Jump to content
The World News Media

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


Anna

Recommended Posts

  • Member

I have posted this issue before, but it was during the time of the hot topic of the persecution in Russia and maybe got overshadowed by it. A poster brought it up again in one of the threads so I thought I will try again to post it as a topic. My goal is not to sow doubts, nor to promote some false ideas, but rather to get to the bottom of this as I feel it is a valid question. The summary of the problem can be seen in the quotes below:

Referring to people leaving their religion to join Jehovah's Witnesses:

"No one should be forced to worship in a way that he finds unacceptable or be made to choose between his beliefs and his family".  Awake 7/09 page 29

AND

Regarding those disfellowshipped from Jehovah's Witnesses:

"Really, what your beloved family member needs to see is your resolute stance to put Jehovah above anything else - including the family bond.....Do not look for excuses to associate with a disfellowshipped family member, for example, through email" p.16, paragraph 19, Study WT Jan / 2013

In the above situation we are assuming that the reason for disfellowshipping was because of changing one's religion and/or apostasy (not because of immorality etc.)

 

 

 

 

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

Jehovah doesn’t coerce anyone, neither do we as JWs coerce anyone to stay as JWS. We are free to leave at any time. In the end all will make an accounting to God individually. If someone comes to reject  some of the organization's teachings and cannot in good conscience continue to support a religion they have come to believe is false, they must in good conscience leave.  However, in doing so, they may have to sacrifice their relationship with their family as well (if they get disfellowshipped for it). This leaves the individual in a very difficult situation, to either stay in the faith hypocritically, in order not to lose their loved ones, or to sacrifice their relationship with loved ones in order to satisfy their conscience and be free of hypocrisy. Neither of these situations is ideal for the individual nor their loved ones.  Do the scriptures give a solution to this problem?

This hypothetical situation assumes the individual does not promote their opinion, nor do they cause any disruption in the congregation, it is merely their conscience that is at odds with them.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

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 this is the elders letter instructing them to disfellowshipped someone who has apostate beliefs.  Mind you this says nothing as to whether or not they are promoting their beliefs just that they have believed that differ from what this aside he says they need to accept.

however even if they were what's wrong with that? Don't JWs apostasize from their religious all the time? Why is it ok for  individuals to leave their respective religions, join the WT organization,  and speak out against their former religion but if someone who was previously a witness did this very thing then they deserve to be punished?

IMG_1704.PNG

IMG_1705.PNG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

I usually try not to focus on the fact that JW's baptize young children because I believe that it's wrong to threaten someone of any age into remaining a member of a religion that they no longer believe in.  That being said one of the final straws for me was sitting in an elders/ms meeting  and listening to the circuit overseer her encourage the elders to allow young children to get baptized and insisting that they set the example by getting their children baptized. 

" we don't want to teach the friends that  waiting to get baptized is a good idea" 

" we want to capitalize on young ones interest in the truth" 

 Now I'm certain that he wasn't being malicious in the statements because he likely believed that getting them to join the religion was the right thing to do.  Nevertheless JW's are continually being encouraged to baptize their children at a young ages.  In some instances the society has even implied that if a child is in baptized by the time they're able to drive a car and they asked to get a license the parent should make it clear to the child that if they are at an age when they can drive then they should be at an age to dedicate their life to the organization. The most recent yearbook mentions an eight-year-old getting baptized. It's clear to me that Jehovah's Witnesses are desperately trying to bolster their numbers to counteract the flood of defectors.  It's also clear that their primary goal is to get children trapped in the religion as early as possible.  The sooner they can get them baptized the sooner they can start threatening them with family estrangement if they try and leave. And as I said before at the very least the society hopes that the threat of disfellowshipping will  keep those who do try to fade silent. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
4 hours ago, Albert Michelson said:

 It's clear to me that Jehovah's Witnesses are desperately trying to bolster their numbers to counteract the flood of defectors.  It's also clear that their primary goal is to get children trapped in the religion as early as possible.  The sooner they can get them baptized the sooner they can start threatening them with family estrangement if they try and leave. And as I said before at the very least the society hopes that the threat of disfellowshipping will  keep those who do try to fade silent. 

