That's true pole . They don't want to hear your opinion unless it's in harmony with the latest light coming from headquarters . Any difference of opinion is completely subverted by the entire congregation by watching the way they treat you and comments made during the meeting and the watch tower study they will destroy your credibility and it doesn't matter how many scriptures you have to prove yourself , you will be marked as bad association and you don't even have to be a j-dub . They did it to me and I was just having the home bible study . It also doesn't seem to matter if their current belief later becomes a foot note as old light that was replaced , they will not even apologize .
Apology of cults
by Narkissos 24 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Pole
:They did it to me and I was just having the home bible study .
LOL. Maybe you were entering the stage of the bible study when you're no longer expected to ask those questions. At the very beginning you can ask any question, and they'll just treat you as an idiot who's never seen the light of the TRUTH, but once you are presented with it, you're not supposed to disagree. Oh yeah, you may have doubts, but it's your fault, not Jehovah's.
Off topic, so:
BTTT!!!
Pole -
Narkissos
Hi Pole,
The debate is as old as modern democracy: Pas de liberté pour les ennemis de la liberté ("no freedom for the enemies of freedom," Saint-Just) was a major slogan of the French Revolution.
This logic, though, quickly leads from revolution to dictatorship (cf. Napoleon or Stalin).
Democracy (settled democracy) is a narrow path and implies some laissez-faire, passivity and ignorance. Too active a human rights policy easily encroaches on human rights. Mandatory tolerance easily turns into intolerance.
The line between private and public is vital to democracy as we know it. Most democratic governments are bound to ignore, to an extent, what happens behind the doors of private homes and associations.
Can you imagine a Polish government attacking the Catholic hierarchy on the grounds of sexual discrimination for instance?
The big question remains why so many people prefer an abusive privacy to a free public space.
-
Pole
Narkissos,
:The debate is as old as modern democracy
Sure. Good points, although I'm not saying "pas de liberté". All I'm saying is all animals are equal but I wouldn't cry if some animals were made less equal than others ;-). So on the one hand, I think the authorities of Moscow are hypocritical in banning the activities of JWs. But on the other hand I think Jehovah's Witnesses in Poland enjoy many priviledges that they simply don't deserve. (e.g. they are the only group of Conscientious Objectors who don't have to do alternative service unlike Catholic pacifists, and bethelites have their social security paid for by the government just like other members of religious orders, except that JWs point to their preaching work as charity).
:The big question remains why so many people prefer an abusive privacy to a free public space.
Another question is how many of them do really prefer an abusive privacy. How many of them have been manipulated into it and are even unable to voice their concerns? This is where the mainstream Catholic church (at least here) differs from Jehovah's Witnesses for example.
:Can you imagine a Polish government attacking the Catholic hierarchy on the grounds of sexual discrimination for instance?
LOL. Not the one we happen to have quite accidentally at the moment. But sexual discrimination by the Catholic Church is a bit of a strawman. It doesn't really compare with the kind of issues FunkyDerek underlined in his post, does it? I mean, how do you define the difference between a 'mainstream' religion and an abusive cult?
Pole -
LittleToe
Didier:LIke you, I can only wonder at the motives. Sometimes I think that politics is predominantly about smoke and mirrors, and that in this case creating a furor about the practices of another nation merely serves to deflect heat away from internal policies. E.g. "We are using the religous vote to remove abortion and homosexual rights, but hey, it could be far worse - look at those bl**dy French taxing some poor minority religion. That's what happens when you take away religous freedoms - you become French."
Everyone loves an enemy who appears worse than the enemy within.
Charles:Good to see you posting more regularly. You'd been missed
I agree with the French allowing no tax exemption. Just because a number of other countries see it as some kind of fundamental right, doesn't make them correct. To make strong representations against another country's internal policy is meddling, IMHO.
Derek:
Aren't you setting up somewhat of a dichotomy by recommending some kind of communal standard-setting to enable individual, rather than communal, freedoms?Being the reasonably sociable creatures we are we don't tend to respond well to the loneliness of ultimate individuality. For the most part we quickly adapt to the social setting in which we find ourselves. Part of the process of diversification is interaction with our peers.
IMHO the individual reaches their greatest potential for diversity by experiencing other cultures, not merely other individuals. As such, in a time when travel still isn't as prolific as it might be, on a microcosmic scale groups and cliches are our most readily accessible form of this.
We don't function very well in a vaccum, hence demanding that whole swathes of our life remain "private" is surely a barrier to the diversity you seek? 1 + 1 does not = 2, if both you and I are enriched by the interaction.
I don't contest most of your or Charles posts, just the point about individuality leading to greater diversification.