Posts by Island Man

22

I Think I have Found a Way to Litigate

by Simon Templar in

i have been thinking about how the wtb&t society bullies all of its members into submission with the threats they use (by practice), i.e.

“if you do this we will df you and you will be shunned”.

“if you da yourself, we will make an announcement and your friends, relatives and family will abandon you”, etc.

Island Man

I beg to differ with the prevailing sentiment that it cannot be done. Many are looking at this issue as one of trying to legally force JWs to associate with ex-members. It doesn't have to be that way for it to work.

Right now in many countries there are laws against inciting violent hatred toward groups of people. Such laws do not force everyone in the country to perform acts of kindness toward groups of persons. They only seek to prevent the public dissemination of hateful propaganda against groups.

In a similar way, Watchtower can be called to account for unduly inciting JWs to shun their ex-JW relatives. The crux of the issue is Watchtower inciting the members against their ex-JW family - not forcing JWs to associate with their ex-JW relatives.

JWs should have the right to freely choose whether or not they want to associate with their ex-JW relatives WITHOUT Watchtower inciting them not to and punishing them if they do. Most JWs shun their ex-JW relatives BECAUSE Watchtower tells them to and BECAUSE they face negative consequences if they refuse to comply.

If Watchtower is called to account for its incitement and is legally restricted from such incitements and is barred from punishing members who choose to associate with their ex-JW relatives, then over time conditions will change such that far less JWs will be shunning their ex-JW relatives. But they will still have the freedom - true, unfettered freedom - to do so if they wish. Right now Watchtower is practically coercing JWs to shun their ex-JW relatives so they're not really doing it of their own free will free of all duress.

So I think there is a case to be made but it has to be articulated the right way. It's not about forcing JWs to associate with ex-JW family. It's about punishing and halting Watchtower's use of undue influence to coerce JWs into shunning their ex-JW family. Yes no one can force JWs to associate with who they don't want to. So why does Watchtower get the right to force JWs to shun? It has to work both ways - no forcing either way.

30

Just curious about how faithful women are these days. Anybody know?

by Alostpuppydog in

so being someone who is not, however still believes around 70% of what the jw's talk about as far as the bible goes, ignoring the fact of no blood transfusions, shunning, etc.

wt doctrines, i got this question.

anybody really know how faithful 'worldly' (i use this term lightly 😉) women are these days?

Island Man

It has often been said that the most common reason for a JW being disfellowshipped, is fornication. And the ones that get disfellowshipped are only the ones that get found out and were deemed unrepentant.

Don't fool yourself! JWs aren't any more faithful sexually, than members from any other bible-believing church. The JWs are just a little better at hiding their naughty behavior due to the penalty of shunning; and due to the policy of secrecy surrounding judicial committees.

24

Shunning & separation from family

by CJxfarmx in

i was raised in jw as a child.

my dad was a jw my mom was not, they are divorced now.

i was never baptized or anything but i stopped going once i had the choice at age 12. now i am 41 and my dad will not associate with me, my wife or my 3 kids.

Island Man

I'm sorry for your loss, though really it's his. You have a family, ~~he has a cult~~ a cult has him

12

Suspicious Attitude Toward Married Brothers...

by JW_Rogue in

this is kind of different but i just wanted to see if anyone else has experienced this.

it seems that younger married brothers are viewed with a certain level of suspicion in the congregation.

it's like the elders can be friendly with everyone in the hall including younger sisters.

Island Man

"ecclesiocracy". I love that word, schnell! I think that's the word I'm going to start using as a synonym for the JWs' "theocracy" or "theocratic arrangement" when in any conversation with them. And if they complain I can always mention letters from Watchtower's legal department that make mention of the "Ecclesiastical Government of Jehovah's Witnesses."

10

Pornography Question

by IMHO in

jw
friends

why is it ok to look at naked pictures/videos of your wife/husband but porn if you look at another man/woman naked?.

if you happen to divorce your spouse is it then pornography if you look at naked/sex videos/pictures of them?.

Island Man

Because ... Matthew 5:28. You might as well be asking:

Why is it ok to have sex with your wife/husband but having sex with another man/woman is adultery/fornication?

