Anti-Jehovah's Witness tactics (need answer fast)

[cosmosdan]

@Revenant_Threshold

My personal wager would be this; getting across the message should have two points on which its goodness can be judged. Effectiveness, and Christliness while doing so. Were the potential proseylatizer terrible at doing so - if they managed in fact to convince people the other way, or at the least convinced no converts - then it’s probably not the task, or at least the method, for them. God seems to be quite big on calling the right person for the right job; I don’t see that, in terms of getting the message out, he would be so arbitrary when the very souls of man are at stake.

But i’m a big fan of proselyatizing by doing, so that may cloud my views a little.

I agree and part of the point I was making. I’ve met missionaries who had a real gift for their chosen path. The average Christian not so much however well intended. I think the goal for some door to door is to find people who are seeking for some answers, some sense of purpose or belonging and convince them that by believing and joining their “family” they will have their needs met. In some cases that’s probably true. When I was in church we would sometimes visit members who hadn’t gone in quite a while or anyone who had expressed any interest. It wasn’t cold calling.

OTOH I have much more respect for those who reflect the sincere qualities that Jesus spoke of without any overt preaching about what someone ought to believe. I’ve noticed that more than a few of those are not Christians.

[meanoldman]

<Minor hijack.>

Thanks to FriarTed for pointing out Acts 10.

Apparently, I had either forgotten these passages or they were never pointed out in my roman catholic upbringing.

[begbert2]

@raindog

The atheist that uses science as the basis for his atheism has adopted a group of subjective beliefs, from the known, objective facts derived from science.

On it’s face, I have no issue with that. (and would gladly post in this thread as an atheist) Science routinely draws inferences from what is known, or can be proven. It is common for these subjective inferences to be revised, or even abandoned, as the testing methods (and the data that comes from them) improve. That is a strength of science. At any rate, the less that is known on any given subject, the more subjective and speculative the inferences.

As to existence or non-existence of some super natural being we would call “God”, the data is so incomplete, and the testing methods so inadequate that science is silent on the question. (although science may one day be able to answer the question)

In the meantime, the person who asserts that the data shows there is no God is engaging in an exercise speculative enough that he has more in common with religionists than with scientists.

It depends on which ‘God’ you’re talking about - and whether proving that the claimed feats that god has supposedly performed is sufficient to prove that the god itself is disproven. (Which becomes a bit of a philosophical debate on whether I’m actually a different person than the me I pretend to be around hot women, and the like.)

If a person requires that their god have flooded the planet at some point or popped it and all its occupants into existence in the span of a (literal) week, then science definitely can make commentary on the reality of that god - the data about such things is plentifully available.

[hotflungwok]

@raindog

Actually, my post was tongue-in-cheek, and I apologize if it didn’t come through that way.

No, it came through as stunningly presumptuous, condescending, and arrogant.

I found Chronos’s post to be stunningly presumptuous, condescending and arrogant, and it seemed funny to me that he appears to be oblivious to the simple fact he was witnessing to them.

What was it about his post was any of these? He never said he wasn’t witnessing, in fact I thought it was fairly obvious. And also quite fair, given what the JWs were there for. So is this just a ‘how dare he question religious beliefs’ type outrage, or more of a ‘how dare he claim science is better than religion’ type?

The simple fact is, the elegantly written book he refers to has no prose of any sort that deals with the question of {the existence, or non-existence of] God or parallel questions.

Can you prove this ‘simple fact’? Cuz it doesn’t seem so simple to me.

That hasn’t kept message board denizens and other miscreants from inserting ham handed pig latin addendums into this book, hoping to impute some objectivity into their subjective belief systems. (or at least masquerade them as objective)

Cite. Especially the pig latin.

The truth is, this language he’s mastered can only lead him to agnosticism. To the extent he is anything but an agnostic (an atheist, I presume) he has adopted a subjective belief system that has more in common with the bible than with science. (For science must remain silent on the matter, while the bible (and it’s “faithful”) feel no need for such restraint)

You would be wrong. Atheism is a perfectly acceptable conclusion from objective study of both religion and reality. Of course, this depends on what definition of atheism you’re using. Are you using the distorted definition where you think atheism is a belief? Because I am using the real definition, where atheism is the absence of a belief.

[begbert2]

@hotflungwok

You would be wrong. Atheism is a perfectly acceptable conclusion from objective study of both religion and reality. Of course, this depends on what definition of atheism you’re using. Are you using the distorted definition where you think atheism is a belief? Because I am using the real definition, where atheism is the absence of a belief.

Lest this explode out of control, let me point out that there are (at least) two kinds of atheism:

1. “strong”/“hard” atheism - the person ‘knows’ a god isn’t real.
2. “weak”/“soft” atheism - the person has no belief in a god.

