by truth_b_known 31 Replies latest jw friends
How about:
"I have NO respect for religious leaders that cover-up their mistakes and then blame their followers, make Pharisaical rules about minutiae such as whether or not men can have beards, coercively quash any and all legitimate questions and doubts and then rigidly enforce policies that breakup families and isolate people.
Have a nice day!"
I'm with BOC on the 607 stuff, you gotta' be a archeology geek to even begin to understand the arguments advanced on that subject.
Instead, try this:
They got nothin' to answer that. Anything they try will come up short to the informed. For example:
You get the idea ...
Good stuff above, I thought about saying something like "So you are asking me to examine my beliefs, and compare them with the Bible ?"
JW must reply in the affirmative, so then I would ask "Are you prepared to do the same thing ?"
If they are not prepared to have a Bible study with me, using just the Bible of course, then I would be a little blunt about them not having the right to go to peoples doors.
Many years ago I took on the challenge, and just "studied" the Bible with a guy that asked for that, no WT books.The sad thing is he did not have any Bible knowledge, so I was able to spin every scripture the WT way, if he had known his bible he may have freed me all those years ago, at least he never became a JW.
I tell them at the door that I don't believe their religion is biblical. By that I mean that every doctrine that is both unique and original to Jehovah's Witnesses is in fact extra-biblical.
When they ask for clarification I mention as examples
a. their door to door emphasis and practice
b. their blood policies
Then I explain that the doorstep is not the best place to study the Bible...but I would be willing to meet with them to discuss scripture further
This initial encounter estabishes that the next meeting's focus will be on my problems with their religion.
The first topic of conversation at a sit down meeting is interpretation - specifically distinguishing between exegesis and eisegesis (i.e.deriving meaning from the text vs impregnating the text with additional ideas and meaning). I demonstrate (by giving a clear example of what exegesis looks like using a Mormon doctrine) and then ask if they agree that such addition to the text represents interpretive abuse. Then I ask the if it is possible that their entire religion is founded on interpretive abuse.
When they deny this i ask them to show me where the Bible teaches that Jehovah rejected all the churches of Christianity in 1918, the first resurrection began in 1918; Christ appointed the IBSA in 1919 after a final temple inspection etc.
Once I get through the interpretive abuse associated with their foundation, I go for their extra-biblical gospel which is equally founded on interpretive abuse.
I haven't had the courage yet to answer the door when the people from my hall come to "check on me" and give me the mags. I'm still the home but hiding chick because I'm a fader and am not ready to tell them I'm simply no longer interested. Generally my husband (a non-JW) answers the door and takes the mags, hands them to me and I then throw them in the trash. I wish I had more courage.
(open door)
"I'm sorry, but we are not interested. Please mark us down as a 'do not call' on your territory card. Thank you, and have a nice day!"
(close door)
Excellent thoughts, Maksym. If God has always had a faithful slave class, who each pass the baton of knowledge to another generation, with which members of the faithful slave class did CT Russell consult when he created his new and unique set of beliefs? Isn't it true, then, that the doctrines of JW, which evolved from his teachings, are based on the thoughts of one man? (and what does their bible say about putting faith in man?)
Furthermore, in 1917 Russell's successor, JF Rutherford, removed four of the seven members of the Watch Tower Society board of directors because they tried to stop him publishing an article with a doctrine that contradicted the religion's doctrine. By overriding the wishes of the majority, wasn't he again forcing on the organisation his own personal view? Wasn't he challenging the governing body of the time .... and if so, what does that mean about all those doctrines he introduced (Armageddon, the "torture stake", a birthday ban, the concept of God's "organisation", the requirement for all JWs to go witnessing, the blood ban ....) maybe they are all doctrines God disapproves of?
Here are a few more lines of thought if a Witness calls.
1. "You must meet a lot of people from different religions when you call door to door. Do you find many people remain in a religion only because they have never really examined it?" (they'll say yes.) "That must be so frustrating for you! Those people are just blinkered. But what about you? Would you ever read a book or website that criticised or analysed your religion ... or do you restrict your reading to just what your leaders tell you?"
2. "What would I have to do to become a JW?" (you study, attend meetings, get baptised.) "If I went through that process and later decided for whatever reason -- growing knowledge, for example -- that I had made the wrong decision and resigned, what would be the consequences?" (they'll say you can just leave freely.) "But say you and I had become close friends, or my relatives also joined, but stayed in the religion when I left. Would you still talk to me ...or would you be prevented from talking to me? If I still believed in God and Christ, wouldn't I still be a Christian? Why would I be shunned? Isn;t that just a cult control tactic?"
3. "Where do JWs get their doctrines? I've heard there's a faithful slave. What's that? Who is he?" (they'll explain). "Ah, so someone in your own congregation could be a member of the slave class? If God's using him or her, and that person thought very deeply and decided a JW doctrine was wrong, would the Governing Body listen to them and consider changing the doctrine? What if 10 or 100 anointed JWs all wrote to the Governing Body and said this doctrine is wrong; that the teaching of the 144,000 being a literal number is wrong; that the prohibition on blood transfusions is wrong; that when Jesus spoke about the other sheep he just meant Gentiles? Would the Governing Body listen to them?"
Good questions Mr Monroe, if you happen to be talking to a Witness who will not just run off screaming "Apostate !"
I think another thing I may try, in an effort to get them to examine their religion,would be to say "I know a lovely little church where only the pure gospel from the bbile is taught, why don't you go and give that try ?"
I know the replies I will get, "Does that church teach the Trinity , Immortal soul etc ?" , but from this point I can then insist they examine their religion, how can they possibly judge between the church I mention and their own if they do not ?
Ask them about the Governing Body? Ask them if they know any specific details about the current GB members, such as:
Virtually every other organization on earth puts out at least a "for public consumption" bio or resume sketch. But it's curiously lacking concerning these men that ostensibly lead God's Visible Organization on Earth!
Question for JWs:
"I've been told that JWs approve of the irrevocable baptism of children. Is that true?"
om