I think your reasoning on this is wrong on several levels.  The JW religion is not about how many numbers it has. If that were the case, then we could more efficiently and easily bolster our numbers by doing what religions of Christendom have done; water down the scriptures and tell the people what they want to hear and what is comfortable for them. We could allow smoking, turn a blind eye to adultery, fornication and homosexuality, support patriotism, celebrate all the holidays and Birthdays, have blood transfusions......you get the drift. 

The objective of the JW organization is not about numbers but to keep it morally and spiritually clean. It's about quality not quantity. And as @JW Insider remarked on the other thread, which puts it in a nutshell "We are counting on Jehovah's spirit to help us find the ministry that feels the most like what we would expect if we saw the first-century Christians trying to fit into the twenty-first century"

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
6 minutes ago, Anna said:

If that were the case, then we could more efficiently and easily bolster our numbers by doing what religions of Christendom have done; water down the scriptures and tell the people what they want to hear and what is comfortable for them.

That's not how cults thrive, they thrive by convincing their members that they have a unique form of worship. 

And you may be right perhaps the bolstering of numbers isn't the primary goal. But you can't deny that witnesses love talking about the growth and how jehovah is "blessing the work"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
3 minutes ago, Anna said:

limit the amount of images which say basically the same thing, as these tend to clog up the thread.

Sorry, you guys are pretty reasonable as fare as admitting simple facts go. For some witnesses unless I show them 10,000 pictures of young JW kids getting baptized then it doesn't happen and I'm a liar. 

Same goes for almost everything else i say. They act like they've never been to a meeting or convention. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
2 minutes ago, Albert Michelson said:

Sorry, you guys are pretty reasonable as fare as admitting simple facts go. For some witnesses unless it showed them 10,000 pictures of young JW kids getting baptized then it doesn't happen and I'm a liar.

Well, there's at least one pre-teen that gets baptized at most conventions and assemblies, so it's nothing new, and visible to all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
13 minutes ago, Albert Michelson said:

That's not how cults thrive, they thrive by convincing their members that they have a unique form of worship. 

We would have to define first what a Cult is, and how it operates, in order to have a conversation about this. But this would be off topic on this thread. I am sure there is a topic on this subject somewhere on this forum though.

16 minutes ago, Albert Michelson said:

witnesses love talking about the growth and how jehovah is "blessing the work"

