by dunsscot 137 Replies latest jw friends
Farkel,
I'm anxious to hand out the "Head Up The Ass" award to dunsscot, but I'll wait for his reply to your reply.
TR- anxious to expose people with heads up their asses
"I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every
form of tyranny over the mind of man." --Thomas Jefferson*
I'm waiting for his reply also......
DUNSCOTT:
I have seen many posters state without reservation that JWs are cultic. I have also read posts by atheists, who seem to be convinced that there truly is no God. I'm not so sure that such ones can rightly make such asseverations with any degree of certainty
.....SNIP.........
Let's assume that the WT has printed erroneous statements in the past. Does this fact mean that JWs are cultic or false in their religious outlook
The basis of declaring the Watchtower Society a cult isn't based on what it teaches but on how it einforces it's teachings.
Sure, there are some in christian circles who still determine cultism on the basis of what groups teach, but you will find that there has been a widening gap between determining cultic behaviour and apologetics which deals with doctrines.
Have a look at these articles - they are basic but quick to read. Sure, one could go into the subject of undue influence in more depth, but I am sure you can asses quicely from this.
http://www.caic.org.au/general/charcult.htm
http://www.caic.org.au/general/mindcon1.htm
http://www.caic.org.au/general/totalism.htm
http://www.caic.org.au/zjws-con.htm
http://www.caic.org.au/general/idencult.htm
You will note on this site that it is not just the Watchtower society that is discussed ,but numerous other groups that claim to be the one true channel of God too plus some I even inclue many Christian churches that teach what is considered correct doctrines .....
You are welcome to discuss this further with me provately if you wish.
JanG
CAIC Website: http://caic.org.au/zjws.htm
Personal Webpage: http://uq.net.au/~zzjgroen/
To dunsscot:
You make a number of interesting points, but also a number of common errors.
You wonder if freedom of thought really obtains in this forum? Obviously it does, since the only practical way of denying freedom of thought is by denying freedom of expression. Since almost no one on this forum is censured in any way, freedom of expression and freedom of thought exist.
Perhaps you're thinking that expression of disagreement amounts to censorship of expression and therefore that freedom of thought is curtailed. Well, I'll leave you to support that, if that's what you really think.
You also make the standard false assumption of Jehovah's Witnesses that those who leave the Watchtower organization by definition leave "God's organization and Jehovah God Himself". But for this assumption to be more than a bald assertion, first you would have to prove that there exists the JW notion of "Jehovah", then that this God would choose a particular imperfect, manmade religious organization over all others to be his One True Organization, and finally that Jehovah's Witnesses are that unique group. Don't refer to Watchtower literature to do this -- it doesn't contain the necessary argumentation. What are you prepared to offer?
You imply that those who have left this non-existant "God's organization" are somehow less open-minded and less biased than JWs are. On what do you base this implication? Real facts? Or just the fact that these people differ in their views from those of the Watchtower Society, that Holy Mommy that you and your brothers idolize? If you have facts, then present them.
You immediately set up a standard straw man by lamenting about people who "think they are now speaking from some Olympian perspective". I see no one besides JW defenders expressing such thoughts. If you beg to differ, then provide some facts.
It's true that we should be aware of our own ignorance. However, that awareness does not imply that we cannot know certain practical things with virtual certainty. And of course, general statements about general lack of certainty in the world are of no value whatsoever in most practical matters.
For example, our overall ignorance of the universe has nothing to do with our virtual certainty that the sun will rise tomorrow. To think otherwise would cripple a person ability to accomplish anything.
Are you certain that God exists? Fine. Then prove it. If you can't, then don't claim that people who don't believe in your God because there is no proof are fools. And especially don't claim that people who have left your silly organization because they have realized that its claims are smoke and mirrors cannot be sure of what they've experienced and now believe.
You have entirely failed to provide any specific examples of your contentions. You stick to meaningless generalities. So I will provide you with a specific, meaningful challenge. I will show you how in certain areas the JW organization has told flat-out lies in print. You have the freedom of thought and expression to challenge my claims. If my claims are correct, then the JW organization is a corporate liar and cannot be what it claims -- the unique speaker-for-God of our time. If my claims are correct, will you leave the fold of such a dishonest organization? On the other hand, if you can show why my claims are false, and then why a number of other challenges I can present are false, I will become an active JW again. Are you up to the challenge?
As for JWs being a cult, they display almost every sign of the classic cult. For a good listing of such signs, see the books by Steven Hassan, Combatting Cult Mind Control and Releasing the Bonds: Empowering People to Think for Themselves. Do JWs think for themselves? Not generally. Oh, you'll find the occasional JW who does, perhaps someone like yourself, but in general they're like people in general -- they don't want to think for themselves and so they give in to whatever sounds good from whoever they've decided is an authority. In general this isn't too harmful for people, but when it's combined with practices such as shunning those who don't buy into the group views, then the group is by definition a cult.
It's a fine thing that you agree that each person "has to exercise his or her critical thinking abilities." But do JWs in general actually do that? Ex-JWs and many observers say No. Why? Because they experienced or observed how JWs more often than not will defer to the Watchtower Society's opinions rather than go with their own, even though the only reason to defer is the claimed spiritual authority of the Society. And of course, for those who grow up as JWs, there's a great deal of social pressure from the JW community to defer to the Society.
