Disturbance during Memorial 2016.

by Ben131895 53 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  steve2

  Listener, that is a false comparison. Jesus was depicted as the "Son of God". Besides, as far as the Gospels are concerned, he did not make a "habit" of turning up to throw out the moneychangers. He made his point and moved on. Some of these protesters regularly turn up at the JW memorials - although they may choose different kingdom halls or locations.

  Say what you like about the JWs, if they were doing something egregious in their meetings, I'd have a greater understanding of protesters; but "simply" conducting the evening meeting to their view of the memorial hardly constitutes justification for making a scene.
• 

  sparrowdown

  Partaking of wine being offered to you at an event you were invited to is hardly the crime of the century.

  In the grand scheme of acts of civil unrest this is paddling around in the kiddie pool.

  Jehovah's Witnesses need to get over themselves.
• 

  Listener

  You guys are right, it was wrong to use Jesus as an example.
  I do believe these guys (the unwitness and Parker) had every right to do this. They were lied to and denied the opportunity to partake as JWs. It was a peaceful statement.
• 

  pbrow

  Are we talking about the guy who stands up at the event he was invited to, drinks the wine that was passed to him, takes a sip, says a few words and then hands the glass back to the gentleman and then leaves? I will assume we are. He did nothing illegal. Clearly he was not welcome AFTER he made his speech, the speech that he left right after. He made a statement, hardly a protest and then left.

  Effectiveness aside, this man is not getting arrested because he did nothing to get arrested for. When the smiling chubby bastard held his arm up towards the door this man followed said chubby bastard's direction and left the hall.

  pbrow
• 

  Tenacious

  The only thing these disturbances do is get you a free ride to the nutty house with a thorazine drop.
  
• 

  MarkofCane

  Yes you are right nothing illegal was done and it was probably his right to make a statement and then leave. But if you are really trying to help others, this is a one time pop. Then all the negativity is heaped upon your motives and actions, so who benefits? The person creating the disturbance might of gotten something out of it but the rest are left in bewilderment and disgust.

  The availability and effectiveness to be able to reason with a person with hints and questions about there faith, now that's what the GB fears because its effective. Posting on the internet is effective its where it all happened for me. Commenting on a Facebook or Instagram post about the best life ever hashtag, that's where you give them a gem to ponder, "Effective". I read stuff on amazon reviews of all places and left thinking about what was said, "Effective." Creating a disturbance at a peaceful gathering only makes you look disturbed. Creative but not effective.

  
  
• 

  Pete Zahut

  Quietly taking a mouthful of wine that was offered would be enough of a statement for that occasion but standing up during a quiet somber religious ceremony and interrupting the speaker and the proceedings with a loud declaration and toast is not a cool thing to do. Not a crime but since we're discussing this occurrence, it was an obnoxious, inconsiderate, self serving and plain old tacky thing to do, in my book.
• 

  Tenacious

  I had not yet viewed the videos until now.

  Your actions are certainly commendable in the spirit of Paul's letter to the friends in Philippi as he wrote:

  "I want you to know, beloved, that what has happened to me has actually helped to spread the gospel, 13 so that it has become known throughout the whole imperial guard and to everyone else that my imprisonment is for Christ; 14 and most of the brothers and sisters, having been made confident in the Lord by my imprisonment, dare to speak the word with greater boldness and without fear." ~ Philippians 1:12-14

  
  
• 

  steve2

  No one on this thread has said he did anything illegal - why has that even been raised by those "defending" him?

  Again, the emphasis has been on effectiveness:

  The sole point of difference in views revolves around the issue of effectiveness.

  What he did was well within the law, was over and done in minutes, and, yes, was not offensive - but it had a high likelihood of feeding the Witnesses' love of negatively stereotying "opposers".

  From their perspective, he would have said and done nothing that would cause them to re-consider their beliefs and likely even convince them all the more they have the truth because he "singled" them out for attention.
• 

  pbrow

  Steve... must have got this post mixed up with another one. my bad.

  My perspective is that of a born in and really the only group in the kingdom hall that I care about. I was raised in a bubble where dissent was not tolerated or even seen. If someone had layed even one brick of dissent for me to see maybe it would not have taken me 30 years to get out. For all the bubble wrapped kids in that hall this was probably very strange but kids are curious until the curiousity is stomped out of them. Thats what jdubs do. They stomp curiousity of of children.

  Maybe this was the first brick for some or maybe it was the final brick in the wall but it can help people wake up. You are correct, it may reinforce stereotypes in the cow eyed adults but I dont care about them. (my mother, grandparents, brother, aunts and uncles are included in the cow eyed crowd) Born ins are fucked from the beginning because of cowardly people who dont question what they are told. Fuck those people. If this even planted a seed in one out of a million it was a net positive.

  pbrow