The Bible does not belong to Individuals.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
can you find anything positive that they say, no? why not? two sides to every story PK
and the truth somewhere in between, they only ever provide a one sided account.

People who decide to leave their congregation are labelled 'apostates', 'mentally diseased' and are shunned by family members. Can you see why they might not have anything positive to say?

Just a quick google search for 'ex jw' brings up numerous sites for JW's who have left the organisation. Here's a few tit-bits -

First, let me say this. I am not recovering. I am not resentful. And I have no real ill will towards the watchtower organization or it's members.

and

What frustrates me the most is that most JWs will just presume I've left due to some grudge against the elders and I'm just sore and resentful.

I found that within a few minutes of searching. I see no hatred there.

Originally posted by Rajk999
Good examples of attempted mind-control and brainwashing by the Watch Tower. In particular, telling people that they cannot read and understand the Bible for themselves is contrary to the most basic of Bible instructions which is to READ THE BIBLE. Nowhere does the Bible say anything about any orgainsation interpreting the Bible for you.

[quote]"If we are ...[text shortened]... ication, the faithful and discreet slave," [Watchtower, October 1, 1994, page 8].

Rajk999,

One of googelfudge's favourite expressions is something along the lines of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". I would like to modify this to "serious criticisms require serious analysis".

Quoting the odd sentence from a text that runs to hundreds of pages, without providing the full context, and was published, in some cases, over 50 years ago is not going to convince me that the current Watchtower organisation is engaged in brainwashing and mind-control. Indeed, nothing in these quotes taken in isolation leads to me to conclude this.

However, one of the benefits of the modern age is that you have access to contemporaeneous material from most organisations. So, my first inclination on reading your post was to look at the Watchtower website. If you haven't done so already, I would encourage you to do so.

www.watchtower.org

Did what I find there suggest to me that this was a organisation engaged in mind-control and brainwashing, and some of the other claims you have made? No, for the following reasons:

1) The website is there and open to the public.

2) It actively encouarges students to read the Bible for themselves and to think about it.

3) Its set out the arguments for the JW view clearly and then cross-references these to the Bible with links that you can follow.

4) It does not duck any of the more contraversial issues (the Trinity, blood transfusions, evolution etc).

5) In some cases, they set out the contrary perspectives (e.g. the debate on evolution). Though they disagree with the conclusions others have reached, in most cases this is handled in a moderate tone.

Of course, I don't like some of the conclusions reached, and I particularly did not like the reference to 'true Christians' not celebrating Easter (the language, not the sentiment) but that's my personal beef about religion generally, not JWs in particular. As a religious website, it was better than most, and very informative to those of us unfamiliar with what JWs stand for. However, these are by way of an aside, and do not relate to the claims made in your post.

Unless you can substantiate your claims with better evidence, I am not going to accept your perspective.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
Rajk999,

One of googelfudge's favourite expressions is something along the lines of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". I would like to modify this to "serious criticisms require serious analysis".

Quoting the odd sentence from a text that runs to hundreds of pages, without providing the full context, and was published, in som ...[text shortened]... stantiate your claims with better evidence, I am not going to accept your perspective.

Give it time. How long have you been around reading these threads? Not long. I have been arguing with JWs over 6 years now. Only recently I backed away and Divegeester started. He just started a thread about Ex-Jws, read that one.

In particular find out what happens to anyone who is a JW who happens to have a dissenting view about any doctrinal issue.

Originally posted by Rajk999
Give it time. How long have you been around reading these threads? Not long. I have been arguing with JWs over 6 years now. Only recently I backed away and Divegeester started. He just started a thread about Ex-Jws, read that one.

In particular find out what happens to anyone who is a JW who happens to have a dissenting view about any doctrinal issue.

Give it time.

Time is not the issue. Evidence is. If you post solid evidence that supports your claim of brain-washing and mind-control, I could change my mind in an instant. If you don't, simply posting lots of the above won't change my mind.

How long have you been around reading these threads? Not long.

What evidence do you have for this? And why is this relevant?

If you have posted solid evidence in the past, please just link me to it and I will read.

I have been arguing with JWs over 6 years now. Only recently I backed away and Divegeester started. He just started a thread about Ex-Jws, read that one.

I can't see the relevance of any of this.

EDIT ADDED

I have also looked at the Divegeester thread and his opening comments do not relate to mind-control or brain-washing. Or about whether JWs believe that individuals can read the Bible for themselves.

In particular find out what happens to anyone who is a JW who happens to have a dissenting view about any doctrinal issue

Why? Is this relevant? Do you have better evidence for what happens, and does this support your presumption of brain-washaing and mind-control?

Originally posted by Rank outsider
Give it time.

Time is not the issue. Evidence is. If you post solid evidence that supports your claim of brain-washing and mind-control, I could change my mind in an instant. If you don't, simply posting lots of the above won't change my mind.

How long have you been around reading these threads? Not long.

What evidence do ...[text shortened]... in-washing. Or about whether JWs believe that individuals can read the Bible for themselves.

You have a very superficial knowledge of the JWs and their doctrine.

Good Luck to you.

Originally posted by Rajk999
You have a very superficial knowledge of the JWs and their doctrine.

Good Luck to you.

Indeed, which was why I asked you to provide additional support for your views.

It seems you do not brook dissenting views all that well either (not that I even dissented, of course).

Originally posted by Rank outsider
Indeed, which was why I asked you to provide additional support for your views.

It seems you do not brook dissenting views all that well either (not that I even dissented, of course).

You apparently think that this is a debating forum, so you place great emphasis on the ability to debate and present your arguments in an appropriate way. Thats fine .. hence the reason why I wished you good luck as I am not debating further.

