Faultless and exempt from critisism

by KW13 4 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  KW13

  I was thinking the other day about how the Witnesses will go to any length to show someone what is wrong with their faith and religion. They may spend years knocking on a Catholic, choosing carefully magazines to place with them - having careful discussions hoping to make the individual think carefully about their faith, yet the moment you 'dare' to point anything out the Witnesses have done wrong or do wrong you are an apostate.

  Maybe i have missed something but i believe it was paul who said to keep checking to see whether you are in the truth?

  A dub i know once used an example of Counterfeit money, saying how much easier it is to look for the REAL money than constantly looking through all the Counterfeit ones. The one HUGE flaw i saw with this is its very subjective and it excused witnesses when they refuse to examine any other faith or even their own unless its going to be within their comfort zone.

  Have you ever started off with a very generalised conversation about religion and ended up in a huge arguement with a dub because it leads to you having a question (innocent or otherwise, its just a question)?

  Topics from 1914, the Cross, Blood - key issues for most non-dubs with real questions who may even seriously consider being a dub, if they question from any other angle than what suits the dubs they are someone to be careful with and it may be necessary to blind them with millions of non-related scriptures and twisted prophecy.

  One thing that made me smile was when a dub i know quite well told me how many people perform powerful works, even prophecy which can only be inspired by Satan but when i asked how they got 1914 they got very defensive.

  What do you think? Do you have any experiences or thoughts?
• 

  OUTLAW

  KW13..I`ve got a family full of dubs.They can knock other religions all day long.They cannot take even the minutest critisim about thier own cult.....People who live in glass houses shouldn`t throw stones..LOL!!...OUTLAW
• 

  Amazing

  KW13,

  The JWs are taught that they are on a one-way street ... it is their way, or the highway. They criticize, but cannot be criticized. They have corrupted the word "truth" to mean one exclusive organization being used by God ... whereas the Bible only uses truth in two specific ways ... one is faith in Jesus who said of himself that he is the truth .. and whether one is walking in the faith, or walking in the truth ... meaing continuing to follow Jesus Christ. There is nothing about a specific organizsation.

  I have found one avenue that presents a measure of success. Learn to talk to JWs without appearing to have an agenda ... that is stop asking what are known as apostate questions ... 1914, blood, false prophecy, etc. These are topics that are on the JWs terms, and they have a keen sense brainwashed into them to auto-respond to these types of issues. Instead, I have found that using what I call the "Colombo" effect works well. Many here may recall a TV series called Colombo, staring a detective who acted like an unsure, bumbling goof, who used questions to trap the suspect into convicting himself.

  Example: Some JWs are calling on me on a semi-regular basis. When they present their literature, I take it, and say that I will read it, and I do. But I do not argue with them about the literature or directly criticize it. Instead, I reveal that I am Roman Catholic. I reveal that I do not agree with the Vatican on every issue ... but that does not affect my basic faith in Jesus Christ as my savior. They respond with sincerety, and may ask me about world conditions ... perhaps they talk about 9-11, and the end times ... I then take a cue from what "they" said, rather than what their organization says or prints, and develop it with questions. I may start off asking why they think that 9-11 is anything special compared to previous events, such as WWII, or the French Revolution, or whatever major event in history. I ask them to tell me more about 9-11. They don't, because they have little to parrot from the Society. Instead, they try to link the last days and critical times being hard to deal wiith being here, and how we are in the last days. ... Then, they have now stepped onto my turf ... they are on the defensive ... but I questions them to death with an honest Colombo style ... so, we talk about war, and rumors of war ... and I commend them for giving a great example ... I tell them that is something to consider ... if they have not volunteered already, I ask them where that is in the Bible ... they then go right to Matt. 24. I tell them how interesting ... can we read more from the same chapter, as this is interesting ... then, when we get to the end of Matt. 24, I use the Bible to act confused ... how Jesus said that all these things are not to make the disciples afrad, for the end is not yet ... for the return (presense) of the son of man is a surprise, like sudden lightening coming from the east andf shinning all the way to the west ... and no one will miss it. I ask them to explain these part, as I am confused ... they are not used to being on my turf, and do not have a ready explanation. They get nervous ... I tell that that I have to run, and ask them to come back. I do not draw conclusions (though sometimes I have exerted a small amount of knowledge to help things along) ... I let them think about what they just experienced. And ... they keep coming back for more.

