Why would anyone want to be Jehovah's Witness?

[Blake]

Sure, sure raindog, I was incorrect, but you just can’t show it.

Sorry, but this is GD, not IMHO. “You are wrong” simply doesn’t cut it. Nor does “I belong to the church”. You are a JW, you should know that members of a church are usually less knowledgeable about the church’s actual teachings than informed outsiders.
Anyway it seems that you are unable to provide any references for your claims that I was wrong, so it’s up to me to provide some facts:

Speaking to someone who is disfellowshipped is not so much a “serious offence” as it is severely discouraged…

As long as someone is disfellowshipped or disassociated, we need to follow the instruction: “Quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother that is a fornicator or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man.”
Watchtower 4/15/1991

In the apostle John’s writings, we find similar counsel that emphasizes how thoroughly Christians are to avoid such ones: “Everyone that pushes ahead and does not remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God . . . If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, never receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him. For he that says a greeting [Greek, khai’ro] to him is a sharer in his wicked works.”
The Watchtower, 4/15

So you, sir, are wrong. JWs are not merely discouraged form associating with the disfellowshipped, they are ordered in no uncertain terms to thoroughly avoid them.

and sending someone else is no more serious than going yourself.

Paul displayed the attitude that we all need: “If food [or anything else] makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat flesh at all.” If, on a matter that is up to our conscience, and we therefore have freedom to act, we ignore the conscience of others and thus ‘ruin our brothers for whom Christ died,’ we could lose our good standing with God. Even though an individual feels it is a ‘personal matter of conscience,’ if it damages others it can lead to his receiving Jehovah’s adverse judgment.
Watchtower 7/15 1982
You, sir, are wrong. if you had been right that associating with the disfellowshipped was a matter of conscience it would still be afar more serious offence to send others to do so.
As for your claim that any JW has ever been disfellowsipphed for marrying outside the faith, show us your evidence.

Given that you obviously don’t fully understand the plainly written teachings of your own faith I am not inclined to trust you on this point.

[Queuing]

@DocCathode

You compared people who will not let their children marry outside their religion to members of the KKK. If you do not want it pointed out to you that just compared my family to the KKK, don’t make such sweeping generalizations. If you’d like, I can get CMKeller, ZevSteinhardt, Alessan, and ScubaBen to come in and be upset that you’ve compared their families (and in the case of Zev and Allessan themselves) to the KKK.

Get whoever you want. That does not make it anymore relevant, nor will it change a damn thing.

@DocCathode

If you make a general statement about all members of a group, then specific members of a group are most definitely relevant.

As I said it was an extreme example to attempt to highlit my point. You seem to have gathered that yet are still offended. That is why in arguements about race and religion family feelings have no place.

@DocCathode

Black culture? I’ll go with a yes on that one although I’m unclear on the specifics. White culture? Hell no. I’d even disagree with European culture. Russian heritage festivals and German heritage festivals are very different things. KKK culture? Not especially. The KKK doesn’t date back that far. It was created from a pastiche of sources. It is extremely heterogenous (besides various organizations now claiming to be the official KKK, you’ve got all kinds of NeoNazis, Aryan Brotherhoods, Christian identity movement, Astaru groups etc). Besides not white=bad, I don’t think you could find a set of beliefs or practices to hold up as KKK culture.

I DID mention southern culture. I also mentioned that we have black Dopers who have southern pride. I meant to convey both a literal pride in the south and in having been born there, and a pride in and participation in southern culture.

Ok, so there can be a black culture, one I would say neither of us could define. Yet there isn’t a white culture? How about Asian? Indian? I am going to assume that this is a yes, but still no to white? I don’t understand this, unless it has to do with the fact the white man has treated a lot of people pretty shitty.

@DocCathode

I thought I made this clear. Great aunt E’s descendants (OTTOMH between 30 and 50 people) are not Jewish. However, E’s sister married a Jewish man. Those were my mother’s parents. Mom is Jewish. She married my Dad, also Jewish. My sister and I are Jewish. Besides participating in Jewish culture, we believe that there is one G-d, that He delivered us from slavery in Egypt and led us to the promised land, stopping on the way to give us the ten commandments on Mount Sinai. I could go on, but you should get the idea from that.

But, due to intermarriage, a whole branch of the family is Christian.

Ok, sorry, I got the wrong part of your family that is no longer jewish. The rest of this paragraph is nice, good for you. I am happy that you believe in something. This belief was something I had already assumed. I have never once said that there is no Jewish culture, that they aren’t jewish beliefs, that any of the above is wrong, so I don’t see the point. Unless it is to reiterate that yes you are in fact jewish.

@DocCathode

What culture exactly is the Klansman afraid of losing? Jewish culture has taken from and given to surrounding cultures. Most New Yorkers know a little Yiddish. Jews brought the bagel to America. But it works both ways. Yiddish itself is a mix of Hebrew and German. Many foods considered part of American Jewish culture were taken from Germany or Slavic countries. Despite the differences between the European-descended Ashkenazic Jews, and Spanish/Middle Eastern Sephardic Jews, we’re still recognizably Jews, hold the same tenets, read from identical Torahs etc. This is because we marry other Jews and pass down Judaism.

Again, beats the hell out of me. I am not a member, nor do I know much about the KKK. I knows Jews brought the bagel, in fact Montreal bagels are better then New York bagels. I know that many Jews came from many Eastern European countries. In no way am I ignorant of judaism, or Jewish history.

To reiterate I fully accept that there is Jewish Culture, a Jewish people and Jewish beliefs. I fully support a Jewish state.

None of that has to do with this discussion. What this discussion between yourself and I has to do with whether or not it is a bigoted thing to do to immediately discount a person based soley on their race/religion/creed/ethnicity. What I get from you, and please correct me if I am wrong, is the following:

a)Race and religion are different things. This is because of the difference between genetics and society.

b)It is okay to discriminate in one way and one way only, as long as you treat friends/co-workers/what have you the same. This is in spousal choice.

c)This discrimination of spousal choice is only okay if this discrimination is based on religion alone.

Thats about it. I do however apologize if I offended you with my, admittedly rather extreme, comparison between Jews and the KKK, but that is all it was, an extreme comparison to attempt to illustrate my point. Which, in case we have all forgotten is that any immediate disapproval based solely on WHAT you are, rather the WHO you are is discrimanatory and bigoted, and therefore wrong. Not so crushingly wrong as say not hiring someone because of that, or killing them, but wrong nonetheless.

