While it is not possible for me to claim that the following are axioms in the objective sense, they are a glimpse into demonstrating how far from reality the Governing Body keeps its adherents. Once a member of Jehovah’s Witnesses, we suddenly develop a sense of authority since we have “the truth.” We become experts in the Bible, on religion, upon anything “we study about.” We might convince ourselves that we are like the Christian apologists of old. We staunchly believe that true religion is defined by the Bible. And we often hate people who are not believers, even demonizing them. Some of these approaches or views may stick with us for years after leaving the religion of the Watchtower. A few of the most startling for me that took years to finally realize after leaving were:
1. Adopting or subscribing to a religion or a philosophical conviction neither makes me an authority on that which I’ve embraced regardless of how “true” I believe my convictions are. Generally speaking, an authority on a subject is one who is recognized in academic circles as formally studying it, and they are usually an observer, not one who holds the conviction or a member from “within.”
2. Apologetics is not the same as debate. Debate seeks to convince by literal argument, apologetics seeks to defend one’s stand as a reasonable act. Debates do not succumb to any definitive rule of satisfactory proof; they are won by those we perceive as being the best at arguing, not best at proving their point (as in the popular Lincoln-Douglas format). Apologetics does not seek to do anymore but to convince a listener that despite of what another might feel about a belief or belief system, the apologist’s subscription to it does not defy reason. Apologetics uses the scientific method upon which to present its defense.
3. Except for religions which literally make claim to it (i.e., Mormonism), the current religious systems are not based on books or religious texts. It is the other way around. Each religious community—all which already had a functioning religious paradigm by the time writing began—developed their religious texts to reflect or explain their current religious system and views.
Christianity is one of these religious systems. Since it holds that its congregation is the mystical embodiment of its Leader, its belief system is not based on how close its religious community follows the writings it produced but on how close one remains within the religious community which developed them. It is not so much the writings that define what their religious community does. On the contrary, it is the community which defines what these texts mean and how it applies as the ages pass. It is not a religion which is based on the rules of a book but upon its mystical connection to its God.
4. Atheism itself was not the force behind the mass murder of religious people under the rise of the Communist Bloc. Neither is atheism itself the force behind those criminal acts against human freedom in lands where it is forced upon all of the population. Murderous rulers and authorities use any type of “cloak of convenience” to empower them to reign in terror. If the popular cloak of the time happens to be religion, then they perform their acts in the name of God. If the cloak of today is atheism, then they perform their acts in the name of human enlightenment. But neither atheism nor religion is responsible for their criminal acts. These people are abusive opportunists, and they should never be allowed to use the name of atheism or religion to cover their true nature. Those who commit acts of genocide, who strip people of their dignity, and forbid the free exercise of one’s conscience in matters of personal conviction have lost all claims to human enlightenment, have lost their religion. Regardless of what flag they fly, they are neither atheists nor religious. They are merely criminals.
Feel free to comment on these or add to the list. What we “un-learn” is often an important stepping stone to healing and/or regaining our balance as a member of society.