Fair enough.
[Kirk] What does God need with a bureaucracy?[/Kirk]
Idle hands and all that.
Very well put. This is exactly what happens to ex-Mormons as well. It’s very similar in that both require members to blindly accept whatever the leaders say at that moment, suspending doubts just like it’s out of 1984.
It’s that your whole world so it’s hard for outsiders to comprehend. It would be like finding out that you are in Truman’s world. Some examples I can think of would include what I picture how the children of the “disappeared” in Argentina who were adopted into military families would feel when they found out that the people they thought were their birth parents were really the killers of them.
That’s really good that he found some happiness.
Getting shunned by Mormons is pretty common, with a lot of people getting divorced by their spouses after quitting. Many bishops (the Mormon lay leader equivalent of a parish priest) go so far as to recommend this to people to keep them from the “danger” of associating with former members, even their wives and husbands.
The JW practice of shunning is outright evil. I’ve got a friend, a former JW who was an alcoholic and rather than provide any sort of support or help, simply acted as if my friend were the lowest of the lowest of sinners. He could attend meetings but no one could talk to him nor could he talk to them.
WTF? There is enough science to understand more how addiction works and while nothing is absolute, treating alcoholics by shaming them belongs in the 16th century.
Evil.
The joke among Mormons is that theirs is the only heaven which requires an Org Chart to understand their relationship with God.
Weird. My friend used to attend the meetings after he was disfellowshipped and we would ask why in the world he would return for that sort of abuse and he couldn’t give us an answer. I think all the ex JWs he helped escape did the same thing, actually. What would move anyone to go back and sit there in such a hostile environment?
Perhaps for the same reason many abused spouses go back, because on some level they feel they deserve that treatment.
That’s so disturbing.
To understand this you have to understand the cult mentality that is in use -
Its engrained in the membership that
a) everything the JW say is true
b) everything else is evil - anything that is against the JW is especially evil
c) if you’re not with the JW - you will die in a fiery death
also - since they have been taught (very well) that they are to be ‘no part of the world’ - they don’t have many friends or associations outside of the KH - they almost literally have no where to turn for assistance - its even worse if their family is still part of the organization - as then they don’t even have that.
The JW at its core is a ‘high control’ cult - 2 factors are key
a) everything that is approved to read is from the organization and treated as ‘god given’
b) any transgression can get you disfellowshipped - questioning the teachings gets you disfellowshipped and labeled an apostate.
With that in mind - its no wonder that dougie_monty would not want to continue the discussion started above - he’s* welcome to PM me privately (and it will be kept private) if he would like that information - if not, I’ll drop it unless asked for it otherwise.
that invitation goes to any JW lurkers that are interested
Really, was that so hard? If you had stated that at the outset a lot of this argument could have been obviated. If you had begun by stating that you don’t accept the Bible (or any religion) at all, or words to that effect, we could have avoided all of this; I know that convincing people who disbelieve in the Bible to believe otherwise is about as futile an endeavor as trying to push a cat out from under a porch with a wet rope.
This should apply to door-to-door witnessing as well; if a disinterested householder just says “I don’t believe you” or “I’m not interested” or “I’m an atheist and I don’t want to argue” (I have heard all three) in the first place, I would be content to let it go at that, and move on. However, I will not assume that of all householders, some Dopers’ ideal notwithstanding.
P. S. I have waited a few days not to be standoffish, or anything like that. I like to think about some of these things for a while before I post; they come out better that way, I feel.
And you still haven’t stated if you want me to continue or not in my conversation with you - re: Watchtower Organization and Propoganda
Should I take that as a ‘no’ ? if so, may I ask “why?”
Let me put it this way: When you begin your sentences (several of them) with “everything” as you did in your last post I hesitate to give serious consideration to what follows.
Well, could you answer a question for me? I’ve read what you and other Witnesses have said about emerging technology that employs substitutes for blood, and I’ll agree that will be handy in impoverished areas. Also read testimonies about patients who survive after refusing transfusion. Aside from that, how can you justify declining to employ medical know-how technology that (God?) has granted us?
Man, I hear you. I’m that way about the word “antimony”.
Try as I may, there is absolutely no way for me to parse that retort as being directed to anyone except me personally. And so I feel I must respond:
If I had stated it at the outset? If I had begun by stating something? I wasn’t even a part of this thread until page 4. I merely offered an observation about the “gem” you seem to think you found.
This one, right here:
It’s entirely up to you, but you might do well to question the Great Price of that “gem” when you choose to apply the principle to encounters in which you haven’t yet established someone’s deference to Scripture.
I’ll be candid: I think you’re a bit of a twit; OTOH, I personally view you as a mostly harmless and inoffensive twit. More to the point, you’re a Doper, so I’m going to do you the courtesy of giving you the benefit of the doubt that you sincerely mean the part I tagged for emphasis above.
And thank you for that “should.” It suggests a recognition that it may not reflect the practices of every other door-to-door witnesser. Speaking from my own experience, I have always politely but firmly told JWs at my door that I would let them get to their next stop without wasting any of their time; I have never had one return.
Hey, at least they do one useful thing for human society. There are almost 8 million ‘human guinea pigs’ for experiments to develop ‘blood substitute’ technology that will benefit the rest of us if (and, inevitably, when) the hospital runs out of our type, or a disaster results in a general shortage. And unlike Dr. Mengele’s ‘subjects’, these are all (except for their kids, of course :() willing, and frequently highly insistent, volunteers.
Hell, given the situation the OP originally bitched about, they’re double volunteers who kill a second bird with their one stone, in that they also, by sticking their doctrinal dicks where they are not wanted by the population, volunteer for 1) ‘wound studies involving getting involuntarily bled out by gun-shot or knife-wound, while refusing blood transfusions’ and 2) identifying and getting incarcerated our more nutty gun or knife wielders who should be taken off the streets and imprisoned, without risking anyone important (aka: Not a JW) by doing their best to piss off random people, many of whom may be the nutters we’d rather remove from the population.
I’d call that a ‘Win-Win’ for ‘society-at-large’.
You referring to consenting adults or kids?
Lets be honest here - you have no intention of giving anything I post ‘serious consideration’ - looking for a word to dodge the conversation with is just that - a dodge - you haven’t (or cannot ) refute the substance of the post.
Consider this statement by the Watchtower -
That is the substance of the ‘everything’ when it comes to my earlier post.
So - answer these questions -
a) Who is the “faithful and discreet slave” in that statement?
b) If something disagrees with that ‘truth’ - what must be its source?
c) What happens to someone that questions or disagrees with the information from the ‘faithful and discreet slave’ ?
d) If it is shown that the information published by ‘the faithful and discreet slave’ has lies and half-truths in them - what would that mean to you?
let me rephrase question (d) slightly -
d) If it can be shown that information published by ‘the faithful and discreet slave’ has lies and half-truths contained in them - what would that mean to you?
I believe the word you were looking for was “antinomy”. I hear there’s a ‘mine’ for that.