What's your degree of anti-JWness?

by Landy 29 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Landy

  So, on a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is absolutely pro-JW, 5 is neutral and 10 is youtubing nutjob apostate, where do you stand?

  I'm probably around a 6. I have the view that JWs are a nothing marginal religion. If I hadn't been brought up as one I doubt they would have ever entered my consciousness.

  The reasons it's a 6 and not a 5 is that I have some concerns over their child baptism and safeguarding procedures, but I think it's down to them being a bit dim rather than any pro child abusing ethos.

  If it wasn't for that I would be entirely comfortable in my apathy and it would be a 5.
• 

  smiddy

  I dont consider myself a youtubing nut job apostate in anyway shape or form ,just an atheist who sees the emperor with no clothes (emperor=GB ) and I thank JW`s for getting me where I am .
• 

  ScenicViewer

  ...I think it's down to them being a bit dim rather than any pro child abusing ethos.

  The choice you offer is too limited, either they are 'dim,' or they are 'pro child abuse.'
  

  And it depends on what you mean by "them," Jehovah's Witnesses as individuals or the Organization that controls them.

  Individual Witnesses might be a bit dim, but mainly they are heavily controlled. The truly evil thing is the Organization itself.

  As to the 'pro child abuse' choice, neither JWs nor the Organization are pro child abuse per se. Most individual Witnesses are unaware of what goes on because they are told not to pay attention to any negative news items relating to JWs because it's 'Satan's persecution against God's innocent people.'

  Their horrible lack of a workable child protection policy comes from the fact that the Organization needs to protect it's own public image. If innocent children are abused and fall by the wayside, the Organization's attitude is 'So be it, God's Organization comes first.' The child abuse is a result of the 'We are God's chosen people' attitude of JWs and their Organization.
  

  "...1 is absolutely pro-JW, 5 is neutral and 10 is youtubing nutjob apostate..."

  Why does 10 have to be related to a "nutjob apostate?" Why can't 10 be ex-JWs who are telling the truth about the Organization? There are plenty of those on Youtube and they are well worth watching.
  
• 

  Landy

  Why does 10 have to be related to a "nutjob apostate?" Why can't 10 be ex-JWs who are telling the truth about the Organization? There are plenty of those on Youtube and they are well worth watching.

  Well mark yourself as a 10 then, I haven't got a problem with that.

  I will stay away from you at parties though. ;)
  
  
• 

  ScenicViewer

  I will stay away from you at parties though. ;)

  Thank you.
  
  
• 

  Landy

  ...innocent children....

  When you start using terms like that you lose me. Can a child who's been the victim of abuse be anything other than innocent?

  You've used the term for effect to bolster your argument. It's unnecessary.

  On the whole though I agree, the witnesses have played down child abuse (and other crimes) so as not to 'damage the name of jehovah'. I don't think they're alone in that though. Lots of religions and organisations have been guilty of the same thing. That however, is no excuse whatsoever and that's why I'm not as apathetic to them as I would have been had they had proper safeguarding policies in place.

  I do believe they are slowly changing though.

  
  
  
• 

  Chook

  I never qualified for any religious duty in my life, but I'm reaching out for the priesthood of apostasy at number 10
• 

  ScenicViewer

  ...innocent children....

  You've used the term for effect to bolster your argument. It's unnecessary.

  Really? You're finding fault because I said that children who are sexually abused within the Organization of JWs, then not believed because of the JW misapplication of the 2-witness rule, are innocent?
• 

  Landy

  Really? You're finding fault because I said that children who are sexually abused within the Organization of JWs, then not believed because of the JW misapplication of the 2-witness rule, are innocent?

  I objected to your description - not the argument. You used the term to elicit a particular response. Whether unconsciously or not. It was unnecessary.
  

  
  
  
• 

  ScenicViewer

  Landy: I objected to your description...

  Yes, I got that.

  Landy: You used the term to elicit a particular response.

  No I didn't. I said the children were innocent simply because they are. I suppose your argument is that all small children are innocent, therefore it doesn't need to be mentioned. Fair enough, but I will ask the question again, Are you really finding fault because I said sexually molested children are innocent. Isn't that a bit nit-picky?
  

  Landy: Whether unconsciously or not. It was unnecessary.

  At the same time it doesn't hurt a thing, nor does it do anything to slant the judgement of people reading it.
  

  Does finding fault over trivial remarks make you feel superior? This is an attitude that I remember well from being a Jehovah's Witness. It's as if nit-picking wins points and makes the nit-picker somebody. It doesn't.

  In the OP you said you were about a 6 on your scale of being anti-Witness, but you come across more like a solid 1.

  What is really unnecessary is your fault finding over small details. I suppose it's all to draw attention away from the larger problem of JWs sexually molesting children and covering it up for the sake of public image.