Posted by CPiolo [CPiolo] on November 23, 1999 at 10:43:27 {KNpNN6QGfwHljYPCrMsQfhe3reEu4M}:
Friend:
Regarding the words acceptance and tolerance, my point was not to state the obvious but to show that we were using the word acceptance in two different ways. As can be seen from the definition there are several meanings, and further, each meaning can have different shadings. We were involved in a battle of semantics and going nowhere. I meant nothing more than that.
When I quoted the WT, we were discussing several issues, including obedience, the formation of deviant views and others. I should have placed the appropriate quotes better. You seem an intelligent person. I thought you could make the connections. I will again try to be exceeding clear in the future.
Thirdly, how does one think without that thinking being independent? Does one go to the local KH and check out a WT brain to do their thinking? What you are saying is that you can think whatever you want as long as you reach the same conclusions as the WT. This, of course, isn't thinking at all. It is following orders or toeing the line. In fairness, I must also say that I've read statements by the WT promoting reason and using one's reasoning ability. But why waste our time reasoning if our conclusions have already been determined?
As regards official publications promoting shunning of those with deviant ideas, I don't think I stated that. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I did say:
"You have stated that you find some of JW practices lacking - the blood issue and shunning if I'm not mistaken. As long as you remain an active participant in the JW faith, you have no choice but to participate in those practices if you wish to remain within the community. Your refusal to participate in these practices risks your association with the community and would surely result in disfellowshipping if known.
What would be the consequences of you openly questioning, criticizing and fighting for change about these issues with your JW community. That too would result in disfellowshipping."
You replied:
"žAnd, frankly, there is a growing population amongst JWs that would not shun me for my comments on blood eitherž"
They might not shun you for making those comments in private if they shared your views or felt a greater need for self-expression as you do. But if you so stated publicly and were disfellowshipped and they still did not shun you, they certainly risk disfellowshipping themselves in a manner very similar to that of Raymond Franz.
So summarize my point of view at this juncture, I'll quote myself in a previous post:
"In other words you may say what you like as long as it is ineffectual, not heard and doesn't cause debate. So any view is O.K. as long as it is non-threatening to the JW status quo? Sounds like the same problem the Romans and Pharisees had with Jesus -- it didn't matter what ideas he preached until people started paying attention. Until then, he was just a divergent carpenter with some wild ideas and didn't threaten the aspirations of those within their ranks."
In peace,
CPiolo