Are U.S. witnesses still morally superior?

by spider 15 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  spider

  From the perspective of a UK observer it seems to me that the divide between 'the world' as it is in conservative heartlands of the US, and the mindset of the Jehovah's witness is getting narrower by the day.

  Is there really a big difference between a JW and a majority of people in such places? In the newspaper today I read how the new film Alexander was being slated for showing Alexander the Great as a bisexual. The UK independent reported that one online critic has warned christians that are considering seeing the film to "speak to your pastors immediately because Satan is attempting to enter your mind". Is this typical? What with this report and the protests that I have read have been made against the film "Kinsey", I feel as though anyone who is a witness in such a climate will fit right in.

  So does being a witness mark you out as strange in much of US, compared to the UK for example which is very secular, and where being a witness does set you apart in other's minds from the rest of society.

  And what does that mean for the US witness world view which states that there should be a steadily deepening moral decline until the end?
• 

  Gretchen956

  I'm not sure this post makes sense to me or that I understand your point. Are witnesses morally superior because they believe the same thing evangelicals believe? Or that they think they hold "higher" ground?

  This is kind of silly because the witnesses "think" a lot of things which are untrue. And morally superior does not equate being morally bankrupt in either case.

  In the case of the movie, it makes me angry for another reason. Alexander the Great was not bisexual, he was homosexual. I've known that all my life, its commonly accepted. Pray all you want, history is history and shouldn't be changed to make it more palatable to some puritans.

  Sherry
• 

  Happy Guy :)

  Firstly Spider, it's important to distinguish between "Conservative Heartlands" and "Religiously Conservative". Some pictures on the internet made humour of the election after Bush won and labeled many states as "Bible States" when this would not be true in reality. A person who votes for a Republican rather than a Democrat would not necessarily be an indication of religious affiliation. In fact, it is more likely an indication of their position on Fiscal Policy - a very "secular" topic.
  

  I do realize that your post was not specifically making that claim but some other comments in your post made me think that you may have a view of the U.S. which is colored by media reports.

  From a statistical point of view, the religious view which your post made mention of is more likely to occur in "the Bible Belt' and the U.S. mid-west states. Even if one were to (wrongly) assume that fully 100 percent of these people are ultra conservative religiously, then that would still only account for approximately 23 percent of the U.S. population.

  In reality, the type of individual which you mention in your post as being afraid of Satanic influences in Hollywood films would be a very, very small minority in the U.S. That is probably why Hollywood finds it's best singular market for it's pictures right in the U.S.
• 

  euripides

  Spider I think the point of your question was that it must seem that the evangelical fundamentalist mindset and the JW mindset are seemingly converging, given the colored media coverage of present American politics. While it may seem like this is true, in fact U.S. JWs have always been more uptight about everything than the rest of the world's JWs, where cultural tendencies are given more leeway. (Of course, doctrinally there is not room to budge, as you know.) For example, in the late seventies men in the U.K. congregations freely wore groomed beards, although it was unlikely they would have had a position of responsibility (elder or MS), whereas in the U.S., the fashion and grooming police were everywhere! A beard would have resulted in some sharp looks and ultimately a serious talking to. In Africa, men routinely do not wear ties and coats, whereas these are de rigueur in the U.S., again, because of cultural differences. I'm not sure if these have the moral overtone you describe in your question, but ultimately, JWs have in fact been playing both sides of the "no part of the world" equation for quite some time now. While they don't want to look or seem "worldly," most of the men dress (usually) in lowbrow cheap suits and ties, while those that don't look like lower to middle end management. The women likewise are encouraged to wear the equivalent of "business attire." Yet, for all the cleancut appearance and honest Charlie stance, Witnesses are supposed to take firm stands which make them pariahs in the right context: not saluting the flag, refusing blood transfusions, not saying 'bless you' when someone sneezes...ok, the last one is a little stretched, but you get the point. JWs aren't sure whether to be invisible sometimes or not, but insofar as they are not politically vocal, they are distinguishable from their evangelical, Jesus' gushing, Bible thumping counterparts.
• 

  heathen

  Amen to that euripides . I don't even hear a god bless you at the congregation meetings , this is clearly some sort game they like to play . The apostles always wrote a God bless you and may the peace and undeserved kindess of the lord jesus christ be with you ,and such. Since there is a pagan belief that when someone sneezes the demonz are released so you have to say God bless you ,suddenly it is something not associated with christianity according to them .
• 

  Coqueton

  Depends on the Witness. Overall I'd say yes. Witnesses have consequences for their actions, consequences for moral crimes / sins that regular people are not bound by. Now me for example, hahaaha..... ummm.... I have this addiction to hot girls. So for me, I'm way worse than 80% of worldly people in that department.
• 

  No Apologies

  Alexander the Great was not bisexual, he was homosexual. I've known that all my life, its commonly accepted.

  Is this true? Its the first I've ever heard of it. Anyone got a reference?

  No Apologies(of the hijacking this topic class)
• 

  heathen

  I saw a history channel show on alexander and they portrayed him as bi sexual .
• 

  Euphemism

  In the newspaper today I read how the new film Alexander was being slated for showing Alexander the Great as a bisexual. The UK independent reported that one online critic has warned christians that are considering seeing the film to "speak to your pastors immediately because Satan is attempting to enter your mind".

  What really amuses me is that this critic is worried about the sexual morality of a militaristic dictator who killed hundreds of thousands of people. Talk about a lack of perspective!
• 

  avishai

  In the newspaper today I read how the new film Alexander was being slated for showing Alexander the Great as a bisexual.

  BFD. He likely was. If they want to revise history and censor things because of their belief's, there are enough smart people to counter it.

  What with this report and the protests that I have read have been made against the film "Kinsey", I feel as though anyone who is a witness in such a climate will fit right in.

  The protests against that film are warranted, it sanitizes the fact that the man was a child molester. He molested hundreds of kids for the pupose of research.