Worldy opposition is interpreted as confirmation of the truth

by MrMonroe 18 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  MrMonroe

  Interesting comment on the talk page of the Wikipedia article on the Governing Body here:

  One dopey JW (Wandering-teacher) who complained that the article was "biased" against the JWs was supported in a comment by another assumed JW (Galik) who whined that the article was "peppered with quotes from known opposers of Jehovah's Witnesses in order to use this article as a propaganda vehicle".

  Wandering-teacher replied: "Thanks for the support, Galik. The difficulty of having a neutral point of view in the ... article strengthens my faith that I have made the correct religious choice for me."

  Andrew Holden, in his sociological study of the JWs, ("Jehovah's Witnesses: Portrait of a Contemporary Religious Movement," p.76) wrote:

  "Ostensibly they are on a mission to save others, but actually they are confirming to themselves their own worldview. ... Doorstep rebuffs are regarded by the Society as the fulfilment of New Testament prophecy, namely that Christ's true followers will be the objects of hatred on account of his name. Hostility of this kind merely confirms the Witnesses' negative perceptions of the outside world and supports their rational biblical logic. ... Doorstep rejection is perceived in terms of persecution, an essential feature of the Last Days."

  For that JW chatting on Wikipedia, the mere fact that the WTS has critics confirms for him that they are the true religion. Evidently the thought hasn't crossed his mind that Jim Jones, David Koresh and L. Ron Hubbard all said the same thing about external criticism.
• 

  jeckle

  Yep it shows spiritual insecurity that they need someone to back them up so to speak. They can't defend bs and it makes them feel alone . I so much wish I could get my brothers to see the circular logic.
• 

  alanv

  From the very first bible study they have, JWs are told they will get opposition.

  What they do not tell you or understand, is that any opposition is normally from friends and family who do not want you to ruin your life by becoming involved in a religion that takes away your identily and proper reasoning powers.
• 

  sizemik

  Ahhh Mr M . . . My wife and I have spent a leisurely 30 minutes reading the whole talk page with great interest. It has been most interesting seeing how the mind-controlled thinking manifests itself now that we can appraise it from an outsiders point of view. I would freely confess a degree of bias when forming an opinion of the religion, but the expressions of these posters is almost comically entertaining, party because I can still identify with the mind-set that produces such indignation.

  Their indignation however stems more from thier own ignorance of the facts as well as their own heavy religious bias. This is born out by their inability to be specific in their objections, instead referring to "the overall tone" of the article. The overall tone however is simply derived from the facts yet they are unable to either discern or accept that as a possibility.

  This question in particular made me chuckle . . . Let's face it, where have quotes been found to show the Governing Body in a positive light?

  Good question! . . . obviously this gentleman was unable to find anything factual to contribute . . . so he simply whines about it.

  And this overt calling into question of Ray Franz's motive must be bordering on libellous were it a touch more specific . . .

  members whose attachment to Jehovah as a person was not pure and unselfish (such as Raymond Franz who was on the Governing Body in the 1975 era) could reveal their true motives (as Franz does in his books, to the careful reader) and leave or be expelled from our community ,

  And heres some endorsement for the editors . . . .

  This bothered me enough to want to make the articles present the Watchtower Society's answers to its critics, but now I will simply do nothing, since I now realize that such obvious bias in these articles may perhaps be in harmony with Jehovah's will.

  It must be gratifying to the editors to know they are doing the will of God.

  I almost feel embarrased for them . . . but not quite. It's more embarrasing to think I might have felt the same way once.
• 

  Chariklo

  It's powerful stuff, isn't it, this instant assurance that whatever opposition they endure merely gives them certain martyrdom or assurance that they are deserving of all the good things Jehovah promises to them...always assuming they're content to endure for times indefinite a cuddly but regimented (oops, I meant organised) world administered by the brothers.
• 

  Band on the Run

  The Talk Pages for Jehovah's Witnesses' articles are different than any others I have read. Everyone is so fired up. No one appears to be neutral. Yet isn't wikipedia an apostate site. I imagine Bethelites are instructed to shape the debate and check the article daily, if not more often. For me, the true nature of the Witnesses is on the Talk Pages, not the article.

  Someone who is a JW works the wikipedia reference desk, referring people to Witness literature and policy. Normally polite contributors have no patience for this person's actions. He will post the NWT as a credible Bible source without mentioning it is JW Bible. The quick comments of others drown out any impact.

  I'm glad the Internet is not littered with Watchtower and Awake ads. Going door to door made sense a long time ago. People are no longer friendly to neighbors. Privacy reigns. My home is my private abode. I am fair game out in public or a social media site.

  I expect privacy, not someone with the arrogance that they know more than I do. Altho I have yet to read Steve Hassan's book, I still comment that I don't understand why anyone converts. Someone posted a photo of the Governing Body. My, they are all so old. Some look ancient.
• 

  designs

  Just read any of the posts by the socalled Christians here, they make it a point to frame the questions and answers in a way that they can't be reasoned with. What we were exposed to in the Service Meeting seems to be the norm in most Churches, defense mechanisms that prevent the Followers from simple logic and scientific evidence.

  Pity, but they can recover
• 

  dgp

  I have seen this in action because I am a worldly, but the more frequent reply to objections is something like "Well, we have warned you".

  There was one lady who even got kind of angry when I told her "Yes, madam, you have warned me".

  I can say, however, that sometimes you can make objections that don't seem objections, and that gets witnesses thinking. For example, I once told one of them that I had left religion because I had found that my only reason for believing was that I was so, so afraid of the idea of dying. That hit a nerve somewhere, and this witness couldn't reply.

  It would also work to make them give opinions about subjects or issues they cannot give opinions about. For example, "Do you read the Bible?" "Yeah, and I even got myself this book by a notable Bible scholar, Bart Ehrman. Wait, I'll show you..." Since you seem to be genuinely interested in the conversation, but the witness cannot give an opinion on this, it is they that leave, and it is they that are left thinking.
• 

  No Room For George

  Yep it shows spiritual insecurity that they need someone to back them up so to speak. They can't defend bs and it makes them feel alone . I so much wish I could get my brothers to see the circular logic.

  I like the way you put that!! Spiritual Insecurity!! Beautiful!! That's one of the best descriptions I've heard in a long time, Spiritual Insecurity. That's exactly what it is too.
• 

  Broken Promises

  It would also work to make them give opinions about subjects or issues they cannot give opinions about. For example, "Do you read the Bible?" "Yeah, and I even got myself this book by a notable Bible scholar, Bart Ehrman. Wait, I'll show you..." Since you seem to be genuinely interested in the conversation, but the witness cannot give an opinion on this, it is they that leave, and it is they that are left thinking.

  Interesting way of doing things. I've learnt something today.