TrueTomHarley

Witnesses plainly don’t fit the traditional definition of a cult that we all grew up with. Time was, if you fell under the spell of a charismatic leader, withdrew from society, and began doing strange things, you just might be a member of a cult.
However, the goal posts have been moved! There is a new definition of cult, and by this definition we do fit. If you belong to a group in which there is significant human authority and if you think outside of the mainstream box, you are a cult. That nutcase BITE expert thinks half the country (United States) belongs to a cult for voting for the candidate he disfavors.
So the question becomes how do you adapt to this new normal?
One way is simply refuse to accept it. “Cult” has had specific meaning for centuries, and just don’t budge from that specific meaning. The only reason it has changed is because humanists are intent upon snuffing out religion that becomes powerful through organization. If it is only a matter of uncoordinated individuals each acting (or more often, not acting) upon his or her own personal interpretation of God, that is less of a threat to them, and they are okay with it. Disconnected individuals are relatively easy to pick off or assimilate, but it is much harder with a centralized coordinated group.
Another way of dealing with the updated definition is to accept it but also point out that the Bible thereby becomes a cult manual. It plainly speaks of a first century group in which there was significant human authority. That gathering of the apostles of older men in 49CE (Acts 15) sent out decrees (decisions) to the congregation that were to be observed. (Acts 16:4-5)
A supplemental way is to revert to the original meaning of cult, for it comes from the same root word as does agriculture. Whereas agriculture is literally caring for the earth, cult in the religious sense can be taken as caring for the matters of God. I’ll take it. It is not too different from serving as ‘guardians of doctrine.’
One can also be very resourceful and turn that taunt (for that is how it is usually intended) on its head, the same way some innovative police years ago dealt with the taunt pigs. They advertised that is stood for Pride, Integrity Guts, and Service. In the same way, as applied to Witnesses, cult can stand for Courage, Unity, Love, and Truth.
The villains don’t own the dictionary. We can make as much use of it as they. In the case of hostile ex-Witnesses, we can even adapt the Freddy Mercury song:
We’re the apostates, my friends
and we’ll keep on fighting till the end
No way we’ll lost this
Be sure you choose us
Cause we’re the apostates of he world.
 
 

Alas, the editing feature is being sharply restricted lately—it shut down early, so I must make another comment to get the attention of @Space Merchant. Please read the above two comments.
(And the delete function has disappeared! Yikes! This means I’ll have to use much more restraint with PSomH. How many times have I quickly slapped back at the dodo, then deleted my own hasty comment?)

Witnesses plainly don’t fit the traditional definition of a cult that we all grew up with. Time was, if you fell under the spell of a charismatic leader, withdrew from society, and began doing strange things, you just might be a member of a cult.
However, the goal posts have been moved! There is a new definition of cult, and by this definition we do fit. If you belong to a group in which there is significant human authority and if you think outside of the mainstream box, you are a cult. That nutcase BITE expert thinks half the country (United States) belongs to a cult for voting for the candidate he disfavors.
So the question becomes how do you adapt to this new normal?
One way is simply refuse to accept it. “Cult” has had specific meaning for centuries, and just don’t budge from that specific meaning. The only reason it has changed is because humanists are intent upon snuffing out religion that becomes powerful through organization. If it is only a matter of uncoordinated individuals each acting (or more often, not acting) upon his or her own personal interpretation of God, that is less of a threat to them, and they are okay with it. Disconnected individuals are relatively easy to pick off or assimilate, but it is much harder with a centralized coordinated group.
Another way of dealing with the updated definition is to accept it but also point out that the Bible thereby becomes a cult manual. It plainly speaks of a first century group in which there was significant human authority. That gathering of the apostles of older men in 49CE (Acts 15) sent out decrees (decisions) to the congregation that were to be observed. (Acts 16:4-5)
A supplemental way is to revert to the original meaning of cult, for it comes from the same root word as does agriculture. Whereas agriculture is literally caring for the earth, cult in the religious sense can be taken as caring for the matters of God. I’ll take it. It is not too different from serving as ‘guardians of doctrine.’
One can also be very resourceful and turn that taunt (for that is how it is usually intended) on its head, the same way some innovative police years ago dealt with the taunt pigs. They advertised that is stood for Pride, Integrity Guts, and Service. In the same way, as applied to Witnesses, cult can stand for Courage, Unity, Love, and Truth.
The villains don’t own the dictionary. We can make as much use of it as they. In the case of hostile ex-Witnesses, we can even adapt the Freddy Mercury song:
We’re the apostates, my friends
and we’ll keep on fighting till the end
No way we’ll lost this
Be sure you choose us
Cause we’re the apostates of he world.
 
