by Vanderhoven7 66 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
There is a misconception here that this Belgian court decision is dictating to people whom they must associate with.
Rather, it is upholding the right of individuals to choose for themselves whom they want to associate with or not; and reminding religion that it may not take that right away from the individual.
There is a misconception here that this Belgian court decision is dictating to people whom they must associate with.
Rather, it is upholding the right of individuals to choose for themselves whom they want to associate with or not;
Exactly!
You can choose to talk to or not talk to anyone you want, to be friends with or not be friends with whom ever you want. But if someone else tells you who you can speak to, or associate with, or be friends with, that crosses a line to being a hate crime.
Watchtower is the one that is crossing the line, dictating to JWs who they can speak to, email, text, talk to or have association with. That is what the Belgian court found Watchtower guilty of.
That right, the right to choose for one's self, already exists for Jehovah's Witnesses. A religious authority cannot remove it. That Witnesses believe they must abide by 1 Corinthians 5:11 means that the majority will choose not to talk to expelled members. The issue here is that being disfellowshipped is an unhappy and hurtful experience. You don't like it. I would not like it. But the decision as to how to deal with a former member, even a family member remains in the individuals hands.
A political party tells its members how to vote and what to think. Many cross party lines, rejecting the dictates of party officials. The choice is in the individual member's hands no matter what party reaction is. In the USA Republicans who do not toe the right wing line are called RINOS - Republicans in Name Only. But the most that can be done is to rant. A religious association can have stricter rules, but your decision to abide by them or not remains yours. If this were not true, those here who were disfellowshipped would never and could never have abandoned Watchtower rules. In life there are no decisions without consequences.
Reasserting that there are many suicides is not proof. I would like to see some solid proof.
"But if someone else tells you who you can speak to, or associate with, or be friends with, that crosses a line to being a hate crime." How is that? If you attend a school or college, on enrolment you agree to abide by certain rules. The administrators have the right to enforce those rules. Your choice is to abide by them or leave. Is that a hate crime? When we're young, our parents may lay down more or less strict rules. Is it a hate crime if they limit our associations?
You're reaching for a definition of disfellowshipping that relieves you of the consequences for your choices. The exercise of the right to choose our associations is not a hate crime, even if the results are unpleasant. It is a basic right in a democratic society.
Another thought: Do you seriously think that individual Witnesses would stop observing I Corinthians 5 no matter what a court says? They are Bible believers, interpreting it literally. They will remain such despite any court decision.
Anony Mous - "You cannot say you hate anyone in the EU for any reason without risking a fine."
Not even "I hate hate groups?"
if not generations Dr. Introvigne's interest in Vampire mythology is academic, not Satanist. Engaging in ad hominem does not refute an argument. You may disagree with his approach, but he isn't a 'cult apologist' but a rational academic who, like most academics in his field, rejects the descriptors 'cult'
Try telling superstitious Watchtower that Introvigne's interest in vampirism and Satanism is that of an academic/hobbyist. It doesn't matter to them.
Stating that they ditched him for his interest in Satanism etc is not an Ad Hominem. it's just what happened. For the leaders it's all about optics. And out of interest throwing statements like my using "Ad hominem's" around without basis is one in itself.
Children raised as Witnesses are free to leave when they become of age. Many do, and many leave before they are of age. That someone was baptized as a youth does not bind them to the association for life.
Again, not according to watchtower. Whether a minor or not your baptism is binding for all eternity and shunning often lasts whole lifetimes - if not generations.
Introvigne's defence of Watchtower is naïve at best and the cynical ploy of a careerist for notoriety at worst. Watchtower destroys thousands of lives each year from suicide and their blood policy alone.
Vienne I'm glad you're family's experience was benign, but that is far from usual. Watchtower was fined for using hate speech toward those of other faiths/beliefs/lack thereof. I don't know why you continue to argue a completely different point about shunning and the right to leave.
Cite the page in the Watchtower or a letter from them that says they 'ditched' him for anything.
Who cares what the Watchtower says about 'dedication.' That has no effect on the facts. One can leave anytime. You may not like the consequences of leaving, but that is the fact.
You continue to post non sequetars as proof of something. Non sequetars prove nothing; they only give the appearance of argument without logical argument.
You continue to use ad hominem toward Introvigne (naïve at best and the cynical ploy) without refuting him. Typical of some on this board. I am not surprised.
Many Jehovahs witnesses do not strictly follow shunning rules already
The Belgium case puts wt at odds with the superior authorities. There is no law in the Bible that specifically states you must shun someone unless there the anti christ
So wt is between rock and a rock no easy way around this if they pay fine they open themselves to more lawsuits if the appeal and loose the set precedent for all under eu. If they win everyone will no about the details of the barbaric rule to shun.
Looks like a typo 1944 instead of 1844. In contact we can probably work out it is a typo because it is discussing the nineteenth century, and if we have any prior knowledge of the topic of course.
I wouldn’t dismiss a book for one typo.
A more substantial criticism of the book has been that it claimed JWs were looking to 1984 as a date for Armageddon. At best this claim is an exaggeration and there is little of no evidence 1984 was pushed in Watchtower literature. (Although some may we have reasoned that 1914+70=1984 would fulfil the generation teaching.)
Another reasonable criticism is that the book pushes parallels between Orwell’s 1984 and the Watchtower organisation too far to make their thesis if (as in the too-neat point to the year 1984)
The book makes many valid points about the level of control Watchtower claims over its members and how this inhabits free thought. It was a point worth making.
