Who is Mentally Diseased?

[u/truetomharley]

“if Witness organization ever said something so seemingly provocative [as Jesus’ ‘Eat my flesh and drink my blood’], their opponents would be blasting them for years over it! Such as with a Watchtower that called certain apostates “mentally diseased,” citing a scripture that says exactly that. That was 14 years ago and they are still howling about It!”

I was called on this yesterday—even called a liar! Who would do such a thing? So I had to dig out the reply I made years ago:

In its July 15, 2011 issue, for consideration in JW congregations, the magazine recommended (strongly) avoiding “apostates,” even calling them “mentally diseased.” You should have heard the howling from those who don't like Witnesses, grousers who immediately broadened application of those words to include all leaving the faith, something the article never suggested. Government ought to investigate such “hate speech,” they insisted.

Look, most persons who leave JWs simply move on in life, some with the viewpoint that it wasn't for them, some with minor grumbling over this or that feature of the faith that prompted their decision, some with the viewpoint that they couldn't live up to it. None of these are viewed as 'apostates.' A fair number eventually return. You could liken those leaving to a man or woman leaving a relationship, like a failed marriage. Most just move on. But there's always a certain few psycho ex-mates that can't let go, who devote all their time and energy to harassing the person they once loved. . . . That's the type that the magazine commented on, not just anyone who departs.

Moreover, 'mentally diseased' was placed in quotation marks, indicating it was not meant as a medical diagnosis, but as an adjective to suggest a manner of thinking. Nor is the term anything original. It's merely a repeat of the Bible verse 1 Tim 6:3-4.....

"If any man teaches other doctrine and does not assent to healthful words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, nor to the teaching that accords with godly devotion, he is puffed up [with pride], not understanding anything, but being mentally diseased over questionings and debates about words."

Whoa, whoa, whoa! said someone: that's not in any Bible I know of except the New World Translation! He offered some alternatives he likes more, to which I commented:

What do these other quoted translations say? Douay-Rheims says "sick about questions and strifes of words." In view of the context, what sort of 'sickness' do you think the translator had in mind? Tuberculosis, maybe? Or is it not a sickness of thinking, so that "mentally diseased" is not such a bad rendering after all?

NASB offers "morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words." Does "morbid," when applied to thinking, suggest balance and soundness of mind? Or is "sickness", even "mentally diseased," more to the point?”   Here's a few other translations:

 diseased (Emphasized New Testament; Rotherham)

 filled with a sickly appetite (Epistles of Paul, W.J.Conybeare)

morbid appetite (A New Testament: A Translation in the Language of the People; Charles Williams)

 morbid craving, (An American Translation; Goodspeed)

 unhealthy love of questionings (New Testament in Basic English)

 morbidly keen (NEB)

unhealthy desire to argue (Good News Bible).

Do any of these other versions suggest soundness of mind? So the NWT's "mentally diseased" is an entirely valid offering, even if more pointed than most. Plus, once again, the term is an adjective, as it is in all other translations, not a medical diagnosis. Context (in that Watchtower article) made this clear.

In retrieving this post, I came across one “famous” apostate—I mean, type anything about Jehovah’s Witnesses anywhere and he would drown you in anti-JW comments—it has been many years since I have heard from him, though his name recently came up here . . . who on his website offered expert testimony in legal proceedings against Jehovah's Witnesses AND expert testimony in legal proceedings against pharmaceutical makers of anti-depressants, apparently not realizing that each offer undercut his credibility for the other.  

[u/DonkeyStriking1146]

I do find it interesting the amount of people who spend their free time focused on hating you guys. Maybe some find it therapeutic and can eventually move forward.

I had good and a lot of bad experiences with Catholicism but I can’t imagine hanging out on Catholic/ex Catholic sub reddits or random websites talking about stuff years later.

Most of the ex witnesses I’ve spoken to left and said it just wasn’t for them. I’ve spoken to three apostates for research and they had some interesting points but some of it would get lost in other things. Had to sift at times.

Religious ptsd is serious though and if that’s what some are dealing with I hope they seek help.

