Awake!, April 22, 1986

Awake! — April 22, 1986

Source: jw.org

Contents

Page Two

AIDS—Unique in World History!

Who Are at Risk?

AIDS and Morals

How to Protect Yourself From AIDS

How Can I Say No to Premarital Sex?

From Nazi Zealot to Christian Overseer

Britain’s Sunny Channel Islands

The Terrifying Inquisition

How Was It Possible?

Is Hell a Place of Torment?

From Our Readers

Watching the World

Life—How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation?

A Bible for Serious Bible Students

Page Two

The new disease AIDS has been terrifying the world in recent months. Where did it come from? Who especially are at risk? Can anyone be infected? How can you protect yourself? These and other questions are considered in this magazine’s feature articles

AIDS—Unique in World History! 3

Who Are at Risk? 4

AIDS and Morals 7

How to Protect Yourself From AIDS 9

AIDS—Unique in World History!

AS RECENTLY as 1981 the disease AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome) was generally unknown. Now it has spread to almost every continent, and the world is panicking.

AIDS attacks the human immune system—the body’s mechanism for fighting disease. It renders its victims defenseless against rare cancers and other fatal illnesses. As many as a million Americans, and hundreds of thousands in other countries, may already have been exposed to this frightening disease.

Back in 1980-81, doctors in Los Angeles and New York began to encounter cases of a rare type of pneumonia called Pneumocystis carinii and a normally slow-growing cancer known as Kaposi’s sarcoma. All the victims were either young male homosexuals or drug abusers. Doctors called their symptoms “the immunologic consequences of some unknown process.”

Dr. Ward Cates, of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, later said that this disease had a potential “much worse than anything mankind has seen before.” Infectious-disease expert Dr. John Seale concurred. Last summer, in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine of Britain, he said that AIDS is capable of producing “a lethal pandemic throughout the crowded cities and villages of the Third World of a magnitude unparalleled in human history.”

Sweeping the World

AIDS was first identified in the United States in 1981. From that small start, the number of its victims in this one country grew to 10,000 by April 1985 and to more than 16,500 by January of this year. Over 8,400 have already died, and no hope is held out for the rest, since AIDS is considered invariably fatal.

Recently, the number of victims reportedly has been doubling every nine months. If this rate would continue, by the end of the decade about half a million Americans will have come down with AIDS, almost as many as died in the great Spanish flu epidemic of 1918-19. No wonder AIDS has been called “one of the most sinister infectious diseases of this or any other century”!

Although at first most known victims were in the United States, soon AIDS was sweeping the world. The New York Times reported: “The incidence of AIDS in Geneva and Paris now rivals that in Los Angeles, reflecting the surge of cases outside the United States.” And Time magazine of October 28, 1985, said: “In West Germany, which has 300 cases, the Robert Koch Institute estimates that there are 100,000 carriers of the HTLV-III virus.”

According to a report last spring, of the patients diagnosed in Europe, 61 percent died within a year—83 percent within three years.

Identifying the Cause

Early in 1984 two separate teams of researchers, on different continents, announced that they had isolated the AIDS virus. Professor Luc Montagnier at the Pasteur Institute in Paris and Dr. Robert Gallo of the National Cancer Institute in the United States independently reported isolating the virus that is the probable cause of AIDS. This virus attacks a subgroup of white blood cells called T-4 lymphocytes. Thus, the French called it lymphadenopathy-associated virus (LAV), while the Americans called it human T-cell lymphotropic virus-III (HTLV-III).

Where did this international disease come from? How did it spread so rapidly? And what precautions would it be wise to take? These important questions are discussed in the following articles.

[Picture on page 3]

The AIDS virus budding from white blood cells

[Credit Line]

Centers for Disease Control, Atlanta, Ga.

Who Are at Risk?

WHERE did the AIDS virus come from? The prevailing opinion in European and American medical circles is that its origin is Central Africa. The African green monkey carries a similar virus, and it is thought that the virus found its way into humans through their close contact with infected monkeys.

But AIDS victims were first identified in the United States. How was the virus supposed to have reached them? By way of Haiti, according to popular opinion. Many Haitians visited Africa during a cultural exchange program in the mid-1970’s. Later, it is said, homosexuals, infected while vacationing in Haiti, carried AIDS to New York.

Such theories, however, are strongly opposed by Africans, who call them “a propaganda campaign.” Dr. V. A. Orinda, the editor of an African medical publication, suggests that tourists from around the world introduced AIDS to Africa. Admittedly, no one knows for sure where the AIDS virus came from.

In any case, this killer disease lurked in the United States for several years, silent, deadly, multiplying prolifically. After finally being recognized only a few years ago, it quickly became a world health disaster.

Those at Risk

AIDS is spread by the exchange of body fluids, particularly blood and semen. Thus anyone who has sexual relations with a person infected with the AIDS virus is at risk. The type of sexual practices of homosexuals make them particularly susceptible. Indeed, over 70 percent of AIDS victims in the United States are male homosexuals, causing some to call AIDS a gay disease.

Then, in 1982, there was an AIDS victim who was not a homosexual. He was an intravenous drug abuser. By sharing unsterilized needles, drug abusers were injecting themselves not only with drugs but also with the AIDS virus from the blood of their associates. Intravenous drug users soon became a second high-risk group for AIDS.

Does this mean that those bitten by mosquitoes carrying blood from an AIDS-infected person are at risk? There is no proof that AIDS is transmitted in this way. “Health care workers with contaminated needle-sticks get more blood than a mosquito could transmit,” notes Dr. Harold Jaffe, a leader in AIDS research. “But,” he adds, “I don’t think you can say it’s impossible.”

Besides homosexuals and drug abusers, another group that began to come down with AIDS was hemophiliacs—persons who tend to bleed easily. They are commonly treated with a concentrate known as Factor VIII, made from blood plasma that is pooled from up to 5,000 different donors. The British medical journal The Lancet said that “in countries that use factor VIII concentrate from the USA the incidence is likely to increase.” Thus, it said, the percentage of German hemophiliacs reportedly having antibodies to the AIDS virus grew from zero in 1980 to 53 percent in 1984!

