Comments:
Because of strict adherence to Biblical tenets, Jehovah's Witnesses operate at a moderate to high level of tension against their surrounding environment. This has caused some to push for change in areas where there is ubiquitous community opposition to certain doctrines in an effort to reduce such operational tension. The same is often true of an individual who places greater authoritative weight upon secular sources of information when this data challenges Biblical inerrancy and concord. However, where no change occurs, and the mindset of an individual remains fixated upon communal unanimity rather than the greater responsibilities inherent in obedience to the Christian faith, there often occurs a strong tendency to feel victimized by those taking the lead among us. As a result of seeing oneself as a victim denied, there can occur a powerful drive toward disaffection and apostasy. As is almost inevitably the case, there is a great need on the part of a leave-taker to validate their oppositional stance, and the victim-victimizer scenario greatly assists a person in justifying their course of action. Blame shifting may therefore temporarily relieve a person of accountability, but it will only succeed in sanctioning a person's actions so long as their position is given greater exposure over that of their (former) religious fraternity. Thus, the importance placed upon maintaining a heightened level of awareness toward the apostate's unique view works to reinforce the reasons for their departure by maintaining the consequences of blame and continuing to scrutinize it in the object of hostility. It is not difficult to see then why an apostate so adamantly rejects information that contradicts the typecast that they have worked so hard to establish. Bryan Wilson, Oxford Professor of sociology observes the apostate mindset similarly: "Sociologists and other investigators into minority religions have thus come to recognize a particular constellation of motives that prompt those who apostasize in the stance they adopt relative to their previous religious commitment and their more recent renunciation of it. Such a person needs to establish his credibility both with respect to his earlier allegiance to a religious body and his subsequent relinquishment of that commitment. To vindicate himself he needs to explain his volte-face." Further endorsement is seemingly found when an apostate locates a support coalition that corroborates a person's disparate or despondent view, which in turn opens new hostilities forged as a result of collective negative experiences. Consequently, apostasy is then empowered and grows exponentially as the individual continually finds reasons to authenticate the rationale of their departure. Part of this rationale is often seen in the "atrocity story" which is tweaked and recounted through various media, and carped upon by those all too willing to overextend their trust when it comes to subjective discourse. However, the "atrocity story" is almost always rejected by sociologists who study the apostate phenomena today. Perhaps to placate their own sensibilities, but more usually to maintain the semblance of a devoted faith, the apostate must of necessity attempt to convince others that their motives for disaffection were sound and that their new credo is scriptural. Yet, in doing so they must conspicuously evade the clear Biblical injunctions against dissent and contrary expository views. (compare Romans 16:17; 1 Timothy 1:3) Paradoxically, in attempting to establish themselves as providers of spiritual edification, an apostate is forced to break the very commands that a Christian is sworn to keep – commands that their former brethren still keep. By thus breaking God's explicit commands the apostate commits an act of betrayal against Jehovah and must therefore confront the fallout of their indiscretion. And like any sin, the inevitable fallout is the separation of the sinner from God. However, such thinking is rarely entertained by the apostate due to the angst at having to confront their own error. They must therefore reconstruct their shattered experience in such a way that it favours a new ministry rather than a repentant one. This is in keeping with the fact that much apostate information is presented under the guise of Christian love with a view to helping others appreciate a clearer truth, yet in actuality the apostate feels impelled to propagate their dissent in order to validate their new self image and fortify their religious convictions. Of course, the welcome reception that such information may receive only grants further recognition to an often aberrant viewpoint, which in turn continues the cycle of disaffection. As a result, the apostate is able to exploit those who misunderstand the scriptural reasons for the operational tension that exists between Jehovah's Witnesses and the moral majority, and subsequently uses this ignorance to their own advantage. -Nathan

Comments:
Deconstructing the Apostate Mentality Apostates generally take their course of action because they believe free thought is being suppressed, hence they feel a "crisis of conscience." However, truth be told, their complaint is not really one of suppression, but one of inclusion. When THEIR views are rejected, they often lash out. When someone dares to question them at some point in time, accusations are hurled about. What it really comes down to is not free thought after all, but only THEIR thought. Only they can be right! They are just as exclusionary as the group they have left. They SAY they want their readers to "draw his or her own conclusions" but they do this in the same breath as accusing the other side of the argument of "deception." [Carl Olof Jonnson's Gentile Times Reconsidered] Hence, there is no room for another conclusion. The line has been drawn. The apostates has the reader thinking his is the only enlightened view, and the other conclusion we can draw is mired in deception and lies. Their approach to their research is even more totalitarian than the group they accuse, as they cannot now budge. There is no room for new light or progressive revelation. It has indeed become the hill they chose to die on. Jonsson, for instance, thinks he has the answers, but he has culled his research using the template of accepted chronology. Furuli thinks this template is flawed, and, after reading his book, I believe so also. Just because it is accepted by the majority, does not mean it is right. I also question the chronology used by evolutionists. It may be that us Jehovah's Witnesses are one of the few true iconoclastic faiths that are really willing to think outside the box. I believe that this is what makes the truth so fresh and exciting. I just received an email from Jonsson basically accusing me of spreading falsehood because of some articles I have on my site [see http://www.geocities.com/yhwhbible/mattsson.htm and http://www.geocities.com/yhwhbible/furuli.htm] No surprise there. These are of course responses to items initially brought by him in his book, wherein he attacked several persons. Jonsson, like others of his ilk, is not allowed to be questioned. Jonsson claims that if someone has information on hand that others need in order to get a correct understanding "It becomes his or her duty to make that information available to all who want to know the truth, however this may appear" and that "it would be morally wrong to remain silent." Well, there are some that are not remaining silent, except now, when this is done, is this move applauded. No! Jonsson is hostile. Why? Because this info runs counter to what he wants us to believe. This leads us to only one conclusion. Carl Olof Jonsson feels has the only truth, and thus becomes a mirrored caricature of the group he has rallied against for a quarter of a century. That Jonsson is still wallowing in this puerile attack on Furuli is evidence that he is at a loss for any real substantial response concerning the EVIDENCE in regards to the Chronology. There is nothing that he can truly do, as he is ignorant in regards to knowledge of the ancient languages involved, and Rolf is not. Carl has to rely on secondary evidence, evidence of course strained through the sift of the accepted chronology. Furuli has the edge, as he can look at the evidence for himself. Find out why Carl Olof Jonnson is scared, and read Furuli's book for yourself, and NO, you will not find this book taking potshots at other people. There is no need, nor room, when there is evidence at hand. -Webmaster Babylonian Exile - 50 Years, or 70? Read Persian Chronology and the Length of the Babylonian Exile of the Jews by Rolf Furuli http://folk.uio.no/rolffu/Chronlgy.htm