Those big bad Bible Students

by RR 139 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  RR

  I feel that as former JWs, and especially as former elders who helps perpetuate the WT system, we have an obligation to do what we can to help those who are still in to leave and to support those who are leaving and who have left. Think what would have happened - or not have happened - if people like Ray Franz, William Schnell, Bill and Joan Cetnar, Jim Penton, Bill Bowen, Joe and Barb Anderson, Kent Steinhaug, Norm Hovland, Jan Haugland, Joey Stagnitto, Jan Groenveld, Simon and countless others had just left and "gotten a life". You and I and many others might still be POW's (Prisoners of the Watchtower).

  And they probably would be better off where they were than where they are now. IMO.

  As for me? They didn't help me, I was out long before the internet. I did research the old fashion way, and the one person to help me leave the organization, was the one who incorporated it ... Charles Taze Russell.

  RR
• 

  Sunspot

  ** ANYTHING that has ANYTHING to do with The Bible Students, Dawnists, Russellites and JW's: Get it the hell away from me, LOL.

  I must say that I have to agree with Corvin on this......especially more so after reading what this thread has had to offer thus far.....

  Annie
• 

  hillary_step

  Sunspot,

  Perhaps the issue has to do more with enforced belief that the value of the belief itself.

  If the Bible Students wish to believe that the planet is about to be overun by giant yodelling lesbians from Venus then that is their right, as long as they do not *enforce* this belief on their adherents. It seems they allow dissension and disagreement with even basic doctrines which is a far cry from the WTS. Dissension and disagreement monitors the behavior of a religion, or for that matter a governments behavior, that is why high-control religions like the WTS seek to squash dissent, even in the mind of its adherents.

  Best regards - HS
• 

  minimus

  To me, it's not just about allowing free speech and some freedom of thought in a religion. If any religion espouses teachings or chronology that is outdated or simply proven wrong, I think that's pretty bad! Even if they allow dissension and disagreement, so what?? Is that so noble? Even if they are merely a sect and not a cult, what they are teaching throught CTR is incorrect......Doesn't that mean something to you??
• 

  El Kabong

  Even if they are merely a sect and not a cult, what they are teaching throught CTR is incorrect......Doesn't that mean something to you??

  True. But, what religious teaching is the correct one? I don't think ANY religion teaches what is really correct. With all the religious distortion throughout history, what is correct and what is not?
• 

  minimus

  I'll put it in a different way. If you KNOW something is outdated or simply untrue, and you want people to accept and believe it, don't you think that it's wrong? The BS movement teaches from the writings of Russell. Much of what he has said is outdated and simply untrue!
• 

  Sunspot

  Sunspot,

  Perhaps the issue has to do more with enforced belief that the value of the belief itself.

  Dissension and disagreement monitors the behavior of a religion, or for that matter a governments behavior, that is why high-control religions like the WTS seek to squash dissent, even in the mind of its adherents.

  **********************
  To me, it's not just about allowing free speech and some freedom of thought in a religion. If any religion espouses teachings or chronology that is outdated or simply proven wrong, I think that's pretty bad! Even if they allow dissension and disagreement, so what?? Is that so noble? Even if they are merely a sect and not a cult, what they are teaching throught CTR is incorrect......Doesn't that mean something to you??

  ********************************************************
  HS and Min,
  You both have valid viewpoints and I agree with both---the control, the obvious dissension and the erroneous teachings don't make for an "inviting" form of religion.

  Fool me once---shame on you. Fool me twice---shame on ME.

  hugs,
  Annie
• 

  RR
• 

  minimus

  RR---This response is like your others....a whole lot of ..........
• 

  hillary_step

  Minimus,
  

  To me, it's not just about allowing free speech and some freedom of thought in a religion. If any religion espouses teachings or chronology that is outdated or simply proven wrong, I think that's pretty bad! Even if they allow dissension and disagreement, so what?? Is that so noble? Even if they are merely a sect and not a cult, what they are teaching throught CTR is incorrect......Doesn't that mean something to you??

  No, it means nothing at all and I will tell you why.

  On the basis of your criteria, every social group, religious group, political party etc. etc. who believe something that is demonstrably untrue should not be allowed to adhere to that belief. In effect, you would silence all religious groups whose beliefs are scientifically indefensible. Faith for example is not a science. What do you propose, that every group who's beliefs are not founded on fact be outlawed?

  Our concerns should not be what a person believes, but whether that belief harms its adherents in any way, or whether it breaks the Law of the Land. The allowance of dissention or disagreement within a religious movement, often a rarity in exclusive groups such as the Bible Students and the WTS, is a protection to its adherents. I did not intimate it was noble, that is your choice of words, I alluded to it being essential for the preservation of free speech and justice.

  Best regards - HS