I'm not bitter. Now that I'm no longer a JW no one is hassling me and calling me "materialistic" for doing normal things like having a good job and my own home. I'm quite happy about this.
W
Board of bitterness
by 1009 165 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
1009
TD
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.But abstaining from blood, is not a medical advice. They believe (I believed) it was a divine law. So they consider it (religiously) wrong to use blood, whereas you have no religious objections.
Adamah stated earlier: " 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." Is it ethically wrong to misunderstand something? Is it ethically wrong to believe that what the Biblical commands on the subject of blood should be applied to the medical use as well? And if you believe that, is it ethically wrong to abstain from blood? And if you are a religious leader, is it ethically wrong to teach what you believe?
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?
Strict obedience, yes. But to who? The JW who doesn't buy a political party card: is that because they don't want to disappoint the the GB? The average JW probably doesn't even know their names. When they don't salute the flag: is that because they are afraid of the elders? Maybe in some cases, especially the ones who have some doubts. But they will not stand firm for long. The individual JW will endure hard times because of the conviction that it is God's will.
-
Knowsnothing
Adamah stated earlier: " 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." Is it ethically wrong to misunderstand something? Is it ethically wrong to believe that what the Biblical commands on the subject of blood should be applied to the medical use as well? And if you believe that, is it ethically wrong to abstain from blood? And if you are a religious leader, is it ethically wrong to teach what you believe?
Is it wrong to teach jihad? That if you blow yourself and others up for the cause of your religious movement, you will gain eternal life in heaven?
-
1009
Knowsnothing
Is it wrong to teach jihad? That if you blow yourself and others up for the cause of your religious movement, you will gain eternal life in heaven?OK, good point. I too believe it is wrong to murder another human being. So when is it wrong to teach a doctrine? Who is able to decide that?
Side question: Is it wrong if a country sends its youngster into war for the cause of oil to defend the population? Why is that commonly considered honorable? And where does that differ from Jihad? They too believe that they are fighting for a higher cause. Here in Colombia we have an annual 'cleaning' where drug addicts and pedophiles are murdered. It's unlawfull, but tolerated. Is that wrong?
-
Farkel
: Why are you such fierce opponents?
If you saw a pile of shit in your life and that pile of shit was toxic, would you:
Step around it and let the haz-mat people clean it up , who don't care how it got there?
Would you ignore it and just go on your way?
Would you do your best to make sure that pile of shit doesn't become another pile of shit later on which ruins people's lives?
I chose the latter. It has cost my lots of time, years of work and even freedom to do other things, but I still have chosen the latter.
Farkel
-
adamah
1009, earlier I believe you said you were an atheist/agnostic. That makes this easier, since you've likely realized there is no "superior moral lawgiver" and hence no ABSOLUTE standards of morality, no transcendent rules that determine right and wrong (and let's just set aside the silly notion that the book that endorses genocide, war crimes, slavery, misogyny, requires death penalty for adultery/being gay/picking up a pencil on the wrong day, etc. contains "higher" moral standards).
The place where many go wrong is by forgetting that the absense of ABSOLUTE moral standards implies that people are free to do whatever they want, AKA anarchy.Jehovah, Vishnu, Ahuru Mazda or not, there ARE mad-made laws that remain.
ALL morality is relative, not fixed in stone (changable), and as you've said, it's used to drive making laws, which largely are based on community standards: laws are an expression of community morals. Sometimes the community IS wrong, and the beauty of the Constitution is that it often protects the fundamental human rights of the minority FROM the majority, who'd vote for all kinds of laws if not was in place to check to will of the majority. Hence why higher aspirational ideals are encapsulated in controlling documents like Constitutions.
Now if someone believes in the Flying Spaghetti Monster and decides to EXCEED the laws based on those beliefs, then more power to them. HOWEVER, if they lose touch with reality and start to actually believe that their hypotheses ARE reality, AND they use their flawed beliefs as an excuse to VIOLATE the laws, then I've got a problem.
Just yesterday, someone posted a link to a current story of a Christian couple who relied on faith healing, and their child died as a result of not seeking medical care. After being punished for his death, they relied on faith healing again with a 2nd child, who ALSO died as a result of their refusal to seek care:
http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/crime/2013/08/08/ac-pkg-tuchman-faith-healing.cnn
Now from where I'm sitting, that's just insanity, letting their own children die due to THEIR own ignorance and blind hopes of what they WANT to be true. That's crossing a line.
