# *For Friend

[ HOURGLASS2 OUTPOST ] [ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Friend [Friend] on November 13, 1999 at 20:06:05 {OA5YBxH8IAhxaL3hj3H2OgnjR4Br/g}:

In Reply to: For Friend posted by CPiolo on November 12, 1999 at 16:53:22:

CPiolo

> While this is true, I don't believe it is a valid analogy. Most of us are born into certain communities -- family, local, national, racial, religious, etc. We have no choice about some of these associations, even if we do not actively participate in them….
> On the other hand, we have the choice of pertaining to and participating in certain other communities.

It’s the latter of your examples that I was referring to mostly, though even your first example does illustrate the idea of tolerance to some degree if we willfully support such a community.

> They tolerate society at large only enough to survive within it, rejecting many or maybe even most of society at large's practices, and society at large would not tolerate many of their unique practices, finding some abhorrent, but still tolerates them as a group.

I would argue that accepting the group as they are is also accepting their practices. Otherwise the at large community would be intolerant of particular beliefs, seeking to ban them to some extent. In some cases this has happened and in some of those instances the at large community has prevailed. Still, as long as the at large community is tolerant of the group as they practice their beliefs then they are tolerating their practices.

> Here is where your analogy falls apart. JWs choose to participate in the JW community. To participate in the JW community it is required that you participate in all those practices that are uniquely theirs, even if you were to find them criminal, abhorrent, morally reprehensible and/or extremely offensive. Is this not part of their baptismal vows? Within the community there is no choice. You participate in most everything or you don't participate in the community at all.

It is not true that participation in the JW community requires that each JW participate in every unique practice unique to JWs. Following are some unique practices that some JWs do not participate in: Door-to-door witnessing, giving "talks" at JW meetings, conducting Bible studies using Society literature, defending each and every JW teaching (or willingness thereto).

Agreement with baptismal questions affirms your dedication to God and your decision to become a member of the community of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Nothing in those questions requires participation in every practice unique to JWs.

You say there is no choice within the community of JWs. I suspect that you mean no choice amidst issues JWs accept and support as intolerable. For example, JWs do not consider adultery as a tolerable practice. So, if someone chooses to practice adultery then they are choosing to leave our association whether that is by falling away, disassociation or disfellowshipping. In such areas, by virtue of becoming a JW individuals have already made that choice. Your assertion that "within the community there is no choice" says that there is no choice because a choice was made.

If you argue that communities (JW or not) cannot be intolerant toward some practices then you argue that communities cannot be intolerant of murder and other heinous crimes. Is it valid to charge that a solder unilaterally deciding he will no longer salute his superior officer has no choice?

> On the other hand, JWs have no choice on many parts of their participation in the JW community. A JW in need of a blood transfusion must not accept one. There is no choice. There are no other options. Accept and die or don't be a part of the JW community. It's a black or white decision. There are no grays.

I have already indicated that as an area needing change, which is a flaw of virtually every community of people.

> JWs are by no means unique in their requirement of absolute obedience. This can be found in all totalitarian groups. But again, there is often times a fundamental difference. Many have no choice as to their participation in these groups because they have been born in and/or live in a particular country with a totalitarian government from which there is no escape. JWs are different in that they choose their community and choose to participate in it. Their lives don't depend upon their choice of community.

I am not sure what you mean by absolute obedience. I suspect me earlier comments have already dealt with it.

Because individuals are born into certain groups is no excuse for supporting them if they are convinced that that community adequately offends the sensibilities of society at large. Were German citizens acting in support of Hitler without culpability?

The biggest problem in this area is where JWs, in my opinion, are not sufficiently accommodating of divergent views. They will listen to and tolerate divergent views unless those views are used to divide other JWs away from their aspirations. I don’t see a problem with that concept, but there is a problem with the application of that concept in some/many cases where individuals are deemed to be causing divisions just by virtue of discussing their divergent views with fellow JWs. That application is taking a legitimate concept and applying it in far too strict a fashion. I am glad to say that not all JW officials (elders) are so sensitive and easily offended to the point of adversely judging one of their own. In some cases people are charge with serious offenses like apostasy when their known divergent ideas do not inhibit in any way whatsoever the aspirations of fellow JWs.

Friend

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject: **For Friend

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ HOURGLASS2 OUTPOST ] [ FAQ ]