im starting a new thread because its time i left the bergman discussion.
i would like to address some comments made by ahhah, however, comments which have given me reason to look deep into myself.. even then, i wonder how objective a person could ever be after having had part of their life taken from them by a cult association.
on the other hand, who else (other than an ex-jw) would ever care enough to work as tirelessly as he seems to have in attempting to document the potential harm of this religion (biased as it may be).
Carmel,
It is obviously not about name calling. It is about an honest warning of the dangers, regardless of what you choose to call it. It is also about assisting those who have been victims to recognize why, and to let go of any guilt for leaving. The guilt is one of the control mechanisms used to keep people from leaving.
Why is that I must actually state the obvious?
Edited by - AhHah on 9 November 2000 17:43:17
im starting a new thread because its time i left the bergman discussion.
i would like to address some comments made by ahhah, however, comments which have given me reason to look deep into myself.. even then, i wonder how objective a person could ever be after having had part of their life taken from them by a cult association.
on the other hand, who else (other than an ex-jw) would ever care enough to work as tirelessly as he seems to have in attempting to document the potential harm of this religion (biased as it may be).
Frenchy,
You stated above:
Dying for one’s beliefs is nothing new. Jesus came upon the scene inside a society and religion that had been in existence for over one and a half millenniums. He came claiming to be the voice of God and His duly appointed representative. He also provided ‘new light’. He challenged the interpretation of the keeping of the Sabbath while he was yet alive and abolished it all together with his death. There may have been some Christians in the first century congregations who had ancestors that died for violating the Sabbath, died by a code of laws that came from God. Now, by God’s authority they were being permitted to do what had once been prohibited to them. Can you imagine the arguments used in this instance? I can.
I am trying to understand why you said the above in response to my statement that JWs have died honoring JW interpretations that were later reversed, but too late to save their lives. I also would be willing to die for my principles, but that is not the point. The point is that a self-appointed human organization (not God, not Christ) demands that its followers be willing to die over their imperfect attempts to interpret scripture. Can you not see the difference? Can you not see the real danger that presents to people when such an imperfect organization claims to speak for God?
As for the shunning…” Everyone that pushes ahead and does not remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God. He that does remain in this teaching is the one that has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to YOU and does not bring this teaching, never receive him into YOUR homes or say a greeting to him. For he that says a greeting to him is a sharer in his wicked works.”—2 John 10,11 NWT What ‘teaching’ was Paul talking about? To what extent was this carried out in the first century. Was it taken literally? Were there ‘committee meetings’? I don’t know. But there are some interesting possibilities here, wouldn’t you say?
Again, when an imperfect human organization demands that its followers submit to their self-appointed authority (not God or Christ's authority) and demands that they shun someone based upon their own closed-door meetings (not open to the congregation) and their own imperfect doctrines and judging of their brothers -- does this conform to the spirit and intent of those scriptures that were directed to individual Christians and not some judicial committee? I hardly think so.
So, if you were attempting to use the Bible to defend the JW position of demanding that its followers die for their imperfect interpretations and honor their imperfect judgments (including for "apostasy") for disfellowshipping, then I must reject your arguments. You still seem to confuse what God rightly demands versus what a human organization may rightly demand. After reading your posts, I can't help but wonder whether or not you have read Ray Franz's books "Crisis of Conscience" and "In Search of Christian Freedom". There are chapters in those books which do an excellent job of analyzing the JW positions on these same subjects. I believe that you would enjoy reading them very much, if you have not already done so.
Edited by - AhHah on 9 November 2000 12:56:29
im starting a new thread because its time i left the bergman discussion.
i would like to address some comments made by ahhah, however, comments which have given me reason to look deep into myself.. even then, i wonder how objective a person could ever be after having had part of their life taken from them by a cult association.
on the other hand, who else (other than an ex-jw) would ever care enough to work as tirelessly as he seems to have in attempting to document the potential harm of this religion (biased as it may be).
Red,
As I read your quote, I was impressed with the similarities of cult characteristics described there with the links that I posted, as well as most information I have ever seen on the subject. Contrary to what Carmel and Frenchy have stated in this thread, there is much consenus among those who study cults on the common characteristics and effects of them. The fact that uninformed persons may misuse the term does not invalidate that. One who has been a member of the JWs cannot help but recognize many (if not most) of the characteristics and effects. Regardless of the term used to describe them, it is significant that society recognizes the potential for dysfunction that membership in such organizations can create. I have observed those dysfunctions first hand all of my life. I have personally had to work very hard to overcome some of them in my own life, and I am still doing so.
So, if anyone tries to tell me that labeling the JWs as a cult is a meaningless exercise in semantics, I know better from my own experience. I also feel an obligation to anyone who may read these posts to speak up on this matter and help them to recognize the dangers of membership in the JW org. I believe that to do anything less would be contrary to the reason that I post on this forum, and would be a potential injustice to those who read these posts. I no longer have any emotional attachment to that organization that prevents me from recognizing the abundant evidence for their cult status.
My sincere hope is that any who may read this thread who are struggling to find the courage and strength to leave the JW org will find some of that strength from these posts. For those that have already left, I hope that these posts and real life experiences will give them the same validation that I have found, and that it will assist them to let go of their guilt. I believe that this is a very necessary part of our "ministering" to such ones and ourselves.
Edited by - AhHah on 9 November 2000 14:29:41
im starting a new thread because its time i left the bergman discussion.
i would like to address some comments made by ahhah, however, comments which have given me reason to look deep into myself.. even then, i wonder how objective a person could ever be after having had part of their life taken from them by a cult association.
on the other hand, who else (other than an ex-jw) would ever care enough to work as tirelessly as he seems to have in attempting to document the potential harm of this religion (biased as it may be).