22

I Think I have Found a Way to Litigate

by Simon Templar in

i have been thinking about how the wtb&t society bullies all of its members into submission with the threats they use (by practice), i.e.

“if you do this we will df you and you will be shunned”.

“if you da yourself, we will make an announcement and your friends, relatives and family will abandon you”, etc.

Island Man

Watchtower will say that at your baptism you voluntarily entered into a contract with them to abide by their rules and knowing the consequences that will come to you if you disobey.

They will also say that the decision by family and other JWs to shun you is a personal decision and they cannot force members to associate with anyone. They will say that members are exercising their personal religious convictions when they choose not to associate with you.

I think the best route that can be taken is to use their own literature to show their repeated instructions to members to shun their DFd relatives; and show the penalty that comes to those who refuse to shun DFd ones. You would have to make the case that WT is inciting members to engage in this action rather than the members just coming up with the idea all on their own.

In other words, you would have to use a line of reasoning that is similar to the line of reasoning used to criminalize inciting of hatred toward certain groups. Work on proving that the JW organization and its Governing Body is an extremely influential authority in the lives of JWs and couple this with their instructions to JWs to shun former members.

But it will be hard because religion is involved and states tend to be very wary of doing anything that may be seen by some as trampling on religious freedom. They will tend to err on the side of having your personal rights trampled on than doing anything that can be argued as violating religious freedom.

13

Sex & Divorce

by IMHO in

jw
friends

1. you can't have sex until your married.. 2. you're not married until you've gone through a legal ceremony.. 3. you get 'unscriptually' (although legally) divorced therefore not 'free' to remarry'.

4. can you still 'scriptually' have sex with your former spouse?.

Island Man

Interesting scenario. Watchtower will probably say no. They'd probably say that even if you're not scripturally divorced, you're still legally divorced and therefore, legally, not married to each other, so you'll be bringing reproach on Jehovah's name if you're having sex with someone you're not legally married to. They'd say you have to be both legally and scripturally married so that your marriage is honorable before all - both the governmental authorities and Jehovah.

22

Can JWs really vote now , since when?

by Crazyguy in

is this true??

?.

Island Man

If a JW in the US was DFd for voting, would their be a civil rights violation? I know the Civil Rights Act of 65 was more about race and color, but to deny (through threat of punishment by shunning) a citizen the right to vote seems to be on a slippery legal slope...

That's why they don't DF you for voting. Instead, they say that the voting JW disassociated himself by virtue of his action. So they use this technicality to say that they are not sanctioning anyone for voting.

But given that disassociated JWs are treated the same way as disfellowshipped JWs and given that a voting JW is disassociated against his will, I think this issue should be challenged legally.

Maybe awake JWs should vote tomorrow and if their elders call them to a JC or tell them they're disassociated, then the awake JWs should threaten to sue and raise a storm about the legality of punishing someone for exercising their right to vote. See what happens.

33

Fifteen years later, I went to the UN in person.

by biblexaminer in

of all the things that the watchtower has done wrong, what would you say is the singular most powerful thing that you could point a jw to, to crack their eyes open?

what is the singular thing that can be expressed bluntly and conclusively that might shock a jw to their senses?

if you could only carry one arrow in your quiver on your way to war with watchtower, what would it be?.

Island Man

I believe that Watchtower's interest in the UN was that they were hoping to curry favor with the UN so that:

(a) They would be spared when the UN turned on religion.

(b) They would be the instrument that Jehovah would use to put his "one thought" in the mind of the UN to attack false religion.

17

This should make most reasonable people stop believing in the Bible as infallible

by ILoveTTATT2 in

i think that few parts of the bible can make you atheist or at least agnostic or at least kill your belief in the bible as infallible or the work of a loving god as comparing 2 samuel 24 with 1 chronicles 21. most people focus on the 1st verse, but there are at least 4 major and 1 minor contradiction in the chapter (they are parallel accounts).in the new world translation, 2 samuel 24 starts like this:.

24 and again the anger of jehovah came to be hot against israel, when one incited david against them, saying: “go, take a count of israel and judah.” .

notice that it is an impersonal "one" who incited david to do the census.

Island Man

Hey, thanks for giving me a great idea for a question.