But the AIDS virus has also been found in urine, saliva, and tears. Can the disease be contracted through the exchange of these body fluids? There is no proof that anyone has contracted AIDS in this way, and prevailing medical opinion is that transmission by such fluids is unlikely. However, a Washington, D.C., neurologist, Dr. Richard Restak, says: “If the virus exists in these fluids, the better part of wisdom dictates that we assume the possibility that it can also be transmitted by these routes.”

The National Catholic Reporter last November said that the prevalence of AIDS has caused concern about sharing the common wine cup at Communion. When inquiry about the practice was made of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, Georgia, acting director Dr. Donald R. Hopkins said that there was no evidence that AIDS could be transmitted this way. However, he added that the lack of evidence “should not imply that there is no risk.”

Since AIDS can possibly be contracted by close contact with AIDS sufferers, is it any wonder people are concerned? Yet, parents are often given assurances that their children will not be infected with AIDS by fellow students. As evidence, it is claimed that AIDS victims have not passed the disease on to family members even though they kiss, eat with the same utensils, and share the same toilet facilities. However, New York writer William F. Buckley, Jr., sympathizes with parents’ concerns, observing:

“When [the well-known AIDS victim] Rock Hudson was discharged, all the nurses who attended to him—and this was in a modern hospital, not at a witch doctor’s hut—were made to burn their dresses. The patient was fed on paper and plastic plates, with plastic forks and spoons—which were destroyed.” Why such precautions if hospital personnel did not believe that there was some risk of infection?

Blood-Transfusion Dangers

On the other hand, AIDS unquestionably can be transmitted by receiving the blood of an infected person. Even blood donors carrying the AIDS virus, but who as yet do not themselves have symptoms, can pass AIDS on to others.

Dr. Arthur Ammann reported that an infant in San Francisco who had been given several blood transfusions just after birth later developed AIDS. One of the donors, who was well at the time, did not become ill with AIDS until seven months after donation. Both the donor and the infant receiving his blood died.

Four premature Australian infants developed AIDS after transfusion from a common donor who was later found to carry AIDS antibodies. Three of the four died within seven months.

A boy in the state of Georgia, United States, died of AIDS five and a half years after receiving a single blood transfusion from a homosexual who had no symptoms but whose blood later tested positive to AIDS antibodies. Sadly, doctors at the Medical College of Georgia report: “The donor’s blood has been given to many recipients since our patient’s transfusion.”—The New England Journal of Medicine, May 9, 1985, page 1256.

One study reported that nearly 40 percent of patients “with transfusion-associated AIDS . . . were 60 years of age or older” and “had most often received their transfusions in association with surgical procedures, often coronary-bypass surgery.”—The New England Journal of Medicine, January 12, 1984.

This raises the important question: Isn’t there some sure way of keeping the AIDS virus out of transfused blood?

A Reliable Blood Test?

With the isolation of the virus that causes AIDS, it became possible to develop a blood test to tell at least whether a person had at one time been exposed to AIDS and had developed antibodies. Thus, a more rigorous program of screening blood donors became possible.

The press and many medical people seemed to feel that the problem had thus been solved. For example, Newsweek of August 12, 1985, spoke of this test as “ensuring, in the view of most experts, that AIDS will no longer be spread through the nation’s blood supply.”

But the U.S. Public Health Service’s revised guidelines to be given to persons in “high risk” categories do not say that. Instead, they say: “The test will not detect all people who may be carriers of the virus because not everyone who is infected with the virus will have antibodies. . . . There is a possibility that antibodies for the virus may not be detected when your blood is tested even though you may have been infected. If that were to happen, the blood would be used to treat patients who would then be at risk for infection by HTLV-III and for AIDS.”

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s magazine FDA Consumer for May 1985 said that “a negative antibody test result does not guarantee that a person is free from the virus. . . . This is because antibodies may not have developed yet if exposure to the virus was recent.”

Dr. Myron Essex, chairman of the department of cancer biology at the Harvard School of Public Health, was quoted by The New York Times as saying: “It’s extremely unlikely that the test is picking up more than 90 percent [of the infected blood], and my best guess is it’s 75 to 80 percent. I’d be shocked if it’s any better than that.”

Not only does the test fail to catch all virus-contaminated blood but, as Time magazine commented, “The blood test is too expensive for many countries to carry out on a large scale.”

A Newsweek poll reported that 21 percent of those interviewed said that they or persons they knew were refusing elective surgery that requires transfusion. Perhaps more people will now search out doctors who have developed the more careful methods that are used by specialists in the growing field of bloodless surgery.

[Picture on page 5]

Can a patient be sure that the blood he receives is free of the AIDS virus?

[Credit Line]

H. Armstrong Roberts

AIDS and Morals

WHAT happened in the 1960’s and 1970’s to lead to such an explosion of AIDS in the 1980’s? It was the adoption of an anything-goes “new morality” of sexual freedom. Commenting on this, New York columnist Ray Kerrison wrote:

“The sudden explosion of AIDS may also prompt society to reexamine its values, which have been going downhill faster than a runaway express.

“For years, politicians and courts have been promulgating the appalling fallacy that private acts by private citizens are no one’s business but their own.

“This bill of goods might loosely be termed the doctrine of consensuality. It says, in effect, that two or more people may do as they wish provided they do not impinge on the rights of others.

“Thus, one moral restraint after another has been removed, unleashing a flood of permissive behavior and an acceptance of standards undreamed of 30 years ago.

“Now the bitter harvest is upon us.”

In particular have homosexuals suffered, and this is due to their extensive sexual promiscuity and the type of sexual practices common among them. Science Digest observes: “One CDC [Centers for Disease Control] study showed an average of 1,100 sex partners during the lifetime of the AIDS patients studied.”

But homosexuals are not the only ones who are promiscuous—society in general has also adopted an anything-goes morality. As a consequence, Harvey V. Fineberg, dean of the Harvard School of Public Health, says that AIDS is spreading “slowly yet inexorably into the heterosexual community.”

In Africa, particularly, the disease is afflicting the general population. Last November, Lawrence K. Altman, medical reporter for The New York Times, wrote: “AIDS appears to be spreading by conventional sexual intercourse among heterosexuals in Africa and is striking women nearly as often as men, according to researchers here.”

If a woman contracts AIDS from a male partner, neither may be aware of being infected. Sadly, babies born to mothers having the AIDS virus sometimes become innocent victims. And heterosexual men who have relations with prostitutes may develop the disease.

