the few times that i've had a chat about my atheism, i usually get a response like the one above.
"well, seeing how you were in a cult- i can understand why you're an atheist now," just dismissing the bulk of the reasons i have for my disbelief.. i think what is particularly awkward about someone telling me this is- it's part way true- only part way though.
however, they stop listening after i explain to them that, "yes, being in a cult was an impetus to my search" and they fail to hear the rest of what i'm saying and believe that i went from point a to point f and just skipped all the steps and months of research in between out of some kind of anti-jw tantrum.
When I first started reading WTS literature some 45 years ago, much was being expounded from the two Bible books - Daniel and Revelation. And yes, in those years, we were always being told that the feet made from a clay / iron mix represented the polically fragmented world of these "Last Days."
Tobacco smoking was not then a disfellowshipping offence, although it was shortly to become one.
Anybody married to a homosexual could not get a "scriptural" divorce.
Regular Pioneers had to report at least 100 hours per month.
"Temporary Pioneers" had just become "Auxiliary Pioneers", and a "Back Call" had just been changed to a "Return Visit."
The WTS-promoted 1975 hype was going strongly, and anyone who queried this was written off as "immature." Then, in 1976, it was all blamed on us as individuals, for "reading more into it than the Society put in writing."
The "Kingdom Ministry" became the "Kingdom Service", at the same time as the Theocratic Ministry School became just the Theocratic School. Then a few years later, it reverted to the "Kingdom Ministry" and "Theocratic Ministry School" once more.
AND ....... there was no witch hunt for those who drove a two-door car while out in the service!
our dc coming up this weekend, i hated them and the only thing that kept me going ,was the reward of booze at the end of each day.my then wife,zelous judgemental pioneer, you know the type,not only droned on about my drinking, but about everyones drinking, a real barrel of laughs not.
anyway, one year we went to another dc, in newcastle, all seemed to be going well, until lunch.we went over to a hotel for lunch,i ordered my fresh orange and food, a few minutes later, the local jw,s arrived for lunch, they had all pr-ordered drinks,alcoholic drinks, and not one drink but many !!!
they were buisy getting boozed up for the afternoon session,way to go, i was about to join them, when my wife told me " dont even think about it ", anyway she was outraged, but there they were ,with thier little convention badges, men and women, young and old, getting merry, they dont even do that here in scotland, !!!.
I can recall an International Assembly in 1978 in which one of the brothers doing "volunteer" work as a car park attendant had a bottle of beer with him, just in case he got thirsty on the job!
Certainly, heavy drinking after the end of each day at an assembly became common place, after they canned evening sessions (assembly sessions, that is!) from 1973 onwards. Previously, when the assembly program did not finish until after 9 pm each day, everybody was too worn out to party.
That so many sssembly delegates hit the bottle afterwards shouldn't be surprizing:
all of us who have any ties to the jws know that they have their own vernacular, their own slang.
sure, there are formal titles that we can't really get away from: pioneer, ministerial servant, elder, ______ overseer, governing body, the (watchtower) society, etc.
but there are plenty of other bits of parlance they use that i can do without.... for example:.
the watchtower society describes the year 539 bc variously as being an "absolute date", a "pivotal date"; and certainly one on which the chronology of the entire "hebrews scriptures" depends upon.
(some jw apologists have even described that year as being a "drop dead" date).
however, this date of 539 bc didn't just fall out of the sky and mysteriously land on our lap:.
As Alan Feuerbacher correctly points out, over the years the WTS has altered many things as regards is views about chronology. These changes have included its description of the year 539 BC - from being an "Absolute" date to being a "Pivotal" one.
A definition of what constitutes a "Pivotal Date" is given in the 1990 edition of the All Scripture book, page 282:
"A pivotal date is a calendar date in history that has a sound basis for acceptance and that corresponds to a specific date mentioned in the Bible."
All very well - except that the same publication provides no definition of what the phrase "sound basis for acceptance" means!
In other words, this loose phrase leaves the WTS free to pick and choose whatever it likes from secular sources:
- probably from a realization that the very same evidence that supports Babylon's fall as occurring in 539 BC also supports 587 / 586 BC as being the date for Jerusalem's destruction. Much snake-oil salesmanship is needed to talk your way out of that contradiction!