Apostates' Idealised Image of their Time as a Witness

by slimboyfat 40 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Poztate

  (No folks I'm not back yet. Just a pop in on my friendly neighborhood computer.) Lee

  Lady Lee...Glad to see your post. Wecome back if only for a quick hello.I hope you can find a way to get back to us for good.

  All the best to you....POZ
• 

  Honesty

  Welcome back SBF !!!! Some of us just knew you would eventually see the WTBTS for what it really is. I am a happy undelusioned JW apologetic and receive a lot of joy exposing the cult and also in kindly helping doubting dubs realise they don't have to go somewhere only to someone. And that is in the person of Christ. Dig into your bible SBF and you too can have a personal relationship with the One who created all things.
• 

  DanTheMan

  But more common is the kind of apostate who rationalises his wasting his time on the Witnesses in the past by convincing himself that back in his day the Witnesses were different. They were more loving, they were happier, stuck closer to the Bible - whatever it is that makes the apostate feel more comfortable about their former support for the Religious Order of Jehovah's Witnesses.

  Nah. JWism sucked when I first learned of it, it sucked throughout the whole duration I was involved with it, and it still sucks today.
  

  It especially sucked after 1995 and the "Generations" New Light. All they could do after that was bludgeon you with endless Reminders about Remaining Loyal to Jehovah's Organization, that sucked.

  argh, the little superscript TM thingy isn't working anymore, it replaces it with a question mark when you submit - Simon?
• 

  CeriseRose

  I know some apostates become bitter and can see nothing good in their time spent as Witnesses, but I am not talking about that kind of apostate. I am talking about the other kind of apostate who tends to idealise certain aspects of their time in the Witnesses. What motivates such sentiments I wonder?

  Again, generalizations. "Apostates" as a convenient box to slot us all in. And we only have 2 categories this time, the bitter and the idealistic. How about ANY HUMAN BEING who longs for the "good old days"? I don't think that what you're talking about it particular to people who are/have been JWs. However, talking about motivations, I wonder what motivates someone to come here and instead of bringing positive things to the table, continues to pigeonhole people he doesn't know and uses demeaning and half-reasoning to do it? I guess we'll never know.
• 

  Abaddon

  slimboyfat

  I think such sentimentality is an apostate defense mechanism.

  Oh, it seems you know all about defence mechanisms. The very way you talk about apostates is a defence mechanism. Way to go at answering my questions; is this a one-way-street where you insult people's reasonableness and ask further questions, or will you answer what I asked you?

  And what's this 'apostate' this and 'apostate' that? You talking about yourself? As soon as I found out it was essentially a made-up religion I ceased to see the relevence of using a label that might be applied to me by a Witness. I am as much an apostate to JW's as I am to Santa Claus. How can one 'stand against' something that is a work of the imagination?

  Think about it - apostates are people who have come to the conclusion that being a Jehovah's Witness is a waste of time because it is not truth after all. They have to rationalise why they spent so much time supporting the Witnesses if it was always not the truth anyway.

  And those who still have some form of belief in the JW's doctrines have to justify their continued particpation. As the doctrines don't give them much to justify their continued participation, the easiest way is to attack those who disagree. Not the GROUNDS for their disagreement or resentment - no, far to difficult. Instead, why not make it seem they are unreasonable or unreasoning instead?

  Blacken a person or a group's name and one can dismiss them as not even capable of holding a worthwhile opinion due to emotional problems.

  Of course, such techniques only work if one is able to ignore the fact that they are not dealing with the grounds for their disagreement or resentment. As cultists are greatly skilled in cognotive dissonace this would normally present no problem. If you can see the Pyramids and ignore the fact they are rather large evidences showing the Biblical Flood account to be allegorical (at the best), any similar level of self-deception would be easy.

  Some whacky apostates cope with this by claiming that Jehovah's Witnesses did have the truth but they have lost their way (like e-watchman and other crazies - there are lots of them about).

  More insults. That's kind of pathetic you know. Can you take what you dish out? Or can you point me to a scripture that says;

  "And when the apostates have arguments you cannot answer satisfacorily, worry not! For you can totally avoid having to act like an adult by making it seem as those apostates are unreasonable and incapable of holding a worthwhile or trustworthy opinion and thus convince at least yourself of the fact you don't have to deal with the grounds for their disagreement or resentment!"

  I'm not familiar with the passage myself. 1 Chicken Shit 4:5-7 perhaps?