My aim here is not debating. I have one basic aim here, and that is to present the truth of salvation according to the teachings of Christ and Paul as taught in the Bible. I dont really have time neither the desire to be a debater of spirituality.

Proof of how I operate is in your thread about reading the Bible. I told you my opinion about reading the teachings of Christ first and I then moved away from that thread and said nothing further neither try to debate with others who presented different views.

Originally posted by Rajk999
You apparently think that this is a debating forum, so you place great emphasis on the ability to debate and present your arguments in an appropriate way. Thats fine .. hence the reason why I wished you good luck as I am not debating further.

My aim here is not debating. I have one basic aim here, and that is to present the truth of salvation according to ...[text shortened]... thread and said nothing further neither try to debate with others who presented different views.

you have been asked three times to substantiate your claims with evidence so far you
have produced, give it time, you dont know enough and I am not debating with you
anymore, none of which are evidence nor relevant. Indeed this is typical of the anti
witness stance of you and others, quotations taken from articles you have not read,
taken out of context, accusations made without the slightest piece of evidence. All it
has taken is one objective and independent evaluation and your position collapses for
lack of evidence. What is the term for someone who makes accusations without
substantiation? Ill let you decide.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you have been asked three times to substantiate your claims with evidence so far you
have produced, give it time, you dont know enough and I am not debating with you
anymore, none of which are evidence nor relevant. Indeed this is typical of the anti
witness stance of you and others, quotations taken from articles you have not read,
taken ou ...[text shortened]... hat is the term for someone who makes accusations without
substantiation? Ill let you decide.

Your fellow JW said ..

..The Bible is not open to private interpretation and that is the problem with many like yourself and RJH... You think you have it all right but it can't happen that way, ever.

So he is in agreement that people cannot read and interpret for themselves. They need 'Gods Organisation' to do that .. which is the JWs.

In any case the passages I quoted is saying the same thing very clearly. You and Rank Outsider are contending that is taken out of context.

The onus is on you to show how and why your claim of being out of context is correct. Its not on me to produce more quotes from WatchTower. The passages speak for themselves.

Originally posted by Rajk999
Your fellow JW said ..

..The Bible is not open to private interpretation and that is the problem with many like yourself and RJH... You think you have it all right but it can't happen that way, ever.

So he is in agreement that people cannot read and interpret for themselves. They need 'Gods Organisation' to do that .. which is the JWs.

In an ...[text shortened]... ect. Its not on me to produce more quotes from WatchTower. The passages speak for themselves.

no rank outsider was referring to your comments of mind control and brainwashing,
here are your words again,

Good examples of attempted mind-control and brainwashing - Rajk

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no rank outsider was referring to your comments of mind control and brainwashing,
here are your words again,

Good examples of attempted mind-control and brainwashing - Rajk

Mind control issue .. is clear also. If religious people like to read the Bible and interpret for themselves and most do. [Please correct me if that is wrong]. And the WT org says to them that they are the 'mother organisation' and God is the father, and then they say that people cannot interpret for themselves, but need Gods Organisation .. then to me thats controlling the congregation.

Put that together with the constant threat of disfellowshipping and shunning by members and even family members .. thats mind-control.

Just my take on it.

Originally posted by Rajk999
Mind control issue .. is clear also. If religious people like to read the Bible and interpret for themselves and most do. [Please correct me if that is wrong]. And the WT org says to them that they are the 'mother organisation' and God is the father, and then they say that people cannot interpret for themselves, but need Gods Organisation .. then to me that ...[text shortened]... and shunning by members and even family members .. thats mind-control.

Just my take on it.

incontrovertible logic and assailable proof.

Originally posted by Rajk999
You apparently think that this is a debating forum, so you place great emphasis on the ability to debate and present your arguments in an appropriate way. Thats fine .. hence the reason why I wished you good luck as I am not debating further.

My aim here is not debating. I have one basic aim here, and that is to present the truth of salvation according to ...[text shortened]... thread and said nothing further neither try to debate with others who presented different views.

You apparently think that this is a debating forum

Well, the Spirituality Forum is described as for "Debate and general discussion.....", so perhaps I had expected that contributors would want to do more than just post opinion and would be willing to substantiate their views.

Originally posted by Rajk999
Your fellow JW said ..

..The Bible is not open to private interpretation and that is the problem with many like yourself and RJH... You think you have it all right but it can't happen that way, ever.

So he is in agreement that people cannot read and interpret for themselves. They need 'Gods Organisation' to do that .. which is the JWs.

In an ...[text shortened]... ect. Its not on me to produce more quotes from WatchTower. The passages speak for themselves.

Final word, as you have acknowledged that you do not want to debate this.

You and Rank Outsider are contending that is taken out of context.

No I didn't. I said you had not supplied the context and that I thought the context might be relevant. I suspect that you don't have the context to hand.

The onus is on you to show how and why your claim of being out of context is correct.

How can I, if you cannot provide me with the context? And is it, if you make such bold claims and want to be listened to?

Your position appears to be:

1) I know the truth

2) Here are some facts that I believe support them

3) You have challenged these facts

4) Therefore, you have a superficial understanding and I am not debating with you, as I know the truth and have already stated what it is.

An attitude which is remarkably like what JWs are often accused of....

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you have been asked three times to substantiate your claims with evidence so far you
have produced, give it time, you dont know enough and I am not debating with you
anymore, none of which are evidence nor relevant. Indeed this is typical of the anti
witness stance of you and others, quotations taken from articles you have not read,
taken ou ...[text shortened]... hat is the term for someone who makes accusations without
substantiation? Ill let you decide.

Are you going to respond to my quite brilliant post above, or are you choosing to ignore it?