How the WTBTS creates atheists (page 10)

tec

I've been staring and frowning at everything I said in that thread, Nick... and I don't think I said anything that opposes what I've said here. I see the two things being discussed as different issues, actually. I'm trying to understand, so if you could draw me the parallel, I would be grateful, because I'm not getting it.

This was your question:

What a person believes influences behaviour but what a person believes does not define his or her character.

This was my response:

I'm not sure.

What you choose to believe might indeed define your character. What you choose to focus on, at least. However, a group you belong to - if you do belong to one - might not define your character, because you might think, believe and act differently than others in your group.

I can't see the connection between that and what we discussed here. Please help :)

Thanks,

Tammy

garyneal

For myself, it did not change when I lost my faith. If anything, I may have even become more sensitive to the needs of others, acknowledging that I am still vulnerable to being insensitive when I am not paying attention to my words and behaviours. But if someone needs faith in order to be a good and moral person, it stands to reason that that person is best avoided because he is not a good and moral person at his core, does it not?

Wow, that is excellent and it certainly resonants with me even though I still consider myself to be a man of faith. You see, back when I was between 18 and 22 years of age, I knew I wanted to be a good moral person and tried to be such to everyone. People would comment that I was a very nice person so I must have been doing something right. However, I felt like I really wanted to be a person of good moral fiber and felt that going to church and becoming a Christian was the way. I always envisioned Christian people as people who were of a much higher calibre than other people.

Now?

Well, it did not take long for me to become disilusioned with Christians. I think I placed them on a pedestal and for a while I got sick of the hypocrisy. I later realized that Christian or not, most people were just simply people.

I've now recently come to the conclusion that I would've been just fine being a moral person that I aspired to be back when I was 18 regardless of whether or not I ever set foot inside a church. I was already a spiritual person back then too and that (thankfully) hasn't changed due to my time spent in some very legalistic churches trying to show myself to be approved according to whatever legalistic doctrine I was trying to follow.

Nickolas

It's a corolory question, Tammy. I contend that having faith is not a requirement for having high moral standards. What is unsaid but understood is that many faithful as well as non-faithful people are honestly moral. The other thread spoke to faith not defining character, which I am taking as synonymous with "moral character". It's likely I misunderstood you.

garyneal

But if someone needs faith in order to be a good and moral person, it stands to reason that that person is best avoided because he is not a good and moral person at his core, does it not?

You know another way to look at it is that your BIL was simply looking for someone or some group to acknowledge and accept him, give him a sense of purpose, and a sense of hope for him to turn his life around. In other words, deep down inside he wanted to be a good person. This could've been accomplished outside of a religion but it just so happens that it was the Watchtower religion that gave him the validation that he needed.

tec

I contend that having faith is not a requirement for having high moral standards.

Yes. Agreed. I do believe that it is necessary for some people... but not everyone.

What is unsaid but understood is that many faithful as well as non-faithful people are honestly moral.

Yes.

The other thread spoke to faith not defining character, which I am taking as synonymous with "moral character". It's likely I misunderstood you.

Yes, but here is where I think things depend, and so that would be why I stated I was not sure. What we believe in can show our moral character. Sometimes we can also act outside of our character and our beliefs.

But in relation to this thread and the thoughts posed by Trevor, I do think that what we believe in (not just a religion we join for any number of reasons, or rules we follow to stay in line, but what we truly believe in in our heart and soul)... this does form our personal conscience. But in some cases, if we believe in the wrong thing, our personal conscience may still lead us astray - in that we won't know we're doing something wrong, so we won't feel that twinge of guilt or warning.

That is why I think it is good to have something to measure our conscience against - be that love, or Christ (though the two are synonymous to me).

Does that help or does it still sound like I'm contradicting myself? I'll sleep on it otherwise, and see if I understand better in the morning :)

Tammy

Nickolas

You know another way to look at it is that your BIL was simply looking for someone or some group to acknowledge and accept him, give him a sense of purpose, and a sense of hope for him to turn his life around. In other words, deep down inside he wanted to be a good person. This could've been accomplished outside of a religion but it just so happens that it was the Watchtower religion that gave him the validation that he needed.

