Jump to content
The World News Media

Is there a contradiction with regard to freedom to change one's religion?


Anna

Recommended Posts

  • Member

 

16 minutes ago, Anna said:

Most Witnesses will be who they are because of an unselfish love for God and and desire to please him, not themselves.

I have a very different opinion but we don't need to argue about the conduct of witnesses and their personal motivations. I will say however that it's hard to know what their true feelings are when they're not allowed to express them.

 

19 minutes ago, Anna said:

Joining JWs is a completely free exercise of one's will, free of any threats, including shunning.

That is not true many children are threatened with being thrown out if they don't get baptized. And I know many who were never baptized but still get shunned because the have spoken out. 

 

22 minutes ago, Anna said:

In fact joining JWs under duress or blackmail would be a completely pointless exercise for everyone involved

I agree which is why child baptizm shouldn't be allowed.

23 minutes ago, Anna said:

I don't think that is quite how he put it.

That's his exact words.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Views 7.8k
  • Replies 108
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I get it. You don't agree with child baptism. I don't either. However, whatever criticisms I have of the org...I will never regret my dedication to Jehovah God.

One cannot claim that the organization doesn't coerce people into remaining members when the are literally being blackmailed with the threat of family estrangement if they leave. To add context t

Please if you can @Albert Michelson, limit the amount of images which say basically the same thing, as these tend to clog up the thread. Thanks

Posted Images

  • Member
2 hours ago, Albert Michelson said:

The problem of course is what I mentioned earlier.  Geoffrey Jackson  out right lied when he said that you could tell anyone you wanted you're no longer a Jehovah's Witness without repercussions.

 

59 minutes ago, Albert Michelson said:

That's his exact words.

Is this the part you are referring to:

     Q.  " If someone no longer wants to be known as one of

           Jehovah's Witnesses, they must then disassociate; is that right?

     A.   Again, please, if they want to take the action of

        doing that.  But, of course, they have total freedom.  If

        they don't want to apply to officially be removed as one of

        Jehovah's Witnesses, they can tell anyone they want that

        they are no longer a Jehovah's Witness".

I do not see anything about no repercussions. In fact in context of the rest of the dialogue, Jackson makes it clear that there MAY be repercussions, depending on the circumstances:

Q.   "Leaving that to one side, the point is, for example,

 if the elders visited and found the person to be living in  sin in the eyes of the Jehovah's Witnesses, then the elders

  would, following the process and procedures, discipline

  that person under the rules of the organisation - not so?

 A.   Yes, like, in a situation where it was found that

someone who claimed to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses was

living in sin, then the elders would try to ascertain,

well, what needs to be done?  We obviously want to help the

person, so the first step would be to ascertain, do they

want to come back, are they willing to change what they are

doing?  And if, ultimately, the person is willing to talk

to us, then, yes, that would be involved with the judicial

process.

              

Q.   But if they are not, then either they must disassociate or they will be disfellowshipped?

 A.   That would be in that particular case, but I can think of many scenarios where it wouldn't be".

 

I can think of many scenarios where it wouldn't be either. In fact I KNOW of many scenarios personally where someone is no longer a JW (is living in sin, celebrates Birthdays and Christmas etc.) but has not dissasociated and has not been disfellowshipped. So he is not lying, and not making this up.







Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
1 hour ago, Albert Michelson said:

That is not true many children are threatened with being thrown out if they don't get baptized. And I know many who were never baptized but still get shunned because the have spoken out. 

That may be true, but it is an exclusively personal thing, nothing that's taught by the org.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
7 minutes ago, Anna said:

I can think of many scenarios where it wouldn't be either. In fact I KNOW of many scenarios personally where someone is no longer a JW (is living in sin, celebrates Birthdays and Christmas etc.) but has not dissasociated and has not been disfellowshipped. So he is not lying, and not making this up.

He's fortunate, one of my friends was out for 5 years and then found out that the elders disfellowshiped her. She still has no idea why she only found out because her mom told her. She wasn't doing anything that even qualified as wrong in the eyes of the organization. For every example you can put forward I can  guarantee I have another. 

The fact is that according to the organizations policy's you cannot tell anyone you want your no longer a witness. 

12 minutes ago, Anna said:

        doing that.  But, of course, they have total freedom.  If

 

 

        they don't want to apply to officially be removed as one of

 

 

        Jehovah's Witnesses, they can tell anyone they want that

 

 

        they are no longer a Jehovah's Witness".

