Why are Jehovah's Witnesses reluctant to discuss their faith?

[TagliatelliMonster]

I didn't write that.

You linked to it to make a silly point.

Why did you pick that out to focus on?

Because it was behind the link in your post.

Oh, forgive me. I forgot we talk to ourselves at times. Were you talking to yourself?

No, instead addressing the link you included in your post.

 

[nPeace]

You linked to it to make a silly point.



Because it was behind the link in your post.



No, instead addressing the link you included in your post.

 

[nPeace]

@TagliatelliMonster by the way, you seem quite angry at me.
Is that the normal behavior of most atheist, or did I give you a hard time?
Not that I mind so much. I'm just thinking of you, and how it makes you look.

 

[savagewind]

I think that it is true about the Jehovah's Witnesses that they will not discuss the reasons for their disbelief in evolution and their belief that God did it because they don't want to say that it is because they have to believe what the governing body says they must or they can't be faithful witnesses. Discuss that!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

@TagliatelliMonster by the way, you seem quite angry at me.

LOL

Is that the normal behavior of most atheist, or did I give you a hard time?

Actually, it seems more like a misconception among creationists, to always think that those who don't agree with them, are "angry" for some reason.

Not that I mind so much. I'm just thinking of you, and how it makes you look.

I'm fine thanks.

 

[tas8831]

This from the fellow that thinks phylogenetic trees are drawn BEFORE analyses are done....

 

[Dan From Smithville]

This from the fellow that thinks phylogenetic trees are drawn BEFORE analyses are done....

That is pure, unadulterated irony. The richest, most aromatic kind.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

LOL



Actually, it seems more like a misconception among creationists, to always think that those who don't agree with them, are "angry" for some reason.



I'm fine thanks.

It is a tactic. It usually means you touched a nerve, but they have nothing meaningful to reply with except some condescending remark like what was done.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I think that it is true about the Jehovah's Witnesses that they will not discuss the reasons for their disbelief in evolution and their belief that God did it because they don't want to say that it is because they have to believe what the governing body says they must or they can't be faithful witnesses. Discuss that!

I wonder where the free will is if a believer is under duress and fear of retaliation if they ask questions or challenge the churches position? That has always seemed like the motivations and rules of another type of religious organization.

 

[gnostic]

In most different Christian sects, those respective churches make no rules for any of their followers to join the creationism bandwagons, leaving the choice of individual Christians to follow or not Young or Old Earth Creationism, or to accept or not accept Evolution/Abiogenesis.

So the choice is up to the individuals, not the always their respective church policies.

For instance, under the current pope, he accepted that Evolution is fact, and the evidence support the theory that explain Evolution. However, he doesn’t decreed that all Catholics must accept Evolution, so he doesn’t and won’t stop his followers from being YECs or Intelligent Design adherents.

Example of this, is the biochemist Michael Behe, but also a Catholic who advocated for creationism, particularly the Intelligent Design creationism. Pope Francis rejected Intelligent Design as unscientific, and accepted the Big Bang cosmology and Evolutionary Biology as fact.

Despite them both being on the opposite sides, the Pope will never order any Catholic to reject ID and accept Evolution.

And that’s the way it should be.

The Pope will not pressure anyone to follow his lead.

The choice should be every individuals to freely make, not enforced by the leaders or the church.

But does JW leaders and the Watch Tower Society offer their followers the same freedom to accept Evolution of their own choosing?

That’s what I think @Jose Fly was trying to say in the OP.

Does JW - as an organisation, eg leaders council members - make followers to reject evolution because of JW policy?

If a JW member accept Evolution as fact, will he or she face some of consequences administered? Examples alienation, ostracism, excommunication?

 

[savagewind]

In most different Christian sects, those respective churches make no rules for any of their followers to join the creationism bandwagons, leaving the choice of individual Christians to follow or not Young or Old Earth Creationism, or to accept or not accept Evolution/Abiogenesis.

So the choice is up to the individuals, not the always their respective church policies.

For instance, under the current pope, he accepted that Evolution is fact, and the evidence support the theory that explain Evolution. However, he doesn’t decreed that all Catholics must accept Evolution, so he doesn’t and won’t stop his followers from being YECs or Intelligent Design adherents.

Example of this, is the biochemist Michael Behe, but also a Catholic who advocated for creationism, particularly the Intelligent Design creationism. Pope Francis rejected Intelligent Design as unscientific, and accepted the Big Bang cosmology and Evolutionary Biology as fact.

Despite them both being on the opposite sides, the Pope will never order any Catholic to reject ID and accept Evolution.

And that’s the way it should be.

The Pope will not pressure anyone to follow his lead.

