To the Household of God, Israel, and those who go with...

by AGuest 64 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  cognizant dissident

  Shelby, again I will say that you are so dishonest and twist people's words and your own in your attempts to prove that you have some sort of special insight into other people's hearts.

  Not one person on this thread expressed any problem with your friend feeding a homeless guy. They had a problem with him ordering the McDonald's staff to go along with his agenda, without regard for their rights. For you to keep saying that was the argument is intellectually dishonest. It is also dishonest for you to keep implying McDonald's banned the man because he was hungry and homeless or not dressed properly.

  I do know McDonald's policies on banning people and hungry, homeless, and not dressed properly do not get anyone banned. People get banned from the restaurant for being violent towards staff or other customers, being verbally abusive to staff or other customers, vandalising the premises, being loud and disruptive to staff and/or customers, shooting up in the bathroom, having sex in the bathroom, stealing and any other illegal activities you want to throw in there. If the man was banned, it was for something of that nature, probably repeated behaviour, and your friend had no right to interfere as he did not know. The staff and the managers did know.

  "Ego" has nothing to do with one's heart. Ego is a term used to refer to the public image we present of ourselves, or have of ourselves, our role/identity if you will. I did not judge his heart. I judged his behaviour as out of line. He may have very well have had the best of intentions in his heart, the way he presented himself in public was obviously ego driven whether he even realized it or not.

  As for my heart, the only thing that I revealed, is that I don't like it when people go around ordering others around to follow their agenda, when they have no right to do so, and when they do not have all the facts. I don't care how good their intentions were. It is presumptuous and ignorant. Just like your attempts to read my heart are presumptuous and ignorant.

  Is it my ego that keeps me arguing with you on this thread to try and prove my point. Absolutely. You see, I can admit it. I call a spade a spade. I'm not passive aggressive like you. I notice you started another thread on this topic with some passive aggressive digs at "some" people, who are still blind just like those in the WTBTS. Why don't you just come right out and name who you are talking about? You also judge all the people who disagreed with you as ones who don't want to help the unfortunate. What bullshit. You don't have a friggin clue how much anyone on this site gives to the homeless or to other charities. Or do you have some special psychic powers to know that too? You just simply judge that all who disagreed with you must be uncharitable people.

  Bottom line, your friend wanted to help the homeless. Good deed. He did it in a needlessly confrontational and self-aggrandizing way when he could have chosen not to. Ego. People noticed and pointed it out, you didn't like it, so you started judging and putting down everyone who didn't agree with your assessment of the situation. Even bigger ego! Period.
• 

  cognizant dissident

  Outlaw: I'm sure Shelby is a very kind and loving person, most of the time. I'm sure her friend is too. Some people have even said that about me at times.

  I, and not only I, did not find the WAY her friend carried out his good deed very kind or loving. I, for one, don't find her condescending, judgemental words on this thread or the other one she started on the same topic, very kind or loving. EVERYONE gets an inflated ego sometimes, even me. Hard to believe, I know!
• 

  AGuest

  Obiously, you didn't start from the beginning of the post and read through, CD (my peace remains). The judgmentalness and condescension didn't start with me. Doesn't matter, though, as again, you entirely miss the point. We have dear tec (peace to you!), however, to help us all out:

  rereading the post, the point I believe (other than showing a good deed done) was that despite the homeless man's lot, he was still fed. Someone found kindness to feed him.

  It was, dear tec, and YOU saw that... because your "eye" is "simple."

  what I am saying is that I don't understand how anyone can attack a good deed, simply because the good deed wasn't done in the way they think is right.

  What YOU said here was my subsequent point...

  Why not just take the story as it is? Smile because it was a good deed. Feel good because a kindness was done. Instead of attacking that kindness and harshly judging the person who did it?

  And that was and is my final point... which CD cannot see because... as I said... her light... is dark.

  I did not judge your heart... or anyone's, CD. I merely did as you did... made an observation. I made by observation based on what came out of YOU... what YOU revealed. And I stand by it, especially given your continuation of your position. But so we're clear, let's take a look at that position:

  You judge whether someone has light or darkness within themselves. You speak as if you know who is being blessed and who isn't. You determine what is an uplifting story or not.

  First, this post was the result of several other posts, which you obviously have no knowledge of. I stated that at the first. Second, I judged no one. I based my statement regarding THEIR darkness on my observation of what came out of THEM. Had I observed them commit murder, I would not hesitate to CALL them murderers. Now, what HAPPENS to them as a RESULT of that murder... their JUDGMENT... is not up to me. My hope is that they would change that light... and avoid judgment.

  Some of us didn't find the story that uplifting.

  Yes, but it wasn't about what YOU found uplifting. It was about what I found uplifting... and believed would be uplifting to others... "The Household of God, Israel, and those who go with THEM." Which is why I addressed the post AS such... and TO such. You and others CHOSE... NOT to see the point of my thread... that a good deed was done... but to see the "BAD" in the doing of that deed. Why? Because... YOUR EYE IS NOT SIMPLE... and so the "light" IN you... is dark. Just as YOU stated:

  That isn't because we don't have compassion for the homeless, or respect for a good deed being done. That's because we could see the "darkness"...

  You SAW... this because it is what is in YOU. I know this... because it is what CAME OUT... of YOU.

  A slave of Christ,

  SA
• 

  journey-on

  Whoa!!! This has turned into a real spitting match. It's probably because it is very difficult for people to see only black or white in an issue. I haven't weighed in because my opinion is not that valuable, but after thinking about this issue and trying to understand both sides (I have a big thing about BALANCE and JUSTICE), my feeling is:

  #1 A hungry man got a meal...simple.

