Malawi and MCP Cards?

[Many Miles]

2 minutes ago, George88 said:

…they are able to observe your questions and responses.

Of course. That is the way it should be. That’s why we bother to put information and questions into the public realm. Readers can see it all and make of it what they will. That’s a good thing. Don’t you agree? 

[Srecko Sostar]

10 hours ago, George88 said:

Simply put, Pastor Russell's position on an oath of allegiance is of respect for human authority, while his real allegiance lies with God and with the "King of Kings." His citizenship was in heaven.

A MATTER OF CONSCIENCE

ACTS 24:16: “And herein do I exercise myself, to have always a conscience void of offense toward God, and toward men.

“Of course, no country forces aliens into the army; and were it recognized that true Christians are aliens as respects earthly governments, the whole question might solve itself. The Bible Students’ claim is that the followers of Jesus have their citizenship in heaven, and that by giving their obedience to the heavenly Lord they renounce in a degree their allegiance to earthly kings — governments. It is for this reason that we have long advocated that the fully consecrated abstain from voting on political issues. if they so vote, they are identifying themselves with the earthly kingdoms, and might properly enough be called upon to shoot as they vote — to support the government which they helped to create.

Many of us know that the early WT held the doctrine that all members of the movement would go to heaven. Then, in the early 1930s, they changed their doctrine. Another example of "old truths and new lies" or "old lies and new truths", take it as you will.

In both cases, we have difficulty literally living with such an idea. From which authority do you have documents such as birth certificate, identity card, passport, etc.? Do not talk about religious fictions and ideas about one's identity.

If a JW in the USA is a foreigner to the USA authorities, then where is his evidence that he is a citizen of Jesus' Kingdom? How can he prove this when according to WTJWorg theology, the invisible Kingdom has existed since 1914 and has not issued any certificates to its believers. Moreover, Jesus said that he would separate the sheep from the goats (separate its citizens from non-citizens) at some future time.

If we want to take it as a measure of belonging to the Kingdom (citizenship), then the personal aspiration and faith of an individual is the only "document" of belonging, but only as an empty form without the signature and seal of the competent service that may accept such an individual as its own citizen.
Even more, the right to citizenship, according to the interpretation, is obtained only after the final test at the end of the 1000-year Kingdom.
Who do today's JWs belong to? To those whose documents you have in your pocket.

The rebelliousness of citizens towards their own authorities has its justification in some matters and circumstances. But that applies to every government.

[Srecko Sostar]

8 hours ago, Many Miles said:

the society offered an alternate

I heard in a conversation with an elder (many years ago, 15 or more), I think it was in Bethel, how the Organization waits for the secular authorities to offer it an alternative solution for a matter, and then they  says whether it is acceptable or not to Society. He rejected any possibility that the Organization would propose a solution. Interesting how mindset of people in WTJWorg is changing.

[Srecko Sostar]

5 hours ago, George88 said:

Srecko, all you need to do is look at the Wikipedia commentary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia_State_Board_of_Education_v._Barnette

 

Quote from your source in Wikipedia:

(Justice) Jackson warned that "[t]hose who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard".

My comment:

What a country can ask of its citizens is no more or less than what WTJWorg asks of its followers. Things are quite clearly placed in the same or very similar frameworks. If you do not submit, you will be rejected and isolated. What then is the fundamental difference between secular and religious? There is no such thing. Both sides are prepared to take drastic measures to eliminate the ineligible.

 

[Pudgy]

Quote from your source in Wikipedia:

(Justice) Jackson warned that "[t]hose who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard".

… That’s why it takes 20 MAN YEARS (40,000 hours) of preaching to get ONE new Jehovah’s Witness that will stay his entire life.

Having the Core Truths about God and man, there should be a line of people lined up trying to become Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Instead, they are being chased away almost as fast as recruited.

[Srecko Sostar]

8 hours ago, George88 said:

Srecko, all you need to do is look at the Wikipedia commentary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia_State_Board_of_Education_v._Barnette

 

What was WT position about national flag in 1917:

Thank God for the privilege of living in the United States! While
we all recognize that it is not a perfect government, yet it is the best
of all earthly governments. Every one who lives under the flag of the
United States should be loyal to that Government as against all
earthly governments. No citizen of this country could be a Christian
and do violence to the Government of the United States. To be loyal
to the law of God he must render unto the United States Government
everything that is not in contravention of the divine law. – Romans
13:1-9.