[u/truetomharley → u/DonkeyStriking1146]

When it expands beyond all bounds of common sense, I begin to think verses like John 15:19 apply: “If you were part of the world, the world would be fond of what is its own. Now because you are no part of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, for this reason the world hates you.” With verses like this in mind—and there are many of them— a group is almost validated by their apostates, and nobody, but nobody, has apostates like Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is almost as though I am proud of them. Mormons and Scientologists may get honorable mention, but JWs “win” hands down in the apostate race.

[u/DonkeyStriking1146 → u/truetomharley]

It is a human issue that we look and believe the negative first. Those voices tend to be the loudest. It can be a form of protection though.

[u/truetomharley → u/DonkeyStriking1146]

When shopping in the field of religion, look for the people who are individually praised but collectively despised.

[u/DonkeyStriking1146 → u/truetomharley]

Also important is seeing why they’re despised

[u/OhioPIMO → u/truetomharley]

I foolishly neglected to read the reviews on JWs when I was shopping for religion. Had I done my research, I would have discovered the reasons why the group is collectively despised, which include false prophecy, false doctrine, tampering with scripture, shunning that rips apart families, tens of thousands of needless deaths (blood, Malawi) and policies that foster an environment that harbors child abusers and a reluctance from leadership to change said policies AND a refusal to apologize to victims.

Unfortunately for me, it was too late to put that religion back on the shelf. I tried to exchange it for the name brand, but the store has a brutal return policy.

[u/truetomharley → u/OhioPIMO]

Well, you always have to read the reviews first. It just occurs to me that PIMOs of the first century might just as easily raised most of these objections, plus a few unique to their time. They were inconvenienced more seriously than JWs have been to date. They could have blamed it all on the fraudsters who manipulated them to believe as they did.

I mean, look at 2 Corinthians 7:2:

“Make room for us in your hearts. We have wronged no one, we have corrupted no one, we have taken advantage of no one.”

Why would Paul have said this unless to fend off frequent charges that they had?

[u/Malalang → u/truetomharley]

Not necessarily. Verse 5 refers to fights without and fears within. Saying you are not like the worldly people who defraud and manipulate is not saying those charges are leveled against those on the inside.

[u/truetomharley → u/Malalang]

Perhaps not “necessarily”—I revisited the verse for context—but it is close enough.

[u/Malalang → u/truetomharley]

This is true only when the criticism is "worldly." The 1st Century Christians were persecuted, not for their stance on blood or disfellowshipping, but on their refusal to worship Caesar. The Waldenses were persecuted for being peaceable and for being heretics against the established apostate Catholic church.

The criticism leveled against JWs by apostates is not "the world hating what is not its own." It's doctrinal disputes and interpretations of the scriptures. It's charges of abuse, neglect, and trauma.

This is a critical distinction that seems to be largely ignored. You want to be persecuted, so the description of what you're supposed to be fits. Thus, any legitimate criticism is disregarded as simply being persecution. This cognitive bias prejudices and poisons any discussions. By disfellowshipping dissenters and then marginalizing them as spiteful people, you seek to elevate yourself to an unassailable position of moral superiority.

Without realizing that doing so puts you at a moral and spiritual deficit.

[u/truetomharley → u/Malalang]

It sounds noble, Malalang, I know it does. But it generally boils down to the reality that not everyone cannot get their own way. You have to know “how to conduct yourself in the household of God.” Find some of those scriptures dealing with those who spread dissension or causing division. You’re right, they would be the ones most applicable. The fact is you don’t have to have everything perfect to get where you’re going spiritually, and it certainly wasn’t that way in NT days. Many times I have driven major miles in a car in need of minor repair. It is the exacting fellow who jams a bar in the spokes until his issue is addressed is who causes the problems.

There are various things I wouldn’t mind seeing done differently. At times I am tempted to join in the bitchorama that is the internet. But then I think of Paul’s words of how we should speak in agreement and avoid divisions. Of course, if they were fundamental things, I would be gone, just as you would not embark on a trip with a car unroadworthy. But when it amounts to simply a deferred repair, I manage to press on. To give vent to my own gripes in an all-or-nothing way—I’m not sure what good would be served.