How would you respond to this JW apologist II

Black Man

As you know, I'm embroiled in a family AND internet debate/dialogue w/JWs the last few days. And you all have been helping get GREAT points in. The text that I'm about to post come from a JW apologist who has acknowledge some of my comments about JWs being a cult and that NO TOLERANCE FOR QUESTIONING THEM is one of the signs of a cult. But along that same vein he posted up this thought:

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

What religion encourages its members to question their tenets? i'll wait and if u do question something then what conclusion is made? are they going change their interpretation of something because John in Brooklyn questioned it and had a strong argument?

c'mon.

i mean say the wrong thing about Mohammed and u might get your ass beat to death in some parts of the world try going to a baptist mega church and question why there are 5 offerings during ur testimonial and see what happens to u, u'll be escorted out that bitch quicker than a muthafucker (i've actually seen this happen), i'm not trying to excuse JWs, but i'm not seeing how they are unique in employing certain tactics to "control" members all these religions are based around faith and the powers that be in those religions use that to their advantage. if u have "faith" in something then how can u question it? the fact the belief is rooted in faith already suggests it's not easily explained with logic
so..........

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

So he's trying to say that while JWs don't tolerate questioning of them, that most or all other religions don't do the same. How would you RESPOND to this thought (I've got an idea of some things to say, just want to get some feedback before I go in on this)............Thanks again, y'all!!

teel

are they going change their interpretation of something because John in Brooklyn questioned it and had a strong argument?

Strawman - it's not about JWs not changing their dogma to fit your belief, but you being DFd, losing all your friends and family because you questioned it. Of course some cults also do that and even worse, but the majority of the esatblished religions will not kick you out because you disagree. Even if you do leave because your world view is just too different from theirs, you will still have no repercussions because of your choice.

The correct approach was formulated by a protestant theologist:

"In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas" - "in necessary things unity; in uncertain things freedom; in everything compassion".

To JWs there are hundreds, if not thousands of "necessary things", and there are virtually no "uncertain things" - the so called conscience matters are usually a joke, and they are either a way of more control (just TRY and do what your conscience tells you, and you'll see...), or they really don't matter. If dogma changes every couple of years, then by all means it fits under "uncertain things", and there should be freedom in believing it or not. The necessary things are the ones that are rock solid, and never be subject to new light (examples: the existence of God, Jesus as His Son, and the saviour of mankind, etc.)

beenthere26yr

The desire or need to question things has more to do with personality traits than with the actual subject.

Some people naturally question everything and drawing them into a cult is near impossible. The same type of person born into a cult eventually leaves.

Some people only question their own judgement and rely on other people to interpret the world around them. They are drawn to cults or if born into one they are quite content to stay.

Each of these actually needs the other but they can rarely maintain a close intimate relationship.

Room 215

As Cervantes once said: "I can live with questions I can't answer but NOT with questions I can't ask (or, alternately, "answers I can't question")."

sizemik

Strange . . . JW's usually pride themselves on being seperate from false religion . . . no part of BTG . . . and this poster is justifying them by pointing out what they have in common? That puts them alongside false religion . . . not seperate from it . . . just a thought.

OnTheWayOut

Will any religion change it's entire doctrinal base because a member or a handful of members disagree or question it? NO.

But do we want to be part of an organization that enforces shunning of those with discrepancies, disagreements? Do we want to be part of it when it enforces shunning on matters that have gone beyond the scriptures- shunning members who are grandmothers refusing to shun their grandchild? If it's wrong, then it's wrong whether it's Muslims or JW's. Discard all organized religions that are like that.

I wouldn't try to talk this fellow into a religion that doesn't engage in shunning, but I would point out that Jesus seemed to encourage personal accountability and independent thinking whereas JW's encourage giving up personal accountability to give way to obedience to men in Brooklyn and to totally abandon independent thinking as if it's a plague on mankind.

WontLeave

Of course most churches won't adopt a neutral stance on doctrinal differences. If they did, there would only be one church. That would violate Jesus' and Paul's warning of the current sectarianism. Mutual respect for differences in understanding stopped shortly after the 1st Century and the church became totalitarian. They were so opposed to diversity of thought, they banned the Bible being read by anyone but the clergy class, so no opinion could exist other than the one given by the Church.

The very fact that Arius and Athanasius coexisted in the same religion indicates a time when differing views were allowed. Sure, there was animated discussion that included many harsh words and ridicule, but it wasn't until later belief in anything other than set orthodoxy would get one excommunicated, imprisoned, tortured, and killed. Most denominations suffer no overt dissent and many have witch hunts to quash even silent dissent and ensure conformity.

Jesus' issues with the Pharisees didn't stem from doctrine, but attitude. The days of "he that is not against us is for us" (Mark 9:40) are over and human authority has usurped Jesus' position as head of the congregation. The fact that JWs tolerate this authoritarianism betrays them not having the mind of Christ. They contribute to the fragmenting of Christianity. At least people like Martin Luther tried to hold things together from within, attempting to reason with his Christian brothers. It wasn't until his intolerant "brothers" threw him out that he started his own church.

thetrueone

Men build religions on a premise of power and control toward themselves, if that is so, its not plausibly unreasonable to accept that they

would be unwilling to relinquish what they have built up toward themselves.

There is a pyramid frame work of power in most religious organizations

The WTS. is no different than any other religion in this regard.

Irregardless of how false or dismissively corrupt the set doctrines are.

jean-luc picard

See CRISIS OF CONSCIENCE pages 4 and 5.

Three different men

Three different religions

All three disagreed with some aspect of their religion

Three different reactions to this by the religious leaders

Guess which religion acted the harshest

Giordano

These are remarkably thoughtful responses to Black Man's question.

How would you respond to this JW apologist II - THE SEQUEL