Cyberjesus said:
KS: the title of this thread is
If you are reading this title, everything you know needs to be questioned
And what I am doing is just that. I am questioning you if you yourself question what you state that you know?
What: the need to question the very assumptions that played a role in becoming a member of a cult? You're not question THAT, are you? That's a principle that's accepted to be a critical element of the de-programming process. You're really not questioning the importance of THAT, are you?
In reviewing the thread, I see you clearly didn't understand the point I was trying to make about discipline and spanking (i.e. the first post you objected to). Nevertheless, you decided it was worth derailing the entire thread over it, so fine. TIn fact, the odds are good that others may not have followed, either (maybe I didn't explain it well enough, trying not to write a massive post that no one would read), so I'll explain it again:
I was referring to the flawed concept that many JWs hold, believing that infants can comprehend morality from birth, since 'right vs wrong' is hard-wired, being innate/inborn. Hence they may discipline a 6 mo. old when it becomes fidgity during a meeting, taking it outside and spanking it (we've all seen it done on at least one occasion; at least, I've talked to JW relatives who STILL believe this to be a fact of infants).
You objected, saying that discipline doesn't mean spanking. True, but it's a pointless thing to the mention, since we're talking about infants: have you ever tried reasoning with an infant, one who cannot even talk yet? That's exactly WHY they feel spanking of infants is justified: it's the logical conclusion they come by combining 'spare the rod' Biblical thinking with the flawed assumption that a infant knows they're misbehaving, intentionally being bad. That combination leads parents to justify the spanking of infants, well below the age that child development experts say it would be reasonable to do.
Do you question what you know? and why you think you know it? What if someone points at you that what you are doing is making assumptions? are you questioning everything you know?
You seem to not get the point of the thread: it's not about what I know, or even you know, but about the PROCESS of IDing the assumptions that MAY or MAY NOT be a risk factor for someone joining a cult. By identifying as many as possible, others can ask if perhaps THEY share the similar assumptions, and hence THEY can question them to see if what they know is valid. You cannot address an assumption you aren't even aware of (what philosophers refer to as "unknown unknowns") so the thread is an attempt to convert as many 'unknown unknowns' into 'known unknowns' so EACH INDIVIDUAL can evaluate THEIR beliefs.
Since we're all individuals, your collection of unchallenged assumptions will be quite different from everyone elses, but my point is there ARE some commonly-held assumptions that are found in most "interested ones" (in JW parlance),or else they just wouldn't be receptive to the JW message at the door. Right? After all, it's easier to sell the JW "message" to an individual who is already pre-desposed to accepting the specifics of what they're 'selling'; my goal here is to add as many possible psychological vulnerabilities as possible, so people can evaluate them, and mitigate.
Does that make sense?