A Different JW Viewpoint

by Nicodemus 26 Replies latest jw friends

  • Nicodemus
    Nicodemus

    Alan,

    One little comment I'll add here:

    Your own circle of friends may well share your kinder, more liberal views, but keep in mind that "birds of a feather flock together" and your circle is not representative of the JW community in general. How comfortable would you be in expressing your views to the JW community at large? How about to Ted Jaracz? How about to the hardliners you know are really in control of "God's organization"?

    Funny, isn't it? That's the exact same thing I argued, in reverse. I argued that WOL wasn't representative of the JW community as a whole, and you argue that I and my "circle" are the ones that aren't representative. I can only tell you that I would have no problem expressing the view I presented on this thread, that JWs should pray for all affected by this tragedy, to anyone in our organization, including Ted Jaracz. I think I presented the scriptural basis for my view, and I would be perfectly comfortable discussing that with anyone.

    Nicodemus

  • AlanF
    AlanF

    Hi Marvin,

    : Nicodemus is more than capable for speaking for himself, but I wonder what you mean with this question?

    Several things, actually. Curiosity, a desire to get Nicodemus to think hard about his relationship with the Watchtower, a desire to see what someone says publicly -- someone who has stuck with it for a long time despite knowing its great problems -- about sticking with it to a board filled with critics he knows are basically on his side.

    : Some who choose to remain associated with Jehovah's Witnesses have entirely lost respect for the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, like me. Likely Nicodemus sees his values in other JWs he associates with, perhaps more than he sees, for instance, among local Presbyterians, Lutherans, Catholics, or Muslims or that matter. For this reason he may decide to remain in association with JWs yet not condoning specific WTS teachings he opposes. What of it? As long as his local congregation lets him do this, assuming it is true, then what is your question about, just clarification? People have all sorts of reasons for remaining where they are, at least for the time being.

    About the most fundamental of JW teachings is that Watchtower leaders speak for God. This is so fundamental that in the emotions of many JWs it overrides the supposedly more basic doctrine of love for and obedience to God. We know this because it is demonstrable that many JWs always equate the words of the Society with the Word of God, and obey the Society even when they read in the Bible with their own eyes something that contradicts what the Society says.

    A basic teaching of the JWs is that God condemns "false religion". Another is that a "false religion" is any religion that teaches false things, whether deliberately or out of ignorance. JWs thoroughly condemn all other religions because, they claim, all of them teach false things about God. Now, you and I know that JWs are just as guilty of this as are many other religions, so by their own words they've condemned themselves. It doesn't matter that they refuse to admit it, and make any number of excuses ("our leaders are just imperfect men") to get around their own condemnatory doctrine when it's turned around upon themselves. This kind of behavior is grossly hypocritical, and so JWs who knowingly stick with a religion that they know teaches false things are in principle condemned by their own religion. JWs are truly stuck on the horns of a dilemma, therefore, since they're not allowed to repudiate basic teachings (like what constitutes false religion) of their religion, yet some of those basic teachings are condemned in their own literature and even by the Bible -- and certainly by common sense.

    Of course, the above ignores the fact that you and I know perfectly well that the basic JW teaching about what constitutes a false religion is false, and this lets people like Nicodemus off the hook when they want to continue to associate. It certainly doesn't matter to me whether he sticks with his religion or not. My point is that by the very teaching of his brothers his religion is hypocritical, and he, by agreeing that there are serious problems with it, is apostate. I simply don't understand how anyone could know these things and yet continue associating with a group that would kick him out on his ass toute suite if they knew his real feelings.

    AlanF

  • Marvin Shilmer
    Marvin Shilmer
    I simply don't understand how anyone could know these things and yet continue associating with a group that would kick him out on his ass [tout-de-suite] if they knew his real feelings.

    Hi again, Alan

    This really is the crux, isn’t it. Have you considered that persons like Nicodemus may have simply decided not to kick people out of their lives? Why shun people when it’s a controlling agency you have the problem with?

    Should a son stop associating with his JW family members because they are JWs? Should a man stop associating with his JW friends because they are JWs? Why must any of us conclude that associating with the people of JWs wherever they might be is anything more than association with family and friends that happen to be JWs? If they happen to espouse some or many beliefs common to our own, is that a bad thing? If not, why is this association so hard to comprehend.

    I don’t want to be "kicked out" of association with my family and friends, though some of them might do it to me out of ignorance. In spite of my love for family and friends, should I kick them out of my life by ceasing association, which essentially would be because of their ignorance? I believe doing so would make me just as ignorant, maybe even stupid.

  • AlanF
    AlanF

    Hi Nicodemus,

    I'm deliberately stepping on your toes, but don't take it personally. This is a much bigger issue than you or me.

    : Funny, isn't it? That's the exact same thing I argued, in reverse. I argued that WOL wasn't representative of the JW community as a whole, and you argue that I and my "circle" are the ones that aren't representative.

    You may have "argued" your case but you certainly haven't proved it. I gave a detailed response to you, with illustrations, in response. For you to demonstrate your case, you'll have to deal with those things.

