See also Talk:Controversial issues involving Jehovah's Witnesses and Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses

decorum

This is not a fourm or a discussion board about whether JW's or ex JW's are right. This page is degenerating into arguments. There are plenty of discussion boards where people on both sides argue these points. Please keep it there. george 23:16, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

To George above, I agree fully. If you look at the first statement by DannyMuse (18 Jan 2005) it was in regard to some claiming to be JWs on the http://www.ajwrb.org/ site and them not giving all their personal details, it was not about any particular doctrines/teachings of the Watch Tower Society, or weather "JWs or ex JWs are right" to quote you. The discussion here below was about if someone has to identify himself or herself or not if they claim to be a JW, or giving information on them. Anyway, in regard to your point about arguing doctrines, you are correct, this page, as all pages, should be just about what is actually posted on Wikipedia, not the infinite opinions of external sites' discussion details.

The link for the AJWRB (http://www.ajwrb.org/) site described it as "by Jehovah's Witnesses" yet there is nothing on the site to validate that claim. In fact, the supposed Witnesses referenced on the site are mostly anonymous. (I can already anticipate the responses to that, "fear of disfellowshipping, etc.") Nevertheless, if the authors of this site are going to make that claim, they should be able to back it up some how. Thanks. --DannyMuse 17:09, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In regard to the above comment by DannyMuse about the identities of the writers on the site, AJWRB (http://www.ajwrb.org/) it is not relevant as the point is ad hominem. Be they Jehovah’s Witnesses, ex-Jehovah’s Witnesses, or never part of the Watchtower organisation, does not detract from the information given toward the subject of blood transfusions and the Watchtower’s stance. The information stands on its own merit regardless of who posts it. Also, they are no more obliged to prove their identity than they are to not prove it. Interestingly, the Watchtower's literature is anonymously printed, on paper and on the Internet, and the authors or qualifications of the authors of the Watchtower’s literature are never given! If they (some posting on www.ajwrb.org) claim to be JWs, that is their prerogative, can anyone prove otherwise? Even if some were not Jehovah’s Witnesses, it is a void point, as the website is about exposing non-biblical, inconsistent, and life-threatening Watchtower doctrines as they see them, it is not about individual identities or appeals to self-authority. It is a logical fallacy to focus on a person’s identity and use this as a false reason to ignore their valid arguments. - unsigned

If the identity of the writers of the AJWRB site is "not relevant" then why is it in the description? Delete it and let the validity of the arguments stand or fall on their own. --DannyMuse 02:09, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

To DannyMuse, the identities were not given, it was merely stated that they are Jehovah's Witnesses. You may claim they are not, you cannot prove this; the same can be said of Watchtower authors.

It is a logical fallacy to focus on a person’s identity and use this as a false reason to ignore their valid arguments. This is a blade that cuts two ways.69.172.242.42

To above, Why quote that, as it was DannyMuse who originally brought up identities as relevant, not the reply to him, the reply was pointing out this inconsistency with the Watch Tower's literature being anonymous.

To above: What exactly is the inconsistency with the Watch Tower's literature being anonymous? Please explain it carefully, because then I will also clearly understand then that must also be the same inconsistency with the writers on the AJWRB site being anonymous. No?

To the above comment. The original comment by DannyMuse, stated that he was not happy with some of the anonymity of article authors on the http://www.ajwrb.org/ site. The reply pointed out that a fact stands on its own, regardless of who posts it. And also, that the Watch Tower's literature is also anonymous, but this large discrepancy is apparently not a problem for DannyMuse. That was the point. If names are needed, then all Watch Tower literature should also have names and qualifications. If names are not needed, then the subject is closed.

To the above comment. Excellent, you got it!

Silentlambs

Why does the link to the Silentlambs website gives top billing to William H. Bowen even before it mentions the proposed purpose of the site? The abuse of a child, or anyone for that matter, is a terrible thing that should not be minimized or used a means for self aggrandizement or promotion. Shame on you Mr. Bowen for putting yourself over the pain of the abused!

To the above poster, Bill Bowen is mentioned with the link as the website was created by him. As for "top billing. . . self aggrandizement or promotion" is ridiculous. All that is stated is a fact: "A website by William H. Bowen, a former Presiding Overseer of Jehovah's Witnesses, who resigned in protest over Watchtower policy in regard to victims of child molestation. He now runs a help site. . ."