And as someone who understands evolution, it's actually OK with me on THAT level (self-elimination of their offspring from the gene pool). However, the problem is they also believe in the "be fruitful and become many" policy, and have 7 OTHER children; they're seemingly trying to turn 'Idiocracy' into a prophetic movie. And from the ethical/moral standpoint, it's not OK to allow such practices to continue, since it's tantamount to child sacrifice; fundamentally inhuman, since condoning it robs us all of our basic moral decency, forcing us to look the other way.
Now, JWs do the same for blood policy; fortunately, courts are USUALLY able to step in to temporarily remove custody from the parents, since they're supposed to refuse to accept blood for their child, or be DFed. However, that "legal workaround" doesn't make the practice any less immoral, since it's a fundamentally flawed belief, based on another false belief.
1099 said:
But abstaining from blood, is not a medical advice. They believe (I believed) it was a divine law. So they consider it (religiously) wrong to use blood, whereas you have no religious objections.
I used to have an invisible friend when I was a child: then I grew up.
Delusional beliefs flying under the umbrella of practice of religion doesn't justify breaking the law, be it from child neglect or murder (and wouldn't it be a better World if someone reminded the Islamic sectarians (Shia/Sunni) of that fact, the ones who are tearing apart Syria right now after 100,000 deaths, both doing so in the "name" of Allah?).
Adamah stated earlier: " 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."
Is it ethically wrong to misunderstand something?
Ignorance is no excuse for violating a law; you can plead, "But your honor, I didn't KNOW it was illegal to do X", but it's likely going to fall on deaf ears.
The real World of criminal law doesn't operate on the Christian-based concept of "giving fair warning" before trial and punishment (eg Noah in the Flood account "preaching", or JW's warning everybody about upcoming Armageddon to give them due notice, etc); that's a concept from ancient Jewish law, where someone couldn't be found guilty of a crime UNLESS a fellow Jew reminded them that it was breaking the law.
Nowadays, if someone makes a decision that is contrary to the law of their land, it IS legally wrong, for WHATEVER reason they may have for doing so. Motives are factors that MAY be considered during the 'punishment' phase, but rarely during the 'guilt/innocence' phase (unless it's so compelling that it MUST be considered, eg not guilty by reason of insanity, etc).
While there may be higher-level ethical concerns where the law is on the wrong side of an issue (eg Jim Crow discrimination laws), then we're into the territory of discussing the moral considerations of whether civil disobedience (eg Thoreau, MLK) is justified, but that's a different ball of wax.
Is it ethically wrong to believe that what the Biblical commands on the subject of blood should be applied to the medical use as well?
As stated, people can BELIEVE whatever they like. The problem enters when people ACT based on their beliefs; they cannot ACT if it's against the law.
And if you believe that, is it ethically wrong to abstain from blood?
If a person is an adult of sound mind and body, then I personally don't have a problem with them making that decision for themselves, as I tend to lean towards saying that individuals should have the right to die whenever they want (assisted suicide), and for whatever reasons they want (be it due to their own stupidity or firm convictions in their deluded beliefs, or for practical reasons, eg they're terminal and facing a painful death, etc).
And if you are a religious leader, is it ethically wrong to teach what you believe?
If they KNOWINGLY are advising and supporting beliefs that they personally feel or know are FALSE, then they're ethically responsible for any resultant harm. Granted, I'm an atheist and know there's no punishment waiting them in Hell, etc, but the only "punishment" they face is a guilty conscience for engaging in the oldest abuse of power known to man: religious beliefs. It's not a crime, mind you, UNLESS they're actually violating laws (and religion enjoys freedoms to engage in actions that would not otherwise be allowed, eg committing suicide in a State where it is not legalized, under the banner of practicing one's religion by refusing blood).
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?
Strict obedience, yes. But to who? The JW who doesn't buy a political party card: is that because they don't want to disappoint the the GB? The average JW probably doesn't even know their names. When they don't salute the flag: is that because they are afraid of the elders? Maybe in some cases, especially the ones who have some doubts. But they will not stand firm for long. The individual JW will endure hard times because of the conviction that it is God's will.
