Claire, knowing of my interest in Buddhism, recently purchased a book for me: Exploring karma & rebirth by Nagapriya (published by Windhorse http://www.windhorsepublications.com/
On page 5, in the introduction, the following paragraph made me sit up as I immediately thought about JWism:
"It is common to approach religious doctrines in the same way as we approach everyday statements about experience: we think they are either 'true' or 'not true'. We may think of them as 'mirrors of nature' that reflect the world back to us exactly as it is in some absolute sense. If we accept the doctrines, we tend to cling to them in what may even be an absolute kind of way. We tend to take on the whole package: if this is true then that is probably true too. We become a 'defender of the faith' to which we have subscribed and we may begin to experience criticism of it as a personal attack. We invest in the truth of the teachings. This can lead us to become dogmatic, defensive, and even aggressive to the point of suppressing or persecuting those who criticize us. At the back of our minds we perhaps sense that not everything we have taken on quite hangs together or makes sense, and this makes us still more rigid in our defence of it."
The author then goes on to write:
"But if a spiritual tradition has any substance, it shouldn't need defending and it will be able to withstand honest scrutiny. If it doesn't, we should probably look for something better."
I think Nagapriya is spot on. We can see how we used to be - and why JWs act as they do towards us now.
The difference is, we have put into practice honest scrutiny.
Thought I'd share,
Ian