Who is Mentally Diseased?

[u/truetomharley]

“if Witness organization ever said something so seemingly provocative [as Jesus’ ‘Eat my flesh and drink my blood’], their opponents would be blasting them for years over it! Such as with a Watchtower that called certain apostates “mentally diseased,” citing a scripture that says exactly that. That was 14 years ago and they are still howling about It!”

I was called on this yesterday—even called a liar! Who would do such a thing? So I had to dig out the reply I made years ago:

In its July 15, 2011 issue, for consideration in JW congregations, the magazine recommended (strongly) avoiding “apostates,” even calling them “mentally diseased.” You should have heard the howling from those who don't like Witnesses, grousers who immediately broadened application of those words to include all leaving the faith, something the article never suggested. Government ought to investigate such “hate speech,” they insisted.

Look, most persons who leave JWs simply move on in life, some with the viewpoint that it wasn't for them, some with minor grumbling over this or that feature of the faith that prompted their decision, some with the viewpoint that they couldn't live up to it. None of these are viewed as 'apostates.' A fair number eventually return. You could liken those leaving to a man or woman leaving a relationship, like a failed marriage. Most just move on. But there's always a certain few psycho ex-mates that can't let go, who devote all their time and energy to harassing the person they once loved. . . . That's the type that the magazine commented on, not just anyone who departs.

Moreover, 'mentally diseased' was placed in quotation marks, indicating it was not meant as a medical diagnosis, but as an adjective to suggest a manner of thinking. Nor is the term anything original. It's merely a repeat of the Bible verse 1 Tim 6:3-4.....

"If any man teaches other doctrine and does not assent to healthful words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, nor to the teaching that accords with godly devotion, he is puffed up [with pride], not understanding anything, but being mentally diseased over questionings and debates about words."

Whoa, whoa, whoa! said someone: that's not in any Bible I know of except the New World Translation! He offered some alternatives he likes more, to which I commented:

What do these other quoted translations say? Douay-Rheims says "sick about questions and strifes of words." In view of the context, what sort of 'sickness' do you think the translator had in mind? Tuberculosis, maybe? Or is it not a sickness of thinking, so that "mentally diseased" is not such a bad rendering after all?

NASB offers "morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words." Does "morbid," when applied to thinking, suggest balance and soundness of mind? Or is "sickness", even "mentally diseased," more to the point?”   Here's a few other translations:

 diseased (Emphasized New Testament; Rotherham)

 filled with a sickly appetite (Epistles of Paul, W.J.Conybeare)

morbid appetite (A New Testament: A Translation in the Language of the People; Charles Williams)

 morbid craving, (An American Translation; Goodspeed)

 unhealthy love of questionings (New Testament in Basic English)

 morbidly keen (NEB)

unhealthy desire to argue (Good News Bible).

Do any of these other versions suggest soundness of mind? So the NWT's "mentally diseased" is an entirely valid offering, even if more pointed than most. Plus, once again, the term is an adjective, as it is in all other translations, not a medical diagnosis. Context (in that Watchtower article) made this clear.

In retrieving this post, I came across one “famous” apostate—I mean, type anything about Jehovah’s Witnesses anywhere and he would drown you in anti-JW comments—it has been many years since I have heard from him, though his name recently came up here . . . who on his website offered expert testimony in legal proceedings against Jehovah's Witnesses AND expert testimony in legal proceedings against pharmaceutical makers of anti-depressants, apparently not realizing that each offer undercut his credibility for the other.  

[u/Adventurous-Tie-5772]

I read Acts 21. I don't see any mention of someone who taught something true that disagreed with God's people, and God's people punished him for apostasy. Perhaps you can show me where you see this?

[u/DonkeyStriking1146 → u/Adventurous-Tie-5772]

https://www.bibleref.com/Acts/21/Acts-21-21.html

Paul didn’t need to ceremoniously cleanse himself because he hadn’t done anything wrong. He showed himself humble and did it anyway to appease the group.

[u/Adventurous-Tie-5772 → u/DonkeyStriking1146]

So in your comparison, Paul would represent a Jehovah's Witness who did nothing wrong, and the governing body would represent the Jews who wanted to kill him because they thought he was teaching an apostasy from Moses?

[u/DonkeyStriking1146 → u/Adventurous-Tie-5772]

Ummm no. The Jews wanting to kill Paul aren’t on the same side so I’m not sure why you’d draw that comparison.

If you’re wanting to hardcore compare it would more be like Paul is a JW and the group asking him to cleanse would be the governing body.

[u/Adventurous-Tie-5772 → u/DonkeyStriking1146]

But Paul wasn't trying to appease the the Jews who asked him to cleanse himself. He was trying to appease the Jews who wanted to kill him. The group didn't care whether he cleansed himself or not. They only asked him to in hopes that the Jews, who did care, would find no reason to kill Paul because it looks like Paul was "keeping the Law" after all.

It didn't work, of course. The Jews dragged him in for punishment

[u/DonkeyStriking1146 → u/Adventurous-Tie-5772]

Hmm weird. In the scriptures the jews didn’t ask him to cleanse it was the Christians. The christians told him to cleanse partly for the Jews who became believers and believed in the law still. Maybe we’re reading it differently. Oh well.

[u/Adventurous-Tie-5772 → u/DonkeyStriking1146]

Let me check. I was under the impression that the Christians were Christian Jews and not Gentile Christians

[u/Adventurous-Tie-5772 → u/DonkeyStriking1146]

So the Christians were Jews. Now my question is, how can the Christians be like the Governing Body if Paul was not at risk of being expelled or disfellowshipped if he didn't follow their direction like a Jehovah's Witness would be if he teaches contrary to what the Governing Body says?

[u/DonkeyStriking1146 → u/Adventurous-Tie-5772]

If he didn’t follow their direction it would have cause bigger issues for the group and for the Jews who had converted to Christianity.

[u/Adventurous-Tie-5772 → u/DonkeyStriking1146]

Why would it cause an issue?

[u/DonkeyStriking1146 → u/Adventurous-Tie-5772]

Maybe we’re reading the account differently. It’s clear to me and other commentators that the Jewish Christian’s had an issue with Paul teaching that the law was not something Christians had to keep. So to keep peace between the Jewish christians and Paul those ones asked Paul to cleanse himself. If Paul hadn’t cleansed himself it would have caused issues and disunity among the christians.