Everywhere people are scared. What will happen?

A Change in Morals?

“It certainly will end the sexual revolution,” predicts Dr. Donald Francis of the CDC in the United States. As he says: “You can take your chances with herpes and hepatitis B, but you can’t take your chances with this.”

Dr. Walter R. Dowdle of the CDC adds: “We have to understand that we all have to change our way of living.” According to Dowdle, “this is not a question of morality. It’s just a biological fact.”[5, pp. 21, 27]

Yet, it is more than a biological fact—morality is involved. The moral standards that society has chosen to flout did not originate with humans. A superior Intelligence had them recorded long ago. And our recognizing him as Sovereign is what will help us conform to them.

But what standards, or codes of conduct, has he provided? And how can obedience to them protect us?

[Box on page 8]

Arresting the Spread of AIDS

June Brown, writing in The Detroit News, explained how this is possible: “An obvious cure that could drastically slow the rate of increase is a change in the nation’s sex habits. If everybody selected a healthy sex partner and remained faithful to death, AIDS would almost disappear. This may sound like biblical teaching. But as new, sexually transmitted diseases continue to appear, each more deadly than the last, the largely ignored theology about sexual fidelity suddenly makes sense from a modern health standpoint.”

How to Protect Yourself From AIDS

FIRST, avoid the sources of contamination. How do you do that? By living in harmony with the standards of conduct that Almighty God provided. Consider how these would have protected the thousands now dying of AIDS.

The Most Susceptible Group

These are sexually active homosexuals, especially those continually in search of new partners. The Bible says:

“You must not lie down with a male the same as you lie down with a woman. It is a detestable thing.”—Leviticus 18:22.

“The males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full recompense, which was due for their error.”—Romans 1:27.

“Make no mistake: no fornicator or idolater, none who are guilty either of adultery or of homosexual perversion . . . will possess the kingdom of God.”—1 Corinthians 6:9, 10, The New English Bible.

Who Else Is Susceptible?

Persons who have sexual relations with anyone who has the AIDS virus, whether that person be a male or a female. The Bible says about this:

“Let marriage be honorable among all, and the marriage bed be without defilement, for God will judge fornicators and adulterers.”—Hebrews 13:4.

“Deaden, therefore, your body members that are upon the earth as respects fornication, uncleanness, sexual appetite . . . On account of those things the wrath of God is coming.”—Colossians 3:5, 6.

Others Who Are at High Risk

Drug abusers who defile their bodies with drugs, injecting themselves with infected needles. The Bible’s condemnation of drunkenness would certainly apply to the abuse of modern drugs whose stupefying or mind-bending effects are at least as strong as those produced by alcohol.

“Let us cleanse ourselves of every defilement of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in God’s fear.”—2 Corinthians 7:1.

“Do not be misled. Neither fornicators . . . nor drunkards . . . will inherit God’s kingdom.”—1 Corinthians 6:9, 10.

Another High-Risk Group

Persons who receive contaminated blood through blood transfusions. Significantly, the Bible forbade humans to consume blood. It says:

“You must not eat the blood of any sort of flesh, because the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood. Anyone eating it will be cut off.”—Leviticus 17:14.

“For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you, except these necessary things, to keep abstaining . . . from blood.”—Acts 15:28, 29.

Not everyone is willing to apply Bible principles regarding these matters nor to accept the fact that God has the right to tell us what to do. But people who have done so are happy that they did.

How Can I Say No to Premarital Sex?

Young People Ask . . .

How Can I Say No to Premarital Sex?

OUR world is saturated with sexual immorality, and there is plenty of pressure for you to participate. Yet, many young people see the painful consequences of premarital sex and want something better for themselves. A nationwide survey by ’Teen magazine revealed that the number one issue about which young people wanted information was: “How to say no to sexual pressure.” Does this mean that the Bible standards of morality are unreachably high? Not at all! Many thousands of young people have successfully remained chaste.

“How will a young man [or woman] cleanse his path?” is the vital question posed at Psalm 119:9. The answer: “By keeping on guard according to your [God’s] word.” But more is needed than head knowledge. “You know in your mind what the Bible says about immoral sex,” confessed one young woman. “But your heart keeps pushing these reasons into the back of your mind.” Appropriately, the psalmist continued: “In my heart I have treasured up your saying, in order that I may not sin against you.”—Psalm 119:11.

Safeguard the Heart

To treasure God’s sayings in your heart requires first that you read and study the Scriptures and Bible-based literature. This helps convince you that God’s laws are of real value to you—a treasure. This series, “Young People Ask . . . ,” is written to help you build such an appreciation. Are you carefully reading each article?

On the other hand, sexually stimulating material that one reads, listens to, or views for entertainment will whip up the “sexual appetite.” (Colossians 3:5) Strictly avoid such material! Ponder instead on things that are chaste and you will lessen your heart’s craving for sensual pleasure.

Interestingly, research has shown that a young person’s closest friends have a great influence on whether he stays chaste. Therefore, those who wish to guard their heart will heed the psalmist’s words: “A partner I am of all those who do fear you [God], and of those keeping your orders.”—Psalm 119:63.

Are your friends those who are really striving to ‘keep God’s orders’? Joanna, a young woman who learned to say no, reported what helped her: “If you are around people who love Jehovah, you find that, as you talk about morals, you start to feel the same way they do. For instance, if you hear them say that immorality is disgusting, you begin to feel likewise. On the other hand, if you’re with someone that doesn’t care, pretty soon you’ll become just like him.”—Proverbs 13:20.

While it is essential to guard what goes into your heart, usually most young people become involved in immorality when they begin spending much time alone with someone of the opposite sex. A nationwide study by Robert Sorensen found that 56 percent of the young men surveyed and 82 percent of the women had sexual relations for the first time with someone with whom they were either going steady or at least knew well and liked a lot. So if you are old enough to pursue marriage, how can you get better acquainted with someone and still keep chaste?

Avoiding Pitfalls When Courting

When a couple start seeing each other, their hearts can soon become entwined. Yet, the Bible warns: “The heart is trickier than anything and in a desperate state; who understands it?” (Jeremiah 17:9, Byington) One may feel a perfectly normal attraction toward someone. But the more you’re around each other, the greater the attraction. It’s the way we are made. Yet, this normal desire can lead your heart astray. “Out of the heart come wicked reasonings, . . . fornications,” said Jesus Christ. (Matthew 15:19) To avoid such requires that you lead your heart rather than let it lead you. How can you do this?—Proverbs 23:19.