And I think you're absolutely right. The Watchtower was a good thing for him. It provided him with the moral compass that he otherwise lacked and turned his life around. The Watchtower isn't totally evil, after all. Just mostly evil.

But in some cases, if we believe in the wrong thing, our personal conscience may still lead us astray - in that we won't know we're doing something wrong, so we won't feel that twinge of guilt or warning.

It still goes to what constitues the wrong thing. The bible, for example, defines many things that are wrong and then prescribes punishments accordingly. From my perspective, many of those wrongs are victimless crimes for which some of the most horrendous punishments were meted out under the understanding that they were mandated by God himself. How do you tell if something is wrong if not by the golden rule? Being the film buff I am I am reminded about that line in "K-Pax" when Kevin Spacey says, "every creature in the universe knows the difference between right and wrong."

tec

How do you tell if something is wrong if not by the golden rule?

The golden rule is a great example, but it can be abused.

In CS Lewis' 'Mere Christianity' (the only book I've read on Christianity that was not part of the JW works), he talks about that and 'love your neighbor as yourself'... which is the same thing, I guess. But he says in it that if he committed a crime, he would want to be brought to trial and justice, and suffer whatever punishment meted out.

I doubt it.

From where he is sitting when he wrote this... perhaps. But if he were in the place of the criminal, and caught and about to be imprisoned, I bet he would want mercy to be shown to him. He might have been talking about an unrepentant criminal, mind you... and as I was just doubting the witnesses, his book full of the trinity and hell had set me against him from the get-go. But the point is the same that the rule can be abused in that we justify how we treat someone by saying we would want to be treated in that way, if we were bad like them. But the reality is probably much different.

Still, the golden rule is a great example if we're honest with ourselves, Nick, and don't twist it into a weapon.

Love others as Christ loved us... to me, that one says it all. But that is personal. That's something I can understand. I think of that as a gift to those of us who don't always know how to love ourselves... so what good is it to others to love them AS ourselves?

Peace,

Tammy

Nickolas

From Crisis of Conscience (p. 250).

"1975 passed—as had 1881, 1914, 1918, 1920, 1925 and the 1940s. Much publicity was given by other sources as to the failure of the organization’s expectations surrounding 1975. There was considerable talk among Jehovah’s Witnesses themselves. In my own mind, most of what was said did not touch upon the major point of the matter.

I felt that the real issue went far beyond that of some individual’s accuracy or inaccuracy or even an organization’s reliability or untrustworthiness or its members’ sensibleness or gullibility. It seemed to me that the really important factor is how such predictions ultimately reflect on God and on his Word. When men make such forecasts and say that they are doing it on the basis of the Bible, build up arguments for these from the Bible, assert that they are God’s “channel” of communication—what is the effect when their forecasts prove false? Does it honor God or build up faith in Him and in the reliability of his Word? Or is the opposite the result? Does it not give added inducement for some to feel justified in placing little importance upon the Bible’s message and teachings? Those Witnesses who made major changes in their lives in most cases could, and did, pick up the pieces and go on living in spite of being disillusioned. Not all could. Whatever the case, however, serious damage had been done in more ways than one." (Raymond Franz)

Conclusion: Even a former member of the GB recognised that the WTBTS creates atheists.

rebel8

My wife basically believes that the WTS is the closest to the truth and no other religions have it. If she stopped believing that, she said she would become an agnostic or an atheist.

Wow, that's so illogical. A course in logic would be really beneficial to her.

InterestedOne

rebel8 - What if she stated it like this:

Premise 1: If there is a God, the WT is God's org.

Premise 2: The WT is not God's org

Conclusion: There is no God

Wouldn't that be a valid argument?

How the WTBTS creates atheists

Share this