DISPLAYING THE AMERICAN FLAG
Suppose the city or state officials should issue an order requiring,
or even requesting, that all persons display the American flag. What
should we do? We answer, We think it would be right to display the
flag in obedience to such order or request. The American flag was
adopted as an emblem of liberty. It is the national emblem. While
some have insisted that it now represents war, this is hardly in
keeping with the facts. It may represent war to those who desire war,
but to those who love liberty and peace, the flag represents liberty
and peace. However that may be, the displaying of the American flag
can do injury to no one. If commanded or requested to display the
flag, it should be done, out of respect to the Government under which
it is the privilege of Christians to live. If an American was the guest
of the British Government and was requested to display the British
flag and refused to do so, it would be showing disrespect to the
British Government, his host. If a Christian, who is an alien amongst 

all earthly governments, should, while journeying amongst them, be
requested to display a flag of the country whose benefits he is
enjoying, and refuse to do so, such refusal would be failing to show
the proper respect to such government. Recognizing that the
Government of the United States has been the special refuge of
Christian people from intolerable persecution; that it was founded as
an asylum of religious liberty and freedom of speech, every one in
America should take pleasure in displaying the American flag -
especially when requested so to do. It does not mean that by putting a
flag on your house you would want to go to war. Since the Bethel
Home was established, in one end of the Drawing Room there has
been kept a small bust of Abraham Lincoln with two American flags
displayed about the bust. This is deemed entirely proper, having in
mind what Mr. Lincoln did for the Government and for the people of
the United States, and in this we see nothing inconsistent with a
Christian’s duty. (The Watchtower May 15, 1917 pp. 6085-6086,
reprints).

[Pudgy]

Do you have a link to those WT pages?

[Pudgy]

Two ways of looking at that.

I can’t imagine the Apostles having busts of ANYONE in their homes and it not being a problem, but I can easily visualize the Roman Centurion Cornelias having a bust of Caesar in his home (or perhaps a Labarum) and it not being a problem, because he was SPECIFICALLY defined as a man having God’s approval. 

( The labarum was a military standard used by the Roman Empire, featuring the Chi-Rho symbol, a monogram representing the first two letters of "Christ" in Greek. It was introduced by Emperor Constantine the Great in the early 4th century as a Christian symbol on the battlefield. The labarum typically consisted of a staff topped with a banner displaying the Chi-Rho and sometimes accompanied by other religious symbols.

Before the adoption of the labarum, the Roman military standards included the eagle (aquila) as a prominent symbol. The aquila was a golden or bronze eagle mounted on a pole, serving as a revered emblem for Roman legions. These standards represented the honor and identity of the legion, and losing one in battle was considered a grave dishonor. Each legion had its own distinctive eagle, emphasizing the importance of these symbols in Roman military tradition.

Another standard was the "signum," a type of Roman military standard that featured images of the emperor and his family. These were smaller standards carried by individual cohorts within a legion. The images on the signum emphasized loyalty to the reigning emperor and served as a visual representation of the legion's allegiance to the imperial family. The primary standard, the aquila, was more focused on the legion as a whole, while the signum highlighted the personal connection between the soldiers and the ruling authority.  )

In the middle of a World War, I would imagine having a bust of Abraham Lincoln and two small flags would be a matter of personal conscience … only because the real life example of Cornelius, a man SPECIFICALLY defined as approved by God, trumps ANY contrary esoteric theory.

 

 

[TrueTomHarley]

10 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Then, in the early 1930s, they changed their doctrine. Another example of "old truths and new lies" or "old lies and new truths", take it as you will.

It is well not to describe religous interpretations as ‘lies’ when they cannot immediately be identified as such. With your patience—and you are certainly a patient and tenacious fellow—let me try to develop a point: 

Congregations are lately covering the Book of Job. Here, Job is giving his testimony: “Let God weigh me with accurate scales; Then he will recognize my integrity.” (Job 31:6)

His life course is one of integrity toward God. If it was not, downfall would be justified, he believes, but it has been

“If my footsteps deviate from the way Or my heart has followed after my eyes Or my hands have been defiled, … If my heart has been enticed by a woman And I have lain in wait at my neighbor’s door, … If I denied justice to my male or female servants When they had a complaint against me, … If I refused to give the poor what they desired Or saddened the eyes of the widow; If I ate my portion of food alone Without sharing it with the orphans;… If I saw anyone perishing for lack of clothing Or a poor man with nothing to cover himself; … If I shook my fist against the orphan When he needed my assistance in the city gate; … If I put my confidence in gold Or said to fine gold, ‘You are my security!’ If I found my joy in my great wealth Because of the many possessions I acquired;” (31: 7-25)

All those things would be bad, meriting God’s disfavor, he believes, but he never did any of them!

“Have I ever rejoiced over the destruction of my enemy Or gloated because evil befell him?  I never allowed my mouth to sin. . . Have the men of my tent not said, ‘Who can find anyone who has not been satisfied with his food?’ No stranger had to spend the night outside; I opened my doors to the traveler. Have I ever tried to cover over my transgressions, like other men, By hiding my error in the pocket of my garment?” Have I been in fear of the reaction of the multitude, Or have I been terrified by the contempt of other families, Making me silent and afraid to go outside?”  (29-34) No, his life is not characterized by any of those things.