  This is how I got my family and a few friends out of the organization ... and hopefully will help more.

  Jim Whitney
• 

  JamieL

  Well blood and the cross are easily proved out by the Bible. And modern technology of course, blood is one of those things that is mudied by things such as plasma and whether or not it's ok to use bood derivitives. But blood transfusions have proved have reasons as to why to not have them and bloodless surgery is a lot better for recovery times and patient health. The cross, well who really needs a symbol to believe in God? And considering the fact it would be impossible for water to have filled in Jesus unless his hands were above his head, and history proves out the Romans didn't do crusifictions on crosses till after Christianity was made the national religion in the 3rd or 4th century.

  Anyway, the points I would argue are 1914, NGO status (my god really?) and child abuse. Cause those are the most glaring things that are hypocritical. And the Child Abuse in partcular because Catholacism was blasted so hard for it, yet I believe per Capita in Jws there are more pedofiles than any other religion because of the 2 witness must observe or you have to prove abuse.

  Child abuse is the biggest one to me. And a lot of people simply let it roll off their shoulders like it is not happening. But it's well documented that the government authorities once involved have proved some are pedofiles yet the congo still defended them over the accuser and even banished accusers from the congregation. I would have a very hard time ever having a kid in the congo and if they reported something to me once I would get the polices involved immediately.
• 

  Amazing

  JamieL,

  Well blood and the cross are easily proved out by the Bible. And modern technology of course, blood is one of those things that is mudied by things such as plasma and whether or not it's ok to use bood derivitives. But blood transfusions have proved have reasons as to why to not have them and bloodless surgery is a lot better for recovery times and patient health.

  Blood is very safe, and the rumors published by the Society are not factual. There is a good discussion in a law review that shows that the Watchtower's policy on blood is fraudulent and may make them liable for serious lawsuits.

  The cross, well who really needs a symbol to believe in God? And considering the fact it would be impossible for water to have filled in Jesus unless his hands were above his head, and history proves out the Romans didn't do crusifictions on crosses till after Christianity was made the national religion in the 3rd or 4th century.

  The cross was used in Christian art history all the way back to nearly the first century. It is not that Christians needed symbols, but rather, such symbols developed as a natural consequence. You say that the Romans didn't crucify until after Christianity was made the national religion. This would have been in Constantine's time in the 4th century. What are your references that support this notion? You comment about water filling Jesus requiring his hands to be over his head also requires references. As someone dies on a cross, they slump down and their arms are stretched out in an uppward angle. After sevral hours on the cross, any fluids would have drained down anyway.

  Anyway, the points I would argue are 1914, NGO status (my god really?) and child abuse. Cause those are the most glaring things that are hypocritical. And the Child Abuse in partcular because Catholacism was blasted so hard for it, yet I believe per Capita in Jws there are more pedofiles than any other religion because of the 2 witness must observe or you have to prove abuse.

  To directly attack JW beliefs head on has a low chance of success. I have been there, done that many times, and it fails every time. Indirect questioning with kindness works far better.

  Child abuse is the biggest one to me. And a lot of people simply let it roll off their shoulders like it is not happening. But it's well documented that the government authorities once involved have proved some are pedofiles yet the congo still defended them over the accuser and even banished accusers from the congregation. I would have a very hard time ever having a kid in the congo and if they reported something to me once I would get the polices involved immediately.

  The child abuse among the JWs is a policy problem that is an outgrowth of their self-centered view that they are a clean spiritual paradise, and are somehow more qualified to deal with such crimes than "world-lings" as they would put it. You are correct in that it is a big issue, but not as a religious debate issue, but as a social issue. If the Society learns from it, and corrects their course, then what? We will still have JWs running around spewing their beliefs. I have brought up the child abuse issue when they come to the door. (The JWs are not aware that I am involved in giving court testimony on this issue.) They are in denial as they are on any number of issues ... like any cult would be.

  When JWs are starting to have a moment of awakening, and they begin to explore the Internet, that is the best time for them to learn about such things. Once they realize that this and other issues are not isolated to their own congregation, but permeates nearly every JW congregation, then they can stop the denial and see this issue for what it is. But, upon my first meeting with a JW, I would never shove this issue in their face directly.

  Jim Whitney