The choice should be every individuals to freely make, not enforced by the leaders or the church.

But does JW leaders and the Watch Tower Society offer their followers the same freedom to accept Evolution of their own choosing?

That’s what I think @Jose Fly was trying to say in the OP.

Does JW - as an organisation, eg leaders council members - make followers to reject evolution because of JW policy?

If a JW member accept Evolution as fact, will he or she face some of consequences administered? Examples alienation, ostracism, excommunication?

There is probably no fast rule about what to believe regarding evolution, but to talk about a personal opinion other than what is being taught presently via the Watchtower magazine is grounds for alienation and even perhaps disfellowshipping (excommunication). The reason? Philippians 2:2; Ephesians 4:4; 1 Corinthians 10:17

 

[Jose Fly]

But does JW leaders and the Watch Tower Society offer their followers the same freedom to accept Evolution of their own choosing?

No, absolutely not. The Jehovah's Witness position on that is summed up nicely in their literature.

https://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/teen-questions/should-i-believe-in-evolution/

"If evolution is true, life has no lasting purpose."​

And some Witnesses here have directly stated that if they were to accept evolution, they would be treated like a "rotten piece of fruit" and a "person spreading poison" by their fellow Witnesses. Also, they've stated that their life would lose all meaning and purpose (consistent with the website above).

So no, they are specifically prohibited by JW doctrine to recognize evolution as reality.

That’s what I think @Jose Fly was trying to say in the OP.

Does JW - as an organisation, eg leaders council members - make followers to reject evolution because of JW policy?

That's half of it. Here's the other half...

I can understand why individual Witnesses reject/deny evolution; it's clearly a significant part of JW doctrine and policy. I think we all realize that. But what I don't understand is why individual Witnesses are so reluctant to own up to the situation. Whenever I've even suggested to a Witness here that JW doctrine and policy might be influencing their views on evolutionary biology, they act rather shocked and offended that anyone would even think such a thing! Two Witnesses here put me on ignore for going there and the other dodges the issue every single time I bring it up.

That's what I don't get. Why are they so unwilling to admit what seems so obvious? Are they ashamed of their faith? Are they embarrassed by JW doctrine/policy?

 

[nPeace]

@gnostic There is only one leader as far as JWs are concerned - Jesus Christ. (Matthew 23:10) Neither be called leaders, for your Leader is one, the Christ. . .

The brothers, do not "Lord it over" anyone's faith. (Matthew 20:25-27)
(1 Peter 5:2, 3) 2 Shepherd the flock of God under your care, serving as overseers, not under compulsion, but willingly before God; not for love of dishonest gain, but eagerly; 3 not lording it over those who are God’s inheritance, but becoming examples to the flock.

So the choice is up to the individuals.
So say tomorrow, I accepted evolution, as something I now believe - that man evolved from an ape-like ancestor.
So I go in the ministry with fellow witnesses, and someone raises the question. "Do you believe God created two beings - Adam and Eve?"

Me: "Umm. Uh..."
My partner: Yes, I believe what the Bible says. It says, God created the first man and woman, and from these, all mankind came. Only, there was a time when Noah and his family, who had the genes of Adam, passed those on to future generations.
Me:

Householder: What say you? Do you agree?
Me: Umm... I believe God created the universe, from which life came.
Householder: What did you say? I didn't hear you.
Me: We'll come back another time, and discuss that with you. Will you be available say....?

What just happened?
This is a cause for concern - a problem.

(1 Corinthians 1:10-18) 10 Now I urge you, brothers, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you should all speak in agreement and that there should be no divisions among you, but that you may be completely united in the same mind and in the same line of thought. 11 For some from the house of Chloe have informed me regarding you, my brothers, that there are dissensions among you. 12 What I mean is this, that each one of you says: “I belong to Paul,” “But I to A·polʹlos,” “But I to Cephas,” “But I to Christ.” 13 Is the Christ divided? Paul was not executed on the stake for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? 14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name. 16 Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas. As for the rest, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else. 17 For Christ sent me, not to baptize, but to declare the good news; and not with wisdom of speech, so that the torture stake of the Christ should not be made useless. 18 For the speech about the torture stake is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved, it is God’s power.

When problem arises in the congregation, what is to be done?
That's why overseers are appointed - to maintain, the peace, unity, and order, in the congregation. (1 Corinthians 14:33) For God is a God not of disorder but of peace.. . .

I need to have a little talk with the overseers, and let them know that I have had a change of mind, and no longer believe the Bible to be truly God's word, but the product of myths and legends.
After all, that would be the honest thing to do.
How can I continue to share in preaching along with the congregation, with which I no longer agree with it's teachings?
Of course, the brothers will be loving and patient with me.