Both definitions are “real” and neither is particularly distorted. And you can be reasonably confident that when the unqualified term “atheism” is used, whichever definition you interpret it as, somebody is going to interpret it as the other one.
I also think that either sort of atheism is compatible with a scientific outlook - “weak” atheism is compatible with total ignorance of everything, and adding current scientific facts certainly doens’t force belief in any diety. And strong atheism is attainable from science because sciencey people usually use a different definition of “know” - one which doesn’t imply absolute certainty. We “know” that the earth is orbiting the sun, despite being willing to simultaneously admit that we could be all just heads in jars or something and there might be no sun. This is acceptable because to us “knowing” just means “having a pretty high certainty and confidence” to us - and you can get a pretty high certainty and confidence that every suggested religion is false by comparing their claims and anecdotes with observed reality (which includes the fact that humans are fallible reporters and other explanations are worth considering).

[Voyager]

@raindog

Is that so?

I would love to hear it, if you’re interested.

If you’re so inclined, I’d be particularly interested in your thoughts along the way as to whether these ‘plausibilities’ (starts to sound subjective almost from the beginning, huh?) have more in common with the subjective quality of religion, or the objective quality of science.

If a religion ascribes to God the quality that he created the world 6,000 years ago, cannot that be studied? If it says he led a people through the desert for 40 years, can’t we examine that desert for traces? Any claimed physical or historical evidence for God’s interaction with the world can be scientifically examined, don’t you agree?

And on the other hand, if God chose to reappear as a pillar of smoke every day for 40 years (except Saturdays!) couldn’t we scientifically examine that?

No, this won’t prove anything, but the claim was that God can be examined, not proven or disproven. God could probably be demonstrated to the level that other scientific “facts” are if he chose to show up.

[dougie_monty]

@Whack-a-Mole

I object to people getting in my face to sell something and get particularly miffed when they will not take a simple “no thanks” and go away.

I went through this for several years. I soon lost count of people who said “no thanks” or something similar. That was enough for me and I didn’t try to argue with such people. Yes, I would let it go at that; there’s a Scriptural precedent for this in case you’re interested.

[Scooterdude]

I’m a former JW and the best advice for getting rid of JWs I can give is: ask them to leave and not come back. In most cases, they won’t come for another 6 months to a year to make sure you still live in your home and still feel the way you do.

As far as them being the least offensive, I take issue with that. For one, they’re going from door-to-door pushing their religion on people, but that’s not really offensive compared to their other beliefs. The major thing is that they practice shunning. Now you may be thinking “shunning, big freaking deal!” Well, it is a big deal for those who are affected. Simply because I chose to stop believing the teachings of the religion, I have lost my relationship with my family. My father isn’t even coming to my wedding because of it. But that’s just the beginning.

They are forbidden to even speak one word to someone who has left the church. Not even a simple “hello” is allowed. Since JWs are also forbidden from developing relationships with people outside of the belief system, leaving the church often means a severing of one’s entire support system. If you leave the JW religion, every single one of your friends and family will no longer speak with you unless it is absolutely necessary.

This was one of the things that kept me trapped for a long time. They purposely isolate you from the outside world and pump you full of fear. They tell you that a life full of misery is waiting outside, and that there is nothing better out there than their organization. Never mind all those JWs relying on anti-depressants, that’s just Satan testing God’s people!

Now to you that may sound silly and harmless, but to a fully indoctrinated JW, these are the words of God himself. It is a very effective mental prison. Yes, joining the witnesses is a completely voluntary choice and if that’s the choice you make, more power to you. But if you wish to leave, it is not a choice you make without heavy coercion. The more involved you are, the harder it is to break free mentally.

Finally, their teaching on blood has resulted in the death of many. They also have a nasty habit of harboring pedophiles without reporting instances of abuse to the authorities. Yet they will turn around and condemn the Catholic church for doing the same thing they do.

Some have left the JWs without much lasting harm at all, but typically those are the people who never really got into it as much as most have. All too often, leaving the church leaves one alone, with no support system and no one to talk to. It divides families into JW and non-JW factions (I personally experienced this, barely knowing half of my family growing up) and has the potential for great damage.

I know some of you may read this and think I’m some sort of crybaby. Maybe I should man up and take it huh? Well, unless you’ve truly walked in an ex-JWs shoes, you don’t understand. If you haven’t escaped from a cult or high control group yourself, you can’t understand. I’ve seen people die from hemorrhaging because the book of Acts forbids eating animal blood, because to them that includes blood transfusions. I’ve seen women forced to stay with men who are physically abusive because they believe the Bible only grants divorces on the grounds of fornication. I’ve seen families driven apart because the aunt and uncle celebrate Christmas and believe God is a trinity.

It is NOT a harmless religion.

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

For anyone who wishes to drive off Jehovah’s Witnesses missionaries I suggest using the Chick tract attacking them. While I’m not the Jack Chick type of Christian I may use these tracts just to piss off any Mormon or Jehovah’s Witnesses missionaries who attempt to destroy my privacy.

[Gyrate]

@Scooterdude

This was one of the things that kept me trapped for a long time. They purposely isolate you from the outside world and pump you full of fear. They tell you that a life full of misery is waiting outside, and that there is nothing better out there than their organization. Never mind all those JWs relying on anti-depressants, that’s just Satan testing God’s people!