All JWs give lip service to the notion that the Society is not inspired. But in practice they don't act in accord with this lip service, because they know that to do so would invite charges of "apostasy". What in JW parlance is an "apostate"? Very simple. The elders' manual known as the Flock book states that "persons who deliberately spread (stubbornly hold to and speak about) teachings contrary to Bible truth as taught by Jehovah's Witnesses are apostates." (p. 94) Now think about that for a minute. A Biblical apostate is someone who opposes or has completely abandoned God. Since the Society teaches that it is not inspired, then what it teaches cannot in general be "Bible truth", but only the Society's opinion of Bible truth. But because the Flock book and other JW publications flat-out equate actual Bible truth with the Society's opinion of what is Bible truth, and enforce it via the mechanism of disfellowshipping for "apostasy", the Society is in practice claiming inspiration by enforcing the same punishment upon actual apostates and those who merely disagree with some fallible Watchtower teaching.
For example, a JW who before 1995 claimed that "the generation of 1914" didn't refer to the Society's standard teaching until 1995, but referred to what the Society taught after 1995, and who 'stubbornly held to and spoke about" his views, would certainly have been disfellowshipped as an apostate. But after 1995 he would have been lauded as loyal to WTS teaching. Therefore, the Society's standard for measuring apostasy is not adherence to Bible truth, but adherence to current Watchtower teaching. If anyone can't see that this is blasphemous and a total usurpation of the position of God and Christ, that's proof that he has succumbed to a cult.
So no, in general a JW's first loyalty is not to the Bible but to the Watchtower Society. Back before 1975, the Society taught that 1975 would almost certainly bring Armageddon -- even though the Bible says "that no man knows the day or the hour". The JW community accepted this en masse. Many Kingdom Ministries strongly encouraged this belief. The Society in 1968 instituted a policy that any "Bible students" who didn't come around in under six months were to be dropped. The reason? "The shortness of the time." JWs who didn't buy into the notion of "the shortness of the time" but believed the Bible's statements were at best ignored, and at worst ostracised or shunned by the JW community.
You claim that erroneous statements by a religious organization do not make it "false". Unfortunately, you provide no definition of "false religious organization" so I'll have to use the Society's: a false religious organization is one that teaches false things about God or about Bible truth. Well of course, that presents a severe problem for your contention, since we have hundreds of examples of the Society's teaching false things about both. Their ever-changing doctrine is proof of these changes. And just remember that until the moment they were changed, the doctrines were always taught as "God's truth".
Conversely, the Society is very clear that even one demonstrably false teaching makes a religion false. Therefore, if you disagree with this teaching, you're an apostate, according to the Society.
A bit of a conundrum for you, no?
Now let me give you some direction on specific examples of false Watchtower teaching. Both the 1985 Creation and 1998 Creator books are wonderful examples of horrible scholarship. I myself have documented more than 100 errors, misrepresentations, misunderstandings and false claims in the 1985 book. I have documented many such false claims in the 1998 book. How can a religious organization that claims that such tripe is "God's truth" be believed as regards religious "truth"? How can an intelligent person put faith in any of its teachings?
For specific examples of false teachings from the 1985 Creation book, visit the URL http://www.geocities.com/osarsif/index2.htm and read the material entitled "The WTS View of Creation and Evolution".
AlanF
dun,
While a particular person, or even society at large, can not know ultimate truth, it is pretty clear that falsehood can be cut away to see what is left. This has been elequantly pointed out by several people here.
In the recent history of the human race, starting at the year 1879, when the Watchtower was founded, that religion has made no progress at coming closer to truth. In the mean time, amazing progress has been made in the world outside the Watchtower. Coincidently, the field of Psychology started in 1879 by Wilhelm Wundt in Germany, the same year that Russel started his religion. Psychology got off to a shaky start, with some strange theories and some blind alleys. However, over time it has made great progess at getting at "truth" of human behavior. I can not say the same for the Witness religion.
Dun, I am glad you came here. This will give you a lot to think about.
hey let's not chase this guy away. hes bringin some sorely lacking intelligent apologist thoughts to the table here. let's not jump too quickly on the 'God's organization' statement. i think this may have been a bit tongue-in-cheek.
mox
He's going, going, GONE.
Lisa
hes bringin some sorely lacking intelligent apologist thoughts to the table here.
What did I miss?
Truly I tell you, it would be better for that man (dunsscot) if he had never learned to read.
AlanF:
Once again, you leave them silent.
Where were you when I was buying into all of this crap two years ago?
Hello everyone,
A very interesting post. Amaong the many replies I do like these ones:
From Farkel: .
"And by implication you have stated that leaving "God's Organization(tm)" is the same a leaving "Jehovah God Himself." Please show evidence for that assertion."
This one rarely receives an answer.
And:
"Read the collective works of the JW Governing Body, Joseph Franklin Rutherford and Charles Taze Russell before you dare go further. "
This one should keep him busy for a while.
From Alan F.:
"You imply that those who have left this non-existant "God's organization" are somehow less open-minded and less biased than JWs are. On what do you base this implication? Real facts?"
Very good questions.
And thanks, again, for the TRUE definition of apostate:
"The elders' manual known as the Flock book states that "persons who deliberately spread (stubbornly hold to and speak about) teachings contrary to Bible truth as taught by Jehovah's Witnesses are apostates." (p. 94) Now think about that for a minute. A Biblical apostate is someone who opposes or has completely abandoned God. Since the Society teaches that it is not inspired, then what it teaches cannot in general be "Bible truth", but only the Society's opinion of Bible truth. But because the Flock book and other JW publications flat-out equate actual Bible truth with the Society's opinion of what is Bible truth, and enforce it via the mechanism of disfellowshipping for "apostasy", the Society is in practice claiming inspiration by enforcing the same punishment upon actual apostates and those who merely disagree with some fallible Watchtower teaching."
I've been stating the same thing, in different words, the same principle…and some friends at the end of the conversation, "had to admit" that it was ...logical and ...yes TRUE!
Greetings, J.C.MacHislopp
