Jehovah: Believe Error or Die

Could you agree that it is possible that God would ever require you to believe something to be true that is actually false, on pain of Him irrevocably destroying you? Titus 1 v 2 (amongst other scriptures) would tell us that God cannot lie and Proverbs 12 v 22 (amongst other scriptures) would tell us that God hates a liar. So, it would seem inconceivable that He would require us, on pain of death, to believe a lie. But, this is exactly what the Governing Body of the Watchtower Society teaches, even though they may not put it in that way, or even realise that they teach it.

It is a matter of record that, since its inception in the late 1800s, the Watchtower Society has never got all its doctrine correct at any one time, it has always taught something that later turned out to be false. By 'false' I mean something that has had to be 'clarified' under their 'brighter light' policy taken from Proverbs 4 v 18. And by 'clarified' I mean completely changed, often to something totally opposite to what was originally taught.

So what leads to the this conclusion about Jehovah and lies? Firstly, the Watchtower teaches that in order to be considered one of Jehovah's Witnesses a person must accept the "entire range" of what they teach, including those doctrines unique to the organisation (see Watchtower 1 April 1986 page 31). To unrepentantly disagree with the teachings would lead to disfellowshipping, to no longer being one of the Witnesses.

Secondly, they teach that only Jehovah's Witnesses will survive the impending destruction Jehovah is going to reek on mankind at Armageddon. All other persons will be irrevocably destroyed without hope of resurrection (see The Watchtower book Jehovah's Witnesses - Proclaimers of God's Kingdom page 170).

The undeniable conclusion from the above facts is that, according to Watchtower doctrine, Jehovah has required people to believe something that is false (Watchtower doctrines) in order to guarantee their protection at Armageddon. If someone would have rejected the false ideas, and therefore been removed as a Jehovah's Witness, God would have destroyed them. Considering the history of the organisation and its many doctrinal changes it is likely that further 'clarifications' are in the pipeline and so the above conclusion would stand for both people today and those in the future.

Of course, God does not require us to believe things that are false so there is a fallacy in the above logic somewhere. But, for the Watchtower to acknowledge this fallacy and try to correct it they would have to either accept that it is not necessary to agree with everything that they teach or that Jehovah is not going to protect only members of the Watchtower at Armageddon.

The former option would allow its members to select which doctrines they wish to believe and which they wish to reject. Different congregations might spring up with different teachings. This would likely quickly result in the break up of the organisation as it relies on complete adherence to its doctrines as coming from Jehovah. The theology of the Watchtower is like a house of cards; remove one card and the remainder will fall too.

The latter option would remove the sword of Damocles that hangs over Jehovah's Witnesses; their destruction at Armageddon if they reject the organisation, again, leading to likely disaster for the Watchtower. The Watchtower teaches that its members hold a special place in Jehovah's heart due to their beliefs; if that's not true then what need is there to be a member of the organisation?

No, the Watchtower is wrong, God does not require us to believe in falsehoods to be saved, He asks us to believe in His Son who alone is the Way the Truth and the Life (John 14 v 6).

Mormon Christians? Whats in a Name?

The Mormon Church, disturbed by the continuing identifying of polygamus sects in the news with the name Mormon, recently issued a press statement aimed at "clarifying" issues. It is interesting to note that if you substitute the name "Christian" where they use the name "Mormon" it makes a very good argument for us against the claims of the Mormon Church. The full press release is reproduced below in italics with each paragraph rewritten in ordinary text to present it from a Christian perspective. SALT LAKE CITY 10 July 2008 On 26 June, Newsroom published a package of information featuring profiles of ordinary Latter-day Saints in Texas. With no other intention but to define themselves, these members provided a tangible depiction of what their faith is all about. They serve as the best distinction between the lifestyles and values of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and a Texas-based polygamous group that has recently attracted media attent...

The Mormon God’s Dysfunctional Family

You know those moments when you look at something you’ve looked at a thousand times before and suddenly see something new? I was looking at a blog I found via the Google Blog Alerts service and it told the familiar story of the Mormon “ Plan of Salvation”; you can read it here. There really was nothing surprising until I started thinking about what people might think if a family they knew conducted themselves the way the Mormon “family of God” do in this story. People from abusive backgrounds have problems enough with the idea of God as a Father but this story would put anyone off the idea forever! As I recount this story think about what the typical dad would do as his kids are growing up and compare it with this “exalted man.” According to Mormonism “ God created our spirits” and we lived with him in a pre-mortal existence (Mormons say “pre-existence” but it is not possible to pre-exist, i.e. to exist before you exist. The noun “existence” has to be have the prefix “pre” othe...

Is atheism an intolerant belief?

The Big Questions , Sunday 2 August 2009, third question. A growing number of Britons say they are certain there is no God - but how do they know? Professor John Adams of the North Yorkshire Humanist Association begins by asking theists what evidence they have for their beliefs. Paul Woolley of Theos continues by pointing out Richard Dawkins description of faith as a 'virus', and the appalling track record of atheism in the 20th Century, as spearheaded by Pol Pot and Stalin. Chloe Clifford-Frith of the Humanist and Secular Students Society contends that Stalin did not do the things he did because he was an atheist, but because he was evil. Paul Woolley rejoins that atheists are trying to have it both ways when they claim that religion is the cause of evil, but refuse to acknowledge the ideological impetus of atheism when it comes to many evil acts. Mao and Stalin both replaced God with the State - a 'religious' manoeuvre. Rev Alistair Rycroft of St Michael Le Belfrey Ch...

Bridge of Reason

Search This Blog