JWs Not Allowed to Post on Websites? (page 11)

Honesty

StandFirm & Maze are two trolls from TOPIX.COM

They hatched up a plan to come to this website in order to devise mischief.

Ignore them and they will fade away into oblivion.

palmtree67

Standfirm:

palmtree67: Okay, when does "advise" constitute a command?

Good question. That's really the issue here, isn't it?

Anyone can advise anyone else on practically anything, right? When does it become a command? When the "advice" is given at the same time as citing your authority and the consequences of not following the advice.......it becomes a command.

For example: Palmtree can advise you to not post on this site. You likely wouldn't view that as a command.

But when the Governing Body, (who insists they speak for the Almighty of the Universe, and who say that obedience to them is obedience to God, and that failure to comply with all they say will result in your everlasting death) advise you to not post on this site............

I think that's different. It's the perceived "authority" behind the advice given.

So I assume you DON'T feel the Governing Body has that authority, or you wouldn't be here. And that's cool. I just think you should admit it and we can all move on.

snowbird

You positively rock, Palmie!

Syl

StandFirm

From page 4:

mrsjones5: Of course there are ex-elders, ex-servants, etc. here. But she claimed that there were current Bethelites and Circuit Overseers. That seems a little farfetched to me.

jwfacts: Obviously the GB doesn't want us to all go out and post on websites like this, they may even prefer we don't, but they have not outright said 'you must not' anything.

sizemik: This thread is on whether it is allowed.

From page 5:

InterestedOne: They probably would not like it. They may not all agree with me in all my entertainment choices either. But it is not their place.

passwordprotected stated: "some of the reactions to his initial question have been sooooo JWN in their tone of puerile snickering. Grow up, people. You know who you are." Couldn't agree more on that!

ABibleStudent: I would tell the truth. But such a circumstance as you describe will never happen.

Hobo Ken: No, they won't list forbidden URLs, for many reasons. But if they didn't want Witnesses to post on forums - end of story - it would be very easy for them to just say so. But they haven't.

oompa suggests: "i would believe standfirm really believes his position on this this topic...if he had joined here using his own name or his own picture or both....that would show for sure that he has no doubt that wt is cool with him posting here"

Alright, you first.

sizemik asks: "Yet the WTS sponsored Forum(s) restrict any opposing views from being aired . . . why do you think that is StandFirm?"

First off there are no WTS sponsored forums. Anyway, when you converse with your friends who agree with you on some topic, do you want some stranger challenging you on every word you say? That is why JW only forums exist.

From page 6:

palmtree67: The tone of the suggestion is also important. There is a difference between 'there are dangers in...' and 'You must not...'.

SweetBabyCheezits

oompa suggests: "i would believe standfirm really believes his position on this this topic...if he had joined here using his own name or his own picture or both....that would show for sure that he has no doubt that wt is cool with him posting here"

StandFirm: Alright, you first.

What is this, a playground? I'll do it, StandFirm. I'll post my real name and a pic of myself holding a sign with both my name and JWN handle written on it.... then you do the same for yourself immediately thereafter. Let's go.

InterestedOne

StandFirm wrote:

palmtree67: The tone of the suggestion is also important. There is a difference between 'there are dangers in...' and 'You must not...'.

Notice the use of the word "we" in the July 15th, 2011 WT which says:

What is involved in avoiding false teachers? We do not receive them into our homes or greet them. We also refuse to read their literature, watch TV programs that feature them, examine their Web sites, or add our comments to their blogs.

They are saying that "we" refuse to do the items listed. Who could "we" refer to other than all JW's? To me, this looks equivalent to them saying that if you consider yourself a JW, "you must not..." because "we" do not do the items listed. If you do one of the items, you are doing something in conflict with what "we" (all JW's) do.

Regarding the elders, apart from them not liking it, if they judge that you are doing something in conflict with what "we" (all JW's) do by reading and posting here, I would think they would consider you no longer one of "we" unless you stop. It's one thing to say it is not their place to judge your entertainment choices, but if they knew you read & post here, would they just not like it, or is it probable that they would they see it as being in conflict with what "we" (all JW's) do?

thetrueone

What is involved in avoiding false teachers? We do not receive them into our homes or greet them. We also refuse to read their literature, watch TV programs that feature them, examine their Web sites, or add our comments to their blogs.

It seems that the WTS is trying a ploy of reverse psychology, in that implying opposers are the evil false teachers against

them the truth givers of gods holy wisdom.

This type of brainwashing tactic protects the mental slaves that the WTS has acquired.

We are "The truth" and they are the lie instigated and being used by Satan to deceive ...bla .. bla ...bla...

When you've bullshitted people for over a century, you've got to have walls of protection to stop the slaves

in seeing how they've been duped.

Its really a game of fear with intent to control and manipulate.

There is alot of power and wealth at stake thats observantly being recognized at the Watchtower headquarters.

Putting blinders on to people's heads is one way of keeping people in the direction you want them to go.

The power , the money its all good.

mrsjones5

mrsjones5 : Of course there are ex-elders, ex-servants, etc. here. But she claimed that there were current Bethelites and Circuit Overseers. That seems a little farfetched to me.

Just because it may seem farfetched to you doesn't mean it's not true. She doesn't have to prove anything to you. This ain't the hall and we aren't snitches.

palmtree67

StandFirm:

palmtree67: The tone of the suggestion is also important. There is a difference between 'there are dangers in...' and 'You must not...'.

Tone????

How do you determine the "tone" of the written word?? There is very little way to do that.

There is no vocal tones, no facial expression to help you determine the intention.

The intention is made clear by :

1. Them stating their authority is directly from God.

2. You are threatened with death for non-compliance.

I stand by my original premise - You, StandFirm, are in violation of your masters by posting here. And you know it.

SweetBabyCheezits

Palm, only a true dumbass would sit here and argue that he, as a JW, isn't going against the Watchtower's instruction by reading and posting here. That is a level of cognitive dissonance above and beyond the standard JW. StandFirm, Eggnog, and AliceSpadeMaze are all victims of their own self-deceiving minds.

Semi-related.... when I was still a humble & mostly-unthinking believer and confessed to my sin of reading comments on an apostate site (after their reply about 607 failed to answer my questions), I had an elder ORDER me not to visit such websites anymore.

I still want to go back and c*ck punch him when I think about it.

JWs Not Allowed to Post on Websites?

Share this