Midweek Meeting Comments – Feb. 24, 2014

Comment by smolderingwick1 on 2014-02-23 23:07:18

One needs only read Joshua 24:32 where it says, “And Joseph’s bones, which the sons of Israel had brought up out of Egypt, they buried in Shechem in the tract of the field that Jacob had acquired from the sons of Hamor, Shechem’s father, for a hundred pieces of money; and it came to belong to the sons of Joseph as an inheritance.”
This of course comes from Genesis 33:18, 19 where it says "In time Jacob came safe and sound to the city of Shechem, which is in the land of Canaan, while he was coming from Paddanaram; and he pitched camp in front of the city. Then he acquired a tract of the field where he pitched his tent at the hand of the sons of Hamor the father of She′chem, for a hundred pieces of money."
So while Jacob and Hamor were doing business, the kids were playing and Gen 34 goes on to say that Hamor’s son Shechem was “the most honorable of the whole house of his father.” Yes, when he saw Dinah, he “lay down with her and violated her,” but the act was portrayed as consensual since he had fallen in love with Dinah and wanted to marry her.
While Jacob’s sons were enraged about the affair, it was “with deceit” they proposed to validate the marriage by having Shechem and all the household, the entire city of men to get circumcised. This was agreed to by both families. Having myself got circumcised at the awkward age of thirteen years, I can attest to its painful process.
The point is, the entire city was willing to come under a covenanted relationship with Jacob and all of his family. They all agreed to it. Then, just “when they got to be aching,” Simeon and Levi attacked the city, killing , Shechem, and all the other men.
When we read the entire account, I really wonder which was a greater violation? The apparent rape, or the destruction of innocent, deceived men? For later reading you might just note that when it came time to apportion the land to the nation—how much land did Simeon and Levi get?
While we, as an organization condemn Dinah constantly, do we really admit the circumstances of Dinah's involvement with Shechem when her own father was doing business with his father Hamor? Why do we condemn Dinah so much yet turn a blind eye to Simeon and Levi and the rest of Jacob's sons killing off the entire city? Because we are as righteous overmuch as were Jacob's sons? Wait till they sell Joseph to the Midianites for the TRUE answers to come through! Who are we more like?
sw

Comment by GodsWordisTruth on 2014-02-23 23:20:44

Romans 14:1 is cited in paragraph 12 it reads "Welcome the man having weaknesses in his faith,+ but do not pass judgment on differing opinions.*" The footnote reads "Or possibly, “inward questionings.”( The RNWT reads differently from the Reference Bible) . We(JW's) pass judgement on on those with differing opinions and disfellowship them.
"From time to time, there have arisen from among the ranks of Jehovah's people those, who, like the original Satan, have adopted an independent, faultfinding attitude...They say that it is sufficient to read the Bible exclusively, either alone or in small groups at home. But, strangely, through such 'Bible reading,' they have reverted right back to the apostate doctrines that commentaries by Christendom's clergy were teaching 100 years ago..." (Watchtower, Aug. 15, 1981
Why is "strange" that when the Bible is read alone or with a group , without the help of GB, a person reverts back to "apostate" teachings of mainstream Christanity? I was raised in "the truth" I have no teachings to revert back to .What "apostate" teachings are they referring to? Additionally, Is it possible to read and study the Bible( alone or in a group) and end up becoming more like "the original Satan" rather than God? Why are mainstream Christians the apostates? It seems like it would be the other way around based on the view of JW's.( JW's have broken away from Mainstream Christians, so aren't we apostates?)
Paul says in verse 4 Who are you to judge the servant of another?+ To his own master he stands or falls.+ Indeed, he will be made to stand, for Jehovah*( insertion of the Divine name)can make him stand.
5 One man judges one day as above another;+ another judges one day the same as all others;+ let each one be fully convinced in his own mind.
Christians were branded as Apostates when they were promoting ideas that went against APOSTOLIC teachings (1Timothy 2:17,18)
*** w86 4/1 30-1 Questions From Readers *** 
Q Why have Jehovah’s Witnesses disfellowshipped (excommunicated) for apostasy some who still profess belief in God, the Bible, and Jesus Christ? 
Here's our JW creed. It's a requirement for our Salvation to be associated with God's organization.
"Approved association with Jehovah’s Witnesses requires accepting the entire range of the true teachings of the Bible, including those Scriptural beliefs that are unique to Jehovah’s Witnesses. What do such beliefs include? 
That the great issue before humankind is the rightfulness of Jehovah’s sovereignty, which is why he has allowed wickedness so long. (Ezekiel 25:17) That Jesus Christ had a prehuman existence and is subordinate to his heavenly Father. (John 14:28) That there is a “faithful and discreet slave” upon earth today ‘entrusted with all of Jesus’ earthly interests,’ which slave is associated with the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses. (Matthew 24:45-47) That 1914 marked the end of the Gentile Times and the establishment of the Kingdom of God in the heavens, as well as the time for Christ’s foretold presence. (Luke 21:7-24; Revelation 11:15–12:10) That only 144,000 Christians will receive the heavenly reward. (Revelation 14:1, 3) That Armageddon, referring to the battle of the great day of God the Almighty, is near. (Revelation 16:14, 16; 19:11-21) That it will be followed by Christ’s Millennial Reign, which will restore an earth-wide paradise. That the first to enjoy it will be the present “great crowd” of Jesus’ “other sheep.”—John 10:16; Revelation 7:9-17; 21:3, 4"

