Do Jehovah's Witnesses represent a less legitimate form of religious expression?

by slimboyfat 37 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  pirata

  If a religion uses blackmail to keep you in (ie. your family will shun you), stifles discussion that could contradict with official policy, and makes people throw away the future based on the leaders theories (end is coming!), but then it doesn't, that is not healthy.

  Mind you, as I type this I find it ironic because I could say the same things of the 1st C. Christians (The apostles kept saying the end is soon, you were not supposed to listen to those who preach that Jesus was not raised from the dead). At least it doesn't seem they shunned people when they left though...
• 

  NeckBeard

  Cult=small, obscure religion.

  Religion=large, well known cult.
• 

  BurnTheShips

  I think LeavingWT makes some good points.

  I'd like to add that if we reduce religious membership/participation to an economic transaction, then JWism amounts to highway robbery.

  This is not necessarily the case for other religious organizations. Why do people remain a part of various religions, even after being fully exposed and cognizant to the same information that causes others to renounce any sort of religious belief or affiliation?

  I posit that people are getting something out of it that they need. Perhaps religious expression is part of being human. Perhaps "man does not live by bread alone" has an element of truth to it.

  BTS
• 

  LongHairGal

  SLIMBOYFAT,

  I tend to agree with you that all religions are rubbish. However, I am not so sure that the JW religion is as benign as mainstream religions. In a mainstream religion, you can come and go as you please, no questions. You cannot do this in the JW religion. Other relighions also do not stifle you in your attempts to get a college education or pursue a career. No need to elaborate on the JWs dismal view of college and careers. This is extremely harmful, along with their guilt trips they heap on young people.

  Other religions also preach a real love of neighbor (whether or not people apply this is another matter entirely). What the JWs preach is conditional love of their OWN members. From what I have seen of this 'love' you can HAVE it. I have seen warmer hatred from others. The JW's idea of 'love' towards their neighbors and community is a fake smile, preaching and handing out literature. Also, what kind of citizens do the other religions promote? Are they intelligent, community minded, responsible people? OR, are they secretive, insular, unconcerned with what is going on and wishing for the demise of everybody not part of their religion?

  In my opinion, JWs get a failing grade.
• 

  PSacramento

  Organized religion fills a need for peopel to socialise with like-minded people.

  Religions that allow people to come and go as they please and even disagree and voice their disagreement with their organization tend to be those that keep people coming b ack because THEY WANT TO as opposed to those that come back because they don't have anywhere else to go or don't wan tto suffer he consequences of not being a part of said religion.

  The more liberal the "organization" is, the more "honest" the members are.
• 

  slimboyfat

  You call it black and white thinking LWT. I call it not accepting bogus claims of respectability from certain religious groups when they all stand on similar shaky ground.

  I am not saying that all religions are equally harmful or ridiculous, what I am saying is that the differences that do exist are of degree not of kind. Anglicans for example are not better than Jehovah's Witnesses because they essentially have a purer, more authentic, or soundly based religion. They are simply less objectionable in some ways because they represent a watered down version of religion compared with Jehovah's Witnesses and other more exacting religious groups.

  I think NeckBeard puts it well:

  Cult=small, obscure religion.

  Religion=large, well known cult.
• 

  slimboyfat

  I'd like to add that if we reduce religious membership/participation to an economic transaction, then JWism amounts to highway robbery.

  Only because you do not personally value what they are selling. Many thousands have lived many decades, even whole lives as Jehovah's Witnesses, committed to the cause, and believing it was worth it. Who are you to dispute that estimation? Or to put it another way, who are you to say the valuation of a lifelong committed Anglican, Methodist, Catholic or whatever is more "accurate" or deserving of general recognition?
• 

  leavingwt

  Anglicans for example are not better than Jehovah's Witnesses

  How does one make such a determination?

  Let's get specific.

  Are Anglican kids at risk of dying if their doctor orders a transfusion of plasma or red cells? Are Anglican kids at risk of being disowned by everyone they've ever known, if they decide to become a Methodist? Do Anglican kids live in constant fear of Armageddon? Are Anglicans taught that the only way in which they can contribute to the well-being of non-members is to offer them a Bible Study?

  The Anglicans will do what they want to do, while the JWs will do what they are told to do. The dynamics involved are vastly different, IMHO.
• 

  BurnTheShips

  what I am saying is that the differences that do exist are of degree not of kind.

  I think that, in a great many things, differences are of degree, and not of kind.

  Who are you to dispute that estimation?

  Good point, Slimboyfat. At one time, I too was committed to the cause, and believed it was worth it. In my case, however, the commitment was not based on knowledge, but on ignorance. When I allowed myself to learn from outside sources and accept what I had learned, my commitment eroded, and it was no longer "worth it." In the case of others, I cannot judge. I do however, suspect that in the many--if not even the great majority--of the cases, the commitment is based on the same ignorance mine was. If someone esteems JWism as "worth it" for themselves while cognizant of accurate information, who am I to judge their choice for themselves? However, the central problem with JWism, as I see it, does not devolve on personal choice itself. In its current form, it requires coercion towards others that choose to disagree.

  BTS
• 

  slimboyfat

  BTS, my experience was similar to yours. I allowed myself to explore ideas while at university, with the aid of the library, and found that I no longer valued what Jehovah's Witnesses had to offer. That's what I chose and I would still choose it again. But others who do not choose to explore ideas outside of the Watchtower, people who live in "ignorance" as you put it, are they making a qualitatively worse choice than the one we made? Everyone does what is right for them in the given circumstances and with different preferences. Perhaps "ignorance" is the optimal state for some people. So on what basis do you state that a religious choice is only valid if based on "accurate" information? How much information exactly and just what does "accurate" mean in relation to religious claims? It doesn't make sense as a criterion for dismissing Jehovah's Witness religiosity compared with other groups.

  So the idea that some forms of religious devotion are based on appropriate knowledge and others are based on ignorance or partial knowledge strikes me as rhetorical nonsense, and simply an excuse for justifying the prejudice that says one belief system is in some sense more respectable than another.