 

Alas, the editing feature is being sharply restricted lately—it shut down early, so I must make another comment to get the attention of @Space Merchant. Please read the above two comments.
(And the delete function has disappeared! Yikes! This means I’ll have to use much more restraint with PSomH. How many times have I quickly slapped back at the dodo, then deleted my own hasty comment?)

Witnesses plainly don’t fit the traditional definition of a cult that we all grew up with. Time was, if you fell under the spell of a charismatic leader, withdrew from society, and began doing strange things, you just might be a member of a cult.
However, the goal posts have been moved! There is a new definition of cult, and by this definition we do fit. If you belong to a group in which there is significant human authority and if you think outside of the mainstream box, you are a cult. That nutcase BITE expert thinks half the country (United States) belongs to a cult for voting for the candidate he disfavors.
So the question becomes how do you adapt to this new normal?
One way is simply refuse to accept it. “Cult” has had specific meaning for centuries, and just don’t budge from that specific meaning. The only reason it has changed is because humanists are intent upon snuffing out religion that becomes powerful through organization. If it is only a matter of uncoordinated individuals each acting (or more often, not acting) upon his or her own personal interpretation of God, that is less of a threat to them, and they are okay with it. Disconnected individuals are relatively easy to pick off or assimilate, but it is much harder with a centralized coordinated group.
Another way of dealing with the updated definition is to accept it but also point out that the Bible thereby becomes a cult manual. It plainly speaks of a first century group in which there was significant human authority. That gathering of the apostles of older men in 49CE (Acts 15) sent out decrees (decisions) to the congregation that were to be observed. (Acts 16:4-5)
A supplemental way is to revert to the original meaning of cult, for it comes from the same root word as does agriculture. Whereas agriculture is literally caring for the earth, cult in the religious sense can be taken as caring for the matters of God. I’ll take it. It is not too different from serving as ‘guardians of doctrine.’
One can also be very resourceful and turn that taunt (for that is how it is usually intended) on its head, the same way some innovative police years ago dealt with the taunt pigs. They advertised that is stood for Pride, Integrity Guts, and Service. In the same way, as applied to Witnesses, cult can stand for Courage, Unity, Love, and Truth.
The villains don’t own the dictionary. We can make as much use of it as they. In the case of hostile ex-Witnesses, we can even adapt the Freddy Mercury song:
We’re the apostates, my friends
and we’ll keep on fighting till the end
No way we’ll lost this
Be sure you choose us
Cause we’re the apostates of he world.
 
 

People invariably relate experiences both good and bad.
If you happen to have been in the same room as the event being reported, you have greater credibility with yourself if you agree with the judgment that it's "good" or "bad" because you were present.
Of course this doesn't mean that your judgment is correct. A third person or even a fourth of fifth person might disagree.
Eyewitness testimony isn't very good. This is why the police interview everyone they can when investigating a crime. No one expects the testimony to be consistent or correct.
It's more like plotting points on a graph. The more points plotted, the more likely you have an accurate picture of a given graphed function.
On the other hand it's important that the eyewitnesses not have time to rehearse their testimony or time to synchronize their testimony with those of others.
Actual footage of an event from multiple angles is best and if you can also get audio that adds value.
A person's attitude, their previous experiences and the things they believe to be true and righteous vary and this is true even among Jehovah's Witnesses.
Now on the synchronization side of things we can see that people quite naturally seek out others who see things the way they do and are not particularly pleased if there isn't agreement.
I see the grumbling lot not as liars, but as those who as a result of various factors has chosen to play a different movie of the annoying events in their lives and with a different music track to these events.
I remember reading in a book somewhere that in a relationship the more things you have in common (as long as these are positive things) the better. I'm talking about a value system as well more importantly. But, they countered that having identical values isn't sufficient as it needs to be determined how these values rank in relation to each other. In a scarce or competing resource situation, how will these things be prioritized?
Some people are more "feelings" oriented and if something doesn't feel right, even if it is right it isn't enough for them and this is why you have to dig deep and see what it is in your own mind (because we all have feelings) that feels right or doesn't feel right and really figure out why.