It is his testimony. He has always been upright. He’s ready to sign it: “I would sign my name to what I have said.” (31:35)

It is all peremptorily denied by his three interrogators: 

Eliphaz: Is [your suffering] not because your own wickedness is so great And there is no end to your errors? For you seize a pledge from your brothers for no reason, And you strip people of their garments, leaving them naked. You do not give the tired one a drink of water, And you hold back food from the hungry. The land belongs to the powerful man, And the favored one dwells in it. But you sent away widows empty-handed, And you crushed the arms of fatherless children. That is why you are surrounded by traps, And sudden terrors frighten you;  (Job 22:5-10)

Why does he reject Job’s testimony, instead charging just the opposite? Because it conflicts with his own ‘theology:’ “What I have seen,” Eliphaz says previously, “is that those who plow what is harmful And those who sow trouble will reap the same. By the breath of God they perish, And through a blast of his anger they come to an end. . . . Even the teeth of strong lions are broken.”  (Job 4:8-10)

His preformed—faulty, as it turns out—theology tells him Job must have been ‘plowing what is harmful’ for him to be suffering now. Job, who otherwise might have agreed with that theology, undergoes the worst of spiritual crises to accompany his crisis on all other fronts, because he knows he has not been ‘plowing what is harmful’—quite the contrary. So he works out his angst by blaming God for being both cruel and unfair. This further inflames Eliphaz and crew, already riled that Job is resisting their ‘correction.’ Now they read  false positive for apostasy and figure they must attack Job for that reason, too. Presently they are all but hurling epithets at the poor fellow.

Before chalking up the above to the oddities of religious people (or applying them to Witness HQ), reflect that all of society is that way. If you have benefited from acupuncture, say, and want to tell the world about it, you will find yourself derided among the materialist crowd for advocating ‘pseudoscience.’ What about your own beneficial experience, you will ask. ‘It will be attributed to ‘anecdotal evidence,’ inherently unreliable. It doesn’t matter how many like testimonies you can gather; it will all be attributed to ‘anecdotal evidence’ by those whose scientific ‘theology’ admits to no other view—they can’t replicate your experience in their test tubes, so they assume you are either deluded or lying. Mechanisms may differ, but the overall pattern is no different than Job’s ‘anecdotal evidence’ rejected by those of a different theology.

You can go along with the airy dismissal of ‘anecdotal evidence.’ Then one day you find it is your evidence they are trying to dismiss and you wonder how people can be so high-handed and stubborn.

[Pudgy]

Another thing to consider is that everything we do in life is experimental, and just like Jehovah was surprised when the people rolled their children into the fiery stomachs of Molech, we are often surprised and sucker punched.

It’s not that we “love the Truth”, quite often what we love, we label as “ The Truth”. 

This is true for Saints and Monsters.

If a person is WRONG … but believes himself that what he in good conscience tells you is true …. that is NOT A LIE.

A lie has to be a DELIBERATE lie, and hearing something wrong from a self-deluded person, if you believe it, does NOT mean you have been lied to.

So, I believe that 95% of what we think is correct, that turns out to be wrong, in History, Astronomy, (Astronomer Percival Lowell believed he saw “Canals” on Mars …and for decades everyone on Earth believed it.), Chemistry, Physics … AND THEOLOGY, is not an attempt at deception.

Attempts at deception are lies.

Being cluelessly ignorant and self-delusional may make someone a certified fool … but labeling them as liars may be unfair …. and wrong!

[Pudgy]

However, that being said, realize that when a religion gets used to an unlimited supply of free money and real estate, very bad things become normal …. very fast.

Historically, there had never, ever, been an exception.

[Many Miles]

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Before chalking up the above to the oddities of religious people (or applying them to Witness HQ), reflect that all of society is that way. If you have benefited from acupuncture, say, and want to tell the world about it, you will find yourself derided among the materialist crowd for advocating ‘pseudoscience.’ What about your own beneficial experience, you will ask. ‘It will be attributed to ‘anecdotal evidence,’ inherently unreliable. It doesn’t matter how many like testimonies you can gather; it will all be attributed to ‘anecdotal evidence’ by those whose scientific ‘theology’ admits to no other view—they can’t replicate your experience in their test tubes, so they assume you are either deluded or lying. Mechanisms may differ, but the overall pattern is no different than Job’s ‘anecdotal evidence’ rejected by those of a different theology.

You can go along with the airy dismissal of ‘anecdotal evidence.’ Then one day you find it is your evidence they are trying to dismiss and you wonder how people can be so high-handed and stubborn.

Anyone today claiming acupuncture is pseudoscience is uniformed. For instance, scientific methods of information examination shows some peripheral neuropathies are demonstrated to respond to acupuncture. Such a systematic review falls within the realm of scientific method.

That said, anecdotal evidence is still evidence. It just tends to have low veracity because though a particular experience may be accurately shared there could be more reasons for the experiential outcome than the individual realizes. I'd dare say that a majority of today's medical therapeutics began as anecdotal evidence used to form a hypothesis to help advance medical treatment. It is one thing to point out the weakness of anecdotal evidence, but no self-respecting scientific researcher would dismiss it out of hand, that is unless the claim has already been thoroughly refuted by systematic review and experimentation.