Ginvid, believe me I wouldn't speak about something that I don't know, it would be pretentious from my part. I also want you to know that I am not disrespecting anyone's belief, I am simply elaborating some points. Now if you wish we can openly debate in all due respect in a new thread, I am willing to take up the challenge.
And trust me that all the JW who knocked on my doors I warmly welcomed them without even knowing them, but each time, after the discussion they left perplex to the point they were sending me letters weeks after to justify things that they couldn't justify while discussing about things they actually did not have a clue, except what they have been taught/instructed to say to people. I could give you concrete example, but I don't wanna go too much off topic. That's why I said, if you want we can open a new thread and have a debate.
As with any religion, the depth of their knowledge is going to be based on how much they are willing to put in the study of it. As with speaking with a variety of people, there are going to be times that someone will ask you a question about something that you have not had asked before and are unfamiliar with. If that happens to me, I don't try to make it up. I simply inform them that I don't know at the moment and will get back to them. There is nothing wrong with not knowing the answer to everything someone asks you. The religion very much teaches that each person has mastery over their oen spirituality and they have to be students themselves instead of relying on others for their solutions. Some take this very much to heart and it shows. Some will actually say, "Well if the Watchtower says it, then it must be so." If that is how a person wants to be, that is on them. But it is not indicative of the religion, it is a reflection upon themselves.
According to La Toya who was disfellowshipped Michael was criticized for being idolized as he was a victim of his own success. As she was disfellowshipped (or did she quit?), they instructed him not to talk to her any more. So I am not inventing anything. I am merely reporting what has been said in the media in the 80s.
That right there shows it is misconstrued. Did Rebbie stop talking to MJ altogether after '87? No. So that shows you that she again is exagerating what takes place. When a person is disfellowshipped, the assocation with that person is then cut off, or in the case of a family member, limited. As family, you will have to discuss some things. Some correspondence will have to take place. But I am not going to pretend as if your relationship with someone who is disfellowshipped is going to be like it was before. I was aware of this when I decideed to be a JW and I agreed with it then and agreed with it even when I had to apply it myself because my father became disfellowshipped. I do noit agree in making a commitment to something and then turn my back on it because the commitment becomes difficult for me. The same thing that made it reasonable in my eyes, makes it reasonable even when it is difficult to follow.
But all in all, I realize there are conflictual versions of the facts, so all I can draw as a conclusion is that no one among us who didn't speak to Michael will ever know what really happened. Michael was extremely respectuous and descrete.
All I know is at the time Michael was no longer a JW, they differentiated between a person who was Disfellowshipped and a person who was disassociated. the letter read was disassociated meaning MJ left of his own volition, not being kicked out.
I kno that La Toya had already lied about Michael regarding his relationship with kids, but did she lie about his relationship with the JW? I can't tell. Michael never denied it. On top of that, when I se the disclaimer before Thriller starts i find it extremely unnecessary. Why and to whom does he have to even justify whether he believs in the occult or not? Can you imagine if each horrot movie starts with such a disclaimer for each actor, director and the team?
Every person who makes a horror movie is not a JW. Why would they need to make a disclaimer. Sometimes you do things you do not have to do in order to not stumble your brothers or sisters. For instance, my sister does not listen to rap music of any kind. I listen to a limited amount. However when we are dancing together or I am playing music, I make sure I do not play any rap. Do I have to do it? Not at all. But I want to be respectful of what my sister wants for herself. I find it annoying often (especially when I skip the rap interlude in some songs) but I do this out of love for my sister. This principle is taken from the Apostle Paul, who when talking about the need to no longer abstain from certain kinds of meat said ,"But in order to not stumble one of my brothers I would not eat meat at all." This goes back to principles. When something is not wrong, you still may at times choose not to partake of something just out of regard for your brothers and sisters. "Not all things are wrong, but not all things are advantageous". Even though Thriller was not necessarily wrong, you can imagine the impact it might have had on the people in the congregation who might be confused for themselves. To put the disclaimer on the video was a small thing (and probably an annoyance), but it was a loving thing to do to care about the spirituality of those in the congregation.
There is a big difference of imposing restrictions to yourself and being imposed restrictions by others. If you believe in God, and you meet another person who believes in God. You both believe that God created you. You fall in love with that person and the person falls in love with you. But you are imposed by others not to have right to get married with the person with whom you have fallen in love. Where is the freedom of thought there? Two people, believing in God, but not belonging to the same group cannot get married?! Who decided so? You? Or your dogma? That's just one example of lack of freedom of thought. And let's say, you decide anyway to get married to that person why would you all of sudden cease to be JW? Who decides what you are? You or others?
No one makes you a JW. You choose to be one yourself. It is not even something you are born into. Each person has to decide for themselves if the restrictions are something they want to live by. If you do not, then you don't have to be a JW. Therefore any restrictions they have you take upon yourself. The restrictions are not imposed upon you but you agree to take them upon yourself. Also, you should ask how many JWs marry outside of the religion. Do you know what happens in the congregation when they do? Nothing. Marrying outside of the religion is not encouraged, but if it is what someone wants to do, what can anyone say? My sister married a person who was not a JW. Guess what? It happens. It is based on principles not laws again in this case. She is living according to the principles as she fells coompelled to. She has to answer to God no one else.
