The proportion of apostates who believe the wt illuminati connection is vary small. Painting apostates generally w the same brush isn't really fair, imo.
S
Grand and Lesser Apostate Delusions
by slimboyfat 100 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
mouthy
simply accept that Witnesses are well-intentioned yet simply misguided
Poor Slim.... Yes I agree with the above . Rank & File JW in MY opinion are wonderful folk .VERY MISGUIDED. After preaching all that the organization told me too for 25 years ,Then getting kicked out STILL believing it was the truth...(Because I couldnt accept Jesus came invisably in 1914) Then finding some loving people who saw my sorrow of losing family-friends( being shunned as the Order says they must) I began to check out the Pyrimides ,Masons, Drunken stories, but then it came to me what the heck weather they are true or not any organization that teaches hate cant be from GOD,,,They teach hate(-conquer & divide-)familys loved ones. etc:
So my poor lost friend. You are calling evil good & read what the scriptures say about that -
VM44
Who would ever consider making "outlandish attacks on Rutherford's character"?
--VM44
-
OUTLAW
SlimBoyFat..Good for you!..Paint anyone that dosen`t agree with the WBT$,with the same jienormous Apostate paint brush.....You still have`nt backed up your post about the Apostates that burned down a Kingdom Hall..No one seems to know who did it,except you..Now back up your post...OUTLAW
-
aniron
The proportion of apostates who believe the wt illuminati connection is vary small
The illuminati/mason connection never crosses my mind unless someone brings it up. Yeah, we can point to some Masonic similarites. But its not the reason I left them.
What about the non-JW's who also go on about the Illuminati/Masonic connections the WT is supposed to have.
What is their reason for pointing out such a connection?
simply accept that Witnesses are well-intentioned yet simply misguided
Who misguided them? Where the Nazis well-intentioned, but misguided people?
-
AlanF
While it is true that some "apostates" go overboard in their criticisms of the Society, the majority do not. Therefore, SBF's attempt to smear all ex-JWs with the same brush is just another of his idiotic attempts to defend the Society. I think this guy is a nut. His doing this is like saying that some ex-Catholics do all sorts of stupid things; therefore all ex-Catholics are stupid.
SBF's comments about the 1985 Creation book are a case in point of his being a semi-apologist. While he acknowledges that the book contains many serious misrepresentations, he claims that it's only due to the authors' being too stupid to realize that they were being misled by creationist sources. While this is probably true in some cases, it is simply not possible in other cases. In any case, since the Society continues to publish this book as "spiritual food in due season" for "God's household of faith", even while knowing that it contains many glaring errors, its leaders are inexcusable.
A good example of the Society's author deliberately misrepresenting a source reference is discussed in my critical essay on the Creation book ( http://corior.blogspot.com/2006/02/part-8-what-creation-book-says-about.html ). Here is some material based on that:
In discussing the length of time mankind has existed, in the section "What About the Dates?", the book states (p. 96):
Biblical chronology indicates that a period of about 6,000 years has passed since the creation of humans. Why, then, does one often read about far longer periods of time since acknowledged human types of fossils appeared?
A more accurate statement is that Watchtower Society chronology says that 6000 years have passed since the creation of humans. Many Biblical scholars say that there is good reason to question the practice of simply adding up the lifespans Genesis gives for the patriarchs, so it is unwarranted to dogmatically claim that man was created almost exactly 6000 years ago. Next, Creation says:
Before concluding that Bible chronology is in error, consider that radioactive dating methods have come under sharp criticism by some scientists. A scientific journal reported on studies showing that "dates determined by radioactive decay may be off -- not only by a few years, but by orders of magnitude." It said: "Man, instead of having walked the earth for 3.6 million years, may have been around for only a few thousand."