Witnesses plainly don’t fit the traditional definition of a cult that we all grew up with. Time was, if you fell under the spell of a charismatic leader, withdrew from society, and began doing strange things, you just might be a member of a cult.
However, the goal posts have been moved! There is a new definition of cult, and by this definition we do fit. If you belong to a group in which there is significant human authority and if you think outside of the mainstream box, you are a cult. That nutcase BITE expert thinks half the country (United States) belongs to a cult for voting for the candidate he disfavors.
So the question becomes how do you adapt to this new normal?
One way is simply refuse to accept it. “Cult” has had specific meaning for centuries, and just don’t budge from that specific meaning. The only reason it has changed is because humanists are intent upon snuffing out religion that becomes powerful through organization. If it is only a matter of uncoordinated individuals each acting (or more often, not acting) upon his or her own personal interpretation of God, that is less of a threat to them, and they are okay with it. Disconnected individuals are relatively easy to pick off or assimilate, but it is much harder with a centralized coordinated group.
Another way of dealing with the updated definition is to accept it but also point out that the Bible thereby becomes a cult manual. It plainly speaks of a first century group in which there was significant human authority. That gathering of the apostles of older men in 49CE (Acts 15) sent out decrees (decisions) to the congregation that were to be observed. (Acts 16:4-5)
A supplemental way is to revert to the original meaning of cult, for it comes from the same root word as does agriculture. Whereas agriculture is literally caring for the earth, cult in the religious sense can be taken as caring for the matters of God. I’ll take it. It is not too different from serving as ‘guardians of doctrine.’
One can also be very resourceful and turn that taunt (for that is how it is usually intended) on its head, the same way some innovative police years ago dealt with the taunt pigs. They advertised that is stood for Pride, Integrity Guts, and Service. In the same way, as applied to Witnesses, cult can stand for Courage, Unity, Love, and Truth.
The villains don’t own the dictionary. We can make as much use of it as they. In the case of hostile ex-Witnesses, we can even adapt the Freddy Mercury song:
We’re the apostates, my friends
and we’ll keep on fighting till the end
No way we’ll lost this
Be sure you choose us
Cause we’re the apostates of he world.
 
 

I hope so too because he has a lot of common sense…and always fair and reasonable…

That was tongue in cheek….must say it’s a relief you have let your burka drop and now the true you is visible …

To put down an unpleasant dodo with a quick retort is well-nigh irresistible, but I try not to do it unless the obstinacy seems entrenched and unchangable, and even then it is probably not for the best. 
The benefits of speaking with obstinate ones is that it affords opportunity to see if you can keep yourself “restrained under evil.” Sometimes you find you cannot, and then it’s back to Bible 101 for you!
the longer version of “you think we’re doing it all wrong, and we think you’re doing it all wrong—let’s just admit it,” includes the line, “We’ll steal people from your church if we can, and you’ll do the same to us.”
It was late in life that I discovered this. With common ground established, I’ve had some very enjoyable discussions with people whom I used to do nothing but cross swords with. 
 
 
 

More productive than that snarky answer is when I defuse the tension with such ‘rivals’ with, ‘Look, you think we’re doing it all wrong, and we think you’re doing it all wrong—let’s just admit it. But the point is that we are both ‘doing it,’ and we’re living in a world where most are not, even where many oppose.’ With that common ground established, you can sometimes engage them at an entirely different level, provided we don’t ‘use’ such detente to get the upper hand of a debate.

I don’t know. I think those two tone red/flesh colored pants are too tight to pass muster.

You wouldn’t know a waste of time if one bit you in the rear end.
Now here’s a waste of time:
”Good morning, brothers. Our first talk today is on the subject of dress and grooming.”

To the similar-person who declines to speak with me, saying “No, thanks—I’m CHRISTIAN!” I reply, 
“Actually, only a Christian would do what I am doing. Frankly, I’m a little surprised that you are not doing it yourself.”* (Watch that smug smile fade.)
*to be used ONLY in cases of blatant smug superiority, (you can smell it) NOT in the case of sincere misunderstanding.

To put down an unpleasant dodo with a quick retort is well-nigh irresistible, but I try not to do it unless the obstinacy seems entrenched and unchangable, and even then it is probably not for the best. 
The benefits of speaking with obstinate ones is that it affords opportunity to see if you can keep yourself “restrained under evil.” Sometimes you find you cannot, and then it’s back to Bible 101 for you!
the longer version of “you think we’re doing it all wrong, and we think you’re doing it all wrong—let’s just admit it,” includes the line, “We’ll steal people from your church if we can, and you’ll do the same to us.”
It was late in life that I discovered this. With common ground established, I’ve had some very enjoyable discussions with people whom I used to do nothing but cross swords with. 
 
 
 

More productive than that snarky answer is when I defuse the tension with such ‘rivals’ with, ‘Look, you think we’re doing it all wrong, and we think you’re doing it all wrong—let’s just admit it. But the point is that we are both ‘doing it,’ and we’re living in a world where most are not, even where many oppose.’ With that common ground established, you can sometimes engage them at an entirely different level, provided we don’t ‘use’ such detente to get the upper hand of a debate.

You wouldn’t know a waste of time if one bit you in the rear end.
Now here’s a waste of time:
”Good morning, brothers. Our first talk today is on the subject of dress and grooming.”

To the similar-person who declines to speak with me, saying “No, thanks—I’m CHRISTIAN!” I reply, 
“Actually, only a Christian would do what I am doing. Frankly, I’m a little surprised that you are not doing it yourself.”* (Watch that smug smile fade.)
*to be used ONLY in cases of blatant smug superiority, (you can smell it) NOT in the case of sincere misunderstanding.

More productive than that snarky answer is when I defuse the tension with such ‘rivals’ with, ‘Look, you think we’re doing it all wrong, and we think you’re doing it all wrong—let’s just admit it. But the point is that we are both ‘doing it,’ and we’re living in a world where most are not, even where many oppose.’ With that common ground established, you can sometimes engage them at an entirely different level, provided we don’t ‘use’ such detente to get the upper hand of a debate.

You wouldn’t know a waste of time if one bit you in the rear end.
Now here’s a waste of time:
”Good morning, brothers. Our first talk today is on the subject of dress and grooming.”

To the similar-person who declines to speak with me, saying “No, thanks—I’m CHRISTIAN!” I reply, 
“Actually, only a Christian would do what I am doing. Frankly, I’m a little surprised that you are not doing it yourself.”* (Watch that smug smile fade.)
*to be used ONLY in cases of blatant smug superiority, (you can smell it) NOT in the case of sincere misunderstanding.

To the similar-person who declines to speak with me, saying “No, thanks—I’m CHRISTIAN!” I reply, 
“Actually, only a Christian would do what I am doing. Frankly, I’m a little surprised that you are not doing it yourself.”* (Watch that smug smile fade.)
*to be used ONLY in cases of blatant smug superiority, (you can smell it) NOT in the case of sincere misunderstanding.

Sometimes a guy has to do things to get people’s attention.
 
No.

More productive than that snarky answer is when I defuse the tension with such ‘rivals’ with, ‘Look, you think we’re doing it all wrong, and we think you’re doing it all wrong—let’s just admit it. But the point is that we are both ‘doing it,’ and we’re living in a world where most are not, even where many oppose.’ With that common ground established, you can sometimes engage them at an entirely different level, provided we don’t ‘use’ such detente to get the upper hand of a debate.

More productive than that snarky answer is when I defuse the tension with such ‘rivals’ with, ‘Look, you think we’re doing it all wrong, and we think you’re doing it all wrong—let’s just admit it. But the point is that we are both ‘doing it,’ and we’re living in a world where most are not, even where many oppose.’ With that common ground established, you can sometimes engage them at an entirely different level, provided we don’t ‘use’ such detente to get the upper hand of a debate.