Among those restrictions, I have a question. If you see a child in need of blood. Would you let that child die or would you give your blood? What would your freedom of thought dictate to you in that case?
My dear Bumper, you act as if it is such an open and shut case. In life the choice is not either getting blood or die. There are often many choices in between. No parent, even JWs want their loved ones to die. If they did they would not go to doctors at all. I would not give my child blood, no matter what. But there are numerous things you can do in between to combat this before it gets desperate. JWs have a commitee set up whose sole purpose is to speak to hospitals about Bloodless treatments. In fact JWs have become pioneers in pushing this kind of treatment something that JWs and non JWs have benefitted from. People are so programmed in thinking that blood is an only choice when there are an array of treatment options instead of blood. The fact that this programming is even among doctors and staff is alarming as well. The Liason Committee, goes to hospitals in order to explain these treatments to them. They also make a list available to members of doctors who specialize in treatments without blood or doctors who are willing to work with witnesses on even complicated procedures without blood. Besides this, every year witnesses are given refresher courses on nonblood treatments so they are aware of what treatments are out there that accomplish the goal of blood transfusions without having blood. Then, there is the decision by each member whether or not they will take blood fractions or not. It is not wrong if you choose to do so, it is left up to you.
So the connotation that JWs will not accept blood and just sit back and let their children die is tired. They are working everyday in order to provide for their loved ones while still having a clean conscience.
Which one of the examples I mentioned are not correct? All the examples I mentioned come from JW themselves, not from me. By the way, if there is a freedom of thought it means that some things can be questioned. Now, why can't you for example celebrate your birthday if you feel like it? Why having a restriction on that? Even if you say that it is in pagan's tradition to do it, it doesn't mean that because you celebrate a birthday you are a pagan. Just as some of you mentioned here, it is not because Michael was friends with jews or muslims that he was a jew or a muslim.
People have to stop being so self centered. People do anything they want just because it makes them happy. They think they are all that matters. What JWs teach is try to think of how things affect God. He is a real person with whom you can have a relationship. From the Bible a precedence has been set about showing how God feels about birthdays reasonably. But I will let you know something, there is a difference betwen how secular holidays are viewed versus religious holidays. And this effects what you can decide upon yourself to celebrate or not. Although it will be frowned upon if you celebrate them. You have to make that personal decision.
Besides this, it is not like you cannot give yourself parties whenever you want. Not celebrating birthdays will not ruin your life. Have a party another day. Give youself as many gifts as you want. Or have people give you gifts as much as you want.
In religion, if you don't know the original lanuage and the scripture, the logic could simply vanish in the translations, don't forget that. I will give you a simple example. Go to
www.wordreference.com it is a good dictionary. Select two indo-european languages, let's say French and English. Then type the word in French "FLEUVE" and translate it into English. When you have finished, do the same and instead of typing "fleuve", type "RIVIÈRE" and translate it into English. If you do that for both words you ill have exactly the same translation even though those two concepts are quite different. Now imagine a blurry concept when you translate from Jesus's mother tongue Aramaic (which was not an Indo-European language) into an Indo-European language such as Ancient Greek, then Latin and finally into all other languages... Although the message is there, some concepts are clearly lost.
I don't need to cross translate something to understand this concept. A perfect example is the Greek word love. In Greek there are four different words for love. However, when it is translated into English, it only comes across as love "love". without the original texts with it, what kind of love that is meant in that verse may be entirely lost to you. So you may not get a full understanding of what is being conveyed.
Now, a very simple question: How many books does the Bible contain? How many translations are out there?
The Bile contains 66 books that are canonized. There are thousands of translations.
You say you can think for yourself based on logic. But whose logic? we all depend on what translators chose to translate how they seem to understand the words bearing in mind that translators are certainly far from being perfect, translations even less, and the difference between language families aggravayes even more the situation. What I am trying to say, there is not one logic, but many, hence different religions and sects claiming all to detain the ultimate truth. In other words, people start excluding each other in the name of someone's exegesis imposing it to others.
We do depend on Bible translators. But does it not say something that over the thousands of years that Bibles have been translated, between versions of those that went in with the intention of following the texts as much as possible, there has been very little variation. Also, the prevalence of so many religions is often not because of an attempt to remain true to scripture, but, because someone wants to make scripture fit their way of living. People like to have their "ears tickled" becuase they do not think they should have to conform to religion but religion should conform to the way they want to live. For most people God is not a real person. He is some far away entity that they cannot imagine influencing their life. If that is how you see God, no wonder you feel you should be able to live anyway you choose. With the programming that goes on constantly with individuals today through TV, through music, through books, you can argue whether anyone really has freedom of thought. Or, is it an illusion. Instead of confining me, I find my religion to be very freeing. As a matter of fact, in my philosophy class in school we had that very topic on the illusion of freedom.
A choice among things I numbered?
I never said that. By the way, I did not invent the definition for a sect. JW happen to fall into that category of definition based on the very principles you evoked, I didn't coin that. Some find it positive, some negative. But frankly speaking, I don't know how can anyone say that not saving someone's life by blood transfusion could be viewed as a positive thing.
See comment above.
Why are you angered by the things that are said by JW themselves? You know they often knock on my door and they speak with me. By the way I have colleagues at work who are JW, I am in very good terms with them, but it is they who say all what I said. Again I did not misinformed, I reported. If I misinformed anyone, tell me which of the points are not true. Thanks.