Now to you that may sound silly and harmless, but to a fully indoctrinated JW, these are the words of God himself. It is a very effective mental prison. Yes, joining the witnesses is a completely voluntary choice and if that’s the choice you make, more power to you. But if you wish to leave, it is not a choice you make without heavy coercion. The more involved you are, the harder it is to break free mentally.

Silly and harmless? No. Cult behavior? Absolutely.

@Wikipedia

Specific factors in cult behavior are said to include manipulative and authoritarian mind control over members, communal and totalistic organization, aggressive proselytizing, systematic programs of indoctrination, and perpetuation in middle-class communities.

While acknowledging the issue of multiple definitions of “cult”, Michael Langone states that "Cults are groups that often exploit members psychologically and/or financially, typically by making members comply with leadership’s demands through certain types of psychological manipulation, popularly called mind control, and through the inculcation of deep-seated anxious dependency on the group and its leaders."A similar definition is given by Louis Jolyon West:

A cult is a group or movement exhibiting a great or excessive devotion or dedication to some person, idea or thing and employing unethically manipulative techniques of persuasion and control (e.g. isolation from former friends and family, debilitation, use of special methods to heighten suggestibility and subservience, powerful group pressures, information management, suspension of individuality or critical judgment, promotion of total dependency on the group and fear of [consequences of] leaving it, etc) designed to advance the goals of the group's leaders to the actual or possible detriment of members, their families, or the community.

In each, the focus tends to be on the specific tactics of conversion, the negative impact on individual members, and the difficulty in leaving once indoctrination has occurred.

Sound about right?

[Doug_Bowe]

If you really want to engage these people you might start with this 1953 book:

Jehovah of the Watchtower: Martin, Walter Ralston: 9780871232670: Amazon.com:...

Otherwise, much of the advice already given.

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

@Doug_Bowe

If you really want to engage these people you might start with this 1953 book:
http://www.amazon.com/Jehovah-Watchtower-Walter-Ralston-Martin/dp/0871232677
Otherwise, much of the advice already given.

Are Jehovah’s Witnesses prone to violence? Because that may happen if they read this book…

[Blake]

@Gyrate

Silly and harmless? No. Cult behavior? Absolutely.

Sound about right?

Not even remotely. None of that is any more applicabale to JWs than to any other Abrahamic religion. IOW if JWs are a cult by that standard then so are Roman Catholics, Sunni Muslims and Hasidic Jews.

[Scooterdude]

@Blake

Not even remotely. None of that is any more applicabale to JWs than to any other Abrahamic religion. IOW if JWs are a cult by that standard then so are Roman Catholics, Sunni Muslims and Hasidic Jews.

I don’t know many Roman Catholics who won’t associate with family members who are non-Catholic, who won’t even say one word to them because they don’t share the faith. As far as Sunni Muslims and Hasidic Jews, perhaps they fit the definition more than you realize.

[Blake]

@Scooterdude

I don’t know many Roman Catholics who won’t associate with family members who are non-Catholic, who won’t even say one word to them because they don’t share the faith.

I don’t see that anywhere in Gyrate’s links either.

[Ponderoid]

@Scooterdude

I’m a former JW and the best advice for getting rid of JWs I can give is: ask them to leave and not come back. In most cases, they won’t come for another 6 months to a year to make sure you still live in your home and still feel the way you do.

Hmm, if this is true, they must have a different definition for “don’t come back” than normal people do. Given how different their world-view is on so many other things, I shouldn’t be surprised.

With the tactic I tried, it took 2 months for this pair. Even though they never got a return phone call like we required, they did show up uninvited a few days ago. And my housemate just refused to answer the door this time, huzzah. They hung around 15 minutes or so before driving away.

@villa

Not sure if this is an urban legend, but I was always told telling Jehovah’s Witnesses that you were an ex-JW and had left would end the conversation.

Scooterdude appears to have confirmed that:

@Scooterdude

They are forbidden to even speak one word to someone who has left the church.

Personally, I don’t think I could pull that trick off. I think my lack of knowledge of their church would give me away.

*** Ponder

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

@Scooterdude

I don’t know many Roman Catholics who won’t associate with family members who are non-Catholic, who won’t even say one word to them because they don’t share the faith. As far as Sunni Muslims and Hasidic Jews, perhaps they fit the definition more than you realize.

Perhaps the Amish. They do practice shunning.

[kanicbird]

You can come up with some preprepaired counter scriptures to frustrate them, but you are just doing exactly what they are, but it will work. Or you can know the Word through enlightenment of the Holy Spirit and not only get them to stop their tactics but to break the people free who are in bondage and imprisoned by the JW watchtower powers. Those people are just ‘drones’ part of a vast collective and in themselves just doing what they have been taught is the thing to do, these are some of the people God wants to set free through Jesus, and they come right to your door.

[Spiff]

I saw some JWs coming up my steps about a month ago, so I quickly stripped and answered the door buck nekkid.

They declined my invitation to come in.

YMMV

[mswas]

Ask them about their iconoclasm and how that relates to affiliation with an organization. Then ask them about how they feel about the inherent contradiction that the JW church is an organization.