A MATTER OF COMMUNICATION: “By presumptuousness one only causes a struggle, but with those consulting together there is wisdom.” (Proverbs 13:10) Often a couple misunderstand what each expects in terms of expressions of affection. Frequently, a man may feel that the woman expects him to initiate kissing and petting, when in reality she may not. Therefore, let the other person know how you feel about the matter by “consulting together.” But regardless of how the other may feel, wisely set limits on expressions of affection. At the same time, don’t give out mixed signals. Wearing tight, revealing, sexy clothes can give your partner the wrong message.

CAREFULLY WATCH CIRCUMSTANCES: The Bible tells about a young virgin who was invited by her boyfriend to hike with him to a secluded spot in the mountains where together they could enjoy the beauties of early spring. However, the girl’s brothers found out about it and indignantly put a stop to the couple’s plans. It was not that they felt that she was immoral, but they knew the power of temptation under such circumstances. (Song of Solomon 1:6; 2:8-15; 8:10) Regardless of what reasoning your tricky heart conjures up, avoid being alone with someone of the opposite sex in a house, an apartment, or in an automobile parked in some secluded spot.

KNOW YOUR LIMITATIONS: There are times when you may be more vulnerable to sexual enticements than at other times. You may be discouraged because of some personal failure or a disagreement with others, perhaps your parents. During such times you will have to be especially cautious. Also, be careful about your use of alcoholic beverages. Under the influence of these, you can lose your inhibitions. “Wine and sweet wine are what take away good motive.”—Hosea 4:11.

SAY NO AND MEAN IT: What can a couple do when emotions escalate and they find themselves becoming dangerously intimate? One of them has to say or do something that ‘breaks the spell.’ One young woman named Debra found herself alone with her date, who stopped the car in a lonely place to “talk.” When the emotions began to escalate, Debra said to her friend: “Isn’t this necking? Shouldn’t we stop?” That broke the mood. He immediately drove them home. To say no under these circumstances may be the hardest thing you ever have had to do, but as one 20-year-old female who committed fornication said: “If you don’t walk away, you’ll be sorry!”

HAVE A CHAPERON: Though looked down upon in some countries, a chaperon is a must in others. “It looks as if we can’t be trusted,” complain some youngsters. It’s not you that can’t be trusted, it’s your heart! Proverbs 28:26 bluntly states: “He that is trusting in his own heart is stupid, but he that is walking in wisdom is the one that will escape.” Walk wisely by having someone else join you on a date. “I really respect the fellow who brings his own chaperon. I know he is as interested as I am in being chaste,” revealed Debra. “It works no hardship, for when we want to say something privately, we just step out of earshot of others. The protection it affords is worth any inconvenience.”

However, what is the greatest help in staying chaste?

Friendship With God

Often you may refrain from a certain action because of not wanting to hurt the feelings of a friend. Similarly, developing a close friendship with God, considering him to be a real person with feelings, will help you avoid conduct that offends him. Pouring out your heart to him about specific problems draws you close to him. Many couples wishing to remain chaste have even prayed together to God during emotionally charged situations and asked that he give them the needed strength.

Jehovah reciprocates by giving such ones “power beyond what is normal.” (2 Corinthians 4:7) You, of course, have to do your part. Yet, be assured that with God’s help and blessing, it is possible to say no to sexual immorality.

[Picture on page 11]

When courting, avoid immorality by not isolating yourselves

From Nazi Zealot to Christian Overseer

“ATTENTION! Eyes right! Hitler Youth Group, Böblingen district, reporting.” How proudly I presented “my boys” to our superiors at training exercises, during parades, and on other occasions. Their obedience and precision excited me. I was caught up in the excitement of a new era. In the early 1930’s, there was little doubt we needed one.

Germany had suffered terribly from the aftereffects of World War I, from the long years of instability and political division. Unemployment rose dramatically. At the time, I worked for a Stuttgart tailor, who paid me four Marks a week, just about enough for breakfast and for a thin soup for lunch. And my situation was not unique. Hardly surprising that Germany was seething with unrest. The future looked gloomy indeed.

And then “he” came! At last, a man who knew what he was doing! Of course, not everyone agreed with him, but no one could deny that he led with authority and that he got results. The economy had improved; unemployment had dropped. No one was going hungry. Things were looking up. This was success, and it gave credence to what he said.

Giving Zealous Support

I was born and reared in Holzgerlingen, a small village just outside Stuttgart, Germany. I was a member of our local sports club, and when most of its members became supporters of Hitler, I joined them. After all, he did impress me, and the opportunity to share in improving conditions was appealing.

When Hitler took power in 1933—I was 24 at the time—I was already a Nazi Party member. Seeing my zeal, my friends were soon saying: “Willi, you would be a good one to take over this or that job.” So within a comparatively short time, I held six different positions of responsibility within the party. I considered it an honor.

For example, I was appointed to a position of leadership over our community’s Brownshirts—as the party’s storm troopers were called. This later led to my being put in charge of over 2,000 of the Hitler Youth. What a thrill to be wholeheartedly serving in a fast-moving party from whose program everyone was bound to benefit! My zeal bordered on fanaticism. Woe to anyone who dared contradict my views!

So imagine, if you can, my thrill at being assigned to attend a Stuttgart reception where the Führer himself would be present. What a sight! Some 70,000 Nazi troopers and Hitler Youth, row upon row of brown-uniformed men, moving as one machine. And then the climax when, in front of this huge crowd, I had the honor of actually shaking “his” hand!

A Monkey Wrench in the Works

Martha and I got married in 1932. How happy I was to have a partner who shared my ideals! All went well until she began disagreeing with the things I was doing. Someone had thrown a monkey wrench into the works, and it wasn’t difficult to find out who it was—Mina, my sister-in-law. She had become one of Jehovah’s Witnesses and had not held back from telling her sister about all her “newfound truths.” This certainly did not sit well with me, a Nazi.

Our marriage relationship became quite strained. I recall, for example, when I returned home from that meeting in Stuttgart, thrilled at having shaken hands with the Führer. Martha just smiled and said: “I suppose this means you’ll not be washing your hand anymore?” That set me off. How could she joke about such an honor, such a privilege? Didn’t she understand?