  #2 Whether the giver intended to or not, an issue of heart importance was put in the conscience of some people in that restaurant. Was he used to do this? I don't know. But, somebody in that restaurant will always remember that incident of a homeless man being fed and championed by a good samaritan.
• 

  Witness My Fury

  Probably because the ALL SEEING EYE is amongst us again.... and pissing people off with line by line dissection, but NEVER in the wrong of course.

  Cheers
• 

  cognizant dissident

  Obviously, you are wrong again, Shelby, because I DID start at the begnning and read every post.

  Not everyone found your story uplifting. That's the chance you take when you post on a PUBLIC forum. They simply told you why they didn't find it uplifting. Part of what the man did was uplifting (feeding the homeless), part of what he did wasn't to some, (ordering McDonald's employees to serve banned man without having all the facts). I daresay a few of those employees might not have found the experience uplifting either.

  I was not the first person to note this either. I was the 4th person. (See, I do take note of the details.)

  I believe the judging did start with you. The whole purpose of this thread was judging. Your friend judged McDonald's managers actions in banning the man as wrong before he ever walked into that restaurant. You judged your friends actions in feeding homeless man as good deed and your friends actions in confronting McDonald's employee and ordering them to serve the man as a good deed.

  Some, did not agree with YOUR judgement and said so. They judged your friends behaviour differently than you judged it.

  YOU then judged everyone who didn't agree with your friend and you as "crazy", "mean", "heartless" and "dark".

  If our words reveal what is in our hearts, then take ownership of your own words. According to your own logic, those words emanate from you so they reveal more about you than they do the people you attribute them to.

  I did make a judgement about your friends behaviour. I think insisting the hungry man enter the restaurant when he knew he was banned and ordering the staff to serve him, when your friend was not in possession of the facts, was out of line. The hungry man could have verbally or physically abused that very girl at the counter the day before. I'm not saying he did, because I have no way of knowing and your friend had no way of knowing either. Therefore he was ignorant and presumptuous. The staff did know and made their decision base upon their experience, so there was no reason for your friend to be "agitated" with them or "almost lose it".

  You and others CHOSE... NOT to see the point of my thread... that a good deed was done... but to see the "BAD" in the doing of that deed. Why? Because... YOUR EYE IS NOT SIMPLE... and so the "light" IN you... is dark. Just as YOU stated:

  More judgements from you about my eyes and my light. My eye works the same as everyone else's does, as a lens, and no one has any "light" inside them. If the light you are speaking of is a figurative term for "awareness", then I will inform you of what I'm aware of as only I can know what I perceive. I perceive the helpfulness in the deed of feeding the homeless man. I noticed no "others" taking issue with that deed. I perceived that the deed of bringing the man into the restaurant when he seemed sheepish (synonym for embarrassed) was not helpful to him. I perceive that the deed of ordering the employees to be insubordinate or serve the man was not helpful to them. A few others perceived that also. Perhaps you are right, it is because we are not "simple" but aware of the complexities of human behaviour and its motivations. That is not necessarily a bad thing. I would say that being able to "see "the subltle complexities and greater details of a situation is a sign of having greater degree of light/awareness, not a lesser.

  I think the only thing that reveals about my heart is that I don't like it when people order others around to serve their own agenda without having all the facts. I also don't like it when people put words in my mouth I didn't say, and change their story after the fact because they have to be right at any cost (including the cost of the facts and logic). If that makes me crazy, mean and dark in your estimation, then so be it, I embrace what YOU call darkness. I think that is twisting the meaning of those words, as well, but that's a judgement call, isn't it?

  By the way, the heart is a pump. Human behavioural response to stimuli originates in the brain. If the heart beats faster (as when agitated) it is because it is flooded with chemicals from the adrenal glands, in response to directions from the brain, (usually the limbic system where our primal "fight or flight" responses originate).

  So, all your judgements about people's hearts have no basis in reality. They are just stories your brain has told you in response to stimuli. In this case, the stimuli is another story your friend has told you and the stories posters have told you about their brain responses to his story.

  Kind of puts the whole thing in perspective, doesn't it?
• 

  cognizant dissident

  Whether the giver intended to or not, an issue of heart importance was put in the conscience of some people in that restaurant.

  Journey On:

  You may believe that, but no one on this thread, including yourself, has anyway of knowing what is in the minds and conscience of those onlookers in the restaurant, unless they spoke with the other people in the restaurant and were told by them and were being told the truth. This thread alone gives evidence of how different are the meanings that peoples minds can give to the same event. I believe that "meanings" are sometimes derived from previous experiences and what we are conditioned to believe about those experiences.

  The brain often jumps to conclusions (base upon past experiences). It is often an efficient short-cut method. Otherwise we would have to relearn everything each day anew. However, the brain is also often mistaken in the conclusions it jumps to because it does not have all the facts in the present and it mistakenly tries to apply past learning to a present situation where it it doesn't fit. Aye there's the rub....
• 

  journey-on

  CD...you are right in that none of us can know for sure what was in the minds and hearts of the homeless man, the giver, the onlookers, or the staff.

  This is not a black and white world for sure and there are as many perspectives as there are individuals. I was simply saying that most probably that 16-year old girl (or anyone else nearby) assimilated that experience with all its social complexities and became more aware on some level than before. I'm not making a "right" or "wrong" judgment. Too many variables to consider as you so eloquently put it.
• 

  SixofNine

  Oh you can be sure that my daughter at 16 would have understood all the "social complexities" if she'd seen this theatre.
• 

  journey-on

  What would she have taken away from this, 6'o9? You have a lot of respect for your young daughter from what I remember in a past post. If she had been the girl behind the counter, what would have been her cognition overall?