War!
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing.
WAR IS OVER-IF YOU WANT IT
by proplog2 72 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
proplog2
What a Coincidence:
Sorry, I didn't respond to your first post about Hassan.
My brother-in-law (ex jW) likes Hassan and I've perused his copy.
I disagree with the basic premise of the anti-cult movement.
I think it is unfair to attack new religious movements.
The definition of "cult" has been established by those who are part of the anti-cult business.
The criteria are too broad which works in fine with those who make money promoting their books and seminars. Just like the Alcoholic's Anonymous groups definition of an Alcoholic - just about everyone is an alcoholic or at least an enabler. The anti-cultists are also to a degree victims of group-think.
I don't believe in free-will because of our nature. Most of us are inclined to want to please the group we are in. This no doubt has some survival value from an evolutionary viewpoint. If a person experiences too much tension in a group they will tend to look for a group that is more congruent with their temperament. But - then they will be inclined to please their new group.
High control groups are simply groups that have rigid boundaries. Some military groups like the Marines require rigid discipline to be effective at what they do.
Rather than focus on "cults" I think it is good to develop skills at good argumentation.
Most on this board tend to be inclined toward a certain perceived group attitude that keeps them from giving credit where credit is due when it comes to JW's. To be popular here requires an extraordinary amount of hate and a readiness to express it. -
hillary_step
Proplog2,
The definition of "cult" has been established by those who are part of the anti-cult business.
Yes, what defines a "cult" or cultic behavior is not an easy task given that all religion if they are not a cult now, all started as a cult at their inception.
Though it may be hard to define, it is not so hard to recognize in action. For example the differences between the Church Of England and Scientology are extreme, as one preserves the individual rights of the person and the other usurps these by a planned and cohesive methodology. One is clearly cultic in behavior and the other, the Church Of England is not, though it may have been at some time in its long history.
The United Nations has a definition for cultic behavior and most mainstream religions fall outside these defined boundaries, though some come very close to these definitions and are more well defined as high-control religions. The WTS does not strictly quailfy as a cult. It fulfills all of the UN definitions except for one, and that is that it lacks a charismatic leader. Of course, they have learned well since the Russell/Rutherford days the dangers of showing a personality in leadership, and this has arguably been the reason that they have managed to survive intact to date. That its personality is cultic in nature, but hidden from view is rather clever. For example, Jaracz has long been known to be the motor that drives the WTS, yet few JW's have even seen himn, let alone be privy to knowledge of his influence.
My own view is that the WTS is a cult that is trying hard to be a religion and has shed one aspect of its makeup in the 40's that would define it as a cult by United Nations standards. It strays dangerously close to being a cult on occasion and can hardly be defined as benign.
HS
-
BurnTheShips
The cult of Hillary_Step will also someday be a recognized religion-he hopes.
-
hillary_step
BurnTheShips,
The cult of Hillary_Step will also someday be a recognized religion-he hopes.
Oh dear, I feel as if I have been savaged by a toothless poodle. I was going to suggest that surely you could do better than that, but then I remembered your embarrassing posts on this Board when you attempt to deal with serious subjects. ;) HS
-
VoidEater
So why does everyone on this discussion board keep condemning nearly 7,000,000 people who have committed themselves to a life of peace.
For the same reason total nuclear annhilation occurred in 1967 - oh, wait, that didn't happen either.
In my relatively short time I have seen doctrine lambasted, WTS control techniques critiqued, and individual behaviors ridiculed. I rarely have seen 7M people condemned. I have instead seen many posts about caring about the individuals ensnared in a hated organization. Equating this to the over-reaching "eveyone" condemns 7M people gets in the way of whatever valuable message might be coming.
JW's don't kill their neighbors in warfare. They would rather die than kill.
But to be fair apparently 23,000 of them have likely molested children, and the authority in the organization has taken little action to rectify matters in these cases.
And there are an untold number of them "officially" in the Mexican army. But we can worry about what their consciences will let them do once they're called into service. Or maybe they can get called into service and we can wait to see what they'll do on the front lines. Or maybe they can go to the front lines and we can wait to see what they'll do with a gun in their hand. Or maybe...you see, if you can start bending what are supposed to be iron-clad rules, you don't know WHAT they will do. It's a changing standard.
And a double standard - while some can join the army, others have to go to jail; and still others go through torment because they're not allowed to join a mere political party. Depends on the country you're in - and the year.
Why don't people harangue the millions of so called christians that carry on war contrary to their claimed leader Jesus Christ.
Do you really think they don't? Have you never seen a peace rally? Are you unaquainted with activism?
I would almost suspect you may be in an organization that has prevented you from knowing what's going on in the world around you. I have known many Jehovah's Witnesses, for example, that think they are the only ones that believe the Bible is the Word of God, or believe that war is wrong.
