by Bangalore 10 Replies latest jw friends
Here is a JW apologist's viewpoint.
http://defendingjehovahswitnesses.blogspot.com/2013/05/what-should-be-attitude-toward-opposers.html
Bangalore
From the link...
" If I wanted to find the truth about Nissan I certainly would avoid reviews by Ford, Chevy and any reviewer who had a profit motive for knocking on Nissan!!"
I wouldn't trust to find out the truth about Nissan from Nissan either as they are obviously biased and likely to exagerate the good points and either gloss over or ignore the bad. You'd want your review from someone who is knowledgable and completely independant from all the car manufacturers...
Really poor comparison since most apostates are not religious leaders in any shape or form. Comparing apples with oranges.
I would never buy a car if the dealer said i wasn't allowed to read bad reviews, ever own a different car, ever complain about the car even though they admit it has flaws, if someone in my family was to get another car, they are to be outcast.... Etc etc etc
-
That claptrap is precisely the point of the cartoon titled No! And, NO!!! at: http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com/2013/05/no-and-no.html
I don’t know how to make it simpler. Even a near brain-dead novice should realize this lunacy when transfused to another setting.
Marvin Shilmer
-
The same blog says this:
“Jehovah's Witnesses do not consume, donate or transfuse blood,…”—(At: http://defendingjehovahswitnesses.blogspot.com/2012/11/why-do-jehovahs-witnesses-abstain-from.html
Right out of the box we have a blatant lie from that author.
- Jehovah’s Witnesses can and do consume blood products rendered from the donated and stored blood supply.—(See Plasma, Cryoprecipitate and Cryosupernatant at: http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com/2010/01/plasma-cryoprecipitate-and.html
- Jehovah’s Witnesses can donate blood to have blood products rendered from it for transfusion to other Jehovah’s Witnesses.—(See Watchtower letter to Cliffe Roche dated July 30, 2001 available at: Jehovah’s Witnesses can donate bloodhttp://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com/2012/03/jehovahs-witnesses-can-donate-blood.html
- Jehovah’s Witnesses do accept transfusion of even whole blood so long as it’s autologous and part of a “current therapy”.—(See The Watchtower, October 15, 2000, p. 31 available at: Autologous Blood Transfusion — Jehovah’s Witnesseshttp://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com/2011/09/autologous-blood-transfusion-jehovahs.html
Marvin Shilmer
Some counter-apologetics:
SNARE&RACKET already kind of covered this, but I'll give it a shot, too. The "Nissan" argument is really just a straw man. First, it assumes there is some sort of "profit motive" (and we'll come back to that idea shortly). A better correlate would be someone looking for a new car and perhaps Googling "Nissan". Where would they find the most unbiased information on Nissan products? The Nissan website? I know when I'm shopping for anything I like to read customer reviews, whether good or bad. I usually throw out the lowest rated reviews (folks who are just sour grapes over some minor issues) and the highest rated reviews (people who are gaga over any given product). The "truth" of the matter is usually somewhere in the middle. And imagine telling your Nissan dealer that you would like to go home and google Nissan and him saying, "No! No! You must only get information from nissan.com!" That would certainly raise some red flags.
Something else that raised a "red flag" in this blog was the quote from Lonnie D. Kliever. According to Wikipedia, Kliever seems pretty legit: considered an expert on cults and "new religious movements", he was highly critical of the government's assault on the Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas.
Then I found a copy of the paper he wrote and that was quoted in the blog, Apostates and New Religious Movements. What he writes on page 2 of the paper is quite quite revealing, and pretty much sets the tone of the paper as one biased towards new religious movements:
"I have been asked by the Church of Scientology to give my expert opinion on two broad issues: (1) The incidence of apostasy in new religious movements and (2) The reliability of apostate accounts of their former religious beliefs and practices."
Hmmmmmm. . . So who has the "profit motive" in this scenario?
Overall, I found the piece to be largely pro-cult, live-and-let-live, it's-the-victim's-fault-for-believing-this-bullshit-in-the-first-place propaganda. There are some fairly well articulated passages, though:
"The apostate should not be accepted uncritically [italics his] by the mass media, the scholarly community, the legal system, or governmental agencies as a reliable source of information about new religious movements."
I think he's right here. I felt the same way when I started my search for TTATT. There were some apostate sources I steered clear from (I won't name names but I think you know the types) and there were others who were credible (or pretty much had all of REALITY on their side, e.g. JWFACTS).
What comes out in the piece is that yes, the media likes a good story, and certain apostates will "embellish" their experience in whatever church for the shock value. But I would argue (and he admits to some extent) that a vast majority of apostates are not in it to shock, but to inform. Also, the article is (as the name suggests) targeting the idea of apostates being used in the media and in courts, not merely for the anecdotal insight they might give the average person on the inner workings of an NRM.
Unfortunately, though, he ends the piece with the bit quoted in the blog, and it's pretty clear there's a bias for NRM's at the very least in a let's-not-judge sort of way.
Want to read it yourself? Just google "The Reliability of Apostate Testimony About New Religious Movements"
Wait a minute, I thought witnesses were not allowed to have their own websites defending their beliefs. Does the SLAVE approve of this?
Any JWs that have converted from other religions are also apostates. The ragazines regularly feature the stories of dubs that have apostatized from other religions to become JWs. WT litteratrash routinely bashes the beliefs and practices of other religions. What gives JWs the right to shove their apostate material in the faces of their neighbors on a Saturday morning? And then WT turns around and declares that JWs must never read anything that might be critical of the JW religion?
Thank you Marvin for those articles ,and of course all others who challenge Jehovahs Witness theology, otherwise we would all be still captives of a concept
smiddy
From the apologist blogpost:
" It is God Himself who commands us ... "
Isn't that a line from "The Exorcist"?
