planet.....mostly because they came to realize that they can't find another spiritual home that teaches the truth....and pride won't let them return.
To defect back to Christendom is not a spiritually fulfilling move.

Seriously Deeje? You tried the "soft soap" approach and that didn't work so now you're going with the "hard talk" version? Been there, done that, rarely effective.

In any case, do I really strike you as disgruntled, bitter, miserable, vindictive or proud? Honestly? I am enjoying the thread and I sincerely dislike false accusations (against anyone) which is why I am batting for the JW side in this thread. But just because I can still interpret scripture sensibly to refute false arguments about what scripture says, doesn't mean I believe what it says, it just means I can read. Please don't pursue the rescuing a faltering brother from the fire angle any further - I'll just drop out of the thread if you do that. I appreciate your kind concern but this is not the place for that - and in any case, as I tried to suggest, it ain't gonna work.

 

[savagewind]

On the white horse thing, who is the rider on the white horse in Revelation 19:11?
.

I do not know how it is possible to think that just because Jesus is shown riding a white horse it means that everyone who rides a white horse means Jesus.