These statements are extremely misleading on several counts. First, the reference is to Popular Science magazine, which is by no stretch of the imagination a "scientific journal." One might just as well refer to The National Enquirer as a news journal. Referring to Popular Science in this way is an attempt to lend "scientific authority" to a publication that has none. Second, the Popular Science article is mostly about the success of various dating methods, and only in the last few paragraphs is space given to the views of a single physicist, Robert Gentry, who dissents from the usual view. A respectable scientific journal would never include such ridiculous material in an attempt to provide a 'balanced view'. Third, the fact that the dissenter is a young-earth creationist who believes the universe was created in six literal days is not made clear. Statements from six-literal-day creationists regarding the accuracy of radioactive dating ought to be viewed like comments from Richard Nixon that politicians never lie. Fourth, the article's statement that man "may have been around for only a few thousand years" is merely a conclusion the article points out can be drawn from the views of Robert Gentry. It is not a conclusion the magazine itself, using its editorial voice, is making -- but Creation makes it appear it is. The reader gets the impression the article presents much scientific evidence showing radioactive dating is on shaky ground. But simply reading the Popular Science article shows that is not what it's about (Robert Gannon, "How Old Is It?," Popular Science, p. 81, November, 1979).
Now, since the Society's author had to obtain the Popular Science article and read it in its entirety in order to extract the material he misrepresented, he cannot possibly have borrowed that misrepresentation from some creationist writings, nor can it be successfully argued that he had no idea that he was misrepresenting the article. The misrepresentation is simply too detailed and complicated for the author to have been so stupid that he didn't know what he was doing. The only conclusion is that he deliberately misrepresented the article.
Similar conclusions can be drawn about many of the misrepresentations in the Creation book.
AlanF
-
Honesty
So why won't apostates simply accept that Witnesses are well-intentioned yet simply misguided? SBF
I accept that Witnesses are well-intentioned yet simply misguided.
On the other hand, their "Faithful Discreet Slave" is aptly described in Scripture:
Many deceivers have gone out into the world; they do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist. 2 John 1:7
For this reason God sends them a strong delusion so that they will believe what is false, so that all will be condemned—those who did not believe the truth but enjoyed unrighteousness. 2 Thess 2:11-12
-
JimWood
I don't think that the true shepherds of gods flock would leave those that ask honest questions hanging for over a month without even a phone call. I could have sworn that there was something about leaving 99 to find one lost one. Anyhow before you lump me in with the very small minority wacko fringe you can read my letter and let me know where I was wrong in reason or motivation.
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/120079/1.ashx
It was a month after they received this that I had to do the following, I got a phone call within 90 min to schedule a meeting (JC no doubt).
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/121644/1.ashx
So cry me a friging river over the pompous power tripping leaders of this controlling cult.
-
Lady Lee
In my 20 years working with a wide range of abuse survivors is that they rarely demonize their abusers. The abusers on the other hand find all manner of lies to demonize people who try to expose them although there are always exceptions to the rule
I was one of those who still believed 10 years after I left. When I started doing research on the WTS I was dumbfounded. I did not want to believe the whole money motive. But the more I read the more I was shocked that I had been so misled. The disbelief forced me to do more research to invalidate the money motive for the lies, manipulation and cover-ups.
But the mountain of evidence, mostly from their own publications, buried forever the belief that they are innocent of wrong-doing.
The average JW is just as conned as I once was. As you go up the ladder you will find more people who have been taken in. But at some point the people at the top have to realize they have done wrong and they know it. Otherwise what motive would there be for rewriting history, and continued cover-ups of their mistakes. They continue to blame JWs for believing "old light" and demonize those who work hard to find the real truth.
At some point someone is responsible for the decisions this group of leaders make and how they continue to hide the truth. It just isn't good enough to blame the victims for believing the lies fed to them labeled as "food from God"
-
Beardo
Rank & File JW in MY opinion are wonderful folk
Hmm.... hardly. They believe that most people on the outside of the group are God-fodder and won't take any alternative information seriously due to institutionalized arrogance. There are maybe a handful who fall into the 'decent' category, but largely they are sociopathic.