Jehovah's Witnesses don't celebrate Christmas but they have the PEACE the world dreams about at Christmas.
Depends on what you mean by "peace". Is the typical Witness shooting his enemy down in the street? Not that I've seen - so two points for acheiving a basic level of civility. But in what way is that Witness any different than the billions of his fellows that can make that claim?
Is the claim that only the Witnesses are conscientious objectors to war?
And how long before we get New Llight that will allow membership in the Army (oops, already there), or joining basic training, or going to the front lines, or...what's next?
Do those Witnesses have peace that have rejected their families, loved ones, friends, shunning them when those become disassociated, disfellowshipped, or are told that they have "disassociated themselves"? That seems to be the peace of the dead.
-
proplog2
Hillary The argument over the derogatory label "cult" is another issue. Who cares what the UN decides is a cult. Are they NOT influenced by orthodox religions that feel threatened by a loss of membership? These so-called orthodox accepted religions have not hesitated to persecute newer religious groups. Cult is a useful word for power mad Bishops. I would say that a religion that practices mutilation of sexual organs as a condition of membership has a good start at being a high-control religion. What about religion that forbids the use of condoms and birth control pills? Or what about a group that hypnotizes its members into thinking a wafer on the tongue miraculously turns into the actual flesh of Christ? What about religions that trample their fellow believers to death at their religious feasts - Haj. It seems as if the word "cult" is a big screen on which people who refuse to take responsibility for their own stupid decisions can project their hatred. Ooops I'm not REALLY stupid - the CULT put a whammy on me! I don't need to have the last word on the subject of cults. I am sure that anything I say will evoke some kind of response. However, these are MY last words on the subject of cults -at least in this thread. It is just another way of avoiding the need to give credit where credit is due. HASSAN HASSAN HASSAN Oooooh. I like the sound of that. HASSANISM
-
VoidEater
Dupe post
-
Gopher
Proplog, you make a lot of assertions and accusations against us here on this board. I'd like to address some points in your post earlier on this page.
I think it is unfair to attack new religious movements.
Why is any criticism viewed as an "attack"? I even see some orthodox-religion believers with thin skin here take any criticism as a personal attack. I don't think any movement (political or religious) is above criticism.
The definition of "cult" has been established by those who are part of the anti-cult business.
So who should define it, then? There are dictionary definitions written by those not in the anti-cult business. No matter who defines it, it seems you'd probably complain.
The criteria are too broad
Yes sometimes the criteria is broad, because there are so many cultic groups coming at people from different angles. Not all criteria apply to all groups, naturally.
The anti-cultists are also to a degree victims of group-think.
And those in high-control groups or cults are not? The cult groups try to take over people's lives, whereas the anti-cult groups are just trying to help victims wake up and become aware of what's going on.
I don't believe in free-will because of our nature. Most of us are inclined to want to please the group we are in.
So then, any religious group can, by persuasion or force, take away its members' freedoms and resources at will? The cults are powerful/persuasive people preying on the weak. Apparently you believe in free will for such religious charlatans instead of for vulnerable people.
Some military groups like the Marines require rigid discipline to be effective at what they do.
But at least those who join the Marines are aware of what they're signing up for.
Most on this board tend to be inclined toward a certain perceived group attitude that keeps them from giving credit where credit is due when it comes to JW's. To be popular here requires an extraordinary amount of hate and a readiness to express it.
To the contrary, I've seen a number of posts on the board look for the good in the JW experience (even though it was outweighed by the bad for most or all present here). I think the "extraordinary amount of hate" is directed at ex-members by the JW leadership in the invectives used against us in their literature and in the directives to separate family and friends. I couldn't care less about popularity here. I do care to help prevent people from getting entangled with the Jehovah's Witnesses, an organization that sucks people dry and spits them out. I do hate that about the organization, and I think it's only human to do so.
-
VoidEater
The purpose of the legal system is to insure justice. The early Christians used the legal system. Have you forgotten Paul's use of his status as a Roman citizen to obtain justice in his case? So, your questioning JW's being no part of the world is without any basis.
a) Then why are so many victims of a variety of abuses within the congregation told to "wait on Jehovah" to put things right, and not to go to the secular authorities? A brother cheats you - don't take it to the courts. A brother molests you - don't take it to the courts. It's convenient for the WTS to put a public face on when it comes to notifyiing authorities WHEN REQUIRED, but that doesn't negate what is said in private nor does it make decades of "keep it in the congregation" go away.
b) Being no part of the world is part of what is used to keep embarrasements swept under the carpet (or within the walls of the Kingdom Hall). Of course it has basis.