• Reply by In Need of Grace on 2014-02-24 10:46:55

  But, strangely, through such ‘Bible reading,’ they have reverted right back to the apostate doctrines that commentaries by Christendom’s clergy were teaching 100 years ago…”
  As funny as it may sound, I can see how this is a sound warning. Today, everyone thinks they are a scholar of the bible and sometimes don't see the bigger picture.
  With time I am understanding more and more where the churches of christianity come from, and what happened with them.
  The problem is that Satan really did work in a BIG WAY to hide the truth from us. Looking at history, churches have tried rightfully so to look at the early church writers, to see what their interpretation was of scripture. After all, who beter to tell us what the apostle John ment with a verse then to ask his personal disciple, Polycarp for instance.
  The reason we are so much closer to correct doctrine, then lets say Lutherans, or Catholics, is that we came in at an age where a LOT of textual criticism had been done exposing interpolations into these original church father texts and EVEN the bible. It's no surprise that both the Seventh Day Adventist and we taught very similar things about hell, salvation, etc and all came out of the same time period.
  If we didn't have all this evidence available, our position would have been a lot harder to defend.
  It's really hard for established orthodoxy to take a hard look at their source material and re-evalulate what they teach. But honest evangelicals have done so, and their work is why we now can get a MUCH DEEPER and more correct understanding of scripture.
  Unfortunately, people react to finding out errors many times by going 180% the other way. Instead of trying to refine the truth, keeping what is true and ditching what is false, often emotions come into play and they wind up completely losing all that is gained of knowledge over the years.
  By now through textual criticism it is clear that:
  * The early church did NOT teach hell, they were conditionalist (annihilationist)
  * They did NOT teach trinity, most of the early works were in fact later altered to suggest ideas of MAN-GOD Jesus
  * They taught that salvation was a conditional gift. it was conditioned based on works.
  * They believed that anyone seeking God could find him (no predestination)
  We don't need to lose this rich heritage of knowledge ;) We should embrace it and ditch the errors ;)

  • Reply by GodsWordisTruth on 2014-02-24 14:48:40

    I see where you are coming from In Need of Grace and I agree in part. You do not have to be a bible scholar to read the bible. The men who wrote the Bible were unlettered and ordinary yet penned the words with the stroke of Holy spirit. We have the ability to ask our Father for that same powerful force to understand it.He gives it freely .
    The Bible contains basic and simple concepts. I believe doctrines of men and religion has complicated it's message.
    As for this Watchtower I didn't read a warning at all. It was accusatory.
    When it comes to teachings of men I take what I can use and discard the rest.The Bible has the final say.