[Johanna]

“You know, Phillip, you have a goddamned red, white and blue American right to eat cotton candy and ride roller coasters.” And to have a Halloween costume.

Judaeologists of the Dope, don’t forget the Cochin Black Jews of the state of Kerala, India.

The Jews of Yemen (before they left for Israel) resembled the Arabs of Yemen physically. After all, the two peoples had lived side by side there for what, 3,000 years?

[yukionna78]

@Blake

OK, so she was a minor, living in her parents house of her own free will? And they asked her to abide by a fairly straightforward and not-at-all onerous rule while she lived there? And she was 16, so she would only have had to live by it for 2 years at the most.

Am I getting this right? A minor was asked by her parents to abide by a simple, non life-threatening rule that didn’t jeopardise her future? And she was asked to do this for a whole 24 months?

The pretty hateful… NOT.

A simple rule? Asking someone to never see a loved one at all isn’t a simple rule. It’s devestating, especially to a teenager who feels their parents don’t care about their own feelings. I have nothing against establishing rules in a househould as long as those rule have a realistic, sensible base for them.

I’m guessing you are a teenager yourself yukionna78. There’s nothing hateful about someone setting down ground rules for what occurs in their own house. There’s nothing hateful about saying that a child can’t smoke while they live in their parents’ house, or join a gang, or date outside the faith. It’s the parent’s freakin’ house. They weren’t saying she couldn’t be friends with this person, they weren’t even saying he couldn’t come into the house, they were saying she couldn’t date him.

I know a lot of teenagers have this idea that love is a somehow sacred and that they should be able to date anyone they like because, like, it’s love. It’s something you’ll grow out of. It’s not a sign of hatred that parents set limits on who their children get romantically involved with, it’s a sign of love.

Ask yourself this, would you feel the same way if her parents forbade her from dating a drug pusher? A pimp? An ex con? How about just a bum? A no good layabout? Do you believe parents should have no control at all over who their children date while they live at home?

I’m far from a teenager, almost 30 in fact. And again, there is nothing hateful about ground rules but there is something wrong about rules that have nothing to do with a child’s wellbeing and are merely based on the parents’ own selfish ideas. They didn’t want her to see him at all. At home, at school, nothing. He was to be cut out of her life completely for no reason other than he wasn’t a JW. My brother is a very good person and never got into any trouble in school or otherwise. Sure he wasn’t some straight A school president but he sure wasn’t some drug snorting dropout. There was NO reason for them not to like him other than his religious belief. Comparing this situation to a situation where a girl is dating someone who could cause her harm is completely faulty.

So she was a minor, living in their house, and she lied to them. Repeatedly I assume? And they revoked the privilege of living with them rent free and getting free food, clothes etc?

Once again this makes me suspect you are a teenager. It’s a very teenage viewpoint, this idea that you have the right to do whatever l you like in someone else’s house, even if they ask you specifically to stop. That’s not the case. A person has a right to run their house however they like. Its not a public place. If anybody doesn’t like the house rules they are free to leave. They are not free to break them as this child did. They certainly aren’t free to break them and then lie about it repeatedly. Adults usually get that. Teenagers seldom do.

Privilege of living with them? It’s the law. Parents are obligated to provide a secure home and living space for their children until they turn 18. This isn’t like them not letting her borrow the car on a Friday night. They kicked her out of the house for loving someone they hated.

OK, so her repeatedly refusing to obey house rules is OK, but the parent’s refusal to attend the wedding is bad? I’m not getting this. I know soap operas will have us believe that weddings are the most important things in the world, but realistically, it’s peanuts compared to how people actually live their lives after they marry, including what sort of household they live in.

I’m guessing you’re a man. For most girls, their wedding day IS one of the most important days of their lives. And her parents blew it off as if it were nothing more than some backyard BBQ.

Iif they tried to get her to leave your brother then you should notify the church elders of that fact. That is a serious offence and probably warrants disfellowshipping her parents. JWs only tolerate divorce on the grounds of adultery. Noting else. If your brother wasn’t cheating on his wife then she could not leave him with the blessing of the church. My BS meter is starting to flash on this story. Any woman leaving her husband if he wasn’t cheating has some serious explaining to do.

Well you better get your BS meter serviced because there’s none of it here. I’ve told the whole story. The true story. I won’t be contacting the elders, nor will anyone in my family because we don’t feel like trying to ruin their lives (they’re extremely into the church). And I hope you’re referring to the JW idea about a woman leaving her husband because I can think of multiple reasons why she would leave a husband even if there wasn’t adultry.

The next question is, what had she done to be disfellowhipped? Dating or even marrying a person not in the faith is not even a serious offence for the JWs. It’s discouraged but entirely a matter of conscience. So that isn’t why she was disfellowshipped. This girl had done something naughty, and done it repeatedly. JWs don’t disfellowship anyone unless they commit multiple offences or state outright that they intend to.

My BS meter just went off, big time. We are being told half-truths with this story. My guess is this girl wasn’t just dating this boy. She was having sex with him. That’s why she was disfellowhsipped and that’s why she was kicked out of home.

I don’t know the exact reasoning she was kicked out of the church. From what I heard it’s centered around her dating my brother because she was kicked out before they married. They probably were having sex. But even then that seems an awfully horrid reason for cutting your own child out of your life.

This would be the same family the ‘poor thing’ had repeatedly lied to and showed a total lack of respect for? That family?

Once again, this seems like a very teen things to say. She repeatedly lied to her parents, disobeyed them and forced them to remove her from the house because she wouldn’t follow some basic and very temporary rules. But the parents should have turned up to the wedding anyway. Because weddings are like, so romantic and stuff.

Lack of respect? I sincerely hope you don’t have children of your own. Children tend to disobey to some degree at some point in their life. They lie at certain times too. I’m sure that’s hard to believe but it does happen. Unless a child has completely gone out of control, there is no reason to kick them out onto the street. She was not a troublemaker. She was not some rebellious girl who was out doing crack and screwing every guy on the block. She merely refused to stop seeing someone she loved who was in no way a risk to her.

No, that is just plain wrong. JWs are free to dine with or even marry pretty much anyone they like. What they can’t do is associate with people who have been disfellowshipped. People who are going to be disfellowshipped are told this explicitely and repeatedly and given every chance to avoid it if they wish. This girl made the choice not to.