I refuse to believe you're this dishonest. Don't start resorting to double speak now. The implication of this statement is that if they don't apply to be disassociated then they can tell anyone they want they're not witnesses without getting disassociated or disfellowshiped which is false.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
5 minutes ago, Albert Michelson said:

The implication of this statement is that if they don't apply to be disassociated then they can tell anyone they want they're not witnesses without getting disassociated or disfellowshiped which is false.

The apparent implication of this statement was clarified in the dialogue that followed, (immediately after that statement - so there cannot be any confusion as to what exactly was meant) as I have already indicated above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

I would say that he was called out and that Angus Stewart demonstrated that his claim was false. But we don't need to argue about that. Ether way we're back where we started. With people getting punished for leaving. I can think of examples of some making it out without being shunned and many others where they couldn't. The point is that the organization is punishing people for disagreeing with them or in some cases simply stating that they don't want to be a witness. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
22 minutes ago, Albert Michelson said:

I would say that he was called out and that Angus Stewart demonstrated that his claim was false. But we don't need to argue about that. Ether way we're back where we started. With people getting punished for leaving. I can think of examples of some making it out without being shunned and many others where they couldn't. The point is that the organization is punishing people for disagreeing with them or in some cases simply stating that they don't want to be a witness. 

The point is - whether he was called out or not (and I won't argue about that) - the truth of the matter is that disfellowshipping for leaving JW is not automatic, and there are circumstances where ones have left and never got disfellowshipped.  But as you say, regardless, we do want to address the issue of disfellowshipping for leaving under the circumstances that officially warrant disfellowshipping. Maybe we are getting to the core of the issue now.

I have to get back to some work now, so I may be gone for a while. Hopefully someone else will chime in as well in the meantime...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
25 minutes ago, Anna said:

But as you say, regardless, we do want to address the issue of disfellowshipping for leaving under the circumstances that officially warrant disfellowshipping. Maybe we are getting to the core of the issue now.

Yes we could talk about the people who slip through the cracks but if the policies were applied as they are written in all cases then leaving without being shunned would be even more difficult than it already is and that is the central issue. The policies make it virtually impossible to exercise your conscience without tremendous loss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
On 8/28/2017 at 5:33 PM, Albert Michelson said:

Yes we could talk about the people who slip through the cracks but if the policies were applied as they are written in all cases then leaving without being shunned would be even more difficult than it already is and that is the central issue. The policies make it virtually impossible to exercise your conscience without tremendous loss.

It's not really a case of slipping through the cracks. And what policies in particular are you talking about? The purpose of disfellowshipping is twofold, and has been mentioned on another thread recently. Whether you agree or not, it is primarily to protect the congregation and keep it clean morally. You don't want members who are known to be practicing something which is condemned in the Bible to be freely associating with the congregation as if it was OK. I'm sure you can understand that. You also don't want members publicly speaking out against what JWs teach and cause a disturbance to members. Believe me, not everyone wants to discuss Malawi/Mexico and why 1914 could be wrong, even if they suspect it could be wrong. And that needs to be respected. Nothing likely would happen unless a number of members started complaining about this particular individual. You read in the letters yourself, no one gets dissfellowshipped automatically just for sharing some "controversial" information, but to try and hammer "TTATT"  (which by the way is subjective anyway) at every opportunity is obviously not going to go down very well. But if you call that exercising your conscience, then you might also need to reflect on the conscience of others too.

So, in a nutshell, the elders are not so interested in making life hard for someone who no longer wants to be a JW as you wish to believe. They have other things to do, most have families they'd like to spend time with. If the individual is not causing any trouble, then I can guarantee they'd much rather leave things alone. I don't know what kind of experiences you've had, and your friends, they either had Nazi elders, or must have been causing a disturbance among the friends. Somehow I think it's more likely to be the latter.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

But the question remains, should someone who changes their religion from JW to something else and does not advertise this, and is not known in the community to be one of JWS be disfellowshipped. Probably they would not be disfellowshipped. However, what if the individual gets disfellowshipped for another reason, immorality etc. and while out, decides they no longer want to be one of JWs. They get married, and no longer live in sin. To all intents and purposes they are no longer practicing what they were disfellowshipped for. But they will remain disfellowshipped unless they "come back". But of course they are no longer interested in that. That's a catch 22.