  • Reply by Alex Rover on 2014-02-24 15:34:35

    Predestination and foreordination should not be confused with free will.
    Our Father, knowing the outcome of all things from the start, knew Adam would sin against divine command, long before the foundation of heaven and earth.
    From the beginning I foretell the outcome,
    And from long ago the things that have not yet been done.
    I say, 'My decision will stand,
    And I will do whatever I please' (Isaiah 46: 10)
    That which Jehovah purposes or foreordains, will always be carried out:
    I am calling a bird of prey from the sunrise, From a distant land the man the carry out my decision. I have spoken, and I will bring it about. I have purposed it, and I will also carry it out. (Isaiah 46: 10)
    So while it be unthinkable a loving God would predestine Adam to fail, it is entirely expectable for our omnipotent creator to know the outcome of things and plans accordingly.
    The Bible teaches that his Divine foreordination from before the founding of the world included adopting men as spirit sons through Jesus Christ. This was God's plan from the beginning, his plan did not change because of Adam's sin.
    As he chose us to be in union with him before the founding of the world, that we should be holy and unblemished before him in love. For he foreordained us to be adopted as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the good pleasure of his will. (Ephesians 1: 4, 5)
    Jehovah, who calls even a bird of prey from the sunrise to carry out what he has purposed, purposed to one day adopt men as his spirit sons through Christ:
    In him with whom we are in union and were assigned as heirs, having been foreordained according to the purpose of the one who accomplishes all things as he decides according to his will.
    (Ephesians 1: 11)
    The Scriptures teach that these sheep, those in union with Christ, constitute the new creation:
    Therefore, if anyone is in union with Christ, he is a new creation; the old things passed away; look! New things have come into existence.
    (2 Corinthians 5: 17)
    Jesus prayed his father that this new creation would include those who would put faith in Jesus by their public declaration:
    I make request, not concerning these only, but also concerning those putting faith in me through their word,
    So that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in union with me and I am in union with you, that they also may be in union with us, so that the world may believe that you sent me.
    (John 17: 20)
    Unless you have Christ's spirit, you can't please God:
    For setting the mind on the flesh means death, but setting the mind on the spirit means life and peace; because setting the mind on the flesh means enmity with God, for it is not in subjection to the law of God, nor, in fact, can it be. So those who are in harmony with the flesh cannot please God.
    However, you are in harmony, not with the flesh, but with the spirit, if God's spirit truly dwells in you. But if anyone does not have Christ's spirit, this person does not belong to him.
    (Romans 8: 6-9)
    For Christ died once for all time for sins, a righteous person for unrighteous ones, in order to lead you to God.
    (1 Peter 3: 18)
    All who are led by God's spirit are counted as sons of God:
    For all who are led by God's spirit are indeed God's sons.
    (Romans 8: 14)
    Therefore all who count themselves as sheep of Christ, listen to his voice and are directed by spirit, belong to Jehovah. Their sins are forgiven and have become as a new creature, blameless and holy, worthy to be sons of God. It is a profound thought that our Father has chosen us before even the founding of the world. It is God's will, he foreordained and purposed it, and he will carry it out without fail.

Comment by Sargon on 2014-02-23 23:28:53

If another letter is read from the branch, notice how it concludes. Does it imitate the apostle Paul and other first century writers? Paul and the other apostles concluded nearly every one of their letters by wishing that the brothers receive the undeserved kindness or grace of our Lord Jesus Christ. When was the last time the governing body wished the undeserved kindness of The Lord Jesus Christ be with us? It's good to take a look at how 80 percent of the epistles conclude. Then compare them to letters we receive.

