Anyone find any decent pro-Witness sites?

by IsaacJS2 34 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  IsaacJS2

  As I've mentioned a few times before, I'm working on a round of articles for Austin Cline's site. The final "big daddy" article is an evaluation: Is the WTS a Controlling, Harmful Cult? But I don't plan on doing an attack article. I feel that only undermines the point of the thing. I plan to present both the criticisms and the defenses against them side by side to expose the weakness of their refutations.

  I would prefer to get Witness refutations to our criticisms from sources other than myself because I want to do a fair, balanced article that lets the readers decide. Since my articles have been more negative than positive overall, I feel that posting my own interpretations will cheapend the thing. WT defenders will only claim that I didn't give them a fair shake, yet that's what I'm really trying to do.

  Note that, like most of us, I believe these refutations don't hold up. But I wish to present them anyway and to evaluate them, using the literature to see which side has the strongest supporting evidence. I believe this is a better way to approach the cult question than a simple attack or a list of complaints which will only scream "bias!" to the readers. I hope you see the value of what I'm trying to do with this.

  Has anyone ran into any pro-Witness sites that offer responses to critics? I haven't found anything good yet. I don't expect anyone to my job for me, but I was wondering if you'd found anything useful in your web travels? This way, I can quote those pro-WT sources along with the criticisms, or at least refer to them.

  Thanks a lot for any help.

  IsaacJ
• 

  ninja

  http://www.elihubooks.com/
• 

  Madame Quixote

  I'm just wondering how anything pro-witness could be decent?

  After all, they promote policies that protect pedophiles and promote the neglect of loved ones in favor of a paradise that never comes.

  What's decent about any of that?
• 

  Madame Quixote

  Have you checked out the Quotes mirror sites?
• 

  greendawn

  The WTS has discouraged the JW Rank & File from putting up sites to defend their faith telling them that they should leave the task to the org itself. So there aren't that many pro JW sites whereas there are hundreds of anti JW ones. I don't know of any, e-watchman is pro JW but against the GB of the JWs.
• 

  OUTLAW

  Ask too many questions about anything negative and you won`t last long..Pro JW`s aren`t interested in truth.They are interested in protecting the WBT$ at any cost..Let us know how it go`s.I`d be interested to know,if your given a chance to pursue your questions..Good Luck...OUTLAW
• 

  IsaacJS2

  I know that the Society discourages web sites and that most of us don't consider anything pro-WT to be "decent," but I trust you know what I really meant. Right? Decent, as in, containing a decent amount of content for my purposes.

  I'm not really expecting any of these webmasters to help me or answer any questions. If they would talk to me, I could do just as well to ask a JW in-law or an Elder or something like that. But a public web site that tries to defend their org can be quoted, which is really the point behind the idea. I simply want to compare the criticisms and the refutations for those who don't know a lot about the WT, and if I can use a source that readers can check for themselves, so much the better. I want to offer as fair and reasonable an examination as I can. Offering their side in their own words is better than me paraphrasing them. It's harder to criticize my characterization of their views if I'm actually using their own words. See what I'm getting at?

  It's easier for someone who's never been a Witness to take a more objective examination seriously. An article that just says: the WT is an evil cult that brainwashes people, etc, now here's the reasons why you should hate their guts as much as I clearly do... sounds far too biased to be trusted by those who don't know anything. It would clearly show that I have a problem with this group and an axe to grind. But an even handed article that says "Here's criticism #1..." "Here's their refutation to #1..." "Now here's the evidence..." is far more effective and lets the reader decide. Treating the WT's side with respect makes it harder to just shrug off my points as paranoia or immature lashing out. It makes my presentation more trustworthy, and that's how it should really be. If they're as bad as most of us think they are, then I should be able to present both sides evenly and still support my conclusions. That's the best way I can go.

  I was wondering if there was much of anything out there that suited my needs. If not, I may be forced to paraphrase using the literature, but that makes the article longer. I'm already squeezed for space. I'm hoping to keep it down to 3 parts, but I may have to stretch it into more. Either that, or I'll have to offer some more articles that cover those topics so I can just link to them for the details. We'll see, I guess.

  Anyway, I hope that clears up any confusion about the thread. Thanks a lot for the responses so far.

  IsaacJ
• 

  yaddayadda

  Wikipaedia usually lists some pro and anti sites. I think Freeminds does too. Greg Stafford offers some fairly rational defences on some things. Depends on what you're trying to refute I guess.
  
  Websites that expose Watchtower Society errors and rotten policies, including ones that present the JW's version of things, are a dime a dozen on the internet now. The problem with most of them is that they then try and convince JW's that the should belive the trinity, that they are all going to heaven, and other teachings that are totally anathema to JW's. Despite the prevalence of ex-JW's to declare all JW doctrines as erroneous, the fact is they are not, but anti-JW websites never acknowledge this. The real issue is that the JW's do have core teachings that are impossible to refute - in fact, they appear to be scripturally correct on a number of important things (only the Father is truly God, no immortal soul, no hellfire, restoration of God's original purpose for earth, etc). This is an enigma and is what keeps JW's in servitude to the Watchtower taskmasters. The Watchtower can get away with anything as long as they adhere to Russell's old teachings on these matters. The great majority of JW's will always rationalise in favour of staying with the org because they have got many major things doctrinally correct, no matter how many other things they have got wrong. Their thinking is "Ok, maybe we are not perfect but we've got the BIG things right, whereas Christendom has the BIG things all wrong. We are the CLOSEST TO THE TRUTH." This 'closest to the truth' concept is the real concept that they are captive to. If your new website can get around this concept then you may be able to reach some of them.
  
  Good luck.
• 

  Open mind

  I applaud your efforts and, unfortunately, don't have anywhere to point you.
  
  I concur with yaddayadda's perspective.
  
  I sometimes wish I had started keeping a diary of what was going through my mind as the lights started clicking on about "The Truth".
  
  I think you're on the right track with trying to present something that appears balanced. It won't scare off a questioning dub so fast.
  
  Keep up the good work.
  
  Open Mind
• 

  free2beme

  I would bet, if one existed, 50% of them would be former Witnesses acting like Witnesses, thinking they were the first to think of doing that.