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • It appears to me that this is a key aspect of the 2030 initiative ideology. While the Rothschilds were indeed influential individuals who were able to sway governments, much like present-day billionaires, the true impetus for change stems from the omnipotent forces (Satan) shaping our world. In this case, there is a false God of this world. However, what drives action within a political framework? Power! What is unfolding before our eyes in today's world? The relentless struggle for power. The overwhelming tide of people rising. We cannot underestimate the direct and sinister influence of Satan in all of this. However, it is up to individuals to decide how they choose to worship God. Satanism, as a form of religion, cannot be regarded as a true religion. Consequently, just as ancient practices of child sacrifice had a place in God's world, such sacrifices would never be accepted by the True God of our universe. Despite the promising 2030 initiative for those involved, it is unfortunately disintegrating due to the actions of certain individuals in positions of authority. A recent incident serves as a glaring example, involving a conflict between peaceful Muslims and a Jewish representative that unfolded just this week. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/11/us-delegation-saudi-arabia-kippah?ref=upstract.com Saudi Arabia was among the countries that agreed to the initiative signed by approximately 179 nations in or around 1994. However, this initiative is now being undermined by the devil himself, who is sowing discord among the delegates due to the ongoing Jewish-Hamas (Palestine) conflict. Fostering antisemitism. What kind of sacrifice does Satan accept with the death of babies and children in places like Gaza, Ukraine, and other conflicts around the world, whether in the past or present, that God wouldn't? Whatever personal experiences we may have had with well-known individuals, true Christians understand that current events were foretold long ago, and nothing can prevent them from unfolding. What we are witnessing is the result of Satan's wrath upon humanity, as was predicted. A true religion will not involve itself in the politics of this world, as it is aware of the many detrimental factors associated with such engagement. It understands the true intentions of Satan for this world and wisely chooses to stay unaffected by them.
    • This idea that Satan can put Jews in power implies that God doesn't want Jews in power. But that would also imply that God only wants "Christians" including Hitler, Biden, Pol Pot, Chiang Kai-Shek, etc. 
    • @Mic Drop, I don't buy it. I watched the movie. It has all the hallmarks of the anti-semitic tropes that began to rise precipitously on social media during the last few years - pre-current-Gaza-war. And it has similarities to the same anti-semitic tropes that began to rise in Europe in the 900's to 1100's. It was back in the 500s AD/CE that many Khazars failed to take or keep land they fought for around what's now Ukraine and southern Russia. Khazars with a view to regaining power were still being driven out into the 900's. And therefore they migrated to what's now called Eastern Europe. It's also true that many of their groups converted to Judaism after settling in Eastern Europe. It's possibly also true that they could be hired as mercenaries even after their own designs on empire had dwindled.  But I think the film takes advantage of the fact that so few historical records have ever been considered reliable by the West when it comes to these regions. So it's easy to fill the vacuum with some very old antisemitic claims, fables, rumors, etc..  The mention of Eisenhower in the movie was kind of a giveaway, too. It's like, Oh NO! The United States had a Jew in power once. How on earth could THAT have happened? Could it be . . . SATAN??" Trying to tie a connection back to Babylonian Child Sacrifice Black Magick, Secret Satanism, and Baal worship has long been a trope for those who need to think that no Jews like the Rothschilds and Eisenhowers (????) etc would not have been able to get into power in otherwise "Christian" nations without help from Satan.    Does child sacrifice actually work to gain power?? Does drinking blood? Does pedophilia??? (also mentioned in the movie) Yes, it's an evil world and many people have evil ideologies based on greed and lust and ego. But how exactly does child sacrifice or pedophilia or drinking blood produce a more powerful nation or cabal of some kind? To me that's a giveaway that the authors know that the appeal will be to people who don't really care about actual historical evidence. Also, the author(s) of the video proved that they have not done much homework, but are just trying to fill that supposed knowledge gap by grasping at old paranoid and prejudicial premises. (BTW, my mother and grandmother, in 1941 and 1942, sat next to Dwight Eisenhower's mother at an assembly of Jehovah's Witnesses. The Eisenhower family had been involved in a couple of "Christian" religions and a couple of them associated with IBSA and JWs for many years.)
  • Members

    • JW Insider

      JW Insider 9,696

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • SuzA

      SuzA 25

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
  • Recent Status Updates

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      65.4k
    • Total Posts
      158.9k
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      17,670
    • Most Online
      1,592

    Newest Member
    Miracle Pete
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.