I often found myself shouting at her, but she would react calmly, which would infuriate me all the more. In the face of my anger and abuse, where did she get the inner strength to react this way? Once I literally drove her out of the house. That, of course, did not improve matters, and I could not sleep all night. The next day, despite my injured pride, I brought her home again. Her behavior continued as before—faultless.

Could it be that I, not she, was the one who was mistaken? Even the thought was deplorable. Why, it would mean the end of my personal ideals, the end of my world.

Three Hours That Changed My Life

One day I returned home from youth-troop exercises sick with a fever. I went to bed and found my wife’s Bible lying on the bedside table. That was unusual because she knew that I would likely burn it in my fanatical zeal. Though I felt it beneath my dignity to do so, for some reason I picked the Bible up and began reading. There, in Revelation 17 and 18, I came across references to a great harlot called Babylon the Great. The term was familiar because I had heard Martha use it before, but I had been too proud to ask for an explanation. Now at least I knew where it came from. But I still didn’t know what it meant.

Determined to find out, I summoned her from another room. She was visibly shaken to see me holding her Bible, fearing for its safety. Still too proud to listen to my own wife, I demanded: “Can you get ahold of Mina so she can explain to me who this Babylon is?”

Her sister may well have thought at the moment that it was a trap that could lead to concentration-camp confinement. Nevertheless, brushing aside any fear she may have had, she came. And we talked. For three hours we talked, three hours that literally changed my life.

I was raised a Protestant and had attended church off and on. But I was not really religious. Now, however, I began to notice that what the Bible said about Babylon the Great was truly descriptive of the churches. Gradually it dawned on me how people and nations had fallen victim to “the wine . . . of her fornication” and how the “kings of the earth [had] committed fornication with her.” (Revelation 18:3) And this included even Nazi Germany!

The more Mina explained, the better I could understand the Bible’s words and their modern application. How could all of this have been prophesied so many centuries before? It hit me like a bolt of lightning. I now knew how the apostle Paul must have felt—why, this was the truth! (Acts 9:1-19) It did not take me long to reach a decision.

The next day, still running a high fever, I got up and went to resign my membership in both the party and the church. This included, of course, resigning all six offices of responsibility in the Nazi Party. It was a daring step to take because the Nazis were in complete control, and anything not fitting in with their ideology was mercilessly crushed out of existence. I had every reason to know this, for had not I myself until now been an avid supporter of this very policy? What would now happen to my business? What would happen to me?

Tests of Integrity

Just three weeks after having made myself the number one topic of conversation in the village, Martha and I rejoiced at the birth of our first child. But our joy was short-lived; complications set in, and the child died two weeks later. Martha’s life hung in the balance for several more. Was this punishment from God? Others may have thought so, but we did not. It drew us closer to Jehovah, the God of love, who allowed Martha to recover and who strengthened our faith in the resurrection, giving us the strong hope of seeing little Esther again.

Meanwhile, the local villagers, even my most loyal customers of long standing, began to boycott my tailor shop. But they knew that I had always served them well, had been honest, and had done good work. So after a few weeks, the boycott began to crumble. Customers started returning, although some only at night so as not to be seen by others. Before long, my business was doing even better than before!

Periodically we received Witness literature, which we read immediately and then quickly passed on to others. But since this literature was banned, we also received frequent visits from the Gestapo intent on finding some of it in our house. Two Gestapo agents showed up unexpectedly one afternoon at about two o’clock. And of all times to come! Just the day before, we had received a booklet that I was to pass on that evening. They began their search, but then suddenly they turned around and left, overlooking what was lying on top of the radio almost in front of their eyes—the booklet!

We were always in danger of being arrested. “Willi, do you know what you are doing? You must be crazy” is what the top local Nazi official told me when I resigned from the party. But since his brother was married to one of my wife’s sisters, family ties evidently kept him from reporting me. Others in town who knew me well, who recognized my sincerity and respected me, seemed almost to have entered into a conspiracy of silence.

I will never forget the 1935 so-called free elections. Out of allegiance to Jehovah’s Kingdom, we remained neutral, refusing to get involved in politics. That evening at about eight o’clock, a group of some 80 Nazi troopers marched up in front of our house, shouting into the night for all to hear: “Those living here are traitors to the German nation. Germany has no place for the likes of you. You should be hanged. Go to the Devil as Judas did!”

As a onetime Nazi, I did not enjoy being called a traitor. But I recalled what Jesus had said: “If the world hates you, you know that it has hated me before it hated you.” (John 15:18) So this hatred simply proved that we were right. Many of these troopers later sacrificed their lives in a lost cause. Two who were still alive after the war, however, came personally to apologize for having acted as they did.

Aroused to Action

As soon as the hindrance of the Nazi regime was out of the way, Jehovah’s Witnesses throughout Germany began reorganizing. I have lived to see our small group in Holzgerlingen grow from only six at that time to well over a hundred today. And what a joy to have seen 28 persons take up the preaching work from our immediate family alone.

For almost 40 years now, I have enjoyed fulfilling duties of congregational oversight. Certainly not in the commanding and unyielding tones of the Nazi leader I used to be, but in the ministering spirit of love and lowly-mindedness required of Christian undershepherds.—Matthew 23:10, 11; 1 Peter 5:2, 3.

October 1934, when I made a clean break with Nazism and with Babylon the Great, lies over half a century behind me. Years later, I learned that during that very same month, congregations of Jehovah’s Witnesses around the world sent Hitler telegrams, reading: “Your ill-treatment of Jehovah’s Witnesses shocks all good people of earth and dishonors God’s name. Refrain from further persecuting Jehovah’s Witnesses; otherwise God will destroy you and your national party.” I lived to see those words fulfilled.

How glad I am to have seen through the treacherous Nazi propaganda and slogans just in time! I thus spared myself the shame of sharing in its sins and later the pain of receiving part of its plagues, as many of my former comrades did.—As told by Willi Wanner.

