Leaving JWs Has Made Me Intolerant of Stupid Thinking

Cocoon

Oh, I can related to this too! When I first left, I was very intolerant for the first decade (at least) and even verbally challenged all of my bosses! Everyone was an idiot, wrong, trying to screw me, etc.. I felt a tremendous amount of agitation and stress. What I failed to realize at the time was that I was growing emotionally/unsettled myself and that was why I found other people's behavior so unsettling. I was also very, very controlling because my life up to that point had been so controlled that I was grasping to get a handle on it. I've been out of the organization over 25 years now and can say that I am a completely changed person. I'm no longer controlling nor do I consider myself intolerant. I had a major breakthrough one year (probably early 30's) when all of a sudden I started seeing the good in every single person I met (even most JWs have some redeeming qualities) and stopped feeling so distrustful and opinionated about everything. I learned it was OK to allow others to have their opinion too. I was secure enough to realize that regardless of other opinions, I still had mine (and had the right to it). It takes time to heal from being a JW, but you can heal and become more at peace with who you are. It's important to become introspective and do the work on yourself, though, in order to get there. Brenda Lee, www.outofthecocoon.net

existentialist

The problem is,however,that if one were to "smack" people for being "wrong" due to intellectual ignorance, then, in a limited sense, you aren't much diferent than the JW's. In terms of exact beliefs, there's an obvious difference,but the notions of "infallibility," whether it be either intellectual or theological/theocratical run parallel to each other.The content may be contrasting,but the form of which any righteousness takes is just that: righteousness. As the Witnesses,Mormons,or Catholics,etc, have changed their perception over time, so has the "infallibility" of science. Theories and hypothesis come and go, and while many remain perpetually unrefuted, a number of them have been underminded by other more "substanital" evidence. The solid "assuredness" of certain ideas within science can't be proven either, since they're still only theories, until there is enough evidence. For example,there is the theory of evolution. One would have to literally sit there, for millions of years, taking in data, in order to objectively prove that evolution, is in fact, taking place. But we obviously cannot do this until one is able to live that long to show and prove any results. Oddly enough,Dawrin himself used the word "Creator" (yes, with a capital "c")in the same context as his theory of evolution. Science isn't the only discipline to be further revised. Who hasn't heard of revisionst history, and so on? If you read about Russel's Paradox,we find that even mathematics isn't as "infallibe" as we think it to be,specifically on the subject of classess and members of classes. I think it's safe to say that although there are certain undeniable "truths" that one can see, there is also a constant undermining of ideas that we once held as "infallible."

onesong

The trait of an enlightened person is being able to see and hold 2 different (and even seemingly opposing views) at the same time and make the connection to the whole. Digging in and defending a point of view keeps one from seeing the bigger picture.

These3Words

Shepgator, I feel your pain. My family has gone through more than I can type on this page, thanks to the ORG. I can't find were Jesus tought us to hate each other. i can't find any scripture were he tells us to abandone our family for the "Lie" AKA the "Truth" I can't find in any Bible I have that tells us to split up in the time of the end.I'm afraid the the only segragating the ORG is doing is segragating themselves from Gods Love.I canot find any listed Relions in the Bible! They are all manmade! Christianity is a label created by man! I believe we can have a personal relationship with God without human moderators.Jesus is my sheppard.

Agape

Golf

Enjoyed reading your post Cocoon, very good.

Golf

Seeker4

I've enjoyed the posts here. A few comments.

I'm wasn't talking about a pattern of intolerance. I wasn't referring to anything similar to Cocoon's "When I first left, I was very intolerant for the first decade (at least) and even verbally challenged all of my bosses! Everyone was an idiot, wrong, trying to screw me, etc.. I felt a tremendous amount of agitation and stress." I didn't, and don't, feel anything like that. I'm relaxed, enjoying life, and I love searching out divergent and even opposing views on ideas that interest me. I love the Internet for that.

What I'm talking about is an occasional run in with someone who, like one poster mentioned earlier, arrogantly asserts an opinion that just has no basis in logic or fact. Let me give a couple of examples:

A man with no educational background in science arrogantly asserts that there is no scientific evidence for evolution, and it is "merely a theory."

A woman with no knowledge or interest in country music says that "Johnny Cash is just a twangy hick and his music is shit." Someone might say the same, under similar circumstances, about Bruce Springsteen, Bach, Glen Gould or Miles Davis. The point is, it's not saying, "I don't like Springsteen's (or Cash's or Bach's or Davis') music", it's arrogantly dismissing all of it out of ignorance. Quite a different thing. Now, if someone want's to present what she thinks is the overpowering evidence that Springsteen's music sucks, that's also another viewpoint all together.

That's what I was referring to.

And existentialist: after reading a few of your posts, I'm starting to think that your reasoning and logic are about as shoddy as your spelling, punctuation and spacing. Who referred to the "'infallibility' of science"? Your statement: "The solid 'assuredness' of certain ideas within science can't be proven either, since they're still only theories, until there is enough evidence" shows a lack of understanding of the basic concept of theory as used in science and engineering.

S4

existentialist

1.What either spelling or grammar have to do with this discussion, I have no idea. But,if something is unclear, kindly point it out and I'll gladly rewrite it so that it will hopefully be even more clear than what it already is (at least to some of us).However, you say that my writing is "shoddy" even though you were still able to quote my "The solid 'assuredness'..." and so on. Interesting... 2.Our defintions are obviously different: Fact:n. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences Theory:n. Abstract reasoning; speculation:ex.a decision based on experience rather than theory. Two different things.But if you wnt to mix fact and speculation together then go ahead. 3.If you don't define science as infallible,then why do you rely on it? How is it different than JW teachings if they're not? 4.What do theories of science and engineering have to do with either faith in Creation, the Flood, or Jesus Christ? Please explain some "basic concept theory" in science and engineering(and proper spelling and grammar,for that matter). "Hell is other people"-Jean-Paul Sartre

Leaving JWs Has Made Me Intolerant of Stupid Thinking - How About U?

Cocoon

existentialist

onesong

These3Words

Golf

Seeker4

existentialist

rmt1

existentialist

Seeker4

Share this