Again, any religion that would completely cut off a child from the family for merely doing something as ‘horrid’ as loving someone outside the religion is not any religion I would ever want to be part of. And thus my original post of why anyone would choose this.

I’d have to ask how you know her family do this when you have said you don’t speak to the parents?

Because I speak to her and I speak to my brother. When this first happened, my parents had to talk to her parents about what was going on (because she came to live with us) and they learned alot of the truth that way.

Your brother doesn’t need to join, So long as he has no objections she can re-join any time she likes. All she has to do is say that she is sorry for whatever offence got her disfellowshipped (presumably having pre-marital sex with her now husband), and give an undertaking not to commit such an offence again (since they are now married this is not an issue) She then goes through all the bible studies again and gets rebaptised.

It’s not hard. People who disfellowhsipped aren’t cast out forever. They can come back whenever they like so long as they can make a reasonable effort at convincing the elders they have repented.

Once more, BS meter is going off. What exactly is preventing her from re-joining?

She’s become pretty jaded with this whole religion and really does not want to rejoin. But she’s so desperate to be able to be on good terms with her family again that she sometimes considers it. My brother doesn’t want her to rejoin because of the impression we’ve all gotten of the religion from this and he refuses to allow their children to be brought up in such a hateful environment. And that’s his wording, not mine. From reading some of the responses, I’m seeing that her family must be part of some extreme sect or something and that not all JW’s are like this.

From what you’ve presented so far this family values family to the extreme. They set standards of decency for everyone in the houselhold and made it clear they were either to be lived up to or else the person would have to live somewhere else.

How is that showing alack of value for family? Are you suggesting that allowing teenagers to behave however they like is the way to show that you value family values? To me that shows a total lack of any values.

I’m afraid I just can’t understand your reasoning. To completely cut a child out and refuse to take part in their life merely because your religion says you should, is not condusive to a happy family. It’s just downright cruel.

yukionna78 I don’t quite see what you are finding so objectionable. It’s always sad when families fall out, but it does happen, in almost all families.

It seems you want this girl and your brother to have their cake and eat it to. You want them to be able to make decisions about their life and future as though they are adults, which at their ages is not entirely unreasonable. But at the same time you want them to be able to repeatedly lie to other adults and act against their express wishes without any serious consequences. You want them to be able to live in their parents’ house, rent-free yet not obey any house rules.

IOW you seem to want them to have all the benefits of children and none of the responsibilities of adulthood. Once again this seems like a very teen POV. At some point teenagers need to decide if they are children or adults. If they are adults they have to act like adults. That includes respecting the rules of the society or household you live or accept the consequences of breaking the rules. This couple clearly seems to have made a conscious choice to repeatedly break the rules, and they got caught. You are now bitching because they took the consequences of repeatedly breaking those rules. Consequences they knew about well in advance and could have avoided at any point by simply obeying the rules again.

OTOH if this couple want to be treated like children, with no serious consequences for breaking the rules and repeatedly lying, then they need to act like children. That means showing respect to their parents and their girlfreind’s parents.

You really do seem to want them to have it both ways. The real world doesn’t work like that, as you will no doubt discover.

Asking that her family accept her and stop treating her like an outcast is “having their cake and eating it too”? I think you must have misunderstood the entire point of my post. It’s been nearly six years since this happened and her family has made no move to try and fix the past and re-embrace her and her new family. I’m sorry but I grew up in a family that actually did value the other family members. Yes we had rules, and yes you were expected to obey them. But you were NOT kicked out and ostracized for breaking them. You lie? Then you’ve lost the trust of the person you lied to and they probably will have a hard time trusting you in the future. You decide to make a poor life decision (taking on smoking), my parents would do their best to try and get you to stop but never ever would they toss you away. Family is about love and acceptance. Not bitterness and denial.

[Blake]

Asking someone to never see a loved one is a simple rule. You just summed up the rule in one sentence. How much simpler can a rule get?

Asking a teenager not to see boy is devastating only if the teenager takes the time to get romantically involved with someone they already know they can not become involved with. What are you suggesting, that this couple fell helplessly in love just from their occasional interactions in the classroom? And that she was totally unable to quell those feelings?

I don’t buy it.

You are suggesting that if she met a married man tomorrow she would have no choice but to fall in desperately love with him and would be devastated if she couldn’t be with him.

That’s bollocks of course. Because she understands that she is in a relationship and he is in a relationship any such feelings have to be quelled. We all do it al the time. And that was what she was asked to do WRT to this boy. There is nothing devastating about that. It only became devastating because she refused to do that. IOW it is entirely a situation of her own making.
I can prove, with references, that the JWs apply this rule explicitly because they do believe it is for the child’s wellbeing. So does that mean that you now concede that the rule is not hateful?

You are claiming the parents saw her with this boy one day and, for no reason at all, simply said “You are never going to see that boy again”. Out of all the boys at her school they randomly chose him. And by amazing coincidence they randomly chose they boy she was romantically involved with.

That’s a little unlikely isn’t it?

Isn’t the truth that they didn’t want her to see him because they knew she was romantically involved with him?

You are asking us to believe that they selected, totally at random, one non-JW boy and decided to ‘not like’ him on religious grounds. They didn’t ‘not like’ any other boys based on their religions, just your brother.

I’m having a very hard time giving this any credence.

Do you know for a fact that her parents didn’t believe your brother could cause her harm? And if that is the case how do you know it?

My point wasn’t to suggest that your brother was an ex-con. My point was that parents get to set their own standards ion their own house. Being an ex-con is not a criminal activity, but I’m sure you wouldn’t to parents forbidding their daughter from dating an ex-con. This is simply matter of where you draw the line of that scale. You personally think that they drew the line too close, that’s your right. But it is their right to draw the line wherever they like. That’s not hateful. It’s a basic parental responsibility.

Can I please have a reference to support that claim parents are obligated to provide a secure home and living space for their children until they turn 18, no matter what the child does.

You have already admitted that this girl lied to her parents and that she deceived them for an extended period, and that she knew she was showing disrespect to religious principles they clearly hold dear. Don’t you think those might be contributing factors in the decision that they could no longer tolerate this person in their house? You know, in addition to “They did it because of who she loved”.

Are you even open to the possibility that such gross disrespect and duplicity played a role?

To this girl’s parents their religious values are the most important things every day of their lives. And she didn’t just blow that off once. She blew if off for a protracted period. And she lied about it.

