"If we are going to tarnish all elders with the same brush, are we no worse than the dubs who tarnish all of us as apostates? "
"Therefore my view still stands after giving careful consideration to all the replies, if some of us are going to put all elders into the same category as unjust men who can think for themselves then that is an amoral act on our part."
Yet you felt quite comfortable tarnishing them all with the same brush in your original post:
There is an inference that these ones ( elders ) can think for themselves, they cannot.
Lets be honest and without fear of contradiction the majority of Elders are scared shitless of loosing their coveted position,
These men cant think for themselves, they are not allowed to.
Well if that isnt tarnishing the majority with the same brush then what is? A lot of them do and CAN think for themselves and still choose the Society regime.
Why cause a stink up here just because some do not hold to your veiw. You still sound very much like an elder in this later post. The first one I could respect, it was your expressed opinion, the last post gives no consideration for any one elses veiw except your own. To disagree with you would mean we are all like dubs, we cant tarnish the elders but you can. We cant disagree with you or we are like dubs but you can disagree with us and still see yourself as the one who still has the superior opinion.
Therefore my view still stands after giving careful consideration to all the replies
Next time after your careful consideration of all the replies you may want to give a considered response! With posts such as the last it is clear that you could be proud of being a "high profile media spokesman" in the JW world but not in the freethinking world
Unfortunatley you tend to reason the same way the society does. Remember how it used a very weak case in the response to Dateline or Panorama? "Lets say a 16 year old has sex with a 15 year old, that is considered child abuse" They used that example to try and overshadow their guilt and unreasonableness, now take your example:
Why? Take for example Bro Simpleton. Raised in the JW faith parents taught him at home, he pioneered as a teenager, left for bethel at the age of 21 appointed as an elder at 28 assigned to a congregation. Bro simpleton has had no outside influence what so ever all his life, totally cocooned in the faith the epitome of a loving elder.
Why not instead take for example Brother Simpleton who was raised in the faith and had no outside influence YET still resigned his position because his loving heart could clearly see the abuse of the other ignorant elders who thought they were doing gods will?
There are many elders who have left that were raised in it and didnt have outside influences. The fallacy here is assuming that it takes "Outside influences" for those type of elders to wake up, in reality it takes nothing more than a look around on the inside to see how bad things can get when a few men are given authority over the flock. Being on the inside and overlooking the abuse doesnt merit the respect of having a loving heart, its not a loving heart that can overlook or partake in the abuses, its a hardened heart.
Have I slammed all the elders? If I have I didnt intend too, but I do still have more respect for an elder that says "I am wrong" than for those who try to save face by blaming the GB for all their wrongs. Dont you?
Brummie