Hypocrisy of the First Order by JWs

by AlanF 24 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • AlanF
    AlanF

    Jehovah's Witnesses are known for their hypocrisy and double standards when it comes to how they treat others and how they want to be treated by others. Nowhere is this more evident than when they disfellowship critics for opening their mouths, but turn around and demand full freedom of expression from governments.

    Another area is in discussion boards. Any ex-JW who has tried to get on a debate-oriented DB intended mainly for Dubs knows that he'll usually be denied membership if the Dubs find out he's an ex-JW. Clearly they don't want to debate anything with knowledgeable critics.

    Below is an example of a post from a JW-oriented email list (everyone except ex-JW critics is invited to participate) where this hypocrisy is illustrated. Seems that two JWs, Paul and Heinz, were deleted from a trinitarian-biased email list called "WhichVersion" for being, among other things, intransigent JWs. The email list on which the JW complainer posted this explicitly excludes ex-JWs, yet he complains that removing the two JWs from the other list was a "bogus action of cowardly behaviour". Note especially the complaint at the end, about "honest debate".

    AlanF

    *======*======*======*======*======*======*======*======*======*

    --- In XXX, Schmuel <schmuel@e...> wrote:
    > Schmuel
    > You are rewriting what I said... read my post again. You got
    kicked off for being deceptive
    > and uncooperative in determining your measure, NOT for raising that
    question.


    Having spoken to a friend who is still on the whichversion list I was
    able to obtain a copy of the post where it was announced that Heinze
    and paul had been removed. I'm not going to include the quote that
    the groups founder used from an ex-witness, but I think by reading
    this we will see that Schmuel is not being fully honest and truthful
    as to why Heinze and paul were kicked off.

    "From: "The Shue Crew" <theshuecrew@c...>
    Date: Tue Oct 7, 2003 6:58 am
    Subject: Attention All Members

    Members,

    After some consideration and thought Will and I have decided it to be
    in the best interest of the club to remove Paul and Heinz from our
    membership. They have confessed that they are members of a sect that
    denies the Deity of our Lord Jesus Christ. With this fact being known
    discussing 'which version' is correct with them is a waste of time.
    There are other more pressing issues that need to be addressed with
    them. However, this is not the club to do that.

    If you have ever engaged a JW in debate before you know how difficult
    a task it can be. No matter how indefensible your argument is (to
    everyone else) they typically don't see it" And then in a reply to a member who agreed with this bogus action of
    cowardly behaviour this same founder wrote:


    "From: "The Shue Crew" <theshuecrew@c...>
    Date: Sat Oct 11, 2003 11:05 am
    Subject: Re: [Which Version] Re: Re: Attention All Members

    No problem Diane. One reason I removed them is because once everyone
    knows they are JWs then the whole discussion shifts to (usually)
    their denial of the Godship of Jesus Christ. While I would love to
    discuss this with both of them it has a tendency to wreck a whole
    club. We just felt it best to remove them."

    It's clear why they were kicked off and it has nothing to do with
    what you claimed, but because of a serious bias against open and
    honest debate by those who run whichversion. I understand they kick
    off those who disagree with them on a constant basis. What kind of
    debate can they hope to have that way?

    *======*======*======*======*======*======*======*======*======*

  • Room 215
    Room 215

    Alan, fascinating; but your type is so small as to be virtually illegible. Can it be re-formatted?

  • Oxnard Hamster
    Oxnard Hamster

    What I never understood is if they are so confident they have the truth, then why are they so anal retentive about not letting other people with different ideas speak?

    By the way Alan, it's good to see you again man. :)

  • hillary_step
    hillary_step

    Alan,

    The email list on which the JW complainer posted this explicitly excludes ex-JWs, yet he complains that removing the two JWs from the other list was a "bogus action of cowardly behaviour". Note especially the complaint at the end, about "honest debate".

    When JW's think they have a chance to win a debate, they view it a a neccessary right to 'preach the Good News of the Kingdom'. Nothing will stop them achieving this end, as they are doing God's work, Gods Will, under the power of God's Spirit.

    When JW's think that they will lose a debate, or become affected negatively by things that they might learn during one, then they obey their GB Master's to flee from the 'Devil'. After all why would we want to invite the 'Devil' into our lives?

    I have lost count with the number of times I have challenged any active JW's reading this Board, and I know that many do, to inform me either in private or public debate of just two prophetic interpretations of Scripture that are unique to the WTS that the Governing Body Of Jehovah's Witnesses has actually got correct.

    The ongoing silence speaks for itself - HS

  • amac
    amac

    HS,

    That's a great challenge. I'll have to remember that question next time I get into a discussion with one of my friends who are still believing JWs.

    AlanF,

    That is one of the most frustrating things about having family and friends that are still JWs. The ex-JW tolerates the fact that their family and friends thinks different than they do, but it doesn't work the other way around.

  • mizpah
    mizpah

    I guess it proves the old expression of "what goes around, comes around." Jehovah's Witnesses are not the only ones trying to insulate themselves from the critics. Many fundamentalists have the same mind-set.

    But in this case, I'm sure the two Jehovah's Witnesses felt that they were unfairly discriminated against for holding different views. And they probably protest the deletion of their names from the posting as unfair and unchristian. No matter that they do the same on their sites. Freedom of expression in the Watchtower Society only means that you are free to praise the organization. No criticism will be tolerated.

  • minimus
    minimus

    JW's are taught NOT to debate. If a Witness tries to help another with the "truth" and even use the support of the "slave" and the publications and STILL a person refuses to accept "the truth", then debating is fruitless.........My question is ,"WHY do JW's get on these boards when they KNOW it's against the rules?"

  • Room 215
    Room 215

    Yet they go from door to door, throwing down the gauntlet, urging the public to summon up the courage to reappraise their beliefs, in effect telling them that their religion is false and challenging them to prove otherwise; yet refuse to submit to an open and honest debate in public forum.... and see no inconsistency any of this.

    Then too, the current crop of JWs is far less able to defend their doctines than just 20 ro 30 years ago; they have to count on the householder's ignorance to have any chance of success.. And deep down in their heart of hearts, I believe lots of JWs know many, if not most of their beliefs cannot withstand objective scrutiny.

  • simplesally
    simplesally

    Did I read that wrong?? It seems Paul and Heinz were kicked off for BEING Jehovah's Witnesses. The other club members seem to believe in the Deity of the Lord (Jesus is God).



  • hillary_step
    hillary_step

    Minimus,

    My question is ,"WHY do JW's get on these boards when they KNOW it's against the rules?"

    I suspect for the same reason that many of us did while we were still JW's. Curiosity, a feeling that something is not quite right with WTS dogma, dissappointment with internal treatment, recently disfellowshipped and wondering.etc. etc.

    Best regards - HS

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit