A Look At The Jehovah's Witnesses Religion

[Miles]

.

I came across the following piece in Wikipedia some time ago, and recently remembered how priceless it was and thought I'd share.

"Central to Jehovah's Witnesses' beliefs are their interpretations of the second coming of Christ, the millennium and the kingdom of God. Watch Tower Society publications have made, and continue to make, predictions about world events they believe were prophesied in the Bible.[1] Some of those early predictions were described as "established truth",[2] and beyond any doubt.[3] Witnesses are told to "be complete in accepting the visible organization's direction in every aspect" and that there is no need to question what God tells them through his Word and organization since love "believes all things".[4][5][6] If a member advocates views different from what appears in print, they face expulsion.[7][8][9]

Failed predictions that were either explicitly stated or strongly implied, particularly linked to dates in 1914, 1915, 1918, 1925 and 1975, have led to the alteration or abandonment of some teachings. The Society's publications have at times suggested that members had previously "read into the Watch Tower statements that were never intended"[10] or that the beliefs of members were "based on wrong premises".[11] According to Professor Edmond Gruss, other failed predictions were ignored, and replaced with new predictions; for example, in the book, The Finished Mystery (1917), events were applied to the years 1918 to 1925 that earlier had been held to occur prior to 1914. When the new interpretations also did not transpire, the 1926 edition of the book changed the statements and removed the dates.[12]

Predictions (by date of publication) include:

1877: Christ's kingdom would hold full sway over the earth in 1914; the Jews, as a people, would be restored to God's favor; the "saints" would be carried to heaven.[28]
1891: 1914 would be "the farthest limit of the rule of imperfect men".[29]
1904: "World-wide anarchy" would follow the end of the Gentile Times in 1914.[30]
1916: World War I would terminate in Armageddon and the rapture of the "saints".[31]
1917: In 1918, Christendom would go down as a system to oblivion and be succeeded by revolutionary governments. God would "destroy the churches wholesale and the church members by the millions". Church members would "perish by the sword of war, revolution and anarchy". The dead would lie unburied. In 1920 all earthly governments would disappear, with worldwide anarchy prevailing.[32]
1920: Messiah's kingdom would be established in 1925 and bring worldwide peace. God would begin restoring the earth. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and other faithful patriarchs would be resurrected to perfect human life and be made princes and rulers, the visible representatives of the New Order on earth. Those who showed themselves obedient to God would never die.[33]
1922: The anti-typical "jubilee" that would mark God's intervention in earthly affairs would take place "probably the fall" of 1925.[34]
1925: God's restoration of Earth would begin "shortly after" October 1, 1925. Jerusalem would be made the world's capital. Resurrected "princes" such as Abel, Noah, Moses and John the Baptist would give instructions to their subjects around the world by radio, and airplanes would transport people to and from Jerusalem from all parts of the globe in just "a few hours".[35]
1938: Armageddon was too close for marriage or child bearing.[36]
1941: There were only "months" remaining until Armageddon.[37]
1942: Armageddon was "immediately before us".[38]
1961: Awake! magazine stated that Armageddon "will come in the twentieth century.... This generation will see its fulfillment."[39]
1966: It would be 6000 years since man's creation in the fall of 1975 and it would be "appropriate" for Christ's thousand-year reign to begin at that time.[40] Time was "running out, no question about that".[41] The "immediate future" was "certain to be filled with climactic events ... within a few years at most", the final parts of Bible prophecy relating to the "last days" would undergo fulfillment as Christ's reign began.
1967: The end-time period (beginning in 1914) was claimed to be so far advanced that the time remaining could "be compared, not just to the last day of a week, but rather, to the last part of that day".[42]
1968: No one could say "with certainty" that the battle of Armageddon would begin in 1975, but time was "running out rapidly" with "earthshaking events" soon to take place.[43] In March 1968 there was a "short period of time left", with "only about ninety months left before 6000 years of man's existence on earth is completed".[44]
1969: The existing world order would not last long enough for young people to grow old; the world system would end "in a few years". Young Witnesses were told not to bother pursuing tertiary education for this reason.[45][46]
1971: The "battle in the day of Jehovah" was described as beginning "[s]hortly, within our twentieth century".[47]
1974: There was just a "short time remaining before the wicked world's end" and Witnesses were commended for selling their homes and property to "finish out the rest of their days in this old system in the pioneer service".[48]
1984: There were "many indications" that "the end" was closer than the end of the 20th century.[49]
1989: The Watchtower asserted that Christian missionary work begun in the first century would "be completed in our 20th century".[50] When the magazine was republished in bound volumes, the phrase "in our 20th century" was replaced with the less specific "in our day".

It should be noted that on average a new prediction was coming out about every 5 1/2 years, but since 1989, 34 years ago, nada. Can we assume the JW prediction business has since shut down?


QUESTIONS:
1. Should continuing blunders such as these have any bearing on the credibility of a religion? Any religion?
2. What do you think it says about the Jehovah's Witnesses religion?

.



.

[Purple Knight]

The problem I see with OP like this one that is full of finger pointing and broad stroke accusations.

It is. And by and large they don't hold. If I were to be charitable to it though, and distill it down to something valid, it would be that people can do much more terrible things when they have unshakable faith that they are right. Christians aren't supposed to hate or judge anyone, but that doesn't stop people from using a frankly very judgmental doctrine that way, and the people are the problem for sure, but I also see it in the light of handing a bazooka to a monkey. The bazooka is not the problem but still, the monkey needs to not have it. And the bazooka [the Bible] does have kind of a lot of ammunition in it. It does have a fairly clear warning label not to point it at people, but the monkey is not going to heed that.

Now, that said, religious people don't look at the times God told his People to murder another People, and go out and actually imitate it... anymore. And atheists in modern day are just as prone to group people up and admonish or otherise people for believing the objectively wrong things.

You're right about it not mattering what someone calls themself, and it mattering whether they try to be better. I still think that if people are just plain awful down to their bones (and you think this too; you guys think this is Satan's world out here), then the best thing we can do is take away the tools that help awful people increase the scope of their awfulness. I used to think that as dictator I'd have an enforced atheist country for this reason. I couldn't picture a world where if you take away the moral authority of the religious, there would still be castigation and shaming, and people totally unwilling to hear the other side. It's like if I banned guns, and people stabbed, then I banned knives, so people started saying they had guns, pointing their fingers and shouting, "Bang!" and the victims would still get gunshot wounds and die, absent any bullet.

I do still see religion as one of these sorts of tools. It can only work when God has unquestionable moral authority, and that's then twisted by people who claim they understand God and thus they have that authority. This should not still work between atheists. The fact that it does and I've seen it... I don't know what to say except, it shouldn't.

But yes, in modern day, there's a lot more judgment coming from people saying they're perfectly nonjudgmental and only judging people for being judgmental, than there is judgment coming from the supposedly judgmental people they're judging. I think the fact that this is confusing by nature and I can't simplify it, is why it works so well. If people can't understand what I just said, they don't understand what's happening.

I'd never throw it back into their face. What is done is done and to bring up their past is just mean hearted.

What I don't understand is how you wrap this to a perpetual offender who always says they're sorry.

I hold terrible grudges and unless someone is willing to make up for a deed until they are taking a penalty for having committed it, I assume they're not really sorry, cut ties, and move on with my life. If someone takes my coat I want two coats back. I would forgive people and not do this if I thought the genuine people existed in any numbers, but as it stands the genuine people will give up the two coats and not complain, while people who seek to say they're sorry so they can keep the coat and take another will get massively offended. I realise I'm hurting the wrong person but this is the real-life version of the witch test: I won't know unless I use that particular silver needle.

[Miles]

[Replying to Miles in post #19]
Thanks for proving my point.

Which was what?

.

[onewithhim]

I always find it funny when I see posts like this. Like JWs have never seen this before.

'Twasn't posted for JWs. I'm quite sure they've all been schooled in it and told how to respond. It was posted to alert others to one of the more enduring and amusing failures of the religion.

None of us, to my knowledge, and I know in my own case, are "schooled in how to respond." I know I came to certain conclusions totally on my own research and studying of the Scriptures. When I respond, it is out of my own determination, no one else's. JehovahsWitness has posted some excellent information concerning the actual fallacy of many users here that think we had several years of blunders. The only big ones that caused some alarm among the faithless were 1914 and 1975. 1914 marked the year that the time of the Gentiles would come to an end and Jesus would start ruling from heaven over his church/congregation. (Luke 21:24) Wrong on the going to heaven part, but we dust ourselves off and keep faithfully going ahead, not trying to predict when Armageddon will come, as we have done, and most other churches also.

1975 was taken with a grain of salt among faithful Christians. Most of us said Oh well, if it comes fine, if it doesn't that's fine too. The WT never said that it was written in stone that 1975 would be the end of the system. In fact, in December of 1974 there was no mention in the Watchtower about the next year being the end. To judge a whole religious philosophy by two dates seems counterproductive in every sense of the word. Especially when the WTS never has said that it is a prophet. No, not a prophet but just someone looking at the evidence and trying to alert people to the end of wickedness that's coming. We now know that we cannot guess the day or hour, or even the week or month or year. But we keep on warning the world to be ready. Most people don't listen.

[Miles]

I always find it funny when I see posts like this. Like JWs have never seen this before.

'Twasn't posted for JWs. I'm quite sure they've all been schooled in it and told how to respond. It was posted to alert others to one of the more enduring and amusing failures of the religion.

None of us, to my knowledge, and I know in my own case, are "schooled in how to respond." I know I came to certain conclusions totally on my own research and studying of the Scriptures. When I respond, it is out of my own determination, no one else's. JehovahsWitness has posted some excellent information concerning the actual fallacy of many users here that think we had several years of blunders. The only big ones that caused some alarm among the faithless were 1914 and 1975.

Really, I'm surprised because as an adult Christian in 1975 I don't remember a thing about any such alarm, or any concern about the battle of Armageddon possibly beginning that year. Although, considering the prediction in 1968 that "time was "running out rapidly" with "earthshaking events" soon to take place." And in "March 1968 there was a 'short period of time left', with "only about ninety months left before 6000 years of man's existence on earth is completed]" around the later part of 1975 when the 90 months were just about up, I do believe JW's were shaking in their boots and singing Nearer My God To Thee through out the night---every night.

1914 marked the year that the time of the Gentiles would come to an end and Jesus would start ruling from heaven over his church/congregation. (Luke 21:24) Wrong on the going to heaven part, but we dust ourselves off and keep faithfully going ahead,

And the part about gentiles coming to an end, and the part about Jesus starting to rule from heaven over anything. Anything at all.

1975 was taken with a grain of salt among faithful Christians. Most of us said Oh well, if it comes fine, if it doesn't that's fine too.

Don't buy this for a minute.

The WT never said that it was written in stone that 1975 would be the end of the system.

No it likely didn't, but in 1971 it did say the "battle in the day of Jehovah" was described as beginning "[s]hortly, within our twentieth century." Twenty-nine years away AT THE MOST.

It has now been 52 years since that prophecy, and way past the twentieth century. Whaa hoppen?

In fact, in December of 1974 there was no mention in the Watchtower about the next year being the end.

Evidently not; however, it did strike an ominous note with "There was just a "short time remaining before the wicked world's end" and Witnesses were commended for selling their homes and property to "finish out the rest of their days in this old system in the pioneer service" that year. Sound like preparations for the long haul? Not to me. Sounds more like there's just a "short time remaining before the wicked world's end."

To judge a whole religious philosophy by two dates seems counterproductive in every sense of the word.

Obviously no one's judging whole religious philosophy, just some of its top floor pooh-bah's silly need to be prophets.

Especially when the WTS never has said that it is a prophet.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, guess what.

.

[onewithhim]

I always find it funny when I see posts like this. Like JWs have never seen this before.

'Twasn't posted for JWs. I'm quite sure they've all been schooled in it and told how to respond. It was posted to alert others to one of the more enduring and amusing failures of the religion.

None of us, to my knowledge, and I know in my own case, are "schooled in how to respond." I know I came to certain conclusions totally on my own research and studying of the Scriptures. When I respond, it is out of my own determination, no one else's. JehovahsWitness has posted some excellent information concerning the actual fallacy of many users here that think we had several years of blunders. The only big ones that caused some alarm among the faithless were 1914 and 1975.

Really, I'm surprised because as an adult Christian in 1975 I don't remember a thing about any such alarm, or any concern about the battle of Armageddon possibly beginning that year. Although, considering the prediction in 1968 that "time was "running out rapidly" with "earthshaking events" soon to take place." And in "March 1968 there was a 'short period of time left', with "only about ninety months left before 6000 years of man's existence on earth is completed]" around the later part of 1975 when the 90 months were just about up, I do believe JW's were shaking in their boots and singing Nearer My God To Thee through out the night---every night.

1914 marked the year that the time of the Gentiles would come to an end and Jesus would start ruling from heaven over his church/congregation. (Luke 21:24) Wrong on the going to heaven part, but we dust ourselves off and keep faithfully going ahead,

And the part about gentiles coming to an end, and the part about Jesus starting to rule from heaven over anything. Anything at all.

1975 was taken with a grain of salt among faithful Christians. Most of us said Oh well, if it comes fine, if it doesn't that's fine too.

Don't buy this for a minute.

The WT never said that it was written in stone that 1975 would be the end of the system.

No it likely didn't, but in 1971 it did say the "battle in the day of Jehovah" was described as beginning "[s]hortly, within our twentieth century." Twenty-nine years away AT THE MOST.

It has now been 52 years since that prophecy, and way past the twentieth century. Whaa hoppen?

In fact, in December of 1974 there was no mention in the Watchtower about the next year being the end.

Evidently not; however, it did strike an ominous note with "There was just a "short time remaining before the wicked world's end" and Witnesses were commended for selling their homes and property to "finish out the rest of their days in this old system in the pioneer service" that year. Sound like preparations for the long haul? Not to me. Sounds more like there's just a "short time remaining before the wicked world's end."

To judge a whole religious philosophy by two dates seems counterproductive in every sense of the word.

Obviously no one's judging whole religious philosophy, just some of its top floor pooh-bah's silly need to be prophets.

Especially when the WTS never has said that it is a prophet.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, guess what.

.

A prophet claims to receive messages directly from God. The WTS is not a prophet. It looks at prophecies already given and attempts to decipher them. Good educated guesses is all. They saw that it does no good to make educated guesses, so we no longer do that. We join the lengthy list of religions that have tried to figure out when the end of the system will come but have been disappointed.

Or not. You scoff when I say that I figured that it would be ok if it didn't come in 1975. That is really the way I felt and so did all in my congregation, that I know about. Nobody sold their houses or quit their jobs. The pooh-bahs have no interest in being prophets. They know the difference between a prophet and a watchman. They are merely watchmen. They see the malediction in the distance and continue to warn the world.

A short time may seem like a long time to us, but to the spirit realm it is a short time, in the scheme of things. They are used to very long times for things to happen, so 2 thousand years or so is actually a "short time." Try to see my viewpoint instead of making fun of what I believe.

[Miles]

I always find it funny when I see posts like this. Like JWs have never seen this before.

'Twasn't posted for JWs. I'm quite sure they've all been schooled in it and told how to respond. It was posted to alert others to one of the more enduring and amusing failures of the religion.

None of us, to my knowledge, and I know in my own case, are "schooled in how to respond." I know I came to certain conclusions totally on my own research and studying of the Scriptures. When I respond, it is out of my own determination, no one else's. JehovahsWitness has posted some excellent information concerning the actual fallacy of many users here that think we had several years of blunders. The only big ones that caused some alarm among the faithless were 1914 and 1975.

Really, I'm surprised because as an adult Christian in 1975 I don't remember a thing about any such alarm, or any concern about the battle of Armageddon possibly beginning that year. Although, considering the prediction in 1968 that "time was "running out rapidly" with "earthshaking events" soon to take place." And in "March 1968 there was a 'short period of time left', with "only about ninety months left before 6000 years of man's existence on earth is completed]" around the later part of 1975 when the 90 months were just about up, I do believe JW's were shaking in their boots and singing Nearer My God To Thee through out the night---every night.

1914 marked the year that the time of the Gentiles would come to an end and Jesus would start ruling from heaven over his church/congregation. (Luke 21:24) Wrong on the going to heaven part, but we dust ourselves off and keep faithfully going ahead,

And the part about gentiles coming to an end, and the part about Jesus starting to rule from heaven over anything. Anything at all.

1975 was taken with a grain of salt among faithful Christians. Most of us said Oh well, if it comes fine, if it doesn't that's fine too.

Don't buy this for a minute.

The WT never said that it was written in stone that 1975 would be the end of the system.

No it likely didn't, but in 1971 it did say the "battle in the day of Jehovah" was described as beginning "[s]hortly, within our twentieth century." Twenty-nine years away AT THE MOST.

It has now been 52 years since that prophecy, and way past the twentieth century. Whaa hoppen?

In fact, in December of 1974 there was no mention in the Watchtower about the next year being the end.

Evidently not; however, it did strike an ominous note with "There was just a "short time remaining before the wicked world's end" and Witnesses were commended for selling their homes and property to "finish out the rest of their days in this old system in the pioneer service" that year. Sound like preparations for the long haul? Not to me. Sounds more like there's just a "short time remaining before the wicked world's end."

To judge a whole religious philosophy by two dates seems counterproductive in every sense of the word.

Obviously no one's judging whole religious philosophy, just some of its top floor pooh-bah's silly need to be prophets.

Especially when the WTS never has said that it is a prophet.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, guess what.

.

A prophet claims to receive messages directly from God.

Not at all

proph·et
noun
noun: prophet; plural noun: prophets; plural noun: Prophets; plural noun: the Prophets

1. a person regarded as an inspired teacher or proclaimer of the will of God.

source: Oxford Languages Dictionary

_______________________________________

prophet
noun
proph·​et ˈprä-fət

1: one who utters divinely inspired revelations

2 one gifted with more than ordinary spiritual and moral insight
especially : an inspired poet

3: one who foretells future events : predictor

source: Merriam Webster Dictionary

________________________________________

prophet
​noun
/ˈprɑfɪt/

1 countable according to some religions, a man sent by God to lead people and teach them their religious beliefs

2 countable someone who supports an idea or principle and tries to persuade others to support it

source: Macmillan Dictionary

________________________________________


prophet /ˈprɑːfət/ noun
plural prophets

1 [count] : a member of some religions (such as Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) who delivers messages that are believed to have come from God

2 [count] : a person who states that something will happen in the future

source: The Britannica Dictionary

________________________________________

See any definition that states a prophet is necessarily someone who "claims to receive messages directly from God"? Neither did I. So a prophet need not be someone who claims to receive messages directly from God at all.

The WTS is not a prophet.

Did it prophesize? To make a prophecy? It sure did. Check the OP.

It looks at prophecies already given and attempts to decipher them. Good educated guesses is all.

Did it prophesize? Make a prophecy? It sure did. Quite a few in fact. Check the OP.

You scoff when I say that I figured that it would be ok if it didn't come in 1975.

Because I don't believe for a minute that "1975 was taken with a grain of salt among faithful Christians." Taking your "faithful Christians" as denoting JWs. And that "Most of us said Oh well, if it comes fine, if it doesn't that's fine too." I believe that when 1975 came around "JW's were shaking in their boots and singing Nearer My God To Thee through out the night---every night."

That is really the way I felt and so did all in my congregation, that I know about.

Sorry, but your exaggeration has already been made and noted.

Nobody sold their houses or quit their jobs.

Then why is it said "Witnesses were commended for selling their homes and property to "finish out the rest of their days in this old system in the pioneer service" that year."? To say nothing of the extreme unlikelihood that you know for a fact that "Nobody sold their houses or quit their jobs."

The pooh-bahs have no interest in being prophets.

Then why did they prophesize? Create prophecies? Was somebody holding guns at their heads?

They know the difference between a prophet and a watchman. They are merely watchmen.

Fine, then they were watchmen who prophesized that:

1. Christ's kingdom would hold full sway over the earth in 1914; the Jews, as a people, would be restored to God's favor; the "saints" would be carried to heaven.

2. 1914 would be "the farthest limit of the rule of imperfect men".

3. World War I would terminate in Armageddon and the rapture of the "saints".

4. In 1918, Christendom would go down as a system to oblivion and be succeeded by revolutionary governments. God would "destroy the churches wholesale and the church members by the millions". Church members would "perish by the sword of war, revolution and anarchy". The dead would lie unburied. In 1920 all earthly governments would disappear, with worldwide anarchy prevailing.

5. Messiah's kingdom would be established in 1925 and bring worldwide peace.

ETC.

ETC

ETC. ad nauseam

.

[JehovahsWitness]

HAVE THE JEHOVAHS WITNESS LEADERSHIP EVER CLAIMED THE ROLE OF PROPHETS ?

No, the primary biblical definition of a PROPHET is one who claims divine revelation. The Jehovahs Witness leadership have never claimed their words were direct revelations from God nor have they ever claimed infallibility.

PROPHET

1: one who utters divinely inspired revelationsm

source: Merriam Webster Dictionary

RELATED POSTS

What is the Jehovahs Witnesss present positon as to the nearness of the end of the world system of things?
viewtopic.php?p=1122047#p1122047

Are Jehovah's Witnesses "FALSE PROPHETS" ?
viewtopic.php?p=1044873#p1044873

Have Jehovah's Witnesses ever claimed the role of in prophets?
viewtopic.php?p=1038818#p1038818

Did JWs confess in a 1968 article to being False Prophets?
viewtopic.php?p=1038819#p1038819

What is the difference between a PREDICTION and A PROPHECY?
viewtopic.php?p=1045225#p1045225

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES , FALSE PROPHETS and ...FAILED PREDICTIONS,

[Miles]

HAVE THE JEHOVAHS WITNESS LEADERSHIP EVER CLAIMED THE ROLE OF PROPHETS ?

No, the primary biblical definition of a PROPHET is one who claims divine revelation. The Jehovahs Witness leadership have never claimed their words were direct revelations from God nor have they ever claimed infallibility.

PROPHET

1: one who utters divinely inspired revelationsm

source: Merriam Webster Dictionary

OR

prophet
noun
proph·​et ˈprä-fət

1: one who utters divinely inspired revelations

2 one gifted with more than ordinary spiritual and moral insight
especially : an inspired poet

3: one who foretells future events : predictor

source: Merriam Webster Dictionary

One can't simply ignore other definitions or meanings of a word just because they're inconvenient.

Moreover, I've never talked about prophets, prophecies, or prophesying in any biblical sense of these words, which would be necessary in order for you to assert that I have, and in turn give credence to your claim/implication that "the primary biblical definition of a PROPHET" has some bearing on any issue here. Yes. the word "prophet" can mean "one who utters divinely inspired revelations," and it can also mean "one who foretells future events"; however, I chose to you use the later definition while completely ignoring your definition. Which means . . . . . ta da . . . . that is how you must regard my use of the word.


.

[2timothy316]

The problem I see with OP like this one that is full of finger pointing and broad stroke accusations.

It is. And by and large they don't hold. If I were to be charitable to it though, and distill it down to something valid, it would be that people can do much more terrible things when they have unshakable faith that they are right.

"Being wrong feels like being right." Kathryn Schulz on Being Wrong.


What I pay attention to the most is what a person does when they discover they are wrong. Here are the responses that irk me.
1. Double down on their wrong course.
2. Try to change the meanings of words so that they seem like they were always right. Or with the Bible, fumble through trying to change the meaning of a scripture on-the-fly.
3. Put their fingers in their ears and say 'la la la la la'.
4. Attack the credibility of the person they got the information from. (This tool is worn-out on us JWs)
5. Say, "well, this is MY truth", then ignore the new information, as if truth was subjective.
6. They see the information is correct but can't be bothered with changing their minds. Sunk-cost fallacy: "I've lived my whole life believing this way, I don't want to change."
7. So full of themselves they can't hear anyone since the love the sound of their own voice so much.

Now, my options for dealing with someone like this is try to correct them. Searching for a humble person. I will probably only do that one or two times. Then after awhile I go to my second option and follow Ecc 3:6 that there is, "A time to search and a time to give up as lost." Beating my head on a wall or arguing with a stop sign is a waste of time and I need to make better use of my time. (Ephesians 5:15, 16) Thus I move on letting them live their life as the see fit, even if their choice I believe will likely end in disaster.

When someone is wrong, these are the responses that impresses me and I actually admire.
1. Non-dogmatic folks that humble themselves, admin fault, but move on and understand being wrong is not always super bad but refusing the actual truth is super bad.
2. Same as #1

Now, a person will either admire the humble person admitting their error or bash them for admitting their error. When it came to realizing that Jehovah's Witnesses had some pretty wrong teachings in past, those were my two options. Then I reflected on two scriptures. Not what the Jehovah's Witness wrote, but what written 2000 years ago. The golden rule at Matthew 7:12 and Colossians 3:13, "Continue putting up with one another and forgiving one another freely even if anyone has a cause for complaint against another. Just as Jehovah freely forgave you, you must also do the same."

Now, I afford this to everyone, not just Witnesses. Any person that shows humility I am drawn to and willing to forgive them for their past course of action.

You're right about it not mattering what someone calls themself, and it mattering whether they try to be better.

The issue is who should set the standard for what is the best a man or woman can be? What is the path to 'get better'? This is where all the organizations and ideological frameworks start lobbying for people to come follow their way of life. If we look a political and religious entities, people are born into them. Some think that if they have a certain color of skin then they must be this or that. Some think if they make a certain amount of money they must vote this way or that way. Very very very few sit down and search what really is best for themselves and others. People tend to be so dogmatic and I have learned that dogmatism is a sure fire way to stagnate learning anything. Thus I personally as well as most JW have everything they have learned mostly not chiseled in stone but written in pencil. One of the only things that must be chiseled on one's heart as a Jehovah's Witness is love for Almighty God and love of neighbor. These things can never change an must never be removed from our hearts. Outside of that, Witnesses have to be able to be adaptable to new information. We can't afford to be dogmatic. When the dates come and go and what we thought would happen doesn't, then we have to be humble and realize the error. Those that are dogmatic will leave this organization. Those that have dogmatic hearts will avoid this organization. All I have to say to that is well, bye Felicia.

I still think that if people are just plain awful down to their bones (and you think this too; you guys think this is Satan's world out here), then the best thing we can do is take away the tools that help awful people increase the scope of their awfulness. I used to think that as dictator I'd have an enforced atheist country for this reason. I couldn't picture a world where if you take away the moral authority of the religious, there would still be castigation and shaming, and people totally unwilling to hear the other side. It's like if I banned guns, and people stabbed, then I banned knives, so people started saying they had guns, pointing their fingers and shouting, "Bang!" and the victims would still get gunshot wounds and die, absent any bullet.

It does seem like something is in the water that just makes people...nasty. Jehovah's Witnesses have to drink the water too and sometimes we make choices that are not beneficial to anyone. This is the sin that Jehovah's Witnesses believe is in all mankind. All humanity is drawn to what is bad and to rebel against what is good, and you're correct, it is in our bones. (Romans 7:21) However, we are not doomed for it to be master over us, we can be master over sin if we ask for God's help gain master over it. (Gen 4:7)

I do still see religion as one of these sorts of tools. It can only work when God has unquestionable moral authority, and that's then twisted by people who claim they understand God and thus they have that authority. This should not still work between atheists. The fact that it does and I've seen it... I don't know what to say except, it shouldn't.

It's because of the awfulness in our bones. Since mankind has been on earth there a truth, "Man has dominated man to his injury”! Ecclesiastes 8:9

But yes, in modern day, there's a lot more judgment coming from people saying they're perfectly nonjudgmental and only judging people for being judgmental, than there is judgment coming from the supposedly judgmental people they're judging. I think the fact that this is confusing by nature and I can't simplify it, is why it works so well. If people can't understand what I just said, they don't understand what's happening.

As humans we have the right to judge some things. Like we judge who our friends should be. We judge for ourselves as to what kind of entertainment we should watch. Really any decision that comes to feeding what could encourage us to do bad things. As one Native American proverb says, 'Everyone has a good wolf and a bad wolf inside them. The one that survives is the one you feed.'

Yet this the only judgement that we can do on our own. Judgement of others and their eternal disposition is out of humans' reach. We can't even say for sure of anyone's judgement. Even our own. But lets take the OP for a moment. I have seen MANY of these types of threads. They think this topic is a good reason not to listen anything a Jehovah's Witness says. They think they are doing everyone a favor. They have judged us as untrustworthy. But do these folks turn that same light on themselves or the organizations they like? When they do, do they react the same way? There is a clear bias and that is why people should really be careful of following the judgements of other people.

To be clear, if JWs doubled down on things that they KNOW they are in error, I wouldn't be a JW. A mistake is not enough for me to abandon people that are at least trying their best.

I'd never throw it back into their face. What is done is done and to bring up their past is just mean hearted.

What I don't understand is how you wrap this to a perpetual offender who always says they're sorry.

Are they really sorry? As you well know no one can read minds. Jehovah's Witnesses are no exception. Even though we catch much finger-wagging and nasty comments about disfellowshipping a person, it's the only thing we are allowed to use to determine what is in a person's heart. I've seen a person cry their eyes out after doing wrong and then go right back to their harmful lifestyle. So, JWs use shunning to determine if the offender is really sorry. If they are really sorry they will continue to show up at meetings and follow all the rules of being disfellowshipped. After a time, then the person is welcomed back to tears and hugs for their determination to show they really are sorry through their act of worship despite their being disfellowshipped.

I actually know of a case in one of the local congregations in my area where there is a baptized JW that is a known drug user and dealer. In the past she had said she was sorry and sobbed many times only to return to their lifestyle of drugs and dealing. What other choice do the elders have but to disfellowship this person to keep the congregation safe and read if they are really sorry. There are literally back SUVs that case their house and the house of their parents. While she still goes to congregation meetings, no one speaks to her. No one has any dealings with them at all. Now, some will call this harsh but disfellowshipping is a last resort in the hopes that the person will change coarse. Sadly, this person hasn't improved and there are indications that despite trying to get them rehab and other help, they are going deeper into a dark path. They have also turned to manipulation to get what they want from anyone. Truly this is what disfellowshipping is for but it only keeps people from harm and tries to correct the course of this person if people follow the instructions at 1 Corinthians 5:11. About 3 years ago when this person was disfellowshipped they called me and I didn't take the call. They left a voice mail about helping find some dog's owner. I didn't return the call. Imagine where I might be if I had allowed this person to stay in contact with me. I might have black SUVs at my house right now.

