Is this Web site a joke?

by Quotes 34 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Quotes

    No, not *THIS* Web site. We all know that JWD is not a joke.

    I mean this one:

    It appears to be a JW "apologist" site; with "answers" to all of the "allegations" we like to level against Watchtowerism.

    The problem is, the response are so lame that only the stupidist moron would think that they were adequate and acceptable explanations. In fact, it is so lame, I am beginning to wonder if maybe the real purpose to "catch some flies with honey (instead of vinegar)".

    For example, check out the response re: United Nations NGO affiliation. It basically says it wasn't a big deal, they they stopped as soon as it was "made public", and maybe it was just some low-level researcher filling out a form one day (as if it were *THAT* easy to become an NGO -- HAH!).

    Anyway, sincere or tongue-in-cheek, it is still damn funny to read. Web sites like this underscore why Watchtower doesn't want R&F having their own Web sites: it makes Watchtower looks stupid... and they don't need any more help in that department, thank you very much!

    ~Quotes, of the "I'm an apologist because I'm Canadian, and we're all like that" class

  • Double Edge
    Double Edge

    This is some interesting copy from the bottom of their web page:

    Mail editorial questions or remarks to:

    Attention! We will not debate by mail. You can pose your questions through the form at the site of the Watchtower Society, at Witnesses visiting you when they do theit house-to-house work or at the contact mentioned in your local directory.

    hmmm, makes you kind of wonder just WHO started this site?

  • Lady Lee
    Lady Lee

    Now now Quotes Be fair. This person is obviously related WTS propaganda. What else could they do? It isn't like they can really get all the facts

  • Quotes

    LL, yes, you are probably correct; although it is hard to imagine anyone taking the time to try to have proper logcial, coherent development (as learned in TMS, no doubt) with a site like this, attempting to specifically address each point one-by-one, and then THIS is the best they can come up with.

    Seriously I could only read about three pages, I couldn't decide to laugh or cry.

    Put another way: they not only have all the "dots", they have them all "connected"! They present the "final picture" as thier starting topic. And yet, they basically say

  • Englishman

    I've never heard of a pro-witness site that would publish the Pay Attention book in its entirety like this site does!


  • run dont walk
    run dont walk

    it will be interesting, to read the responses on the topics he has not completed, maybe he'll realize what a joke the Organization is.

    What I did learn, I knew about it but was not sure, was that Governing Body Members WERE disfellowshipped for homosexuality practices, as mentioned in seven006 story "My Two weeks at Bethel." If you have not read this, YOU MUST !!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Pole

    Definitely a joke. And a very good one. No JW apologist would give you direct links to all the sources of information (DPI release, WTS letters, Pay Attention Book, etc.) which are so embarrassing for the WTS, no matter what kind of excuses you can come up with.

    The idea of the website is to reach active JWs who are still in the dark about the details of the scandals. You can't get them to accept any information once they figure out you're an apostate.

    So the trick here is: pretend to be an apologist, and make them know all the gory details. Get them thinking. In this way you get around their no--thank-you-it's-apostate-propaganda reflex.

    ANother idea is provocation: Get people interested in JWs to read this embarrassing information and see how stupid their excuses are.

    Great site!

  • Quotes

    Pole, Englishman, good analysis!

    I agree, and think this is a great idea. Whoever you are, anonymous dutch webmaster, KUDOS!

    ~Quotes, of the "glad to see people catching flies with honey" class

  • core

    Read the pages re the Olin Moyle case - if that is refutation I would never want whoever is involved in this site to defend my good name

    As far as Greenlees / Chitty go - the claim they were disfellowshipped just does not stand up against the facts

    Lets hope whoever runs the site visits JWD and sees what argumentation is all about and how it works - he or she really need some help!

  • sandy

    The refutation (UN "Library Card"

    It is clear that membership of the United Nations under the applicable conditions is not appropriate for the Society. As soon as the membership and its conditions became public, the brothers took steps and cancelled the membership of the Society!

    The question is to what extent the Society really supported the charter of the United Nations. We think this is not the case at all. What should have been their actual support then?
    Perhaps this is a case of the notorious "small print". The might for instance have been a brother that needed some material that only could be found in the library of the United Nations. What could be more simple than filling out some forms and becoming member of the library without realising this also meant membership of the complete organisation? How often did you read all conditions of insurances or certain purchases?

    We think there should not be read more into the membership than access to the library. We think all insinuations - like the more positive approach of the United Nations in the publications (like in Awake! of November 22nd 1998, page 3-5) as part of a deal to be permitted membership - lack every ground.

Share this