by booker-t 53 Replies latest watchtower bible
I would be very careful never to quote a hearsay story, even if I truly believe its true!
Im more interested in facts that can be supported. I think its very important not to muddy the waters with stories that cant be proven.
I would stick to subjects like the UN, child abuse rather than subliminal images in the WT literature.
Unlike the WT that likes to tell "unproven" stories and repeat unlikely, laughable stories at conventions and assemblies !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The WTS has a lot to answer for and no doubt most of the accusations made against them are not false, the problem on this forum is that there aren't enough JWs to present the opposite, view their side of the story. And sometimes the anti JW critics go over the top. On the other hand remember the WTS leadership does totally suppress any dissenting views so they are the ones who are being grossly unfair, many ex dubs say they will say outside the org what they were banned from saying inside by getting chained in effect.
[edited image]
Chained emotionally, intellectually, spiritually, culturally: we will treat you fairly as long as you see things our way.
One other point I'd like to make
We all know the WTS tells JWs that we lie and make up stories. I think that is why so many work really hard to make sure we are not just spreading rumors.I think the last thing any of us want is to prove the WTS right regarding our level of honesty.
greendawn - you make your point very well with your last statement.
Chained emotionally, intellectually, spiritually, culturally: we will treat you fairly as long as you see things our way.
greendawn, you have just described a slave. In the old-fashioned sense of the word. Everyone has answered booker-t so well, I don't know what I could add. Here's an interesting article from the Apologetics Index.
Attacks on apostates
Among the most dangerous challenges to the work of cult apologists is the testimony of ex-cult members (apostates). Therefore, cult defenders claim that apostates can not be relied upon to tell the truth (e.g. this statement by J. Gordon Melton, and this one by Lonnie Kliever).
However, professor of psychology Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi states:
Recent and less recent NRM [New Religious Movement] catastrophes help us realize that in every single case allegations by hostile outsiders and detractors have been closer to reality than any other accounts. Ever since the Jonestown tragedy, statements by ex-members turned out to be more accurate than those of apologists and NRM researchers.
Source: Dear Colleagues: Integrity and Suspicion in NRM Research, by Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi
[...more...]
Attacks on their critics
Increasingly, cult apologists and their defenders spend much time and energy attacking their critics, while refusing to deal with the issues their critics draw attention to.
Jgnat that is indeed the case most ex JWs are making fair accusations against them but some may go over the top mainly by making too much out of minor issues. Let's remember that those who had marriages destroyed or are shunned by family members will be very resentful.
The JWs have absolutely no freedom of speech on the pretext that jehovah takes proper care of all issues through the GB and all advice or criticism are unnecessary, and wrong in the sense that "they deny jehovah's power to correctly direct his organisation".
However this suppression of freedom of speech is a serious crime against humanity and not according to the wisdom from above.
But I have realised there is no need to 'prove' the Witnesses wrong. All one needs to do is ask whether the Witnesses provide enough evidence for believing that they have the truth. The reality is that they provide nowhere near enough evidence that one would reasonably require to substantiate the considerable claims they make. The process of being convinced that it is the 'truth' in the first place was for me largely a systematic shelving of issues to the back on my mind, rather than a rigorous airing of them in the cold light of evidence.
Spot on with this comment SBF and I totally concur with it.
DB74
What has disillusioned me with much of my research into ex-witness / apostate information is the dishonesty and often downright lies that are spread by ex-witnesses / apostates.
What lies are they dozy? I'd be very interested to see some examples.
What didillusioned me when I was a jw was the dishonesty of the wts about things like the UN involvement, the way they apply their child abuse policy, false prophecy like 1975 etc, and all the docrinal flip - flops like the generation, blood etc. That's why I left.
You are right, apostates do often overstate their case: The UN thing; So-called misquotes; Satanic images; Franz not reading Hebrew; Rutherford killing Russell... blah de blah it goes on and on. It seems the desire to 'prove' the Witnesses wrong often overrides good judgement, and the worst possible motives are imputed to Witness leaders at every turn. But I have realised there is no need to 'prove' the Witnesses wrong. All one needs to do is ask whether the Witnesses provide enough evidence for believing that they have the truth. The reality is that they provide nowhere near enough evidence that one would reasonably require to substantiate the considerable claims they make. The process of being convinced that it is the 'truth' in the first place was for me largely a systematic shelving of issues to the back on my mind, rather than a rigorous airing of them in the cold light of evidence. Jehovah's Witnesses provide a comprehensive narrative for interpreting the world around us, but what does not squeeze into the mould has to be put to one side mentally. As time goes on in the Witnesses the amount of 'stuff' that has been laid to one side as incompatible inevitably grows and grows until it reaches a crisis point for many. Apostates often pose the question - what is the best proof that it is not the truth? I would answer that the most compelling evidence is the considerable lack of good reasons for believing it is the truth. Why should we have to think up reasons for it not being the truth? Simply pointing to the complete failure on the part of the Witnesses to prove their case that they have the 'truth' should be enough. We don't feel we have to prove that Sikhs are wrong or Jains or Hindus, why treat Jehovah's WItnesses any different? Slim
Awesome Post, just awesome!
Increasingly, cult apologists and their defenders spend much time and energy attacking their critics, while refusing to deal with the issues their critics draw attention to.
The WT apologetics seem to love fish, smelly fish, fish which will distract you.
Their most favorite dish which they like and to pass out is herring, dirty smelling red herring.
Andy
The core issues that most apostates raise about the WTS - disfellowshipping, blood, UN, child molest, academic dishonesty, new light/shifting doctrines, their history, etc. - are valid concerns and when examined intellectually and scientifically, completely and inarguably discredit the WTS. That is all that matters. These are the issues that have compelled thousands of loyal, sincere JWs to leave the ranks, brokenhearted and disillusioned, to look elsewhere for the "truth." The "lunatic fringe" is always there, but their presence does not in any way undermine the fact that the fundamental doctrines, beliefs and practices of the WTS simply do not stand up to honest scrutiny.