[Blurb on page 14]

I often found myself shouting at my wife, but she would always react calmly

[Picture on page 13]

Sports-club friends in 1928, already Nazis. The youth at top left and I (front center) became Jehovah’s Witnesses

[Picture on page 16]

Willi Wanner, his wife Martha, and her sister Wilhelmine

Britain’s Sunny Channel Islands

By “Awake!” correspondent in the British Isles

JERSEY and Guernsey—what do these names mean to you? Sweaters? Yes, these are the names of some of the finest knitted garments with their distinctive patterns and designs. Dairy cattle? Yes, again, for these animals are highly prized for the richness of their milk. But Jersey and Guernsey are really the names of two small islands in the English Channel that are part of a group known as the Channel Islands.

These islands are just off the French Normandy coast, so that from them on a clear day you can see the French coastline. Alderney, one of the group’s main islands, is only eight miles (13 km) off France’s Cherbourg peninsula. England, on the other hand, is about 60 miles (96 km) to the north. The islands have a combined area of 75 square miles (195 sq km), with a population of about 130,000.

The French Link

Since the Channel Islands are practically on the doorstep of France, how is it that they belong to Britain? The islanders’ answer is: ‘England never conquered us. We conquered England!’ There is an interesting bit of history behind this.

Originally, the islands were a part of the Duchy of Normandy in France. In 1066, Duke William “The Conqueror” crossed the English Channel, took England, and united the two realms under himself as King William I of England. That was the Norman Conquest.

Some 150 years later, English King John lost sovereignty over Normandy but held the Channel Islands. As a reward for their loyalty, he granted the islanders a constitution amounting to self-government, which has continued until this day.

Even so, the close proximity of the islands to France has naturally left an indelible mark. Although English is the everyday tongue, the legal language of the islands is French. If you were to venture into the narrow streets to explore the shops, or visit outlying areas, you would notice that many of the islanders still speak a patois, or dialect, akin to the original Norman-French.

Lure of the Sea

From the early time of the Vikings, the sea has played an important role in moulding the character of both the islands and their people. The Jersey coastline sees one of the largest tide movements in the world—a rise of as much as 40 feet (12 m) during spring tides. The resulting treacherous currents make sailing in the surrounding waters a hazardous business. Storms also sweep up the English Channel; fog and mist can prevail even in calmer weather.

In spite of all of this, or perhaps because of it, the inhabitants of these islands have always been excellent mariners and keen traders. First they traded with France and England. Eventually they sought fresh markets in Spain and Portugal, and then they ventured much farther afield. After the discovery of the Americas, many islanders regularly set sail in the spring for the opposite shore of the Atlantic and returned home in time for the autumn harvest and ploughing.

Not all trade, however, was clearly aboveboard. Smuggling and privateering provided the finance for many of the islands’ fine old houses that are greatly treasured today.

Attesting to the far reaches of the islanders is a plaque in a cemetery at Gaspé, at the mouth of the St. Lawrence River in Canada. It reads: “They came on the sea from the Channel Islands of Guernsey and Jersey. Beside the sea they built homes, churches and schools, and from the sea they lived and by the sea they rest.”

Evidence of the Channel islander’s travels can be seen in still other parts of North America. Guernsey County, Ohio, has a direct link with the original Guernsey settlers. Better known, however, is New Jersey. Sir George Carteret, governor of Jersey, was given all the land between the Hudson and Delaware rivers in America by King Charles II as a reward for his support during the English civil war. Sir George, quite naturally, liked the name New Jersey, which has stuck till this day.

Life on the Islands

The commodities that have firmly established “jersey” and “guernsey” in the English language are the knitted pullovers by those names. Knitting was at one time a major industry on the islands. Their knitwear was highly valued throughout Europe. The islanders became so engrossed in their newfound source of wealth that getting in the harvest became a serious problem on Jersey. A law had to be passed to prohibit the menfolk from knitting during the harvest season.

The people—men, women, and children—would even take their knitting to church. The noise from the clicking needles was so bad that it was almost impossible for the preacher to be heard. It took an Order of the States (local parliament) to put an end to such “scandalous” behaviour.

The two excellent breeds of dairy cattle, Jersey and Guernsey, have been exported and are raised in many countries of the world. To preserve the purity of the breed, no other cattle are allowed on the islands; even cows that have been shipped abroad are not allowed to return. The reddish-brown or dark-fawn Jersey, though smaller than the Guernsey, claims the distinction of producing milk with the highest butterfat content of all cattle. On the other hand, the white-patched, fawn-colored Guernseys produce more milk than Jerseys. So, understandably, the competition is keen.

The sunny islands also produce an abundance of tomatoes, vegetables, and flowers. Early spring orchids from Guernsey are a popular gift in England. In fact, Guernsey is often referred to as the island of glasshouses. As you approach the island from the air, the reason becomes apparent as the sun’s reflection flashes from greenhouses scattered all over the island. Another crop is vraic, seaweed growing abundantly in the warm waters around the islands. It is gathered and dried for use mainly as fertilizer. Not to be forgotten is the ormer, a shellfish delicacy found locally.

During the second world war, the Channel Islands were the only part of the British Isles occupied by Nazi forces. Recognizing the cost in men and material of defending the islands, the British government evacuated all who wished to leave. The island of Alderney became a German prisoner-of-war camp. Aside from causing severe privations, the war generally passed the other islands by.

Bible Truth Grows Quickly

Seeds of Bible truth were sown here back in 1925 when Zephaniah and Ethel Widdell arrived from England with their bicycles to organize a regular program of Bible studies. As a direct result of their work, congregations of Jehovah’s Witnesses were soon formed in both Jersey and Guernsey.

Although the work of the Witnesses was banned during World War II, Bible studies continued to flourish, and meetings were held quietly and regularly, with just over 20 persons attending. When the islands were liberated, over 80 Witnesses were active in the preaching work throughout the islands—a fourfold increase. Now, there are over 350. In the intervening years, many islanders have become full-time evangelizers, including three missionaries, graduates from the Watchtower Bible School of Gilead, currently serving in Africa.

Friends Forever

If you ever have the happy experience of visiting the Channel Islands, the memory will long remain with you. Warm, sunny weather and quiet sandy beaches are irresistible attractions, to be sure. But instead of the conveniences of modern life in Jersey’s St. Helier or Guernsey’s St. Peter Port, you may choose to visit the ancient tombs and other artifacts of history on the islands—a veritable treasure house from man’s earliest times. Most of all, you will enjoy the relaxed way of life of the kind and hospitable island folk. And once you get to know them, you will be sure of a warm welcome whenever you return to these sunny Channel Islands.

