by WTWizard 14 Replies latest jw friends
Here's another:
Awake 1995 1/22
"Is this always wise? Take, for example, the street-gang, hip-hop, and "grunge" clothing styles. Many wear these styles simply because they are popular. Yet, they virtually scream anger and rebellion. Could wearing them give others the wrong impression about you?"
Many do, many don't. Grunge doesn't neccesarily scream anger. Rebelion against what? Strict comformity toward rigid old, idiotic dress codes?
There's one more but it won't let me paste.
Oy... I wasn't allowed to listen to Culture Club because of "that Boy George...he's a homo and he dresses like a girl...he's bad, so you can't listen to his music!" Also Michael Jackson was off-limits because he was "disfellowshipped", so apparently listening to his music was tantamount to allowing him to speak to me and thus, it was association *eye roll*. Madonna wasn't allowed, either.
That was just my childhood...when I was an adult, I wasn't allowed to listen to Metallica, Disturbed, Evanescence (even though I knew a TON of JW's who listened to them), if a song said "ass", "damn", "hell"...I had to skip over that part when I was singing it or replace it with "butt", "darn", or "heck". Stupid, considering they are words that replace expletives but the meaning is still the same.
I never did believe the rubbish about backmasking. When you play anything backwards, you are going to end up with something that can be interpreted any way someone chooses. I could interpret those "Satanic" songs as having "Praise the Lord" messages when played backward just as easily as those old fogeys that want children's (and teenagers') music banned can find "Praise the Devil" messages. Yet, the witlesses find it expedient to fall right into that worldly wisdom, often started from the same Babylon the Great that spawned Christmas and the cross.
Also, just because "millions of people" worship a band or adopt a lifestyle (sources not available, of course) doesn't mean you are going to. How many people listen to gangsta rap that glorifies drug use, but do not take drugs? I got plenty of gangsta rap, but I didn't get the baggy outfits or bling to go along with it (it would have been a waste of money that I could use to get more rap). I got plenty of '80s big-hair rock and heavy metal, and plenty of "hippie" music--and a haircut tool that allows me to do nice short haircuts myself without regard to the style of hair the rockers wore. I also don't give a fxxx what kind of clothing people wear that make the music. I just get it to enjoy the music, not to be a source of guidance. Most people also just want to enjoy the music, and will not get involved in the lifestyles of the artists.
And, what's with this We Are the World? When I was going in, the scumbag who dragged me into the cancer claimed that Michael Jackson disassociated in 1985, leaving the possibility that he was disassociated when the song was released. He did that just so I would have to throw the song away. Also, the song "trusted in worldly institutions". Never mind that Michael Jackson disassociated in 1987, and the whole 1985 crap was a lie. Also never mind that, though I did originally buy it in part to help with the famine in Ethiopia, the quality of the music itself was enough to warrant buying it whether or not it was for profit.
Some of those that fling their opinions in your face about what you are and aren't allowed to listen to only do it to be powerful. they love the thought they can force another person to their rules about enjoyment.
Meanwhile, some of these power tripping twats are the biggest paedos in the congregations!
I'm glad I'm free of the WBT$. I can now enjoy whatever music I want to enjoy and b0((0cks to all those that sneer at my choices.
Why, only this summer there was a pious sneering JDub in a traffic queue right next to my car. This twot was one of the first to shun me when I left the WBT$ and I wasn't DA'd then. I normally resist such things but I wound down my car window so they could hear 'the Towers of London' song 'F*** it up'.