Comment by Ross on 2014-02-24 00:50:30

I really hate myself for seeming to support WT teaching on this
point, but there is often a clear correlation between how women
dress and behave, and how they are viewed and treated by males -
and this often to their detriment -
which is not wanting to diminish the absolute responsibility men
have to take for their actions, but that the same also applies to
women and their presentation and demeanor, even if just as a
matter of common sense, which seems to have been all but bred
out of mankind by now.
Lest anyone think that this is exclusively a gender issue, one has
only to study how certain types of dress and behavior among males
lead to provocation, which can quickly spiral into violence,
and all this over subtle perceptions of character and intention,
conveyed even by one’s mere presence at certain locations and times,
without one’s awareness of how that is being interpreted by others.
In a recent situation here, a young girl ended up being ill treated
by a gang of lads at night, while she was chasing drugs, with the
potential for igniting a race war in the community now.
Cause and effect anyone?

Comment by emilyjeff on 2014-02-24 11:19:58

I agree with you Meleti that it is about time Jehovah’s Witness parents teach that it is not the woman’s fault when she is raped. I also agree that the Watchtower’s record on covering up child abuse is abysmal. Perhaps JW’s should read up on the Candace Conti case. It makes very interesting reading.
In this day and age rape and child abuse are considered crimes and come under the law as such. We are not talking about moral wrong doings such as fornication and adultery. Rape and child abuse are criminal acts whether the people involved know each other or not. A sexual act which is not consensual on both parts constitutes a crime. That includes date rape. Rape is actually not about sexual pleasure but about control.
In reading the Bible account about Dinah I noticed the word used in this account describing the incident is “defile.” That word alone tells me that this was a crime of rape as the definition of defile according to the Merriam Webster dictionary is to “violate the chastity of “or “to corrupt the purity or perfection of.” The definition of violate is “to engage in sexual activity and especially intercourse with a person unwilling or unable to give consent.” Dinah was raped. Whatever else she was guilty of this was not her fault.
Perhaps smoleringwick1, you are unaware are of what happens in Muslim countries when a woman is raped. She is often forced to marry her rapist or she is considered unclean and unmarriageable Perhaps that is what Shechem had in mind, knowing that a woman who was not a virgin would considered no better than a prostitute and bring shame upon her whole family.
Dinah’s brothers, coming from a middle eastern culture, would have felt the necessity to wipe out the shame upon their family name thus leading to their murderous actions. In the western world of today we deal with rape and child abuse in the law courts but in middle east vengeance is still taken in the case of rape. It is a question of honor for those people.

• Reply by anderestimme on 2014-02-24 12:17:48

  EJ,
  Just so you know, I didn't see your comment until I posted mine (below), so don't take it as a refutation. Whether Dinah was raped or merely seduced, I think we can agree that the following statement unfairly makes her the villain of the account:
  "What a horrendous chain of events, and all because Dinah failed to guard her associations." (w85 6/15 p. 31.)

• Reply by smolderingwick1 on 2014-02-24 13:22:29

  Dear emilyjeff,
  In no way am I ignorant of the vulnerabilities of women and I am very well aware of what happens in Muslim countries when a woman is raped, just as I am the so-called honour killings that take place when a woman seeks release from an abusive system or arrangement.
  Dinah was in fact specifically identified at birth for one reason. She was to became the focal point of this Bible drama. Whatever customs, culture and way of thinking we choose in our own social group, we are not as innocent as we might presume in the broader picture. As all of us are aware, the Bible is full of drama which, in the minds of some, cannot be justified just as some of us cannot even justify Jehovah for allowing it.
  However, what I find comforting is how Jesus compensated for these inadequacies, not by attacking the offence or even the offender (except the hypocrisy of the scribes and Pharisees) but by reasoning, using kindly, comforting words, and acting to counterbalance what his Jewish disciples lacked. And it is my belief that He will rectify all such deficiencies in an equitable way when he returns to preserve and reward the indefensible so much better than we.

