The focus of my criticism is on the JWs leaders when they try to define them-
selves as the spokesmen of a literal 144,000, and they try to show that the
dozen or so rules meant to define it are shown to have the best case by reason-
ing and evidence for what's meant by the Bible. I'm especially critical if
any of the followers are hurt or killed trying to follow them, so I have a few
criticisms of the article.
- It doesn't distinguish between the leaders and the followers, between the
cynical victimizers and the hopeful victims, but tries to take a sociological
approach to explain how the whole group is responsible for the transfusion ban,
as though to put them all on the same plane and liken it to any concern to mini-
mize unnecessary division and have unity in any flock. You might as well try to
make a sociological argument to blame the abused woman the same as her abusive
husband.
The JWs leaders have the first responsibility for their blood rules, which are
among the ones for which they use methods as phony as Popoff's radio transmitter
gimmick to set themselves apart and create unnecessary apartness between follow-
ers and others (who could tip off the followers about the leaders).
Radio transmitter = quotes out of context from research books, forced points,
and omission of pertinent evidence, etc.
Throw away your insulin = throw away the medical use of blood and major blood
fractions for yourself or your child.
Same ethics.
- In giving the JWs leaders' blood rule in distinction from orthodox Chris-
tianity, the idea of it being part of the JWs leaders' motive to affect sepera-
tion from government has possibilities, although it doesn't criticize the over-
blown rendition of worldiness at the root of it as a JWs leaders' concoction.
Instead, where scriptural basis is addressed, it uncritically gives the scrip-
tures as though supporting the JWs leaders' methods of teaching their additional
rules about worldliness or the medical use of blood and major blood fractions:
"based on an intellectual empiricism of the Bible"? Big mistake. Empirical
logic doesn't add a step unless the previous step is observed as true beyond a
reasonable doubt. Because of that, such distinctive rules are generally left to
be personal opinion.
- It gives the JWs leaders use of the AIDS scare as though further justifying
their medical (and scriptural) propaganda. Big mistake compounded.
- It gives the JWs leaders as teaching pacifism whereas actually they don't,
the last I heard, anyway--they taught a centric view that restricts defense by
JWs for other JWs.
- It gives the death as though illustrating the choice of whether not someone
chooses any belief in a possible God instead of illustrating for the agreement
of believers and non-believers alike how that hope is misplaced when thrown
recklessly at insincere Popoffs or JWs leaders out for a buck, leaders whose
responsibility, credibility, and sincerity aren't possible.
It gives the death as though reaffirming the existence of belief in God. Like
one of Popoff's followers throwing away their insulin because Popoff told them
to, the lady had that belief, but the article missed the target and shot at the
grandstands, where some nice sincere believers could be sitting, in missing the
focus of how the JWs leaders, like Popoff, are especially cynical in going for
personal gain by exploiting those sincere people's hopes without caring what
harm could happen to them.