That was my point. This child made a point of showing gross disrespect for her parents most sacredly held beliefs. In their own house. And then lied to them about it when they confronted her.

And then she expected them to show up her wedding all smiles and presents.

And that seems like a realistic expectation to you does it?

And no, you didn’t tell us the whole story. You now admit that, as I suspected, she was having pre-marital sex. So now it’s no longer just her feelings of love that are the issue, it is the act of fornication. That changes the matter entirely.

Moreover she wasn’t kicked out of their life for having sex. She was kicked out of the house because the act of having sex, and lying about it, was the grossest disrespect to their religious beliefs and clearly had no intentions of altering that. She was kicked out of the church for the same reasons.

Let me see if I can give you an example that makes sense to you.

Imagine this girl was Jewish and brought home a gallon pigs blood and stared making sausages in the kitchen sink. Her parents ask her to stop and she says sure. Then they find out 12 months later that she never stopped, that she kept doing it every day. And she lied to them about it.

Now you would presumably say “It’s no big deal. So she brought a little protein into the house. So what.” But it is a big deal. It’s not just the act that’s abhorrent, it’s the total disrespect of all that is sacred that goes along with it.

It may be that you will never understand that. Religious people find some things to be sacred. All people find it intolerable to be lied to and deceived. This girl showed deliberate disrespect for what was sacred and repeatedly deceived her parents. Yet both you and expect they show her perfect respect despite that. I have to admit, that attitude was more understandable when I assumed you were a teenager yourself. It’s kinda hard to fathom from an adult.

This isn’t disobeying to some extent. Nor is it lying at certain times. It’s a consistent pattern of deliberate deception over a prolonged period. It’s disobeying a fundamental tenet of the faith system of her parents within their own house. It’s continuing to wilfully disobey even after it has been explained what the consequences would be.

Don’t pretend this was some Brady Bunch indiscretion like getting drunk as a one off. Her parents and several elders at down with this girl. They explained why what she was doing was wrong. They explained what the consequences would be. They told her that she absolutely had to stop. That it simply could not be allowed to continue. She would have been left in no doubt that this was a supremely serious matter.

And she continued to do it any way.

Yeah. That’s a lack of respect. About as serious a lack of respect as it is possible to demonstrate. Could you perhaps give an example of how a 16yo could demonstrate less respect for her parents?

This girl was out of control. She was asked to stop offensive behaviour, she was told about the consequences. She was repeatedly asked to stop. And she still wouldn’t stop. She stomped all over her parents religious beliefs without any regard for them, or their right to manage their own household. How much more evidence would you need that someone was out of control.

She was a troublemaker. You just finished telling us all; how much trouble this has caused for her, for her family, for hr brothers family, for the other church ,members and for yourself.

She didn’t ‘merely’ refuse to stop seeing someone she loved who was in no way a risk to her. She also refused to screwing him. And she refused to follow the rules of conduct for the household she was living in. And she refused to show respect for her parents’ religious beliefs.
That’s a lot more than just refusing to stop seeing someone.

The religion did not cut her off merely for loving someone outside the religion. They cut her off for fucking someone outside the religion And for repeatedly lying to her parents. And presumably refusing to accept the religion’s codes of conduct regarding chaperones for susceptible couples.

You keep trying to make out that her only crime was the emotion of love. That is not the case. It is her actions that are the problem. Can you not see the difference? If you are nearly 30 you should remember a little issue of some people who just loved Charles Manson. That doesn’t mean that the actions they committed by acting on that love are ‘just loving Manson”. The actions themselves are deplorable. That this girl was driven to trampling on her parents most sacredly held beliefs because she wa sin love doesn’t alter the fact that she did trample on her parents most sacredly held beliefs
This girl’s parents told your parents that they were sending JWs around to your brother’s house every time he moved? Is that right?

From reading some of the responses, I’m seeing that her family must be part of some extreme sect or something and that not all JW’s are like this.

I can’t see what responses gave you that idea. No JW would be happy to have their daughter living in their house if she was having premarital sex. Even less so if she was deliberately lying to them.

To completely cut a child out and refuse to take part in their life merely because your religion says you should, is not condusive to a happy family. It’s just downright cruel.

The trouble is that you are looking at it as if letting her live there was somehow conducive to a happy family. This girl was constantly disobeying her parents and trampling on their mostly deeply held beliefs. A household can’t operate like that. It would be like a Jewish girl becoming a neo-Nazi. Even if she isn’t practicing in the house the household can to function.

With her gone the rest of the household at least has a chance at happiness. While she remains there is no way.

Now do you understand why cutting the child can be conducive to happy family? And why allowing her to remain can never be conducive to a happy family? Or do you perhaps suggest that a Jewish family should tolerate a neo-Nazi in the house?
She knew what the consequences were of her actions. She was told they were not easily reversible, and that reversal would entail rejoining the religion. She made an informed choice to accept those consequences. She can’t now expect that the consequences be reversed without rejoining the religion just because she wants them too.

That’s what “have our cake and eat it too means”. It means a refusal to accept that any choice has consequences that can’t be easily reversed. Despite having that explained to her she still doesn’t want to accept the consequences of her actions.
Of course her parents haven’t made a move to try and fix the past and re-embrace her. She has been disfellowshipped. They can not speak to her at all until she rejoins. Those are the rules, She was informed of those consequences when she decided to continue with the activities that forced her expulsion. Since she made an informed choice to continue those activities and continues to make an informed choice not to rejoin then those are the consequences of her choices.

You and her both seem to feel there should be no consequences to her choices, but in the real world there are.
It because the husband values the wife and vice versa that they decided to expel the daughter, who values neither of them enough to even avoid trampling over what they both hold sacred. She doesn’t even respect them enough not to lie to them about it.
If you repeatedly broke the rule “don’t attack your mother with a knife” you wouldn’t have been kicked out. Or the rule “Don’t steal the furniture an sell it to buy drugs”?

If your family really was like that I think I can see why you have this idea that no actions should ever have consequences.

The husband and wife love each other, that’s why they took the desperate measure of removing a daughter who demonstrated little love for either of them or their beliefs. The idea that a husband who loves his wife must accept her to be emotionally abused by a teenager is ridiculous.

And the only denial I see evidence of is on your part. You constantly deny that this girls actions had anything to do with what happened. You always try to imply that it was exclusively her emotions that caused the problems.

