Board of bitterness

by 1009 165 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  DATA-DOG

  Miss Fit,

  Troll spotting is a challenge. Mistakes are made. A troll is not someone who just fails to agree with me or anyone else. A troll is someone with an agenda of simply stating thier own view, to the exclusion of all others. So they don't come here to "honestly" discuss anything. They are closed minded people who are currently unwilling or unable to be objective, or they know they are wrong, but benefit in some way from their current beliefs. This could be a monetary benefit, or an ego thing. You know that scripture that says, " As the palate tests food,, the ears test words.." something like that. That's how to spot a Troll. Something will be off, the words will set off an alarm. Your "truth" sense will activate. Something just doesn't seem right. Sooner or later, no matter how smart the troll thinks he/she is, they will be discovered.

  So far from lableling people as Trolls because of being "close minded", our ability to spot a Troll is directly related to our open-mindedness, and strong sense of what is morally correct. Anyone can come on here and spout information, but sooner or later something morally important comes up. That is when the Troll fails. The more objective you can be, the better you will get at spotting a Troll. This forum has many experts in the study of Trolls. This probably deserves it's own thread.
• 

  adamah

  TD said:

  I understand where you're coming from, but I'm just talking about JW writers taking unfair advantage of the ambiguity in language. There's nothing wrong with the NWT's rendering of Acts 15:29. Literal translations are closest to the original text, but the result is sometimes awkward or incomplete English and that is what is at work here.

  Yeah, I see what you're saying: perhaps I should've used clearer wording (since "just as" wrongly implies a false equivalence between your example and mine).

  My broader point was that the eisegesis in Acts rests upon a foundation of their far-greater misunderstanding of Genesis 9, which is based on a mistranslation which resulted from confusing a blessing with an obligation (which I discussed in the blog article).

  So if they mistranslate the very foundation upon which the prohibition against blood is built (i.e. if the reader accepted their flawed presupposition from Genesis), then it becomes all that much easier to engage in later minor scripture-twisting in Acts (where 'abstain' is a "weasel word", vague in meaning to allow for such stretched interpretations).

  Datadog said:

  Troll spotting is a challenge. Mistakes are made. A troll is not someone who just fails to agree with me or anyone else. A troll is someone with an agenda of simply stating thier own view, to the exclusion of all others. So they don't come here to "honestly" discuss anything. They are closed minded people who are currently unwilling or unable to be objective, or they know they are wrong, but benefit in some way from their current beliefs.

  The problem is, JWs are KNOWN to be close-minded: that's the very defense mechanism recommended for use by JWs! "Guard your heart" and all that.... How do you discern the difference?

  In fact, if active JWs are here against the advice of the GB, I'd say it's safe to assume if someone's posting here, they're seeking answers (whether they admit it or not is another matter). They're told they SHOULDN'T be on the internet doing independent research, and it's not hard to imagine they might engage in a bit of "preaching work" while here to alleviate a guilty conscience and justify their presence, in their own mind or even to others if caught (rationalizing it as their battling with apostates to defend "Mother").

  Heck, even if they're here "trolling", it's no threat to anyone if they DO spout, since it allows practice to hone arguments and delivery to defend TTATT.

  (I'm an atheist, but I'd like to think I'm open-minded, and am willing to pray to God and become a JW, if only someone would "show me the light (evidence)"!)

  Does it really matter WHY people post (unless it gets to the point of spamming; but even that actually sends a powerful message in itself about JWs)? I'd think we do a greater disservice to ourselves when assuming nefarious motives in others, rather than seeing what they have to give. In fact, that prejudice is part of the GREAT LIE that JWs commit by labelling all others as "Worldly".

  JW "Trolls" are just as able to learn the TTATT as anyone else, and have the control over their own lives to gain; it's not really about logic, as much as being emotionally-prepared to learn and accept TTATT.

  IMO,

  Adam
• 

  1009

  TD
  This was the original argument against transfusion. (i.e. That it nourished the body like food) When that argument failed, JW's had a clear choice to either retract it and admit they were wrong and didn't really understand what a blood transfusion was for OR continue to teach the doctrine using less than honest means. They chose the latter.
  
  1009, if you're still reading, there is nothing bitter about pointing this out.

  Hi TD,

  Still reading, not much time to respond though. Indeed, I didn't note any bitterness in your post.

  Miss.Fit
  1009 - It must be hard to understand when you dont share the same experiences. Keep an open mind. The more you read the more you will see how similar these experiences are.
  