• Reply by GodsWordIsTruth on 2014-02-24 15:50:03

  I am surprised at Jacob’s reaction. While his sons may have over reacted and sinned , Jacob’s under reaction angered his sons. Maybe it was because she was the “daughter of Leah” ( Gen 34:1). At Genesis 34:1-5 he does nothing. He sits and waits for his sons to return from tending the sheep.
  His immediate reaction is based on a fear of retaliation by the nations (34:30) I am not sure what Jacob really expected his sons to do . Maybe Jacob was fine with the idea of Dinah being married off after the rape.
  I defintely agree with your comments SW1

  • Reply by anderestimme on 2014-02-24 16:57:50

    On the other hand, if it wasn't really a rape, that might explain Jacob's subdued reaction and his failure to foresee his sons' reaction. There is, of course, a lot left unsaid, and I want to stress again that I'm not dogmatically arguing against it having been rape.

    • Reply by smolderingwick1 on 2014-02-24 19:53:21

      Having experienced pedophilia rampant in my own family, I'm not inclined to confine my opinion to rape to a singular definition. For example, when David had Bathsheba brought up to engage her in adultery, was she really to blame? After all, he was the king. Did she really have a choice? There are innumerable examples of abusive power that makes the word rape appear consensual or that there are degrees by which those who participate are limited in their choices. And I've been fooled by many. Happily, I no longer sit in judgment.
      sw

      • Reply by GodsWordisTruth on 2014-02-24 23:45:12

        Maybe Jacob wasn't confrontational. Jacob seems so concerned about being attacked after her rape.He was also deathly afraid that Esau was going to attack him(Genesis 32:11) He let Laban cheat him and lie to him over and over again for over 14 years. I'm not sure why in the world he kept believing Laban. Jacob tried to leave Laban towards the end and for some reason stayed and worked for Laban...again and got cheated again. He only left because Jehovah told him too. And when he did he left in the middle of the night to avoid confrontation. Hamor spoke on behalf of his son ,Shechem, to Jacob's sons. I'm not sure why Jacob didn't go on Dinah's behalf.
        Sw1 - I agree Dinah didn't have a choice. I strongly believe she was raped and Shechem kept in his house for who knows how long. At Genesis 34:25-29 the brothers take her from Shechem's house so it sounds like she was living there. Maybe that's why her brothers thought he was treating her like a prostitute when he starting offering money for her after he had already had sex with her.

      • Reply by anderestimme on 2014-02-25 16:28:42

        Agreed SW1. Your mentioning of pedophilia brings up another question: How old was Dinah? She may well have been what we consider 'a minor', and so it may have been more an issue of psychological domination than physical overpowering. In that case we're back to rape, whether she screamed and kicked or not. So much we don't know.

Comment by anderestimme on 2014-02-24 11:42:19

Was Dinah raped? A Questions From Readers article (w85 6/15 p. 31) deals with this question and asserts the affirmative (blaming Dinah for the whole affair, by the way, including the subsequent massacre), but it seems to me that it's not that clear.
First, the word rendered “violated” in the NWT doesn't necessarily refer to rape. To put things into perspective, here are two other scriptures that use the same word (the English translation marked by *):
(Deuteronomy 21:14) 14 And it must occur that if you have found no delight in her, you must then send her away, agreeably to her own soul; but you must by no means sell her for money. You must not deal tyrannically with her after you have *humiliated* her.
(Deuteronomy 22:23, 24) 23 “In case there happened to be a virgin girl engaged to a man, and a man actually found her in the city and lay down with her, 24 YOU must also bring them both out to the gate of that city and pelt them with stones, and they must die, the girl for the reason that she did not scream in the city, and the man for the reason that he *humiliated* the wife of his fellowman. So you must clear away what is evil from your midst.
In neither case is the subject of rape is being dealt with. Perhaps this is why some translations render in a manner similar to Young's Literal Translation: “and Shechem, son of Hamor the Hivite, a prince of the land, seeth her, and taketh her, and lieth with her, and humbleth her.”
We have, in Genesis 34, two more references to the same act:
(Genesis 34:7) And the sons of Jacob came in from the field as soon as they heard of it; and the men became hurt in their feelings and they grew very angry, because he had committed a disgraceful folly against Israel in lying down with Jacob’s daughter, whereas nothing like that ought to be done.
(Genesis 34:31) In turn they said: “Ought anyone to treat our sister like a prostitute?”
With regard to these two verses, a comment made to me by an Italian brother many years ago comes to mind. He mentioned that if a young man were to seduce a single girl where he came from, the girl's brothers would kill the young man. This is not stand-up-in-a-court-of-law evidence, admittedly, but it gives us a window into the thinking of some old world cultures. You didn't have to rape a girl to get yourself killed by her relatives.
There are a couple of other points that make me question the idea of rape. With regard to verse 31, the idea of raping a prostitute seems quite questionable. But there's also the matter of She′chem’s petition at verses 11 and 12:
11 Then She′chem said to her father and to her brothers: “Let me find favor in YOUR eyes, and whatever YOU will say to me I shall give it. 12 Raise very high the marriage money and gift imposed upon me, and I stand willing to give according to what YOU may say to me; only give me the young woman as a wife.”
The aforementioned QfR interprets this as an attempt to put things right on the part of She′chem, which seems reasonable enough. But it seems a lot more reasonable to believe that what he was putting right was having seduced Dinah rather than having raped her. “I raped your daughter and now I'm in love with her so let me have her as my wife” seems an unlikely petition, to say the least.
Nevertheless, without a much deeper understanding of the customs and attitudes of the place and time, I wouldn't dare make a definitive statement. But to me it seems more like the kind of situation my old Italian friend described.