[Taber]

As I teen, I would’ve seen a no interfaith dating rule as ridiculous. In fact I still do. As I teen, I would’ve done everything in my power to convince my parents that the rule was ridiculous. Having failed that, and being convinced of my parent’s irrationality, I would not turn down an opportunity for an interfaith romance. Of course, I would try to keep my parents from finding out, to avoid punishment. However, if caught, I would certainly not expect to be disowned, since I only broke the stupid rule, not any of the important ones. I would certainly expect them to see the folly of their ways.

I think Blake’s argument about lying and trampling religious beliefs is a good explaination of why the parents would disown the child. However, I think that while Blake sees that the parents could credibly see their child as a traitor in their midst, he misses that the child certainly doesn’t. The child sees themself as a victem of an unfair system. They don’t lie to disrespect their parents, they lie to avoid being punished unfairly.

However, I think that Blake’s expectation that teens will never break the rules, and won’t lie to avoid punishment when they do break the rules to be unfounded, and would even wager that a majority of teens do in fact break rules , and will lie to avoid punishment. I know I did, and I’m the type to wait for the light to change at 3 am on a completely abandoned country road.

@Blake

Asking someone to never see a loved one is a simple rule. You just summed up the rule in one sentence. How much simpler can a rule get?

Asking someone to never breathe again is a simple rule. I just summed up the rule in one sentance. How much simpler can a rule get?

I’m pretty sure yukionna78 wasn’t complaining that the rule was hard to explain, just that it is hard to follow.

@Blake

You are claiming the parents saw her with this boy one day and, for no reason at all, simply said “You are never going to see that boy again”. Out of all the boys at her school they randomly chose him. And by amazing coincidence they randomly chose they boy she was romantically involved with.

That’s a little unlikely isn’t it?

I don’t think yukionna78 ever claimed that.

@Blake

Isn’t the truth that they didn’t want her to see him because they knew she was romantically involved with him?

yes. point?

@Blake

You are asking us to believe that they selected, totally at random, one non-JW boy and decided to ‘not like’ him on religious grounds. They didn’t ‘not like’ any other boys based on their religions, just your brother.

Again, I really don’t think yukionna78 is claiming anything of the sort. s/he is claiming that they selected all non-JW boys and decided to ‘not like’ them on religious grounds.

@Blake

My point wasn’t to suggest that your brother was an ex-con. My point was that parents get to set their own standards ion their own house. Being an ex-con is not a criminal activity, but I’m sure you wouldn’t to parents forbidding their daughter from dating an ex-con. This is simply matter of where you draw the line of that scale. You personally think that they drew the line too close, that’s your right. But it is their right to draw the line wherever they like. That’s not hateful. It’s a basic parental responsibility.

where the line is drawn may be totally subjective, but that doesn’t preclude my drawing of the line from being hateful. If I made a rule that my daughter couldn’t talk to boys outside of classwork, many would consider my decision hateful. On the other side of the scale , if I gave my daughter my blessing to see a known rapist, many would consider my decision hateful as well.

@Blake

You have already admitted that this girl lied to her parents and that she deceived them for an extended period, and that she knew she was showing disrespect to religious principles they clearly hold dear. Don’t you think those might be contributing factors in the decision that they could no longer tolerate this person in their house? You know, in addition to “They did it because of who she loved”.

well sure, but she wouldn’t have had to lie about it if they didn’t hate who she loved.

@Blake

And then she expected them to show up her wedding all smiles and presents.

For what it’s worth, while I consider the rule ridiculous, and the kicking out pretty hateful, I agree that it is patently ridiculous to expect the parents to go to the wedding celebrating the relationship that tore the family apart.

@Blake

Imagine this girl was Jewish and brought home a gallon pigs blood and stared making sausages in the kitchen sink. Her parents ask her to stop and she says sure. Then they find out 12 months later that she never stopped, that she kept doing it every day. And she lied to them about it.

Well sure, but being forcibly separated from a loved one is considerably harsher than being forced to give up your daily sausage.

@Blake

This girl was out of control. She was asked to stop offensive behaviour, she was told about the consequences. She was repeatedly asked to stop. And she still wouldn’t stop. She stomped all over her parents religious beliefs without any regard for them, or their right to manage their own household. How much more evidence would you need that someone was out of control.

their household being in this case her life?

@Blake

Now do you understand why cutting the child can be conducive to happy family? And why allowing her to remain can never be conducive to a happy family? Or do you perhaps suggest that a Jewish family should tolerate a neo-Nazi in the house?

because dating a guy who eventually became her husband is akin to neoNaziism.

@Blake

If you repeatedly broke the rule “don’t attack your mother with a knife” you wouldn’t have been kicked out. Or the rule “Don’t steal the furniture an sell it to buy drugs”?

what about the rule “No wearing silly hats on a Tuesday?”

[Apos]

From what I’ve seen, why would anyone voluntarily be part of a church that seems to value family so little? That they would choose their religion over their own daughter…it just seems so hateful to me. How has this religion gotten so popular and stayed alive for so long? It reeks more of a cult to me than a religion. But then again I suppose I’m biased. Are all JW’s like this? Or are they the extremists of the bunch?

Are you kidding? Turn on any radio station to a fundamentalist radio show, and you’ll get long lectures and diatribes about separating yourself from the ungodly and unborn-again, not letting them too deeply into your friendship, and so on. All the same stuff. It isn’t just the JWs.

It’s pretty scary. Between this viciously anti-social ideology of basically cutting yourself off from other people unless they share the correct beliefs and the general right-wing hate radio constantly pushing the theme that America and all values are under threat and cannot be tolerated, I thank goodness that liberals and moderates aren’t a different skin color from everyone else. Otherwise, the world in which Limbaugh one day starts calling on conservatives to “cut down the tall trees” would not be so implausible.

[Bearflag70]

@Apos

Are you kidding? Turn on any radio station to a fundamentalist radio show, and you’ll get long lectures and diatribes about separating yourself from the ungodly and unborn-again, not letting them too deeply into your friendship, and so on. All the same stuff. It isn’t just the JWs.

It’s pretty scary. Between this viciously anti-social ideology of basically cutting yourself off from other people unless they share the correct beliefs and the general right-wing hate radio constantly pushing the theme that America and all values are under threat and cannot be tolerated, I thank goodness that liberals and moderates aren’t a different skin color from everyone else. Otherwise, the world in which Limbaugh one day starts calling on conservatives to “cut down the tall trees” would not be so implausible.