Well duh! 9_9

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Just once I’d like to see a Pharma ad in which the actors, rather than acting out the touted benefits of the drug, instead act out the side effects of the voiceover—gasping, clutching their throats, turning blue, hair falling out, doubling over, dropping dead, straining on the toilet to ‘go’, swiveling about in dizziness.
    • Journalists who go rogue often do it for me. https://www.thefp.com/p/npr-editor-how-npr-lost-americas-trust RFKjr is turning out a fine source as well. Look how he says 60 years ago most people (80%) trusted government and now 90% do not: https://x.com/vigilantfox/status/1777710201937732085?s=61&t=fM8K_zHB-Zw9l_mM_4QHqg
    • My overall point is that most Witnesses I know in the United States are very political and don't even know it. Often much more political than their neighbors who vote. There are certain limits to what we will say about our political views, but I think we don't recognize that those political views often come out inadvertently in other ways. In fact, I've seen strong political views among Witnesses who only use the line "we don't take sides in politics" when they wish to shut down an argument they disagree with. My parents and many relatives were of the type that said they wouldn't be fooled by all the lies and exaggerations from MS-NBC supposedly on the "progressive left." Nor the lies and exaggerations from FOX News on the supposedly "conservative right." But that didn't stop them from being fooled by thinking that CNN was not mostly "state-sponsored media" that would cherry-pick stories now and then to keep up the ruse that they weren't. As long as they continued to support corporate sponsors, including "Big Pharma" and "Big Military Industrial Complex," it was clear what side they were going to take. And although Trump was golden to all networks for his ability to spout controversy, one of his biggest sins for CNN was the fact that he went 4 years without getting the USA involved in any new wars.  We were watching CNN once, not on purpose, and although many segments were introduced with "Brought to you by Pfizer" one was introduced "Brought to you by McDonnell-Douglas." As if any of us watching were about to go out and buy McDonnell-Douglas fighter jets and missiles for accessories. Of course, even the segments brought to you by Pfizer weren't really for any of us to be swayed in our pharmacy choices, either. As with all corporate media, those ads are really just payments to CNN; they are all just a way for corporations to PAY (bribe) the news writers and commentators to realize on which side their bread is buttered. They are merely buying influence. ---- All this was probably just my own rationale to excuse my own tendency to throw in opinions about politics, politicians, and the mainstream corporate media. There are no easy answer to how someone should go about getting their news, or how to feed their own opinions. But I would be happy to hear about the various sources people use when trying to find the "truth" about various world events. 
    • Here was the general conversation, skipping a part where I had just explained how 30,000 Palestinians, largely women and children, had been killed, and the majority of major news outlets were still equivocating about whether Israel had gone too far. But when mostly "white" aid workers were killed, suddenly Nancy Pelosi (friend of the aid organization founder), Joe Scarborough, Elizabeth Warren, and a bunch of others turn on a dime to stop giving Israel a free pass -- embarrassing their own man Biden.  THEM: Well, anyway, we don't take sides about literal Israel, and we don't discuss political sides of who supports whom. ME: But that last part is just information, even history. THEM: History is one thing but the Bible says don't speak against the King. What's that it says in Ecclesiastes? (Ecclesiastes 10:20) . . .Even in your thoughts, do not curse the king, and do not curse the rich in your bedroom; for a bird may convey the sound, or a creature with wings may repeat what was said. ME: Yeah. That's where we get the expression: "a little birdie told me." Basically, it means that someone on Twitter will turn you in. Or all the government agencies will be listening in on Twitter.   THEM: Very funny. You mean "X." ME: Yeah, but they still call them "tweets." THEM: But still we don't take sides, we don't even say anything against any ruler, whether he's good or bad. We only pray that they make decisions that are good for us.  ME: I don't think it's wrong to say something against a ruler. Don't you think Hitler was a bad ruler? THEM: But he's not a king now is he? He's dead. ME: I mean even when he was alive. THEM: Well, of course, because he was attacking Jehovah's people. ME: But it would have been wrong to say he was bad while he was attacking millions of Jews? THEM: [changing subject] But look how respectful Paul was talking to Felix, he never said a word against him. ME: Maybe not, but Luke tells us he was probably looking for a bribe. That's pretty negative. ME: continuing . . . And Jesus called Herod a fox. THEM: Well maybe he was "foxy" -- "crafty" not always a bad thing. ME: You don't believe that . . . and even if it was a good thing, then Jesus was taking sides. THEM: Anyway . . . it's wrong.
    • The conversation went like this: ME: I'm just now seeing the new article on the front of jw.org, about whether Bible prophecy points to literal Israel. That seems to be on everyone's mind. THEM: Absolutely. One of my studies just asked that question and I went through the usual scriptures, especially Galatians  6. I hadn't seen the article yet. I wish I had. ME: Yes, the article uses Matthew 23:37 "your house is abandoned to you" and Galatians 6, and Romans 11. THEM: I think I used Romans 11, too.  ME: I just noticed that the article says one thing that might be confusing though. “A dulling of sensibilities has happened in part to Israel until the full number of people of the nations has come in, and in this manner all Israel will be saved.” (Romans 11:25, 26) . . . By the expression “all Israel,” Paul meant all of spiritual Israel. ME: continuing . . . Actually, I don't think that will make sense to most people though. I mean, ultimately, yes, it's spiritual Israel that is saved. We know that from Galatians 6, but in this context people are going to notice that Paul actually was speaking about the two olive trees and the LITERAL Gentiles getting grafted into the tree representing LITERAL Israel.  THEM: But it means all of spiritual Israel will be saved. ME: That's the only way it works out in the long run, yes. But doesn't it make more sense that as many of literal Israel as possible get saved because it's these people of the nations who now have Jehovah's blessing, and this makes some of natural Israel jealous? And that helps lead to the salvation of as many natural Israelites as possible. (Romans 11:11) etc., etc. Who is right on this point is not important here, it's the next part of the conversation. Next post . . . 
  • Members

    • Pudgy

      Pudgy 2,398

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
  • Recent Status Updates

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      65.4k
    • Total Posts
      159.2k
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      17,678
    • Most Online
      1,592

    Newest Member
    James Hume
    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.