  But more common is the kind of apostate who rationalises his wasting his time on the Witnesses in the past by convincing himself that back in his day the Witnesses were different. They were more loving, they were happier, stuck closer to the Bible - whatever it is that makes the apostate feel more comfortable about their former support for the Religious Order of Jehovah's Witnesses.

  Am I on to something?

  No. You are wallowing in individual opinions; those of JW's and those of those who were JW's. Any 'old fart' (say over 35) will witter on about the 'good old days'; you don't have to have been in a cult to do that, as CeriseRose points out. Anyone who has made a big mistake will to one extent or the other plea-bargin to themselves so they don't feel like such a shmuck; you don't have to have been in a cult to do that. Anyone stuck in a situation they are not able to extract themselves from will defend themselves; you don't have to be in a cult to do that. But it helps.

  Stop wasting your time looking at typical patterns of human behaviour that do not help inform you of the right or wrongs of a situation. Look at the reasons given for changing behaviour or the reasons for continuing it if you want to see some meaning.

  logan

  There's a clear difference between a descriptor; like evolutionist or creationist, which describe schools of thought, and a label such as 'bitter' which catagorises a person's beliefs as as an emotional reaction.

  'Evolutionist' (for example) isn't loaded language, at least no more than 'Democrat'.

  Person A described by person B as 'bitter' could have the most defensable opinion in the world but person B avoids dealing with that and questions person A's reasonableness instead.

  But I'm sure you know this, so was I unclear or was there another reason for the question?
• 

  logansrun

  Ab,

  It's a conundrum. If someone wishes to denigrate someone or make them look like a fool they can label them as a fool. This is thought, correctly by some, as being unfair. On the other hand, if someone consistently behaves in a foolish manner and spouts foolish ideas and they are therefore labeled as a fool this is thought to be unfair.

  Sometimes labels are untrue and totally unnecessary. On the other hand, sometimes labels are a pretty good description. (Although I prefer to label behaviors, not people) Are some apostates bitter over their treatment at the hands of the Evil Watchtower? I think so. Of course, they may have reason to be. But, from a pragmatic point of view, it doesn't seem to do much good. I prefer equanimity over bitterness any day.

  Not a big point, though. I can live in a label-less world just as well.

  B.
• 

  slimboyfat

  Thanks all for your thoughts. Some interesting stuff.
• 

  Quotes

  SBF, I am offended by your constant categorization of all former JWs are "apostate". Just because someone is no longer a JW, even if they now feel that JWs no longer have the truth, does *NOT* make them apostate.... unless you are using the WT provided definition of apostate, in which case all former members are evilly working deliberately and directly against god -- a classic example of both "poisoning the well" and "black-white thinking (false dichotomy)" all at once. *Sigh*
  
  Now, to your question: did you actually say that "apostate's" recollectoin of good times as a JW was a defence mechanism?????. So maybe there were really not any good times???? Or that the few good times have been magnified and focused on?????? If your hypothesis is correct, it makes a case for there being even less good things about JWs in the past.
  
  IOW, you are saying: "Apostates falsely think that Watchtowerism used to be better, more fun, more spiritural than it is today. But they are wrong. It has always been the no-fun, non-spiritual place it is today." Is that really the point your are trying to make?
  
  ~Quotes, of the "life in my childhood was fun, even though I had to walk 10 miles through the snow to get to school" class
• 

  jaffacake

  Slim,

  One day we will all notice that you have stopped using the name "apostate".

  There is the Biblical definition ie renouncing faith in Jesus Christ as the saviour of all and the only mediator between God and humanity. There is the dictionary definition of renouncing any religious beliefs previously held. There is the Watchtower definition which seems to be anyone who no longer believes that what they teach is the truth.

  When you feel able never again to use that word, perhaps you will be free.

  They have trained you so well, what with trigger words and all, that get a reflex response, like Pavlov's dog seeing the food and ...
• 

  Balsam

  Its simple, every experience has good and bad tied up together. Not everything about living the JW lifestyle was aweful all the time. It wasn't good enough though to keep us in it. I remember reading Diane Wilsons book, and thought how could she have experienced so much bad and negative things and stayed in so long. Well she just didn't tell us the things she liked and the things that moved her to stay as long as she did.

  I was in it for about 30 years, it was a very mixed bag. After a while though the cost was to great to remain in so I left. When the bad unbalanced the good it tipped the scales and I got off.

  I believe it is that way for everyone, unless you were raised in it and couldn't leave as a child. But even those young people leave as soon as they are old enough to say enough is enough.