[Maps on page 17]

(For fully formatted text, see publication)

ENGLAND

English Channel

Channel Islands

FRANCE

Alderney Is.

Guernsey Is.

Sark Is.

Jersey Is.

[Picture on page 19]

St. Peter Port, Guernsey Island

[Credit Line]

J. Tesson/H. Armstrong Roberts

The Terrifying Inquisition

IT WAS the 13th century. The whole of the south of France was said to be infested with heretics. The local bishop had failed in his attempts to uproot these weeds growing in his diocese, a field supposed to be exclusively Catholic. More drastic action was deemed necessary. The pope’s special representatives “in the matter of heresy” moved in. The Inquisition had come to town.

The roots of the Inquisition go back to the 11th and 12th centuries, when various dissident groups began springing up in Catholic Europe. But the Inquisition proper was inaugurated by Pope Lucius III at the Synod of Verona, Italy, in 1184. In collaboration with Holy Roman Emperor Frederick I Barbarossa, he decreed that any person who spoke or even thought contrary to Catholic doctrine would be excommunicated by the church and duly punished by the secular authorities. Bishops were instructed to seek out (Latin, inquirere) heretics. This was the beginning of what was called the Episcopal Inquisition, that is, placed under the authority of the Catholic bishops.

Harsher Measures

However, as it turned out, in Rome’s eyes the bishops were not all sufficiently zealous in ferreting out dissidents. So several succeeding popes sent out papal legates who, with the help of Cistercian monks, were empowered to carry out their own “inquiries” into heresy. Thus, for a time, there were two parallel Inquisitions, called the Episcopal and the Legatine Inquisitions, the latter more severe than the former.

Even this harsher Inquisition was not sufficient for Pope Innocent III. In 1209 he launched a military crusade against heretics in southern France. These were mostly Cathars, a group that mixed Manichaeism with apostate Christian Gnosticism.a Since Albi was one of the towns in which the Cathars were particularly numerous, they came to be known as Albigenses.

The “holy war” against the Albigenses ended in 1229, but all the dissenters had not been stamped out. So that same year, at the Synod of Toulouse in southern France, Pope Gregory IX gave a new stimulus to the Inquisition. He arranged for permanent inquisitors, including one priest, in every parish. In 1231 he enacted a law whereby unrepentant heretics would be sentenced to death by fire and repentant ones to life imprisonment.

Two years later, in 1233, Gregory IX relieved the bishops of their responsibility to seek out heretics. He set up the Monastic Inquisition, so called because he appointed monks as official inquisitors. These were chosen mainly from among members of the newly founded Dominican Order, but also from among the Franciscans.

The Inquisitorial Procedure

The inquisitors, Dominican or Franciscan friars, would assemble the local inhabitants in the churches. They were summoned there to confess to heresy if they were guilty of it or to denounce any heretics known to them. Even if they suspected someone of heresy, they were to denounce the person.

Anyone—man, woman, child, or slave—could accuse a person of heresy, without fear of being confronted with the accused or of the latter even knowing who had denounced him. The accused rarely had someone to defend him, since any lawyer or witness in his behalf would himself have been accused of aiding and abetting a heretic. So the accused generally stood alone before the inquisitors, who were at the same time prosecutors and judges.

Those accused were given at the most a month to confess. Whether they confessed or not, the “inquiry” (Latin, inquisitio) would begin. The accused were held in custody, many in solitary confinement with little food. When the bishop’s prison was full, the civil prison was used. When it overflowed, old buildings were converted to prisons.

Since the accused were presumed guilty even before the trial began, the inquisitors used four methods to induce them to confess to heresy. First, threat of death on the stake. Second, shackled confinement in a dark, damp, tiny cell. Third, psychological pressure by prison visitors. And, last, torture, which included the rack, the pulley, or strappado, and torture by fire. Monks would stand by to record any confession. Acquittal was virtually impossible.

Penalties

Sentences were pronounced on Sundays, in church or in a public square, with the clergy present. A light sentence could be penances. Yet this included the compulsory wearing of a yellow felt cross sewn to the clothes, which made it well-nigh impossible to find employment. Or the sentence could be public flogging, imprisonment, or being handed over to the secular authorities for death by fire.

The heavier penalties were accompanied by the confiscation of the condemned person’s property, which was shared by the Church and the State. The surviving members of the heretic’s family thus suffered greatly. The houses of heretics and of those who had given heretics shelter were torn down.

Also, dead people reported to have been heretics were tried posthumously. If they were found guilty, their bodies were exhumed and burned, and their property confiscated. Again this brought untold suffering to the innocent surviving members of the family.

Such was the general procedure followed by the medieval Inquisition, with variations according to time and place.

Pope-Approved Torture

In 1252 Pope Innocent IV published his bull Ad exstirpanda, officially authorizing the use of torture in the ecclesiastical courts of the Inquisition. Further regulations for the way torture was to be used were promulgated by Popes Alexander IV, Urban IV, and Clement IV.

At first the ecclesiastical inquisitors were not allowed to be present when the torture was administered, but Popes Alexander IV and Urban IV removed this restriction. This enabled the “questioning” to continue in the torture chamber. Similarly, as originally authorized, torture was to be applied only once, but the papal inquisitors got around this by claiming that renewed sessions of torture were merely “a continuation” of the first session.

Soon even witnesses were being tortured to make sure they had denounced all the heretics they knew. Sometimes an accused person who confessed to heresy was tortured even after confessing. As The Catholic Encyclopedia explains, this was “to compel him to testify against his friends and fellow-culprits.”—Volume VIII, page 32.

Six Centuries of Terror

Thus, the inquisitorial machinery was set in motion in the first half of the 13th century C.E. and was used for several centuries to crush anyone who spoke or even thought differently from the Catholic Church. It spread terror throughout Catholic Europe. When, toward the end of the 15th century, the Inquisition began to calm down in France and other countries of Western and Central Europe, it flared up in Spain.

The Spanish Inquisition, authorized by Pope Sixtus IV in 1478, was first directed against the Marranos, or Spanish Jews, and the Moriscos, or Spanish Muslims. Many of these, who had adopted the Catholic faith out of fear, were suspected of continuing to practice their original religion secretly. In time, though, the Inquisition was used as a terrifying weapon against Protestants and any other dissenters.