Close your ears everyone! That’s Satan talking!

[Apos]

Although I should mention: given that JW’s are one of the most persecuted religious minorities in the country history over the last century, it’s not particularly surprising that some of their more committed members would be fearful of worldly things.

[Blalron]

@Blake

Asking a teenager not to see boy is devastating only if the teenager takes the time to get romantically involved with someone they already know they can not become involved with. What are you suggesting, that this couple fell helplessly in love just from their occasional interactions in the classroom? And that she was totally unable to quell those feelings?

I don’t buy it.

What if her parents forbade her to date a black boy? It’s a simple rule, isn’t it? Why the hell can’t she just follow the rules?!

[raindog]

Blake said:

Sure, sure raindog, I was incorrect, but you just can’t show it.

I didn’t say can’t. I said I wasn’t interested. See the difference?

Sorry, but this is GD, not IMHO. “You are wrong” simply doesn’t cut it. Nor does “I belong to the church”.

It does for me!

You are a JW, you should know that members of a church are usually less knowledgeable about the church’s actual teachings than informed outsiders.

This kind of nonsense is the hallmark of every dullard here who has a modem and ponied up the 15 bucks. With this information, just wait till I get hold of zev_steinhardt!

Anyway it seems that you are unable to provide any references for your claims that I was wrong, so it’s up to me to provide some facts:

See above. Unable and uniterested are competely different concepts.

As long as someone is disfellowshipped or disassociated, we need to follow the instruction: “Quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother that is a fornicator or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man.”
Watchtower 4/15/1991

Well, you partially quoted me, right? Don’t worry about the bandwidth! The 15 bucks bought bigger hampsters! Here’s what I said:

• Speaking to someone who is disfellowshipped is not so much a “serious offence” as it is severely discouraged, and sending someone else is no more serious than going yourself. They would not receive a “public reprimand” unless thay waged a “public campaign.” Tp speak with someone who is DF on [rare] occasion would not be noticed—maintaining a relationship as if they were not DF is another matter. In practical terms however it usually means no contact.
  It is different when family members are involved—other children, nieces, nephews etc are involved. There is the practical things involved with day to day life that must be maintained. Social or religious contact pretty much ends however, and it would be fairly common for it to include not going to the wedding of a DF relative.*

You know, I have the same CD! My words are in harmony with the counsel given in that article. In practical terms, if I bump into a DF friend of mine in the grocery store, there would be no issue with me saying “hello”, or briefly commenting that they are missed or loved. Carrying on an animated conversation, or inviting him to dinner or a ballgame is another matter. As a general rule, it is more likely that we would not speak at all, and if there was some affection or friendship, those sentiments would still be registered in facial expressions etc. I speak from experience. But, if on any given day, I mention briefly that he/she is missed, there is no issue. Perhaps you missed the word “[rare].”

Now, you cut and pasted an article from the WT—and my words “Speaking to someone who is disfellowshipped is not so much a “serious offence” as it is severely discouraged,…” are in agreement with that counsel, and how it actually works in day to day life. Further, in my post, I outlined the type of contact–in practical terms—happens with a person who is DF’d. Social and religious contact ends. If I say “hello” , or smile, to someone who is DF’d after not seeing them or talking to them for a couple years that would be a non-issue.

In the apostle John’s writings, we find similar counsel that emphasizes how thoroughly Christians are to avoid such ones: “Everyone that pushes ahead and does not remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God . . . If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, never receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him. For he that says a greeting [Greek, khai’ro] to him is a sharer in his wicked works.”
The Watchtower, 4/15

You obviously have the WT CD and have mastered the cut and paste thing. As a practical matter, DF people are “shunned”—a word that is a common one but not generally in the JW lexicon. The counsel is a practical one—if I seek out a DF one, that is one thing. OTOH, if I bump into them at the store, I may smile at them and convey my feelings in that way—or I may even say hello. If they live in my neighborhood, and I see them regularly, I would generally not speak with them, and they wouldn’t speak to me. Being DF’d however, is not an act of hostility, nor is it so rigid that saying “hello” on a [rare] (remember that word?) occcasion—perhaps once every year or 2 or 3----would cause the anyone to have heartburn.

So you, sir, are wrong. JWs are not merely discouraged form associating with the disfellowshipped, they are ordered in no uncertain terms to thoroughly avoid them.

I’m guessing the words “In practical terms however it usually means no contact.” , or; “Social or religious contact pretty much ends however, and it would be fairly common for it to include not going to the wedding of a DF relative” were overlooked… :dubious:

Further, the stuff you cut and pasted that is in “quotes” are scrpitures, many of which make up the backbone of JW doctrines on matters like this. As such, the bible is used to outline the doctrine, including what the consequences are of not following the principles. In the end, no one is ever, “ordered in no uncertain terms” to do anything. That is plain silly.

Paul displayed the attitude that we all need: “If food [or anything else] makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat flesh at all.” If, on a matter that is up to our conscience, and we therefore have freedom to act, we ignore the conscience of others and thus ‘ruin our brothers for whom Christ died,’ we could lose our good standing with God. Even though an individual feels it is a ‘personal matter of conscience,’ if it damages others it can lead to his receiving Jehovah’s adverse judgment.
Watchtower 7/15 1982

You, sir, are wrong. if you had been right that associating with the disfellowshipped was a matter of conscience it would still be afar more serious offence to send others to do so.

I never said that “associating with the disfellowshipped was a matter of conscience”, right? The full context of what I said is clear—and since you belabored it,…I said:

1. Speaking with a DF person is severely discouraged
2. In practical terms, this means no contact
3. Social and religious contact pretty much ends—including things like weddings etc

In that context, and as a practical matter, no one sends anyone to a DF person! Would you send someone accross town to smile and offer a weak (but sincere) “Hi”, every 3 years? Did you read what I said, in it’s full context?

IOW, if you were following the counsel outlined above, you simply wouldn’'t be sending anyone to say anything! It is a non-issue—the only “reprimand” (not a word that is used) would involve those who disagreed with the DFing and had an issue with it, and engaged others in the dispute—in which case the result would be the same.

As for your claim that any JW has ever been disfellowsipphed for marrying outside the faith, show us your evidence.

