I'm not sure if the title is appropriate but I figured I'd point out some contradictions I see in Jehovah's Witnesses like my wife and I often ask myself why should I care when obviously she does not? The motivation to 'fit in' with the people who you believe 'have the truth' is a strong one and facts are rendered powerless since in the end I get asked, "So what do you have that is better?" But like Morpheous on the movie, The Matrix, all I have to offer is the truth.
Examining some of the contradictions that my wife tends to ignore or somehow gloss over:
It is important that holiday celebrations take into account the origins of the holiday, we cannot just look at how is it viewed today. However, it is okay for witnesses to disregard old light from the Watchtower.
I focus too much on doctrine when examining the witness religion when I should be focusing on the hearts of the witnesses and the direction they are going (hence all the new light). However this same reasoning falls flat when examining other religions, even religions that agree with some of the tenets of the WT religion.
I have a lot of KNOWLEDGE concerning the witnesses and don't accurately APPLY such knowledge, hence why I don't agree that the Watchtower has the truth. Yet she has less knowledge about her own religion than I do, and even less knowledge about other religions but is convinced that the society 'has the truth' that no other religion has.
I can go to ANY encyclopedia to disprove Christ's birth occurring on December 25, yet those same encyclopedias cannot be trusted to disprove that Jerusalem's destruction occurring in 607 B.C.E.. After all, the Watchtower readily changes their teachings when they discover 'new truths' so why after all these years would the society hold steady to 1914 C.E.?
I've shown her Watchtower literature that explicitly state that Jesus is not her mediator and that witnesses are being baptized to an organization. However, she accuses me of taking their words out of context. Yet, the Watchtower never takes things out of context, like that scripture that says that by your death your sins will be acquitted.
Certain practices that have pagan roots are okay since their original meanings have lost their significance. Yet, this same principle does not apply to Christmas, Mother's Day, Father's Day, birthdays, etc..
I guess that is enough, but it is frustrating when I am trying to help her see the faulty reasoning that is employed by the Watchtower. Poor girl, she is really torn this holiday season as she enjoys going to light shows and helping me Christmas shop and yet feels so guilty about it. Sure, she can use my headship as a get out of jail free card to keep her 'theocratic friends' from hounding her, but when I suggest that she just simply thinks I am being 'funny.'
When I met her, even though I had my own faith, I was very tolerant of hers. There were many cases where I actually agreed with them and saw things their way. However, they were never very tolerant of my views and would never attempt to see things differently. This is especially the case where tenets of my faith were not in agreement with hers. I was opening my mind while she was shutting hers. Now that I see what it truly wrong with this religion, I am no longer considered a 'meek' and 'teachable' one as I no longer agree with something that I see as hypocritical.
"We must abstain from all blood," says my wife. "The Bible did not say that we are allowed to 'pump' it in our veins just because the Bible speaks of only of not eating it in the Old Testament. Blood transfusions did not exist then but the principle applies. We must now allow any blood to enter our bodies, no exceptions," my wife says when I try to reason that the Bible is silent on blood transfusions. "So how is it that abstaining from blood does not apply to the fractions that come from the very blood we're suppose to abstain from?" I ask sheepishly in response. *Silence*