JW's- Have they lost their ability to think?

by Vitameatavegamin 99 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Pubsinger

  NYT.

  I'm not glued to my computer either so the "NYT has left the building!" was just a dig.

  I've just spent 10mins reading the whole thread.

  So I'm reposting my question as requested which you didn't answer.
  I would appreciate an answer. A yes or a no. And then a reason for your reply.

  Scenario:

  You become an elder a few years down the line.
  You are on a committee.
  Two witnesses have reported the accused for openly admitting that he uses a forum like this, which contains anti-JW discussion and during which he regularly talks to DA and DF people. The accused says he doesn't see anything wrong with this and he certainly doesn't repent of his actions and he isn't going to stop.

  WOULD YOU VOTE TO DISFELLOWSHIP HIM?

  I hope this is clear enough and I would appreciate a reply.

  Just so you don't miss this question I am repeating it in a new thread.
• 

  nytelecom1

  no for he has not sinned
• 

  dubla

  nytel-

  please repost what you want me to post too

  -well, that would be a long post, and would probably take awhile for me to go back through all my posts and find all the questions that you refused to respond to. if you mean specifically my last post, then ill try.......

  MY QUOTE:

  and the elders are fully aware that "you dont believe the rules apply to you"(your words, not mine)? if you want to live a double life, fine, im sure there are many on here, including myself, that will just say, "you know what, ive been there, i understand where you are, and i hope you make it out becuase its not a fun way to live (inside your head, or outward appearance wise)." but you simply wont do that, and you take the rest of the posters on here for fools when you carry on about being a m.s. and being able to do whatever you please, and whatever you deem to be acceptable (whatever you deem to be "rules" that DO "apply to you"). i agree with stacey, if you can get away with these ridiculous behaviors right in front of your own elders, then more power to you. and again, if thats indeed the case, that would only emphasize one of my previous points (that has went unnoticed seemingly), that the society is indeed run differently in different areas; sects if you will.

  -so i guess one of the main things i was asking is are the elders aware that you do not feel "the rules apply to you"? and that you just follow the ones you deem to be acceptable? and if so, if thats the case, and you get no reprimands for it, would you not agree with the last part of my statement, involving "sects"? or do you actually think every body of elders is as lenient on "free thinkers" (or members that pick and choose which beliefs to follow)? these arent sarcastic questions; i think they are perfectly valid as a part of this discussion.

  aa
• 

  nytelecom1

  as far as your sect statement..it is well known that thing are different in various locations, the scripture of all things are lawful but not all things are beneficial would apply (i know i totally misquoted that script)..recently some missionaries from africa came tp Patterson, the sister had a nose ring, but she took it out here...do you get the jist??...its a matter of how your behavior affects others....if there are not clear scrptural principals or laws that apply..then do what you think you can.

  the elders know of my thinking and i have not made a list of "rules"
  that dont apply to me. I think all the rules apply to me, if i agree with them is a different issue.
• 

  dubla

  recently some missionaries from africa came tp Patterson, the sister had a nose ring, but she took it out here...do you get the jist??

  -i would venture to say cultural differences and whether or not you choose to heed specific counsel from the podium are two different things. im not sure theres a scripture that says "nose rings spoil useful habits".....get the jist??

  Than you cry about those who
  beleive rules dont apply to them.

  -when you said "those who beieve the rules dont apply to them, i assumed you meant you.?.

  I think all the rules apply to me

  im confused.

  aa
• 

  nytelecom2

  in my old spanish cong back home.. going to bars was frowned upon,
  here in ny and my friends in cali go to bars all the time. In WA state they are aware of this, frankly they dont care, but they also understand the enviroment and the fact that some may be stumbeled.
  I think the nose ring issue applies very much here

  -when you said "those who beieve the rules dont apply to them, i assumed you meant you.?.

  I think all the rules apply to me

  im confused.

  i believe i was referring to the attitude that some anti's have, that the antis feel there are some who feel there are "those who believe....etc"

  no need to be confused.
• 

  dubla

  nytel-

  im sure youre aware i was being sarcasitic when i implied confusion. i was merely pointing out two DISTINCT statements, made by you, that DIRECTLY contradict each other, regardless of what you say you were "referring to". perhaps youd like to retract one of them and restate it according to what you were trying to get across. here, ill repost for emphasis:

  Than you cry about those who
  beleive rules dont apply to them

  I think all the rules apply to me

  aa
• 

  LDH

  Waffles for the Waffler?

  LDH
• 

  nytelecom2

  no need to retract.
  i stated what was the position of some antis, by the
  placement of the word "you"..whay "you" the antis believe
• 

  dubla

  nytel-

  nice try, but i think youre missing the point here. have you ever taken those tests, you know, like iq tests? theres these questions like, "if all boxes are red, and all plates are boxes, are all plates red?"....remember those? lets use this as a somewhat similar example......

  Than you cry about those who
  beleive rules dont apply to them

  okay, so weve esablished that "you", whoever "you" is, cries about "those who believe rules dont apply to them".

  I think all the rules apply to me

  so now weve established that all the rules do indeed apply to nytel. so now the question is, who was the first "you" crying about? certainly not nytel, right? so the question i was raising (and the reason it sounded contradictory to me), is this: if this "you" isnt crying about you(nytel), then why would you use that statement in this thread, as a sort of defensive statement? youd be hard pressed to say you were not referring to yourself in this context.

  aa