I hold terrible grudges and unless someone is willing to make up for a deed until they are taking a penalty for having committed it, I assume they're not really sorry, cut ties, and move on with my life. If someone takes my coat I want two coats back. I would forgive people and not do this if I thought the genuine people existed in any numbers, but as it stands the genuine people will give up the two coats and not complain, while people who seek to say they're sorry so they can keep the coat and take another will get massively offended. I realise I'm hurting the wrong person but this is the real-life version of the witch test: I won't know unless I use that particular silver needle.

Well, I guess this is your version of disfellowshipping. However, the grudge holding and demanding double the recompense might backfire if a person truly is sorry in the future. The Bible says we better be ready to be judged as harshly as we judge others. With the person I mentioned above, I have no problems accepting any equal judgement I have decided in following the disfellowshipping arrangement. If I turn into a drug using drug dealer, by all means avoid me at all costs.

[Purple Knight]

What I pay attention to the most is what a person does when they discover they are wrong. Here are the responses that irk me.
1. Double down on their wrong course.
2. Try to change the meanings of words so that they seem like they were always right. Or with the Bible, fumble through trying to change the meaning of a scripture on-the-fly.
3. Put their fingers in their ears and say 'la la la la la'.
4. Attack the credibility of the person they got the information from. (This tool is worn-out on us JWs)
5. Say, "well, this is MY truth", then ignore the new information, as if truth was subjective.
6. They see the information is correct but can't be bothered with changing their minds. Sunk-cost fallacy: "I've lived my whole life believing this way, I don't want to change."
7. So full of themselves they can't hear anyone since the love the sound of their own voice so much.

I have so much triggered and hate for #5 that I will explode and say things that get me in trouble. They never mean it. Subjective means they can't impose on others, either, and they always want to. Here's how it goes for me:
Purple Knight: "As far as that goes, here are the reasons I think X is actually true."
People: "Don't give me your rationality and your logic. My truth is that X is not the case. I feel this way and you can't impose your truth on me."
Purple Knight: "Well I feel this other way about it, so X is still my truth then."
People: "You're bad and you should feel bad."

I'm nowhere near as bad off as JWs, who actually have the Bible right and come under attack from Christians who have never read the Bible at all, simply because "fringe nutjobs lol," when the fact is that any rational person who has read the Bible critically with the mind of a nerdy, intelligent Star Trek fan, can see that you have canon correct and there is simply no support for these mainstream Christian beliefs like that people turn into angels when they die, and the afterlife is non-physical.

But I get a little taste of it because my conscience doesn't work like normal peoples' and I have to reason everything. Sometimes, logical and inescapable conclusions of the things that are mainstream beliefs, are things that are hateful to those beliefs. Regular people don't introspect, they don't scrutinise, they just believe whatever they're supposed to and get angry or offended, and start shaming anyone for not seeing it their way, which should probably be #8 on that list.

Now, a person will either admire the humble person admitting their error or bash them for admitting their error.

This is why you can't find a humble person in the sense you're talking about. (Humble and proud are weird words. For example, I think a lot of myself, but if I couldn't admit I was wrong when I very well was, I wouldn't deserve that.) People in modern day will take an apology and use that to tear a person asunder. They're always sniffing for any sign of weakness, like an apology, and when they find one, the whole pack falls upon the victim.

I don't try to correct anyone. I've decided that those humble people don't exist. I get into fights because I'm just trying to do me, and there's always some moralist out to take that away on the basis that everything is subjective. This used to be religious people filling that niche, trying to take stuff away because morality was objective. Surely, I thought, if we depose the objectivity people, the subjectivity people won't be able to do that. Nope! Turns out people are fundamentally illogical and don't need a sound basis to impose their dogma on others.

Just the other day I was arguing with a moralising vegan who told me that animal lives outweigh my enjoyment. Yet they have a dog and a cat. Dog food has meat in it. Cat food has to, because cats are obligate carnivores. By having those carnivores instead of letting them die in the shelter, they are valuing their enjoyment over animal lives. If they let the cute, intelligent carnivores that actually make good pets shrivel up and die, plus lives, right? It didn't take long before they got mad and turned out a "How dare you?!"

And yeah, I was super duper wrong. I predicted a lot of modern culture in the 90's, but on this particular point I got the bed I wanted and it's sticky and nasty, and now I have to sleep in it.

We can't afford to be dogmatic.

This is why I would prefer to talk to a fringe believer than a mainstream one, any day. The mainstream guy doesn't have to have his facts straight. Not only dogmatic but people who know their thinking can't stand up to challenging will avoid the organisation. By and large you will only get people who have strong logical reasons to believe they are correct. Illogical reasons will filter where they are most protected from scrutiny.

It does seem like something is in the water that just makes people...nasty. Jehovah's Witnesses have to drink the water too and sometimes we make choices that are not beneficial to anyone. This is the sin that Jehovah's Witnesses believe is in all mankind. All humanity is drawn to what is bad and to rebel against what is good, and you're correct, it is in our bones. (Romans 7:21) However, we are not doomed for it to be master over us, we can be master over sin if we ask for God's help gain master over it. (Gen 4:7)

...

Since mankind has been on earth there a truth, "Man has dominated man to his injury”!