    Bottom line: Scientific evidence for this question is impossible to gather; the collective experience of dozens of ex-JWs plus public expressions of JWs in 'private' places like WOL show what is in the hearts of a large fraction of JWs.

    A JW like you who might think to get on WOL or any other 'loyal' JW forum would be quickly removed or shouted down. Try expressing your views (not just on this topic but wherever you differ with the WTS) in a regular KH meeting and watch the reaction. You'd be hauled in the back room right quick! Do you not agree?

    : I can only tell you that I would have no problem expressing the view I presented on this thread, that JWs should pray for all affected by this tragedy, to anyone in our organization, including Ted Jaracz. I think I presented the scriptural basis for my view, and I would be perfectly comfortable discussing that with anyone.

    No problem here. The question of expressing views, though, is much larger than this.

    AlanF

  • AlanF
    AlanF

    Hi Marvin,

    :: I simply don't understand how anyone could know these things and yet continue associating with a group that would kick him out on his ass [tout-de-suite] if they knew his real feelings.

    : This really is the crux, isn’t it.

    Yep.

    : Have you considered that persons like Nicodemus may have simply decided not to kick people out of their lives? Why shun people when it’s a controlling agency you have the problem with?

    I think I didn't express myself clearly. I wasn't talking about social association but about religious association. I associate socially with my JW parents, for example, but not religiously. They, in fact, are afraid to bring up religious topics with me. We have no problem socially as long as religion is kept out of it.

    You've expressed yourself on the blood policy and have made no bones about it being source of great sorrow and even anger for you. No doubt you've avoided making a public declaration of your views. By the Society's own standards, and probably by the standards of most people, associating religiously with some group is tantamount to giving it support -- unless one makes it publicly clear that one does not support a particular set of teachings or policies. In most religious groups this is not a great problem, but the necessity of rooting out such public dissent is a fundamental JW teaching. Thus, you cannot remain a JW and express public dissent. They will kick you out and brand you a wicked, vile apostate if you do.

    My point is: why would anyone want to associate with such a group religiously and thereby give tacit support to all of their teachings? Such support of all teachings is tacit because public disagreement with any teachings will result in expulsion and shunning (cf. W86 4/1 pp. 30-31).

    AlanF

  • Marvin Shilmer
    Marvin Shilmer
    I think I didn't express myself clearly. I wasn't talking about social association but about religious association. I associate socially with my JW parents, for example, but not religiously. They, in fact, are afraid to bring up religious topics with me. We have no problem socially as long as religion is kept out of it.

    Hi again, Alan

    Social or religious, what’s the difference? We associate with people because we have some sort of common ground or values, whether that be religious or social. I do talk religious issues with my JW parents, and we do not always agree either, but on many aspects we do agree—common ground. Same thing with my JW friends.

    You've expressed yourself on the blood policy and have made no bones about it being source of great sorrow and even anger for you. No doubt you've avoided making a public declaration of your views. By the Society's own standards, and probably by the standards of most people, associating religiously with some group is tantamount to giving it support -- unless one makes it publicly clear that one does not support a particular set of teachings or policies. In most religious groups this is not a great problem, but the necessity of rooting out such public dissent is a fundamental JW teaching. Thus, you cannot remain a JW and express public dissent. They will kick you out and brand you a wicked, vile apostate if you do.

    Exactly what you deem a public declaration I don’t know. I do know my feelings about the blood issue are no secret to my JW family, local elders or the WTS. What would you have me do, take out a full page add in the New York Times? Because I do not shove my views down the throats of people that don’t want to hear them, does that make my expressions somehow less than public? I don’t think so. I might not have created a local war over the issue, but my views have been expressed.

    Your caveat that associating religiously with some group is tantamount to giving it support unless one makes it publicly clear that one does not support a particular set of teachings or policies is not the universal tenet you assert. An individual’s support of specific teachings or policies can only be know by asking the individual. Otherwise it is an assumption, and one that not all persons would make. I think reasonable people would assert as have I before they would make negative assumptions about support of a specific policy or policies.

    My point is: why would anyone want to associate with such a group religiously and thereby give tacit support to all of their teachings? Such support of all teachings is tacit because public disagreement with any teachings will result in expulsion and shunning (cf.W86 4/1 pp. 30-31).

    Tacit support of ALL teachings could be imputed to a person that accepts authority in a religion, but not of a person who merely associates with it. For whatever reason, some persons can and do feel they fit in best with one religious group over others, even though they may not fully understand the ins and outs of its theology. We can only know what specifically such ones like about a religion and what they do not like—if anything—by asking them. Most churchgoing people would agree that they do not hold to every single detail of what their church teaches. They have no reason to conclude otherwise about other churchgoers. Why would they? As for JWs, my history is rich in that religion. Though I respect your own history with JWs I cannot and will not substitute your experience for my own. My experience is that all JWs do not completely agree or support ALL WTS policies. In fact, I hear a lot of them complaining about some of these policies. I am a living example of just such a person.

  • Pork Chop
    Pork Chop

    Nicodemus it's obvious that your personal experience doesn't count, niether does mine, because all these folks know better. I bet they were real characters when they were Witnesses. I've begun to wonder if its mostly a matter of environment.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit