UNITY vs CONFORMITY - discuss.

by disposable hero of hypocrisy 26 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  snare&racket

  Firstly, welcome to the forum.... and great name!

  I have friends who are muslims (shia and sunni), evangelical, catholic, protestant, buddhist.... and all will claim that they can believe what they want. Hell, I have even had JW's claim it.

  In some cases it is true. My muslim friend has come to accept evolution and has found a verse that he can construe to make it possible and he now ignores the ones that overtly contradict it. In my same year group is a muslim who denies evolution vehemently and believes that 6000 years ago humans were a few hundred feet tall (don't ask).

  The reality is, the muslims would defend each other for their religious identity, to the death. They see what they share in common over what they conflict on. That being said, they are shia muslims and are in serious conflict with the sunni muslims, some of which I am also friendly with. It is truly bizzare. but it is the same with all the other belief systems. If you look at JW's they claim concrete solidarity and unity, but having visited congs all over the world, the views on many things change wildly. In fact you can travel from one congregation to another next door and see a huge difference in atmosphere and to what is acceptable and what is not. Much comes down to the personality of the elders in the local hall. Even doctrines change in JW's by region. In Australia, a discussion on fossils and dinosaurs will lead to comments about demons burying them to test our faith, something I found truly shocking. Enough people said it and agreed that it was not just one persons opinion in one cong.

  An analogy that comes to mind for all these people is that of a mouse in a maze. A mouse in a maze will claim he has freedom, he can turn left or right. But in reality he is not free, he is restricted to the constructs of the maze, constructs and rstraints laid down by others. Real freedom allows left right, forwards, backwards, up, down, diagonal etc etc. Freedom is about perspective. A man imprisoned in a room for 20 years may feel free if allowed to walk in a yard For a few hours a week.

  Coming back to conformity and unity. These mice may be able to turn left or right, but they share the same maze, so they are in that sense united, but not in freedom. The punishment for apostacy or blasphemy in islam is death, apostacy including the desicion to leave the maze.

  As for the many sects of christianity including JW's, some are more sympathetic to personal freedoms than others, but in reality there is a shared framework or tolernces and beliefs, they all use the bible after all. Some will deny verses without a blink of an eye, declaring them simply wrong, some will die for that verse, just as one mouse turns left, another right. But a free man, in my opinion, doesn't even know the verse exists ;)

  snare
• 

  Ruby456

  welcome disposable hero of hypocrisy and in the spirit of your request to discuss your OP I'm gonna take up your points snare&racket

  I enjoyed reading your perspective and agree with most of what you say. I'd say, however, that the mouse and the prisoner are forced to conform by their constraints so they are examples of conformity rather than of unity - I think unity is different as it allows for diversity or at least for the potential for diversity and so for more freedom. In conformity an individual either has given up or realised that his choices are so very limited by external restraints that he is restricted to only one way of living. Whereas in the concept of unity an individual can know he has more freedom to disagree, he can come to know and realise more independence than a conforming person and because he has less constraints governing his life he has more choices to realise his potential what ever that is.

  I don't think anyone is completely free as we all live in tension with restraints - restraints which tend to ask us for conformity to rules and which then enable us to enjoy more security - a knock on effect is a level of freedom. We can even forget that we have given up a lot of freedom so that we can be secure. A religious person in contrast looks for freedom and gains it in a different way and this is what unites them - for example they all believe in expressing and realising their full potential eventually even if they call this the world of the spirit. Non religious persons do too but perhaps call it something else - the ones who struggle against conforming do anyway (for example non religious people may call it living one's dreams, following one's heart, staying in touch with nature or something else that makes one know that there is a lot more unmapped stuff). The sad thing about Jehovahs witnesses is that they are denied this freedom as all they have to look forward to is total conformity like the mouse and the prisoner.

  edit: disposable hero I hope this helps
• 

  disposable hero of hypocrisy

  Thanks for those replies, very deep, and most interesting. I'm trying to preempt discussions that can happen in the future. I know one of the arguments for jws is that "we're unified. No one else is as unified as us. We worship the same all over the world, and despite local differences (facial hair, sideburn length, multiple ear piercings for the ladies etc) in the DOCTRINAL side of things there is absolute unity." And we point the accusative finger at churches for splitting over the issue of women priests or homosexuality etc. But in my mind our unity is ENFORCED, we can't believe something differently to what were told to believe, but a better unity would be a unity in common purpose but all embracing in opinion. I don't know why I'm bothering to ramble on, I'm not sure I even believe in a god anymore anyway... Just preempting future discussions.... Dhoh
• 

  barry

  It is well known the more herarchical a religion is the more underlying difference there is. Look at the roman Catholic church where local beliefs are mingled with ancestor worship, Voodoo etc. I am a former SDA and even though the church tries very hard for members to conformthere tremendous differences as some SDAs don't believe in the trinity, some churches have women clergy, some have practicing homosexuals as members and are active in the church.

  The reason the witnesses seem to have unity is only because of there draconian policy of disfellowshiping and shunning. If these were taken away they would be like everyone else but with even more differences in there beliefs. The preoccupation on doctrine also feeds differences as people read the bible differently depending on background and prejudices.
• 

  jgnat

  I don't think that any community gathered for a common cause necessarily demands conformity, unity. There may be a particular set of tenets that new members subscribe to, but I believe in healthy community there are loose borders where individuality is also celebrated, and there is a free coming and going.

  I am inspired by the idea of a conflicting need in every human, for individuality and belonging. These ideas were presented to me by Jean Vanier in his book, "Becoming Human".

  Not every religion demands conformity in belief. Included in this are the Buddhists and the Muslims. Conformity in the Muslim community is in external acts, and following the five-fold way. Only one of these is related to belief: 1. There is only one God 2. Prayer 3. Fasting 4. Giving 5. Pilgrimage (Mecca). The rest are conformity in action.

  Christian denominations, by comparison, demand a conformity of belief, and their differences in belief and doctrine are the chief distinguishers. Despite their differences, most subscribe to the Nicene Creed, and most will pray with each other confident that they are praying to the same god.

  The Witnesses by comparison, do not have a short list of founding principles. Rather, they must keep up on current reading and believe everything they read. The closest I have come to finding those foundational principles are the hundred baptism questions, which include burning matters such as hygiene. Not only that, a certain conformity in action is required. A Witness is not a Witness unless she goes in to field service a certain number of hours every month.

  But such conformity of belief and action, does it equate to unity? Does it hold a candle to the early church? There's plenty evidence that the early church was not uniform in belief, yet there was love and trust. A common sharing and breaking of bread.
• 

  jgnat

  I find active Witnesses to share a common mis-trust. Such demands for conformity create strata, statuses. Pioneers are separated from publishers, and inactive are barely worth mentioning.
• 

  Ruby456

  dhoh

  But in my mind our unity is ENFORCED, we can't believe something differently to what were told to believe, but a better unity would be a unity in common purpose but all embracing in opinion. I don't know why I'm bothering to ramble on, I'm not sure I even believe in a god anymore anyway... Just preempting future discussions.... Dhoh

  I agree that unity is enforced and opinion is forced out. but then in forcing out opinion the GB put themselves in an awkward position - former truth becomes a lie. BTW do you have extracts from the walsh trial - didn't Fred Franz say something like this about former truth?

  unity of purpose would be a great thing and it would open the way for following an ethical path rather than a harshly repressive one.
• 

  snare&racket

  When I was leaving, a friends father was commuicating via his son. He was a presiding overseer, his message was that he didn't agree with all the doctrines or directives either, that it was nomal to feel that and that there was nowhere else to go. His mum admitted to believing evolution to likely be true when I brought it up and his dad and he (a M.S.) both admitted to using phrases like "he GB suggest..." or "The organisation has said we should..." whenerve they felt uncomrtable communicating doctrine etc they didn't agree with.

  My point is Disp-Hero, they are not united, you have 7 million people too scared to say how they really feel and what they truly believe. WT is an organisation where excommunication takes place if you have ANY independant beliefs or even thinking. You are not permitted to accept scientific fact and accept evolution. You may not bring up your concern that at the very first memorial, not one person was 'anointed'. You may not diagree with 607, there is no doubt in my mind that at least half of JW's disagree with the blood issue. The medical journals indicate that at least 20% of JW's accept blood in secret.

  They are not united, they are gagged.

  Ruby, I take what you say and totally agree, however I was reffering to freedom of thought and belief, a spiritual imprisonment, a belief system of constraint. Mouse A+B can live in mazes of the same design, i.e. they could both be catholics, but take different directions on some matters. But they are both united in sharing the same construct of belief. Whereas mice B +C have a different lay out to that of A+C, different religious restrictions.

  Evolutionary traits answer so many of our questions in life. Religion thrives on tribalism and xenaphobia, harwired traits that keep you alive on the plains of Africa. They make you feel safe, part of a crowd. The deeper to the centre you get the safer you feel, but the centre is reserved for the dominant members, far from the outskirts, the area of risk.

  The cost of such comfort and safety? Loyalty/confrmity to the dominant centre, the alpha males.

  Fred Phelps died, he saw his non believing grandaughter whilst he was dying a few weeks back, so 8 male members of the church formed a body and removed him from the church for being weak, they even removed him from his house which was based in the church building. Now they have attacked the woman we all associated with the WB Church his daughter, the 8 men have told her to be subdued as she is a woman, they are threatening her excommunication now too. It al plays out, just like a nature documentary.....

  If you want unity, give us loyalty, if not out you go alone... We have all experienced it, hence we came here looking to replace that need for a crowd heading in the same direction, as we pass through this time and space in our universe.
• 

  Ruby456

  was looking at extracts from the Walsh trial and noticed the enforced unity theme that you mention

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/131122/1/The-1954-Douglas-Walsh-Transcript-PDF#.Uy01dah_vh8

  snares&racket - interesting comment

  Evolutionary traits answer so many of our questions in life. Religion thrives on tribalism and xenaphobia, harwired traits that keep you alive on the plains of Africa. They make you feel safe, part of a crowd. The deeper to the centre you get the safer you feel, but the centre is reserved for the dominant members, far from the outskirts, the area of risk.

  The cost of such comfort and safety? Loyalty/confrmity to the dominant centre, the alpha males.

  what makes us feel safe is the fact that our borders are not porous and unfixed as they were in the scenario you descibe above. So of course it was safer in the middle and more dangerous on the outskirts. We have fixed borders that are defended by force. Unity within country is enforced to an extent so that unlike "the tribes of Africa" people who live near the borders can feel safe. It isn't just religion that thrives on tribalism and zenophobia - we all do to an extent and this is why we have have laws and policies to protect minorities and these are open projects.

  Similarly the tribal societies of Africa have imaginative and novel ways of dealing with and integrating strangers and dealing with friends and enemies and they have even in the distant past.

  AS for fear keeping people inside by force and fear - I don't think this is the case for most Jehovahs witnesses as my own investigations indicate that the majority want to be there and want to do the things Jehovahs witnesses do and believe. A small number are oppressed by the rules and beliefs and these are the ones I come here for and for whom enforced unity is harmful.

  edit: S&R I'm guessing you painted your pictures in a hurry with some quick brush strokes and hoped it would suffice. Well I have done the same and would be happy to engage in a longer chat with you but it may lead us far from this topic so it may be a good idea to start another thread.
• 

  Ruby456

  getting back on topic and following on from above but leaving Africa out of it (S&R did you know that Africa only needs .60 earths to sustain it into the future whilst the US needs five earths, tiny Britian needs 3. So lets not talk about Africa as that is off topic)

  what I'd like to focus on is differences in how unity is achieved outside of Jehovhas witnesses and how it is achieved within. As S&R said Jehovahs witnesses are basically gagged - I agree with him but my argument is that although I agree with him most Jehovahs witnesses want it this way.

  Unity in a democratic country is achieved via voting. Okay there is conflict and endless debate but this is not something to avoid as conflict and debate enables inequalities in power and resources to be addressed. For example the problem for Jehovahs witnesses is that children suffer the same extreme penalties that are meted out to adults. No one can take issue with such policies because of the strict JW adherence to avoiding conflict to keep unity. The disharmony they say they want to avoid and which they say they don't have is kept internal within the child, within the family. Can this be said to be unity?