Over the last 2-3 years there has been information as to marrying outside the congregation and the principles of becoming “unevenly yoked with unbelievers.” It was made clear that in egregious cases, it may involve being DF’d. In post #38, you asked what other consequences there might be. It is actually quite common that certain priveliges in the congregation be restricted or curtailed—like commenting/contributing at the meetings, removal of assignments in the congregation or restrictions involving the public ministry. Elders would almost always be removed.

While we’re in post #38…

1. Talking to a DF person will not get you DF’d. (See the context above, ok?)
2. No one is ever reduced to pre-baptismal state.
3. No one is ever automatically DF’d.
4. I have never known anyone to be DF’d because of another person’s character. (i.e. criminal example) Did you even think about that before you typed it?

At one time I was perplexed at the vast but splintered knowledge that was posted here with great regularity. Some posters were virtual experts at almost every subject. It confused me when I saw a guy in Berkelely citing second tier newspapers like the Baltimore Sun. But I looked around, and if I picked the right search words on google, *voila! *, the Baltimore Sun was the first google hit. And so, I bcame aware of the phenomenon I call the “Google Armchair Geniuses.” (recently Wiki has been the weapon of choice)

But I am not as easliy impressed. Their “knowledge” was always splintered and lacked continuity.

For those inclined to be impressed with Blake’s prodigious research, the Watchtower and Bible & Tract Society publishes a CD that is essentially a catalogue of their publications going back several decades. It’s widely available. While no where as good as google’s, it has a search feature.

It’s an impressive amount of information, likely in the hundreds of thousands of pages. But while it may give you a lot of insight as to the beliefs of JW’s , it could not give you a believer’s perspective, nor convey the totality and practical aspects of being a JW. It’s a catalogue—a research tool.

Can you imagine arming yourself with a Catholic Encyclopedia on CD and educating Tom of tomndeb fame on what it means to be a Catholic? (who I believe is Catholic). Would you seek to educate zev_steinhardt on being a Jew because you have the Torah on CD?

Blake’s posts have the tell-tale signs of this disorder. They have some valid (accurate) information that is out of context—or incomplete. Some claims are just plain wrong. Even when it’s right, it lacks the knowledge of how it is applied in a practical way----something that an internet search can’t tell you.

And yet it hasn’t dampened his enthusiasm:

…you should know that members of a church are usually less knowledgeable about the church’s actual teachings than informed outsiders…

Anyway it seems that you are unable to provide any references for your claims that I was wrong, so it’s up to me to provide some facts:…

Given that you obviously don’t fully understand the plainly written teachings of your own faith I am not inclined to trust you on this point.

I would implore anyone interested in knowing what JWs believe to talk to a JW—a real live one is much better than the internet flavor. Or, go to their website.

Hey, I’ll even give it to you: http://watchtower.org/ They may even have a section on 16 year old runaways

Whatever you do, don’t take the word of someone who is unfamlilar, and whose primary talent seems to be a proficiency with a search bar. At any rate, I’m on to other threads.

[Blake]

raindog this is GD. You made some statements. I called you on them. You can’t back them up. End of story. Whether you can’t do it because it bores you are because you are unable to is irrlevant. You got nothing to suport what you said. The only refrences provided have been by me.
u r pwnd

All that ad hominem stuff about dullards and so forth is irrlevant fluff. You got lots of opinion and no facts.

[Blake]

@Taber

However, if caught, I would certainly not expect to be disowned, since I only broke the stupid rule, not any of the important ones.

So children get to decide which rules are the stupid ones? Your parents ask you not to steal their stuff, but that’s OK because the rule against theft is one of the stupid ones. Not one of the important ones.

Not indulging in fornication is not considered an unimportant rule for the JWs. Disobeying both the elders and your parents repeatedly is not considered unimportant.

This girl broke two of the most important rules.

The child sees themself as a victem of an unfair system. They don’t lie to disrespect their parents, they lie to avoid being punished unfairly.

A person is told that behaviour is inappropriate.
They engage in that behaviour anyway.
They are caught and told once again not to engage in that behaviour. It is explained to them in no uncertain terms what the consequences are for that behaviour.
They are caught again. Once again they are told not to engage in that behaviour. Once again it is explained to them in no uncertain terms what the consequences are for that behaviour.
They are caught again and the consequences are meted out.

What part of that punishment is unfair? They were certainly guilty of the conduct. They were certainly informed of the punishment. The same punishment would certainly be inflicted on anyone engaging in that behaviour. They were certainly given opportunity to reform.

How is anyone here being punished unfairly? What exactly is unfair about it?

I can see how you might arbitrarily cal such a punishment harsh. But unfair? By what possible standard is it unfair?

However, I think that Blake’s expectation that teens will never break the rules, and won’t lie to avoid punishment when they do break the rules to be unfounded…

Strawman.

I never had any expectation. Please don’t put wordsi n my mouth.

…and would even wager that a majority of teens do in fact break rules , and will lie to avoid punishment. I know I did, and I’m the type to wait for the light to change at 3 am on a completely abandoned country road.

You do realise this is nothing but an appeal to popularity. A such it has no place in a debate.

Asking someone to never breathe again is a simple rule. I just summed up the rule in one sentance. How much simpler can a rule get?

Not much simpler. So what was your point? Did I say somewhere that asking someone not to breath isn’t a simple rule? Or is this yet another starwman?

I’m pretty sure yukionna78 wasn’t complaining that the rule was hard to explain, just that it is hard to follow.

I wouldn’t presume to put words in her mouth. Now if you want to make such a claim then do so and I will address it.

@blake

Isn’t the truth that they didn’t want her to see him because they knew she was romantically involved with him?

yes. point?

The point is that yukionna78 repeatedly claimed that they didn’t want her to see him “for no reason other than he wasn’t a JW” That is my point.

yukionna78 is repeatedly attempting to trivialise and simplify the reasons why they didn’t want her to see him. Since we both agree that it wasn’t “for no reason other than he wasn’t a JW” but was in fact because they knew she was romantically involved with him we cnamove on.

Again, I really don’t think yukionna78 is claiming anything of the sort. s/he is claiming that they selected all non-JW boys and decided to ‘not like’ them on religious grounds.

Once again, I wouldn’t presume to put words in her mouth. What she actually said was “He was to be cut out of her life completely for no reason other than he wasn’t a JW”. Nothing to do with his actions. Nothing to do with him seeing her against in situations they objected to. Nothing to do with him lying to them. She said it was for no reason other than he wasn’t a JW.