The GB has a much-greater effect in controlling policy, but as you point out, they ALSO operate in an environment of facing DFing if they stray too far from the group. That's exactly why I referred to the collective guilt, the shared responsibility of ANYONE who's a member of the organization who supports it. By it's very structure, it is an authoritarian group where by the time someone gets appointed to the GB, they've played the "I'm imagining God" for so long it's second-nature: they may actually BELIEVE in Jehovah (or sociopaths who are actually closeted atheists; that's a scary scenario)!
While the ultimate responsibility for resultant harm and death CAN be diluted amongst many, that doesn't mean it disappears away into non-existence.
And of course, members have to actually ACCEPT (recognize) their moral responsibility for the actions of the GROUP, and that's not likely to happen anytime soon, since many are just like the Germans who felt they had ZERO responsibility for the war crimes committed by their Gov't, yet did nothing to "do the right thing" if they DID know about the genocidal actions of their leaders. THat's why high-control groups DISCOURAGE members to exercise their "flawed" moral senses: they're trying to DISCOURAGE them thinking and feeling, just trying to turn them into obedient FOLLOWERS.
It's truly insidious, and the worst part is many cannot who are in just can't see it, exactly because it IS so subtle and easily covered with denial.
Adam
-
DATA-DOG
OUTLAW!!
Morals are fluid. Wrong. You know that it is wrong to kill. Could you find yourself in a situation where you must kill? Maybe in extreme circumstances, but it is still wrong and there are consequences. Just talk to a soldier who has had to kill someone. You KNOW what is moral and what is not.
" Strict obedience, yes. But to who? The JW who doesn't buy a political party card: is that because they don't want to disappoint the the GB? The average JW probably doesn't even know their names. When they don't salute the flag: is that because they are afraid of the elders? Maybe in some cases, especially the ones who have some doubts. But they will not stand firm for long. The individual JW will endure hard times because of the conviction that it is God's will. "
Why do they believe something is God's will? They believe it because of the dishonesty of religious leaders.
-
Ucantnome
i don't feel that i am a fierce opponent.
i tell those who ask why i don't attend the hall the reason why. if someone wants to tell me something by coming to my house with the magazines i will discuss it with them. this has led in recent years to discussing Christ and his divinity and also reasons as to why I'm not concerned about world conditions and a discussion with an elder regarding the new understanding of the generation.
Bitter, i'm not suire that that is the right word for me. maybe on a monday morning. but normally im just disappointed. disappointed that im as old as i am and the end and paradise conditions with me playing with animals instead of working never materialized along with the fact that close relatives who i thought would probably not go to school grew up to die in middle age along with aged parents who are now in care.
I think with some people there is a difference. My father always i feel done what he wanted to do in life that included joining the witnesses and becoming an elder and giving it up and eventually leaving. i always felt that i done what i ought to do not what i wanted to do. and i think that is why i feel more disappointed than him.
-
Xanthippe
Strict obedience, yes. But to who? The JW who doesn't buy a political party card: is that because they don't want to disappoint the the GB? The average JW probably doesn't even know their names. When they don't salute the flag: is that because they are afraid of the elders? Maybe in some cases, especially the ones who have some doubts. But they will not stand firm for long.
I'm not sure where you're going with this thread 1009? Are you trying to defend the individual JWs as being basically good people whilst agreeing that the GB have become corrupt? I am sure most people on this board agree with that.
The individual JW will endure hard times because of the conviction that it is God's will.
Yes and that is what many of us would like to try and prevent especially those who have families and friends still in. They don't need to endure any more hard times. It's an illusion created by that organisation by
a) Working the members half to death and causing chronic illness and psychiatric problems.
b) Forcing the members, by the use of weird doctrines, to be no part of the world which gives them a persecution complex because no normal person can understand them.
We want to see an end to endurance in 'this wicked old system' and a return to joy and freedom and a love for life.
-
Knowsnothing
Side question: Is it wrong if a country sends its youngster into war for the cause of oil to defend the population? Why is that commonly considered honorable? And where does that differ from Jihad? They too believe that they are fighting for a higher cause. Here in Colombia we have an annual 'cleaning' where drug addicts and pedophiles are murdered. It's unlawfull, but tolerated. Is that wrong? - 1009
Point taken 1009. It's all relative and this world really is a case of 'might makes right'. There is nothing wrong with the world, everything is as should be, and you should simply accept it. We really have nothing much to discuss when we make it to this point.