I think true, reasoned atheists like me, think of it in terms of humanity's vile past as filthy apes. It really clicks if you watch social animals like wolves and chimps. You start to realise that this nastiness is something that is strongly encouraged. If you don't have it, you will not get food. Everyone used to think humans were better than that, and they would point to overcoming that vile nature, but at this point I think we're all just physically weak monkeys who can only pretend there is a better, so we can be even worse. Moralism is just the new dominance.

As humans we have the right to judge some things. Like we judge who our friends should be. We judge for ourselves as to what kind of entertainment we should watch. Really any decision that comes to feeding what could encourage us to do bad things. As one Native American proverb says, 'Everyone has a good wolf and a bad wolf inside them. The one that survives is the one you feed.'

The bad one doesn't need any help. It takes food from the good one easily. Uphill battle.

They think they are doing everyone a favor. They have judged us as untrustworthy. But do these folks turn that same light on themselves or the organizations they like? When they do, do they react the same way?

They just get offended. What I start to think is that nobody reasons. Like, at all. Nobody thinks about anything. The other day, Boatsnguitars was arguing with JW about a doctrine, and JW presented the consistent version of that doctrine, and Boat was like, "Yeah but that's only believed by a tiny minority of Christians." And I'm sitting there between laughter and tears because that's not an argument. Ad populum is one of those fallacies that I don't think is always a fallacy, but this is a perfect example of when it is a fallacy, and couldn't be any worse.

Are they really sorry? As you well know no one can read minds. Jehovah's Witnesses are no exception. Even though we catch much finger-wagging and nasty comments about disfellowshipping a person, it's the only thing we are allowed to use to determine what is in a person's heart. I've seen a person cry their eyes out after doing wrong and then go right back to their harmful lifestyle. So, JWs use shunning to determine if the offender is really sorry. If they are really sorry they will continue to show up at meetings and follow all the rules of being disfellowshipped. After a time, then the person is welcomed back to tears and hugs for their determination to show they really are sorry through their act of worship despite their being disfellowshipped.

I actually know of a case in one of the local congregations in my area where there is a baptized JW that is a known drug user and dealer. In the past she had said she was sorry and sobbed many times only to return to their lifestyle of drugs and dealing. What other choice do the elders have but to disfellowship this person to keep the congregation safe and read if they are really sorry. There are literally black SUVs that case their house and the house of their parents. While she still goes to congregation meetings, no one speaks to her. No one has any dealings with them at all. Now, some will call this harsh but disfellowshipping is a last resort in the hopes that the person will change coarse. Sadly, this person hasn't improved and there are indications that despite trying to get them rehab and other help, they are going deeper into a dark path. They have also turned to manipulation to get what they want from anyone. Truly this is what disfellowshipping is for but it only keeps people from harm and tries to correct the course of this person if people follow the instructions at 1 Corinthians 5:11. About 3 years ago when this person was disfellowshipped they called me and I didn't take the call. They left a voice mail about helping find some dog's owner. I didn't return the call. Imagine where I might be if I had allowed this person to stay in contact with me. I might have black SUVs at my house right now.

Yeah there was no lost dog. I know what these kinds of people will do. If there was a dog, she stole it. People around here have to watch their dogs and not put them in the front because drug-addled bums will steal dogs out of peoples' yards, use them to beg, and then abandon them.

What I find ridiculous is that you take flak for kicking people out of your own fellowship, and the people dishing out the flak probably love cancel culture which kicks people out of the entire larger society and that's somehow fair. Sure, mob J.K. Rowling because her definition of female is not the one you like. Make sure you're not friends with anyone who buys any Harry Potter stuff; kick them out of your friend group they're basically Hitler, and you are too if you hang around them. But those JWs disfellowshipping people? OMFG how cruel and heartless!

The plenty and ease we have now, is not a right but a luxury. It's common sense that we're not entitled to it. Why then, are people entitled to treatment no one could possibly afford without that ease and plenty, if their actions are eroding that ease and plenty? I think in terms of what a post-apocalyptic group would have to do. Could they be expected to feed this person, so they could do more drugs, if it meant not feeding someone keeping their group alive? If not, then it can't be a right for them to be fed. It can only be a luxury.

Well, I guess this is your version of disfellowshipping. However, the grudge holding and demanding double the recompense might backfire if a person truly is sorry in the future. The Bible says we better be ready to be judged as harshly as we judge others. With the person I mentioned above, I have no problems accepting any equal judgement I have decided in following the disfellowshipping arrangement. If I turn into a drug using drug dealer, by all means avoid me at all costs.

Once the person gives me the two coats, I put them in the category of trustworthy and pick up the tab for meals and things. I worry about druggos, and sometimes I half-believe the AA crud I was sold as a kid that they're genetically programmed to be vulnerable to addiction and can't help it. I'm pretty addicted to caffeine but at the same time, if it was steal or deal with headaches, I'll be dealing with the headaches. It's not out of the question that one day someone injects me with a drug that turns me addicted, and it's so strong I can't help myself. I know it's possible because I can't kill myself by deciding not to breathe. If someone defined that air as somebody else's property, then stuck me at the bottom of a pool, I'd come up to breathe. I'd take positive action I knew was wrong and take from others in order to keep myself alive. Even if I knew there were people that needed to be saved up there and limited air for them. The urge to breathe is too strong.

But what I can do is make up for what I do in that state and always give back the two coats. If I don't do that, I judge myself the same.