And since she doesn’t claim that the parents cut all non JW boys out of her life completely I fond your interpretation of what she said tortured in the extreme.

where the line is drawn may be totally subjective, but that doesn’t preclude my drawing of the line from being hateful.

And that is one of the points I have been trying to make. You have arbitrarily decided something is hateful. Not based on any sound reasoning, but for purely subjective emotional reasons. You can’t explain why such a decision mandates hatred of anyone.

well sure, but she wouldn’t have had to lie about it if they didn’t hate who she loved.

Firstly can I see any evidence at all that they hated rather than disapproved of the person she loved? Let’s not use unwarranted emotive language here.

Yes, and people wouldn’t have to commit perjury if courts didn’t hate letting criminals walk free. Hence we can justify perjury Can you see nothing wrong with that reasoning? Yes she wouldn’t have had to lie if they didn’t hate who she loved, but she didn’t need to lie at all.

Once again we seem to want this person to be neither child nor adult. If the girl was an adult then she had a moral responsibility to tell the truth and wear the consequences, which in this case would have presumably been closer supervision, curfew etc. If the girl was child then she had no right at all to disrespect her parents wishes did she? She could disagree with them all she liked, but not disrespect them.

Well sure, but being forcibly separated from a loved one is considerably harsher than being forced to give up your daily sausage.

1. The point is the crime against the parents. And her behaviour was no different to preparing pork blood in a kosher household.

2. Being forcibly separated was only harsh because she had already disobeyed her parents by becoming emotionally involved. Are you saying that every 16 yo finds it harsh to be separated form everyone they find remotely attractive? Or do you accept that it only becomes inordinately harsh after they have taken the time to developed a romantic relationship?

their household being in this case her life?

No, the household in this case being the household.

because dating a guy who eventually became her husband is akin to neoNaziism.

:rolleyes:

what about the rule “No wearing silly hats on a Tuesday?”

Yes, what about it?

[Rune]

@Shodan

As well for those with no religion at all - witness Madyln Murray O’Hair’s cutting off contact with her son after he became a Christian.

…and let’s not restrict ourselves to religion only.

My mother-in-law was a long time member of DKP/ml (Danish Communist Party/Marxists-Leninist). When she later decided to quit all her (suddenly former) friends within the party decided to cut all connections, wouldn’t even look on her when they passed in the street. Those guys are like a sect. Apparently some scientific communities are likewise.

A friend, a former very active member of Greenpeace, later on decided the cause was better served by following some of the advice of Bjørn Lomborg and even called for nuclear power plants to be built. His former colleagues in Greenpeace totally ostracised him.

And then there is the sad case of the former Danish Nazi Fuhrer, who most unfortunately fell in love with a Palestinian girl (very pretty too) – and was consequentially excommunicated.

[Blake]

@Blalron

What if her parents forbade her to date a black boy? It’s a simple rule, isn’t it? Why the hell can’t she just follow the rules?!

Why not indeed if she is a child then? This isn’t a rule that will jeopardise her future. Of course parents make what we as adults look back on as stupid rules. Often we thought they were stupid at the time too. But the fact is that children lack the facilities to effectively decide what rules can be disobeyed. That’s why they children specifically have fewer rights than adults. This idea that children should be free to decide what rules are worth obeying is novel to me.

If she is an adult and wants the adult right to decide her own moral standards then she also has the obligation to respect the person whose house she lives in. And she has an obligation to take the consequences of her actions.

[raindog]

@Blake

raindog this is GD. You made some statements. I called you on them. You can’t back them up. End of story. Whether you can’t do it because it bores you are because you are unable to is irrlevant. You got nothing to suport what you said. The only refrences provided have been by me.

I was expecting something a bit more…verbose!

A CD drive and a search bar—that provide you the thinnest veneer of “knowledge”—are a poor surrogate for knowing what the heck you’re talking about. Your enthusiasm is palpable. But I would suggest you show more restraint and restrict your comments to where you have some [non-googled] mastery of the subject at hand. Your posts belie a true understanding—they are incorrect and show an ignorance as to how JW practice their faith in a practical way.

If you can’t, I would suggest the Catholic Encyclopedia on CD perhaps. With your enthusiasm, you’ll be a Cardinal by Easter. (If only an internet Cardinal…)

u r pwnd

Ahhhh! I can always tell when a post reeks of “dorm room.” How old are you, Blake?

All that ad hominem stuff about dullards and so forth is irrlevant fluff. You got lots of opinion and no facts.

Could be… it’s a good thing I don’t have to run my faith by you every morning, huh? To those interested, I will reiterate…Blake here is an energetic young man, however…being armed with a CD does not equip him adequately to opine accurately on the faith, doctrine and practices of the JWs. It sure looks good though! Try this instead: http://www.watchtower.org/ or, talk to a real JW.

[Monty]

@Leviosaurus

The JW’s are indeed usually very nice people, but if you want to know more about them, you should do some online research. You may be quite surprised at what you find. This is a good site to start at, (I thought this page was particularly interesting.)

I once dated a girl who could only be described as vehemently anti-JW. She subscribed to some ex-JW newsletters and bought a few books which were highly critical of JW. (She had never been a JW or had anything to do with them - I think she just got tired of them knocking.) Anyway, a lot of that stuff was pretty shocking, but I have no idea how accurate it was. Rather than repeat what could be rumors, I’d just recommend you look it up for yourself.

How valid is that Anti-Jehovah’s Witnessess Witnessing site?

[Monty]

BTW, the OP mentioned that the young couple had a child a few months after the marriage. ISTM that the religious branch of the family may’ve been a bit unimpressed with that.

[raindog]

@Monty

How valid is that Anti-Jehovah’s Witnessess Witnessing site?

Well…as valid as any other site with a viewpoint…in as much as they are often personal or anecdotal experiences. They’re often very sincere, but just as often angry or bitter. You can find them for virtually any religious group I would imagine. I’ve seen them for LDS and others.

But, I wouldn’t go to the Catholics to ask about what the Baptists believe. Their’s is a viewpoint. If I wanted to know about the Catholics, Baptists—the KKK for that matter—I would go to the source.

[Shodan]

@Blake

Sure, sure raindog, I was incorrect, but you just can’t show it.

Sorry, but this is GD, not IMHO. “You are wrong” simply doesn’t cut it. Nor does “I belong to the church”. You are a JW, you should know that members of a church are usually less knowledgeable about the church’s actual teachings than informed outsiders.

I can’t resist.

Cite?

Regards,
Shodan