Apostates - blood on their hands? (page 3)

iggy_the_fish

There is no "gospel according to apostacy", slimboy. You persist in slipping this idea into many of your posts, and it's annoying.

ig.

stevenyc

SBF
Your realy full of it on this topic!!!
My response to you is: WHAT ABOUT THEIR INVOLVMENT WITH THE UNITED NATIONS AS AN NGO

steve

There were reforms in the organisation in the early seventies, and things were getting better. Then Jonnson came along with his 607/1914 research, apostasy broke out, Watters left and wrote his pamphlets, Ray Franz and other were forced out, and the organisation went into a siege mentality. The Witnesses might be very different today, had the apostates not declared war on them in the early eighties.

slimboyfat

Diamondblue - of course I am still in, working my way up... did you not hear I want to make it onto the governing body someday?

diamondblue1974

The Witnesses might be very different today, had the apostates not declared war on them in the early eighties

granted it might be a different place but surely not for the better; what would you have expected those you mention on the inside to do...simply nothing?...ignore their conscience?...surely you are not suggesting that because they acted on their conscience they are bloodguilty??

DB74

slimboyfat

They did not have to become rabid apostates and make the Witnesses feel constantly under attack.

mrsjones5

daystar

So, what you're saying is that because dire mistakes were found first by people outside of the organization, it's their fault for the shakeup it caused within the organization.

It's like saying a person who finds out a person is engaging in worldly behavior is to blame for the fallout that occurs when that person is da'd or df'd.

Is this what you're saying?

itsallgoodnow

There were reforms in the organisation in the early seventies, and things were getting better. Then Jonnson came along with his 607/1914 research, apostasy broke out, Watters left and wrote his pamphlets, Ray Franz and other were forced out, and the organisation went into a siege mentality. The Witnesses might be very different today, had the apostates not declared war on them in the early eighties.

Oh, you mean like the ban on smoking? That was a really great reform. They were really starting to relax their authoritarianism with that one.

slimboyfat

My response to you is: WHAT ABOUT THEIR INVOLVMENT WITH THE UNITED NATIONS AS AN NGO

That is a great example that proves my point!

The leaders of the organisation were becoming more mellow, cooperating with worldly agencies for the first time. They did not want to upset their membership, so they did this slowly and under the radar.

Then came along the screaming apostates with The Guardian in tow, and then the organisation went into retreat, back into their shells, more authoritarian, more hardline,cover ups and all this carry on. If only the apostates had allowed the organisation to mellow naturally they would have stated their new open stance to the world in time. But apostates had to come along, announce it to the world, and spoil all that!

Apostates - blood on their hands?

Share this