I don't know Mr. Bowen, but I do know Jesus who said, "Take good care not to practice YOUR righteousness in front of men in order to be observed by them; otherwise YOU will have no reward with YOUR Father who is in the heavens. Hence when you go making gifts of mercy, do not blow a trumpet ahead of you, just as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be glorified by men. Truly I say to YOU, They are having their reward in full. But you, when making gifts of mercy, do not let your left hand know what your right is doing, that your gifts of mercy may be in secret; then your Father who is looking on in secret will repay you." - Matthew 6:1-4

To the above poster. Your original criticism was about the link's wording not the actual site's content. If you desire to criticise the SilentLambs site's content then this site is not the place to do it. This page merely gives links and books, not discussion of sites' content.

To the above poster. Please note that the TAB at the top of this Wikipage reads "discussion" --130.166.33.132 17:47, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

To the above. The discussion part is about the content directly situated and presented on this Wikipedia page, "Websites Critical of the Watchtower Society (Jehovah's Witnesses' Organisation)". It is NOT about debating the actual details of the contents on the many external web links.

To the above. Let me see if I can get this straight. If I understand you correctly, we can talk about the content of these Wikipages, but not about the content of the content. Hmmmm, does that make sense to you? Because it doesn't to me. From where I sit it is the content of the external web links that determine whether they are worthy of becoming content on a Wikipage!

To above, you have created a straw man, and are changing the subject by saying "From where I sit it is the content of the external web links that determine whether they are worthy of becoming content on a Wikipage!" Being worthy is not the same as the link giving "top billing. . . self aggrandizement or promotion" as you incorrectly claimed in your initial post. The purpose of the links is to give sites that have collated critical information on the Watch Tower Society, and of course, JWs who are faithful to that organisation will not like it; but that is irrelevant whether it is liked or not, as your initial post was about the wording of a link, not the endless details of external sites' content. Besides, Wikipedia is not a place to discuss the multiple details of external sites, as has already been said.

To the above comment. Hmmm, too bad, but you didn't get it! Keep trying.

Is this ok to add here, or am I wasting my time, again

user:greyfox A current Jehovah's Witness view on what he perceives as problems in the society.

Do I need to get an outside web site or will this do?

Hello Greyfox, I recommend you read the two books, Crisis of Conscience, and, In Search of Christian Freedom by Raymond Franz, both listed on the main page. You appear to be going through the first stages of discovery that the Watch Tower Society is not what it seems. I'm sure you would find it much more helpful reading those two books, and going to a site like http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/ and telling your experience there, you will get a lot of support for what you are going through. The trouble is Wikipedia is not really the place to get it all out in a personal way, as it's an encyclopaedic website for general and specific information that is supposed to be neutral (if it ever can be with humans as they are). It's not really a discussion site, unless it's about what non-personal info is posted on a Wikipedia page. Please read those two books by Raymond Franz, they will open your eyes, and mind up more than you can imagine. Best wishes.—posted 24th March 2005

I am trying to fight from the inside. I know it's a losing battle.

I have not read it and probably won't ever I read it. I have read some of the summaries not anything I hadn't assumed already. I plead the fifth on going to any sites.

I post the theses to somehow show those inside Brooklyn that some still inside are not having their questions answered. Also to others like me that they are not alone with these questions, and maybe get some answers.

I pretty much know it's futile but is therapeutic in a way. I will find some other way.

Thank You, for caring --Greyfox 04:27, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi Greyfox, It's sad that you feel restricted in your ability to read what you like with an open and free mind. Those two books are not bitter in the least, and they will not damage your faith in God or Jesus whatsoever. What they will do is demonstrate that putting your faith in men will lead to disappointment and distancing you from the real relationship you can have with God via Jesus. Remember there is nothing in this world or the next that can destroy your relationship with God against your will. (Romans 8:38, 39) I wish you well with your search, and try and keep an open mind to new information. Remember we are supposed to be spiritually mature, not as babies still being fed by "mother" on spiritual milk-like material or unthinking acceptance of the thoughts of men, especially those in the Watch Tower. Warm regards.—posted 25 March 2005

PS. Try the Quotes website as all you will find are quotes with no critical commentary, and you can go to your Kingdom Hall and look them up. Never be afraid to questions what you have been taught.—Ephesians 5:10; 2 Corinthians 13:5; 1 Timothy 4:16

Please do not speedily delete the list. Yes, it is quite unencyclopedic, but in my opinion some of the content is worth merging into the main article. Thank you. - Mike Rosoft 08:11, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]