When I made my vow at baptism, I agreed to two things.
One of those things I agreed to was that I understand that I identify myself as being one of JWs, in association with his organization.
Has that changed?
In all honesty, I now demonstrate that I don't identify as one of JWs in association with his organization.

In that case, what should I do.
"Please keep me on as one of JWs. I beg you. Don't mind I contradict my brothers, and speak against what they believe (and I once believed). It can still work ou..."

Excuse me?
Be a man / woman, and just accept that you changed your mind, and now want out. Stop being a cry baby.

I, or the elders, have an important decision to make.
Either way I have made the choice. No one made that choice for me.

Edit: @gnostic Will I face "ostracism"? That depends on me.
I hope this is clear enough.

 

[Jose Fly]

The post above by @nPeace describes quite well what I've been talking about. As we can see, he makes it very, very clear that if a Jehovah's Witness were to change their mind and decide evolution is real, they'd be removed from the faith. Put that together with what another Witness here told me about how such a person would be treated by their fellow Witnesses (like a "rotten piece of fruit" and someone "spreading poison"), as well as JW teachings that if evolution is real then life has no purpose, and....well, doesn't it seem obvious that Jehovah's Witnesses' views on evolution are heavily influenced by all that?

Oh, but if you dare to suggest such a thing to a Witness, they act like you've accused them of something horrific!

I really, really don't get it. Like I keep saying, it's as if they're embarrassed by their own faith.

 

[savagewind]

I really, really don't get it. Like I keep saying, it's as if they're embarrassed by their own faith.

The Jehovah's Witnesses trust that Intelligent Design is the way things are because it makes the most sense to them and they reject the truth of the matter which is that they are being trained to believe that way. They won't discuss their being trained to believe. I think that a discussion of the training of Jehovah's Witnesses might be very interesting, but I doubt that it will ever happen.

 

[Jose Fly]

The Jehovah's Witnesses trust that Intelligent Design is the way things are because it makes the most sense to them

Gauging by their posts, it's only in a very superficial way (as in, rote talking points).

and they reject the truth of the matter which is that they are being trained to believe that way. They won't discuss their being trained to believe. I think that a discussion of the training of Jehovah's Witnesses might be very interesting, but I doubt that it will ever happen.

Maybe the reluctance stems from their history of having accusations of brainwashing and cultish behavior thrown at them? Given all that, perhaps they're overly sensitive to even the mere suggestion that their views and opinions are shaped by the JW organization.

 

[savagewind]

Gauging by their posts, it's only in a very superficial way (as in, rote talking points).


Maybe the reluctance stems from their history of having accusations of brainwashing and cultish behavior thrown at them? Given all that, perhaps they're overly sensitive to even the mere suggestion that their views and opinions are shaped by the JW organization.

It would amaze me if Jehovah's Witnesses do not realize that their opinions are shaped by the organization though they might call the shaping "by Jehovah" and not by the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses.

(Which, by the way, just circles around to the point that I have been trying to make which is that they really do call themselves Jehovah. <Please accept my apology for going off the topic.)

 

[Jose Fly]

It would amaze me if Jehovah's Witnesses do not realize that their opinions are shaped by the organization though they might call the shaping "by Jehovah" and not by the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses.

It's hard for me to say, since the Witnesses here absolutely refuse to discuss it.

(Which, by the way, just circles around to the point that I have been trying to make which is that they really do call themselves Jehovah. <Please accept my apology for going off the topic.)

No worries.

 

[savagewind]

I want to share my theory of why they are sometimes overly sensitive about sharing their reason for their belief in Intelligent Design alone.

Naturally, parents train their children to thrive and succeed in whatever they have in mind for them. And, humans train animals. Owners train their workers. Animals, children, and workers are trained by their respective owners. Jehovah's Witnesses are trained by the men of the governing body. They will say that it isn't so but that they are taught by the Bible exclusively, but they must believe many things that cannot be found within it anywhere. So, therefore, the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses OWN Jehovah's Witnesses. Of course, they can not talk about that!

 

[gnostic]

(1 Corinthians 1:10-18) 10 Now I urge you, brothers, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you should all speak in agreement and that there should be no divisions among you, but that you may be completely united in the same mind and in the same line of thought.

You are forgetting that Jesus will bring division, where children turn against their parents and siblings against siblings, friends against friends. That what Jesus meant by not bring peace, but the sword.

And history have shown that churches have turned against churches, sects against sects.

Paul saying one thing in Corinthians but Jesus saying something else. Whose words would know to be true, Jesus’ or Paul’s?