• Reply by anderestimme on 2014-02-24 12:03:37

  I should add, as a counterpoint to my own argument, that the vast majority of translations do convey the idea of rape at Genesis 34.2. And while the definition of the various forms of the Hebrew word in question doesn't necessarily refer to rape, the exact variation found at Gen 34.2 is found in only one other place: in the account at 2 Sam 13 where Amnon rapes Tamar. This doesn't necessarily preclude the possibility that Dinah was merely seduced, but the weight of expert opinion definitely leans toward her having been raped.

  • Reply by on 2014-02-24 16:59:19

    As regards the comment about dinah and teaching the youngsters about the importance of association . The problem is that The implication is that only jws can be trusted everyone else cannot . This contributes to fear of anyone on the outside of the religion and can be damaging . Kev

    • Reply by GodsWordIsTruth on 2014-02-25 11:02:20

      I agree Kev

Comment by kev c on 2014-02-24 17:53:14

Just in regard to the raping of dinah and her bad associates . Of course the implication is that anyone who is not a jw is not to be trusted this contributes to fear of people on the outside of the religion and in a lot of cases is unjustified . Experience and our bible reading should be enough to make good decisions hebrews 5 v 14. This is all part of the game plan which makes ot psycologically difficult to leave the religion. Kev

• Reply by Chris on 2014-02-25 20:11:56

  Amen to that Kev.
  It's the stuff of ages, this 'us and them' mentality. Using fear as a control mechanism spans the religious, political and cultural world.
  In the same way many Russians used to wonder if their leaders assertions about the West were true, many JW are waking up to the freedom of being able to treat our fellow man according to Christian principles not the dictates of a high counsel of men.
  For my part, much of the depression I was quietly afflicted by for years has gone because the WTS has no hold on me anymore. I do not respect their counsel or conduct. The danger for me is that I find it very easy to regard them with utter contempt and I want to pour scorn on them for their arrogance and hypocrisy.
  But there in lies the danger to my Christian personality. I console myself with the thought that when the time comes they will get their reward from Jesus if they do not repent.
  Oddly enough I have been thinking about the account of Jonah lately and wondering if the WTS/GB was to repent like the Ninevites how would I react?
  Food for thought

  • Reply by on 2014-02-26 04:19:52

    Strangely enough chris when the bible warns of association its usually in regard toward those inside the congregation 1 corinthians 5 v10 and 11 .2 thess 3 v6 as these have much more influence over our lives and the ones whom we generally trust .this can very easily lead to our being exploited and being fooled to believe false teachings .sounds familiar doesnt it . Kev