Frenchy,
Thanks for answering. I was just wondering if you wanted to share your opinions on your own question that you used to open this post. It sounds as though answering your own question was irritating to you.
Many here were very willing to share their opinions as I was. Several, including myself, have already stated their answer (opinion) to your question about whether JWs are a cult. I was genuinely interested in your opinion and if your ambivalence had changed after hearing these experiences (which you said it hasn't). I was not looking for an argument over the definition of the word cult or anything else, for that matter. It was your question, and I was interested in your own answer, which you carefully avoided after quoting so many of our responses. I could not help but wonder why.
Your answer did reveal much about your thinking on the subject. You seem to hold out the possibility that the JW org is indeed what it claims to be. You also state the premise that IF they are what they claim to be, then "would it not be expected to act just like it’s acting"? And, "IF that were the case no dissension could be tolerated." And, "IF it were what it claims to be it would have the authority and responsibility to do just what it’s doing."
Those are indeed the relevant questions. My personal opinion is a resounding and most emphatic "NO" to those questions. I do not find the basis in the example of Christianity that Christ himself demonstrated to believe that any humans would be authorized to act "just like it's (JW org) acting".
JW members have gone to their own deaths honoring interpretations of Scripture that have later been reversed, but too late to save innocent lives. They were willing to die rather than challenge what they were taught to believe was "new light" from God and Christ. Their alternative to dying was to face disciplinary action from "God's channel of spiritual light" and lose all of their hope, as well as the love and respect of their friends and family. I will never believe that Christ intended for those ministering to his loyal followers to treat the flock the way that this organization has done, even if they did have the "truth".
Thanks for sharing your opinions. Please do not take my disagreement with you personally. At one time, I also felt exactly what you have stated here.
i'm voting in a national election for the first time in over 20 years.
it feels good to be part of the process once more.
i'm wondering how the rest of you feel about it.
Angharad,
I had no idea! So much for my romantic vision of England! Does Tony Blair realistically have the power to effect needed changes? Does he have the will? What are his political priorities? Who deserves the blame for the conditions? Is it a symptom of overall economic doldrums and lack of revenue? Are the working people truly represented (House of Commons?)? Thanks for all of the insights!
im starting a new thread because its time i left the bergman discussion.
i would like to address some comments made by ahhah, however, comments which have given me reason to look deep into myself.. even then, i wonder how objective a person could ever be after having had part of their life taken from them by a cult association.
on the other hand, who else (other than an ex-jw) would ever care enough to work as tirelessly as he seems to have in attempting to document the potential harm of this religion (biased as it may be).
Carmel,
I have no attachment to the label, only an interest in whether or not the "shoe fits" as Waiting said. If you check out the links that I posted at the beginning of this thread, it should be obvious that there is much consensus on many common elements of organizations that have often been labled as cults, including Jehovah's Witnesses. Would you prefer the term "BOrg"? Just becasue the label has been abused does not excuse the actions of organizations that are guilty of those characteristics, does it? What is your point? Do you believe that the "shoe fits"?
i'm voting in a national election for the first time in over 20 years.
it feels good to be part of the process once more.
i'm wondering how the rest of you feel about it.
This Gush/Bore campaign is anything but Boring!
Angharad, what is a "pratt"? What is the dissatisfaction with Tony Blair these days?
im starting a new thread because its time i left the bergman discussion.
i would like to address some comments made by ahhah, however, comments which have given me reason to look deep into myself.. even then, i wonder how objective a person could ever be after having had part of their life taken from them by a cult association.
on the other hand, who else (other than an ex-jw) would ever care enough to work as tirelessly as he seems to have in attempting to document the potential harm of this religion (biased as it may be).
Frenchy,
Thank you for posting this thread! The responses were very thoughtful and very revealing. I feel that I got to know everyone that posted much better after reading them. Many of my personal feelings were validated as I read those painful experiences. This is exactly what I had hoped for when I started posting on this forum.
I am still curious, however, how you personally feel in regard to one question that you posted to open this thread. It is the question on which I chose to focus most of my response, and one which others commented on at length as well.
Is the WTS, the Jehovah’s Witnesses a cult? It would depend on whom you ask. Is it an association that controls the lives of its members. Most definitely. However, would that not be the case if it truly was what it claims to be? Would that not be its very nature, to differentiate its members from the ‘world’? Is TRUTH not unique? Once found and accepted should it not be defended against all lies and misrepresentations?
Your question seems to defend the JW control over its members from the perspective that claimed possession of the "truth" justifies such actions. Are you equating "making a defense" of one's beliefs with demanding total compliance at the cost of being rejected and shunned? At the very least, I sense ambivalence about the matter. Did the responses on this thread cause you to feel any differently? What do you think, are the JWs a cult? Is any of their control over members lives justified?
In regard to their cult status, I can't help but think of what Theo passionately referred to -- demanding that members die before challenging their ever-changing blood prohibitions, at the risk of being shunned (if not officially disfellowshipped). Is that really any different from making members drink poison kool-aid? If the JW org is not a dangerous cult then what is it? What do you think?
this site also contains articles by ken raines, who seems to have developed the site.. url http://www.premier1.net/~raines/.
url http://www.premier1.net/~raines/story.html (ken raines).
url http://www.premier1.net/~raines/papers.html (j. bergman).
Kismet,
Thanks very much for that info! I would be very interested to hear your impressions on the formation of the Society's new corporations.
i'm voting in a national election for the first time in over 20 years.
it feels good to be part of the process once more.
i'm wondering how the rest of you feel about it.
Peter,
I agree completely. It feels very good to be more responsible. No guilt whatsoever!
You may enjoy reading the thread "Political Statements of Value" -- last post dated Oct. 19, 2000.
