Stop making the BINARY error of Jehovah's Witness theology

by Terry 54 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Terry

  Terry, did you arrange for Perry to prove your point in this thread? I mean, you couldn't ask for better responses to demonstrate people who continue to make the binary error.

  Well, as far as I can tell, Perry doesn't actually READ other people's posts. He skims looking for points of contention to refute. Yet, he'll go on and on in depth about his own points and FULLY EXPECT that you will read every word!

  I'm not sure there is a greyscale in this anywhere! Has Perry EVER read anybody's comment here and said, "Wow, I just learned something I didn't know" or "I was wrong about that--thanks for showing me an alternative!"? Probably not.

  There are only roiling absolutes from the man with a bird!
• 

  Billen76

  Terry wrote: " Our strongest emotions follow our strongest values. When we say we "love" we are following what we value as the highest possible."

  I write: Our strongest values follow our strongest emotions. Either you love or you don't. Otherwise it is a pretend, founded in other motives.

  JW's pretend to uphold love as the highest "value". I find this to be complete nonsens. Love is a emotion not a value. Upholding LIFE is a value, a value one can love. If one doesn't love this value, it will fall short when tested. Unless a primal core are connected to the make-belief value.

  Survival is a primal instinct. Eating is a primal instinct. Sex is a primal instinct. Breathing is a primal instinct. Motherhood is a primal instinct.

  Loyality facing death, fasting, celibacy, breath control and child sacrifice are all attempts to control the primate within us.

  Religion most often deals with this. By supressing one primal instinct, another is strengthened. Push one button down, another goes up. And the "victims" base personality are seemingly altered. All this religion seeks to control through theory. An imaginary world in which one needs to adapt. The "build" from here is all pretence and behaviour. If enough joins this imagery, a sense of reality is strenghtened. It can drive people crazy if the religion is into high control.

  JW connects love with survival. Hope to see your loved ones again? Then survive. If you obey, you might survive. If you are loyal even when facing death, you might survive. If your child dies while being loyal, it might survive (motherhood+survival, not child sacrifice!).

  So when being "loyal facing death", a JW is not surpressing an instinct. It is succumbing to it. It is thrown into a state of instinctal panic where it will grasp the solution it knows to seek safety. When ignorant only few options are readily availible in the moment. The doctors recommendation vs the Org.'s pre-instructed "solutions". Some elders will then come and "help save the life" by "siding" with the parents against the "threat" from the doctors solution.

  Yes, it is a "binary" choice (illusion), but it is only possible to maintain this illusion by linking it to a strong instinctal fear (through theory). The parents (and the child) are in a state of instinctal panic while in the fase of choice. If they weren't, they would dismiss those crazy elders and see them for the dangerous frauds they obviously (to all else) are.

  If the parents openly rejects the elders "help", they would reject the imaginary world or rather; have liberated themselves from the imaginary threat and started to relate to the real one. That will make them "dangerous" having in the congo, as a part of the "formula" is to maintain the sense of reality to the imagery by isolating the social network to people who accept the imagery.

  Again, there MUST be some primal instinct connected to get the followers to accept the controlled instruction. Else they will soon reject it.

  I find it highly immoral to toy with people in this way, but it is unfortunately not that uncommon.

  NB: We are "social animals". Some claim this is primal instinct also.
• 

  Terry

  Terry wrote: "Our strongest emotions follow our strongest values. When we say we "love" we are following what we value as the highest possible."

  I write: Our strongest values follow our strongest emotions. Either you love or you don't. Otherwise it is a pretend, founded in other motives.

  Love is a emotion not a value.

  ___________________________________________________________________________________

  Here is why I disagree:

  Emotions are involuntary. Values are voluntary.

  The strongest values (evaluations) lead to the strongest involuntary reactions upon encountering the embodiment of those values.

  To love somebody or some thing or fear/hate something you must (first) place a very high value on the embodiment.

  I'll give you a fine example.

  I'm scared to death of spiders. I was bitten by one when I was 5 years old. I went into a coma for three or four days.

  One day some friends of mine decided to play a prank on me (as they always did!) by capturing a very large (!) garden spider and wrapping a thread around it and hanging it from a thumb tack in the ceiling.

  When I entered my bedroom, there were my friends acting very suspicious! So, I was cautious.

  "Hey, Ter....what's that hanging from your ceiling?"

  I looked up.

  What I "thought" I saw was a fake spider. This was for 2 reasons.

  1.It was way big with too bright colors.

  2.It was obviously hanging from a fake thread and not a silk one.

  I smiled and answered, "Looks like a big spider to me."

  The two dropped their big cheesey smiles. "Aren't you scared? We thought you hated spider."

  I shrugged, "Naw. Not really."

  They looked at each other disappoined and very puzzled.

  They left.

  I got a chair and stood on it to remove the "fake" spider from the ceiling. Cool and calm as can be!

  As my neared the spider----IT STARTED TO MOVE!!!

  I let out a shriek like a little girl!! I screamed like a slaughtered pig!! Jumping down from the chair I High-tailed it out of my room and halfway down the street before I stopped yelling!

  What does this demonstrate?

  My mind (voluntary thought) did not place a value of REAL SPIDER on the object. Consequently, my emotions followed the value.

  Once the spider moved---the valuation changed and the strongest possible emotion followed fast!
• 

  Billen76

  @Terry

  :) They lacked the understanding of the importance of the element of surprise. You had time to think. That was their mistake. Plus they even got you suspicious by being eager to make you aware of its whereabout. You would get suspicious as soon as THEY pointed something out. Distrusting and on your guard. Tsk. Me, I would have showed you the movie "Arachnaphobia" first and shared with you stories about black widows found in toolbox's killing the unfortunate man trying to fetch his hammer. Then I would greet you goodnight and let yourself discover a fake spider hidden under your duvet. As you open the door either in terror or with intend to mock me because you had discovered the spider was fake, the REAL spider would be hanging in your face from the doorframe where I had placed after you closed the door. :) Such things should be done with proper care for detail.

  I like your story but have to object. You did not change values. You changed perception of reality. It was not real to you. It was a fairytale, like you would percieve a religious myth now. The STORY was of no value to you as you rejected it. The "value" you place(d)? on spiders, that triggers your primal fear had NOT changed. Only the OBJECT had - or rather, your perception of what the object was. And then we are back at the beginning.

  If a mother that loves her child AND believes her child would perish if she allowed it to get a bloodtransfusion, she would still love her child while fighting the doctors over the issue. The problem is the SETTING (she percieve), not how she values her child.

  NB: I just realized after posting this, that I skipped the part with you being bitten as a 5 year old child. It is of course not something to take advantage from. But alas, when a child one rarely understands this.
• 

  Terry

  Okay. We'll agree to disagree.