How old does someone have to get, to gain immunity for blood-guilt for being a part of JWs?

by King Solomon 29 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  King Solomon

  Cyberjesus said:

  Its a mind control cult. The damage they do to others is factual. The ignorance of their actions is factual as well. Your question is a leading question. They are guilty of damage with abscense of malice.

  But really, does the presence or absense of malice even matter? I mean, how exactly does one shun with or without malice? How would they look different? Perhaps shunning with a smirk vs looking through you like you weren't there? How would the shunned even know?

  As far as the malice bit, people are convicted of manslaughter for killing someone accidently (without malice or ntent), and if there were malice and intent, the charge is more serious (murder). But regardless of whether malice is involved or not, the end result is the person is dead, and punishment needs to be meted.

  Understand, I'm NOT saying that shunning is a crime (like murder) or we're talking about the death of any particular individual per se (say, a specific teen who commits suicide) for the purposes of seeking criminal prosecution of those involved. I'm talking more about holding people accountable for their actions on a general moral, not legal, basis.

  Phizzy said:

  I am still having a problem with the "bloodguilt" concept as being valid morally when it comes to meting out justice.

  Here in this country we ,U.K, we enacted an ill-conceived law that was trying to break the gang culture, and it said if you happened to be amongst a group some of whom perpetrated a crime , you were guilty too.

  Please could you explain, King Sol, how by simply being associated with a group like the WT/JW's for a period, and believing the Bull***t as coming from God, could make someone "Bloodguilty" ?

  The idea stems from conspiracy laws which is common to US/UK law for centuries, where membership in a criminal group that engages in some organized enterprise means that say, in the case of "conspiracy to commit murder", it doesn't matter whether you pulled the trigger or drove the car: both are equally guilty for the death. It's a common legal approach used for not only murder conspiracies, but others (hacking, fraud, etc).

  Should someone because of this mere association, being in the wrong place at the wrong time like the kids above, be adjudged as desrving of death ??

  (not sure were the death part came in, but...)

  The flip-side of your question is, should the suicide of a young teen who's shunned be dismissed as, "oh, well: I guess they were just in the wrong place at the wrong time? Sucked to be them!"

  The interesting aspect to me is that if you asked most JWs if they were more moral than the average person, they'd probably say they were (after all, they're repeatedly told from the podium that JWs ARE more ethical and moral than Worldly people). However, most don't realize that simply following a moral code doesn't automatically impart them with a greater moral sense than the Worldlys, as following rules doesn't mean you understand the basis on which the rules are made (and if they DID, they'd realize that a Bible-based moral code is incredibly-dated, built on principles that existed 3,000 yrs ago and condones slavery, etc).

  Likewise, when people leave the JWs, they don't automatically and instantly develop replacement morals without putting some thought into it. Hence why I'm asking here, seeing what comes from the thread. And no, there is no easy answer to this, only questions to be considered.

  But the element that struck me is the trend that it's OK to give a pass to an elderly JW for a lifetime of supporting an organization that practices cruel shunning and death (via policys like blood tranfusion), as long as it's that of someone we know. But If the JW is the relative of someone we don't know (a stranger), then it's OK to blame them and hold them accountable. Is that about right?
• 

  smmcroberts

  But the element that struck me is the trend that it's OK to give a pass to an elderly JW for a lifetime of supporting an organization that practices cruel shunning and death (via policys like blood tranfusion), as long as it's that of someone we know. But If the JW is the relative of someone we don't know (a stranger), then it's OK to blame them and hold them accountable. Is that about right?

  There's a lot of truth in that. When we put a human face to the abstract concept it makes a difference. For instance, in another thread I expressed my empathy for a GB member that I knew.

  There is the concept of group-think wherein people go along with things they never would by themselves. Do they share in the blame for what the group does? Or can we just blame the group but not its members? Collectively it is blameworthy, but we are loathe to point to any one individual and assign them the blame. After all, many of us were once carried along by the same delusion, so we should have empathy for them; they are as we once were.

  Yes, there may be exceptions, but on the whole I think of them all as victims: even the GB members.

  I think there are times when it is not kind or appropriate to break the truth to someone. You can't assign an arbitrary age; it's on a case-by-case basis.

  Nothing would be served by telling a GB member on his deathbed that he had been living a lie. Well, maybe a cruel sense of revenge that we would later regret.

  In the overall scheme, blame is of little importance: change is what's important. If someone is past the point of being able to change, then there's little reason to make them aware of their blameworthiness.
• 

  botchtowersociety

  How old does someone have to get, to gain immunity for blood-guilt for being a part of JWs?

  I don't know the answer to that. Maybe it is better to not worry about assigning guilt for people a long time in the cult. That sort of righteous judgmentalism is something we've had programmed into our psyches from our time "inside", and it is a hard thing to shake off (especially for some particular assholes I happen to know).
• 

  talesin

  I haven't read the thread, just the OP.

  There is no such thing as 'blood guilt'. It is religious and political clap-trap.

  xo

  tal
• 

  talesin

  To elaborate ......

  If a person acts with negative intent, then they bear responsibility for what they do.

  A person who is in a mind-controlling cult, and acts from the best of intentions,,, well, are they guilty?

  Some things we inherently KNOW are wrong, like beating your children ... which the Watchtower encouraged .... those people may be guilty, because they were going against natural love for your children (as an example).