From Spain and Portugal the Inquisition spread to the colonies of these two Catholic monarchies in Central and South America and elsewhere. It ended only when Napoleon invaded Spain at the beginning of the 19th century. It was temporarily restored after Napoleon fell but was finally suppressed in 1834, only a century and a half ago.

[Footnotes]

Catholic historians often indiscriminately label medieval heretics “Manichaean sects.” Mani, or Manes, was a third century C.E. founder of a fusion religion that mixed Persian Zoroastrianism and Buddhism with apostate Christian Gnosticism. And while such dissident groups as the Cathars may have been rooted in the teachings of Mani, this certainly was not true of the more Bible-oriented dissident groups such as the Waldenses.

[Picture on page 21]

Various methods of torture inflicted by the inquisitor

[Credit Line]

Photo Bibliothéque Nationale, Paris

[Picture on page 22]

Pope Innocent IV authorized the use of torture

How Was It Possible?

ONE of the paradoxes of history is that some of the worst crimes against humanity—equaled only by 20th-century concentration camps—were committed by Dominican or Franciscan friars belonging to two preaching orders purported to be dedicated to preaching Christ’s message of love.

It is difficult to understand how a church that subscribes to the inspired statement, “All who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted,” could itself become a persecutor. (2 Timothy 3:12, Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition) How was it possible?

First, Catholic teaching made it possible. How so? It can be summed up by Catholic “Saint” Augustine’s famous statement: “Salus extra ecclesiam non est” (No salvation exists outside the church). Recently, A History of Christianity by Paul Johnson states of Augustine: “He not only accepted, he became the theorist of, persecution; and his defences were later to be those on which all defences of the Inquisition rested.”

In the 13th century, “Saint” Thomas Aquinas, called the Angelic Doctor, advocated the death sentence for heresy. The Catholic Encyclopedia explained this by saying: “Theologians and jurists based their attitude to some extent on the similarity between heresy and high treason.” The same work admits: “There can be no doubt, therefore, that the Church claimed the right to use physical coercion against formal apostates.”

The “right” of the church to torture and burn heretics was, in fact, a horrible corollary to the unscriptural doctrines of hell and purgatory. The church tortured in the name of a God whom she blasphemously claims is a torturer.—Compare Jeremiah 7:31; Romans 6:23.

The other reason why the Inquisition was possible was the deep involvement of the church in politics. Medieval Europe was, in fact, a totalitarian society in which Church and State, while often vying with each other, united their forces against any person who dared criticize priest or prince. From this adulterous relationship the Inquisition was born. In the French Encyclopædia Universalis we read: “The Inquisition could never have carried out its task without the collaboration of the civil authorities who supplied it with its resources and carried out the sentences.”

This is not to say that Protestants were blameless. Unbiased historical records show that at times they were just as intolerant as the Catholics. They, too, committed terrible atrocities in the name of Christ, even burning dissenters at the stake, often with the help of the secular authorities. And Protestant atrocities were possible for the same reasons: Protestants are also part of a religious system that includes in its theology the unscriptural doctrine of God-inflicted eternal torment and that has maintained throughout the centuries an unclean spiritual relationship with the secular powers.

A Modern-Day Legacy

Could the Inquisition happen again? Doubtless no, in today’s secular-oriented society. However, The New Encyclopædia Britannica makes this interesting comment: “The legacy of Christian intolerance and the methods it developed (e.g., inquisition, or brainwashing) operates in the intolerance of the ideology and techniques of modern political revolutions.”

Yes, “the legacy of [apostate] Christian intolerance and the methods it developed” can be seen in present-day secular intolerance. In some countries, methods reminiscent of the Inquisition have already been used by the political powers against representatives of the Catholic Church. This is a foretaste of what is to come.

The Bible shows that “the kings of the earth,” or the world rulers, with whom such worldly religions have committed spiritual “fornication,” will turn against the entire world empire of false religion, symbolized by the “harlot,” “Babylon the Great.” (Revelation 17:1-6) They will tire of her meddling in their political affairs. God will use such antireligious political elements to mete out judgment to this iniquitous religious system. They will “strip off her clothes and leave her naked; then they will eat her flesh and burn the remains in the fire.” (Revelation 17:12, 16-18, The Jerusalem Bible) The blood she has shed by means of religious wars, crusades, and inquisitions will thus be avenged.—Revelation 18:24; 19:2.

It therefore behooves all sincere Catholics and Protestants who are ashamed still to be a part of a religious system that has shed so much innocent blood to heed God’s call: “Get out of her, my people, if you do not want to share with her in her sins, and if you do not want to receive part of her plagues.”—Revelation 18:4.

[Blurb on page 24]

The “right” of the church to torture and burn heretics was, in fact, a horrible consequence of the unscriptural doctrines of hell and purgatory

Is Hell a Place of Torment?

SOME say yes; some say no; others just do not know. A few centuries ago the belief in hell as a place of fire and torment for unrepentant souls after death was almost universal in Christendom. Today many people reject it and prefer the homespun philosophy that “hell is right here on earth.” What is the truth? Do wicked people actually go to hell? Is it a place of torment?

There are many theories about hell. The medieval concept was an underworld place where unrepentant sinners suffered intense agony forever. Dante, the famous poet, born in the 13th century, wrote in his work The Eleven Pains of Hell:

“There are burning trees upon which are hanged the souls of those who would never go to church in this life, . . .

“There is an oven heated, at which stand seven devils who shovel the guilty souls into the furnace. . . .

“No rest have the guilty souls.”

Michelangelo depicted such a fearsome hell in his painting in the Vatican’s Sistine Chapel. It was said to have scared the wits out of Pope Paul III, who had commissioned it.

Both Calvin and Luther accepted the Catholic idea of hell. Today, the doctrine of hellfire is still upheld. “The chief characteristic of hell,” states the New Catholic Encyclopedia, “is its fire that is unquenchable . . . and everlasting . . . Whatever may be implied by the terms ‘unquenchable fire’ and ‘everlasting fire,’ they should not be explained away as meaningless.” Adds Billy Graham, famous American evangelist: “The teaching of a literal hell is found in the creeds of all the leading churches. . . . God considered hell real enough that He sent his only Son to the world to save men from hell.”

…

Refine Search

Index Downloading...

Awake!, April 22, 1986