What makes a website or source 'anti-Jehovah's Witness?'

[Rayado]

The term 'anti-JW' has been popping up a lot lately, so I thought it might be interesting to explore that term a little more in-depth.

So what does it take for a source to be 'anti-JW?'

[Cal_Minian]

The term 'anti-JW' has been popping up a lot lately, so I thought it might be interesting to explore that term a little more in-depth.

So what does it take for a source to be 'anti-JW?'

What does it take for a source to be anti-Christian? What does it take for a source to be anti-Semetic? What does it take for a source to be anti-American?

Answer those questions and apply the principles to what it takes to be anti-JW.

Regards,
Cal Minian

[Rayado]

That wasn't an answer to my question, that as an answer to three questions I did not ask and it supplied no reasons even at that.

Any other takers?

[Cal_Minian]

That wasn't an answer to my question, that as an answer to three questions I did not ask and it supplied no reasons even at that.

Any other takers?

Answer my three and I will answer yours. Actually if you answer those three you will get the answer... most likely not the one you are looking for.

Regards,
Cal Minian

[Rayado]

Alright, if you are going to be obtuse let us deal with a concrete example.

What makes this page (http://www.jwfiles.com/scans/WT7-15-1922p217.htm) 'anti-JW?'

[Cal_Minian]

Alright, if you are going to be obtuse let us deal with a concrete example.

What makes this page (http://www.jwfiles.com/scans/WT7-15-1922p217.htm) 'anti-JW?'

A page does not define if a site is anti-JW. But the main page (http://www.jwfiles.com/) clearly shows it is anti-JW by the headings on the links.

Having proved my point, this is my last post on this thread, having unsubscribed from it I will not see your response.

Regards,
Cal Minian

[Rayado]

Add me to your sig then; I'd rather we skip the formalities.

Still didn't answer what made the site 'anti-JW.' All you did was say "hey, this is 'anti-JW,' therefore, this site is 'anti-JW' (without actually expaining why it was so, or what made it so.

You've only proved that you can argue in a circle.

[Xavier]

Credibility? What credibility?

[FlimFlamboyant]

Notice that Raydo asks what makes the contents of a specific page anti-JW, while Cal responds by answering a different question; namely, what it is that makes an entire site anti-JW.

Yes, do anything, anything but answer the question as originally posed. Oh, and you're a moron for asking, of course. And a fool. And a heretic, therefore I shouldn't be talking to you.... And, uhh... have I missed anything?

[Rayado]

You may have to wait a few weeks for an answer.

(Cal is in the matrix)

[SirKnight]

Hey when i cant answer a question i like to blame the person who asked it then run off crying as if they did something wrong to me. Then i really like to complain that i asked them a question first or second or wait it isnt important who asked the first question all that matters is he didnt answer mine wahhhhhh(sarcasm)haha

[Sparko]

dude, you are resurrecting long dead threads and complaining about people not answering?

check the dates.

[Conductor42]

Your answer is going to be the same as if you asked what makes a site "Anti-Mormon", and the fundies will do their darndest to convince you that the most slandering of "anti" pages are the norm when in fact many of them only engage in honest scriptural debate.

It's like asking a commie which websites are right-wing.

[technomage]

So what does it take for a source to be 'anti-JW?'

Accuracy, honesty, and a desire for truth?

:outtie:

[master_mormon]

The term 'anti-JW' has been popping up a lot lately, so I thought it might be interesting to explore that term a little more in-depth.

So what does it take for a source to be 'anti-JW?'

I will try and answer this using basically the same criteria I hold to "anti-mormon" sources. Basically if the source pretends to be authoritive source on JW, does not accurately portray JW beliefs and practices, and only centers on tearing JW faith down, and the author(s) have an agenda against the faith, I think its anti-JW. One can disagree with another but I do believe that people have a right to represent their own faith or views and not have outsiders do it for them. I think how JW react to a source regarding the JW is a good indication on whether its anti or not. If they say "yeah, that is what we believe" then its not anti. If they say "that is a complete distortion of what we believe" then its anti. Only the JWs can do this and outsiders can't pretend to make these declarations for them.

Just my 2 cents.

[MrManNo1]

I will try and answer this using basically the same criteria I hold to "anti-mormon" sources. Basically if the source pretends to be authoritive source on JW, does not accurately portray JW beliefs and practices, and only centers on tearing JW faith down, and the author(s) have an agenda against the faith, I think its anti-JW. One can disagree with another but I do believe that people have a right to represent their own faith or views and not have outsiders do it for them. I think how JW react to a source regarding the JW is a good indication on whether its anti or not. If they say "yeah, that is what we believe" then its not anti. If they say "that is a complete distortion of what we believe" then its anti. Only the JWs can do this and outsiders can't pretend to make these declarations for them.

Just my 2 cents.

Doesn't this lead to a "truth is relative" mentality, where nobody can ever question anyone else's belief system?

[master_mormon]

Doesn't this lead to a "truth is relative" mentality, where nobody can ever question anyone else's belief system?

Questioning is one thing. I don't think one can expect to learn much in life by not asking questions. Misrepresenting or deciding to make oneself an authority on someone else belief system is quite a different thing. JW have the right to define what they believe and why the believe the way they do without outsiders doing it for them. We can disagree but we should never pretend to speak for them based on what we might think they believe.

[MrManNo1]

Again, if a non-JW (or whatever) isn't allowed to be an authority on JW matters, then it immediately follows that JW must be accepted by all as true, because nobody will have an answer for anything JWs bring up. You're arguing in circles.