  But preaching? trying to be the best JW you can? I would think that is not something to feel guilty or ashamed about. Feel proud that you were able to change your thinking, and escape the cult.

  xo

  tal
• 

  kurtbethel

  The community bloodguilt is a Watchtower standard that they openly explain to members. Baptism is a clear unambiguous taking on of bloodguilt. I take a moderate view of immunity from bloodguilt, which is upon repenting of the baptism and making restitution to victims, one can be freed from bloodguilt.
• 

  Healthworker

  King Solomon

  What is the cut-off age after which someone doesn't share in the guilt of the Society and they earn immunity, a "free pass"? Is it 40? 60? 80? How old do they have to be to not be held responsible for the "crimes" they shared in as a member of this cult?

  Don't think there's a cut-off age! If you teach the young to skip education, prospone having kid until the new order and live from day to day only "trusting" in God, then you definitely should be corrected now matter how old you are. It's not okay to sacrifice the lives of our youth in order to keep the illusion alive among the elderly.

  Let's face the facts though! There are some good christians inside jw that see through the wts doctrine, caught up in a system! Also, there are some ignorant, happy, old-timers who are understanding and balanced not imposing the secterian teachings on the young (including the false blood doctrine). They may live their dream in peace. But for all others; they should most certainly be corrected. There's no excuse for people putting watchtower ideology above the simple and christian gospel of Jesus.

  Love from your brother, Healthworker
• 

  Phizzy

  King Solly, you wrote of "the trend to give a pass to an elderly JW......."

  I don't think we give a pass to them in the sense of we forgive them, or say they are not accountable, we just look at the mitigating circumstances and out of kindness refrain from spelling the whole thing out to someone who is shortly to die.

  This is an altruistic act, we get nothing out of staying silent, in fact we suffer the frustration of having to so because we are kind.

  What would you have us do ? Spoil their last days on earth by shattering their hopes and making them feel hopelessly guilty ?

  We are all accountable for having been in the group, how that account is called in and evaluated depends on how we have acted since leaving.
• 

  Honesty

  One Jehovah's Witness became outraged that the same question was asked here:

  http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-witness/TAAR6OTUMIEJ1C26V

  Can you believe that a JW could be so heartless?
• 

  King Solomon

  smmcroberts said:

  In the overall scheme, blame is of little importance: change is what's important. If someone is past the point of being able to change, then there's little reason to make them aware of their blameworthiness.

  Yup, focusing on 'ability to change' seems very relevant to the discussion.

  BTS Said:

  That sort of righteous judgmentalism is something we've had programmed into our psyches from our time "inside", and it is a hard thing to shake off (especially for some particular assholes I happen to know).

  Huh, knowing your strong belief in people accepting personal responsibility and rewards for their own actions, I'd have expected you to take a different position on this issue.

  So you say people SHOULD accept personal responsibility for their actions, but you don't actually expect them to face the consequences of those actions? Never-mind, that makes perfect sense in the context of "Too Big To Fail" banks, where they wanted to privatize "their" profits, but wanted to share (socialize) the losses, as the business world's implementation of having one's cake and eating it, too. I suppose that WOULD be perfectly consistent.

  Kurtbethel said:

  The community bloodguilt is a Watchtower standard that they openly explain to members.

  Yup, no doubt.

  After looking up the term "blood guilt", I realized it's a bit stronger than what I originally intended, as I was looking to express a sense of shared community guilt, which is a part of OT thinking: the "sins" (or actions) of an individual threatened not just them, but the entire community, the inhabitants of the Land of Israel. So much, that if Jews found a murder victim outside of the town and were unable to locate the perp, they offered a sacrifice to atone for the sin of murder so that the town wouldn't share in the blame.

  I'm just pointing out that the concept of "shared responsibility" is not foreign to JW's, being part-and-parcel of the exchatology, where the children pay for the sins of their parents, or someone who hears of wrongdoing of another shares in the sin if they don't tell the elders, etc.

  Phizzy said:

  This is an altruistic act, we get nothing out of staying silent, in fact we suffer the frustration of having to so because we are kind.

  What would you have us do ? Spoil their last days on earth by shattering their hopes and making them feel hopelessly guilty ?

  I see your point, but to play Devil's advocate, I would remind all that the same justification has been used to explain why war criminals should be forgiven for the past actions, and such claims generally rings as hallow for most people.

  There's larger issues, too about the fundamental fairness, or even an opportunity to set them as an example for OTHERS so as not repeat the same actions. So some preventative benefit may result.

  Besides, putting smmcrobert's point about the possibility for change aside for a moment (which IS a valid point, for the same reason you don't bother painting a house that's about to be demolished), the claim of letting someone off the hook at death seems to be built on the assumption that someone on death's door is more worthy of protection of their feelings as someone who has say, 10 years left to their expected life-span?

  That same type of thinking is reflected by expecting someone on death's door to somehow have some greater insight into what lies on their other side, or is somehow able to offer greater insight into the meaning of life, since they're about to lose theirs. It strikes me as a common (but fallacious) assumption.

  Honesty, that's an interesting find, as that questioner seemingly was inspired by this thread (they posted 40 minutes ago). They asked a slightly different question, tho:

  When a JW teenager commits suicide because their JW grandparents shunned them is there an age (such as them being 60, 70, 80 years old) in which the grandparents aren't held responsible by Jehovah for bloodguilt?

  Of course, JWs would answer, "what bloodguilt? God COMMANDS us to shun others, as the ultimate expression of love..."

  That IS the official party line, so the question only works if we assume the moral actor in question is NOT an active JW who takes comfort in JW exchatolgy, but someone who DOESN'T or CANNOT (DF/DA, or at least, someone who recognizes TTATT and can think for themselves).