  Except for the lying, two faced Elder dad who molested my sisters and beat us at home, I'm ?sure the JWs are nice an d loving. What did you get dfd for? Do you think it was worse than what he did? Does that seem fair?

  Hi Miss.Fit,

  Thank you. I read and learn. What a terrible dad you had. I left me wife and got DF after having a new relation. I cannot judge if that is more or less worse than what your father did. You ask me if it is fair that I got DF and he didn't? Maybe not. But I don't think that DF isn't about being fair, it is not a punishment. By DF'ing me they said: we don't want you anymore. Which was fine, because I allready lost my faith in God, I could finally enjoy my freedom and I was tired of the apathy and dumbness amongst JW. So, I saw it as a blessing, not as a punishment. I don't know of DF'ing your father would have helped you and your sisters. Maybe it would even have worsened the situation. Also: DF is religious measure, not to protect your family.
• 

  Bungi Bill

  A "Board of Bitterness"?

  My experience as a JW, together with what I have seen of other religious groups, has left me extremely distrustful of religion in any of its forms.

  I do not take kindly to anybody that has caused me harm, and the JW religion has wrought me harm in various ways. It does make me feel better to, at times, vent my spleen on them by using a few unkind expressions with which to describe my feelings. If some like to call that "bitterness", then so be it!

  Bill.
• 

  1009

  TD
  Ethics 101: Manipulate someone into doing something morally wrong regardless of whether it be through inducement or coercion and you are guilty too. Their agency does not diminish your responsibilitly one whit.
  
  A hallmark of JW's and kindred groups is a rules based system of ethics and a resultant fascile grasp of personal responsibility. Are you sure you've truly left this group mentally?

  Hi TD,

  But moral is fluid. What you consider morally wrong, is morally right in another culture. Who finally defines what is right or wrong? In our society moral is more or less defined by what the mayority prefers. Mostly influinced by (inter alia) history and the example of charismatic leaders. The WTG point for their system of ethics to their understanding of the Bible. And because people have the right of freedom, they can. And JW submit themselves to that system. Now, you should consider that the leaders are subject to peer pressure, maybe even more than regular JW because of their prominent position. So the leaders will on their turn submit themselves to the group. Probably not in every aspect, because they most show some leadership. But the changes they introduce, will hardly cause any uproar.

  So practically: the GB cannot change the blood doctrine. Any GB member that will try to change the doctrine, will be removed and replaced by a member that does reflect the historical system of ethics that the group as a whole excepts. So, sure, they are guilty according to your moral. But they are trapped too.

  adamah
  I can point out MANY examples of ex-JWs who say they would THANK the elders for DFing them, as it ultimately allowed them to cut the umbilical cord wrapped around their neck which kept them from breathing on their own, and allowed them to free their minds from the cult (partly via participation in discussion forums such as this). Some would look back and say it was the best thing that ever happened, since it taught them a valuable life lesson ("that which doesn't kill us makes us stronger").
  
  There's an old adage from customer service that customers who are unhappy with some service will complain loudly to ten others, whereas the larger silent minority of 'satisfied customers' won't talk about their happy experience to only one or two; it's an asymmetrical response, since it's human nature that people like to complain more than praise. So that's going to bias the appearance of ANY forum, since those who want/need to vent will speak out moreso than the others (like 1099). [..]
  
  The problem though, is that a 'religion' is comprised of people who share a certain flawed BELIEF. You cannot punish a CONCEPT, but only the individuals who ACT on that flawed belief. So the key is individuals must accept their responsibility for the harm inflicted as a result of their PARTICIPATION in an organization that shares the belief, EVEN IF they weren't directly involved in the incident.
  
  Few are willing to do the mental work required to see that level of shared responsibility, since they're paradoxically morally-handicapped by accepting that ALL morality comes from God, and He cannot do ANY wrong. It's simply an excuse to get away with harming others, and blaming it on their loyalty to God.
  
  The appeal for action is based on the ULTIMATE appeal to authority ever devised (an appeal to God's authority, ie "God wants me to do X, so I will"), and the BLAME for any resultant harm is ALSO put on God's shoulders ("I was only doing God's Will"). It's that TOTAL externalization that makes religion so ripe for manipulating others, since the one who TELLS YOU what God wants is able to control the followers as if they're marionettes.

  hi adamah,

  Thank you. That's nicely worded. I agree with every word you said.
• 

  Bungi Bill

  I don't know that "what is moral is fluid". I tend to agree with the observations of Stephen Covey in his Seven Habits of Highly Effective People , that there are basic moral principles which are common to all the world's major and enduring religions.

  Moreover, you don't need anybody (a religion or whatever) to tell you what these are:

  - rather just imagine for yourself what the world would be like if the opposite were to prevail.

  By the way, 1009, thanks for starting this thread. While some have reacted angrily (and initially, you pressed a few of my buttons, too!), I think that you have demonstrated that we can discuss such matters without hurting each other!

  Bill.
• 

  1009

  Bungi Bill
  By the way, 1009, thanks for starting this thread. While some have reacted angrily (and initially, you pressed a few of my buttons, too!), I think that you have demonstrated that we can discuss such matters without hurting each other!

  Hi Bill,

  Thank you. I learned the last days I should choose my words more carefully. I recognize now that my opening was too provocative. I'm sorry for that. I may have had a pretty good time as a JW, but a lot of visitors here have serious wounds. I should take that into consideration before posting.
• 

  Frazzled UBM

  I agree we need to be wary of moral relativism. I think one area of agreement with JWs is the importance of the biblical principles of 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you'. This is fundamental to Judeo-Christian ethics and ethical principles morfe broacly. Also it created a measure of security in society because it suppressed man's innate self-interest and helped civilization to reduce conflict and work together to achieve mutual goals and intellectual development and progress.
• 

  TD

  1009

  But moral is fluid. What you consider morally wrong, is morally right in another culture.

  There is some cultural fluidity in what is considered moral conduct, but there is considerable unanimity on big things like wrongful death.

  I think that observation is neither here nor there as far as JW's are concerned though. The leaders and policy makers in the JW faith operate very much within the Western Judeo-Christian framework and clearly recognize concepts from Jewish law like, 'bloodguilt'. I'm sure in your time spent as a JW, you heard that term many times. It's a broad term that includes any and all secondary and contributory causes of wrongful death.

  If you hire someone to kill your spouse, you're just as bloodguilty as if you pulled the trigger yourself. If you fail to provide adequete safeguards for dangerous conditions like fall hazards, and someone falls to their death, you're still bloodguilty even though you didn't actually push them. If you fail to warn someone who's endangering their life out of ignorance, you're bloodguilty if they die. If you as a layperson give bad medical advice and someone dies as a result, you're bloodguilty.

  Ethics is the formal language of moralilty and it actually has a lot to say when it comes to the life and health of other people. Even if all you're doing is writing a fluffy article in a trendy health magazine about the latest weight loss regimen, you still have to be very careful to say, "Always consult with your physician before starting any diet or exercise program." If you were to say, "Don't listen to your physician, listen to me instead" you will very likely wind up in jail. And that is the essence of what JW's have said about transfusion medicine for many years.

  It should not be too much to ask to expect JW's to be true to their own system of morality. And what they've done vis-à-vis the blood doctrine certainly falls under the umbrella of bloodguilt as they've defined it. They haven't taught it purely as a matter of faith; they've taught it as a matter of good medicine and superior healthcare. Most JW's have such a distorted view as a result that they would argue with you over whether anyone really dies for lack of blood, which is absurd because it amounts to a claim that its impossible to bleed to death.

  They've also said certain preparations and procedures were wrong and that parents of sick children should refuse them and then they've reversed themselves a few years later. This happened with gamma globulin and post-exposure vaccines and it happened with the clotting factors for bleeding disorders.

  Now, you should consider that the leaders are subject to peer pressure, maybe even more than regular JW because of their prominent position.

  I couldn't tell you what the current politics of the JW leaders and policy makers are, but it's pretty much common knowledge among observers of JW's that their governing body was acrimoniously divided on the blood doctrine for years. It takes a 2/3 majority vote to make a significant policy change, so a simple majority would not have been enough.

  But again, I think that's beside the point. Jehovah's Witnesses teach strict obedience without compromise. They are expected to die fairly horrible deaths rather than buy a political party card, salute a flag, etc. Peer pressure hardly compares to a concentration campe does it? If Jehovah's Witnesses cannot establish an equivlancy between the consumption of blood and the transfusion of blood, then they need to quit teaching it as a core doctrine even if that is difficult. Again it should not be too much to ask to expect the leaders to live up to the same standard that they expect of the flock.
• 

  OUTLAW

  Hi TD,

  But moral is fluid. What you consider morally wrong, is morally right in another culture.

  Who finally defines what is right or wrong?..

  We Needed the Corn!..

  

  We Needed the Advertising!..

  

  ...............................OUTLAW