The WT frequently contains articles about the "spiritual paradise" that has no connections with the realities of life in the organization.
If JWs see the disconnect they either blame their particular BOE or themselves, never "mother" GB...
There's gotta be another faction in the Writing Department, either that or they can't see the irony.
by Theocratic Sedition 72 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Red Piller
(Welcome Eazy!)
I don't think they can see the irony. I used to pity "worldly" people becasue they were enslaved and I was "free."
-
scotoma
Here's one that irritates me:
Babylon the Great has to be a "religious" entity because she committs fornication with all the kings of the earth.
"Jehovah will turn his attention to Tyre (a political not a religious entity) and she must return to her hire and commit prostitution with all the kingdoms of the earth upon the surface of the ground"
Isaiah 23:17
Their whole argument identifying Babylon the Great as the World Empire of False religion is fallacious.
Go ahead write them and point this out. They are defenseless. You'll probably get a Dear Fellow Worshiper letter, telling you to get out in service, keep praying, and studying their (stupid) arguments over and over and over and eventually you will see that they are right.
Everyone has their favorite complaint about the Watchtower mistakes.
But you have to ask if you believe (big IF) that Jehovah is in charge and there are myriads and myriads of angels directing the work why can't they can't take a peek in the kitchen where this horrible food is being prepared.
-
Elephant
jwfacts-
No agenda, just browsing the various interesting subjects. I admit I do enjoy being drawn into a good debate though.
Captain-
When its all I said I do appreciate you engaging with me on this subject. Now, I also understand that there is much opinion on this site (as you yourself admitted), as much as ‘facts’ are touted. I would imagine that is the case when we are discussing the subject of religions and orgs. So many aspects of these are subject to ‘opinion’ and that little word called faith.
There are a few facts to say the least, but your frustrations originate from the lack of palpable proof (or whatever you may be looking for) in regards to many elements of this particular religion. For ex, I cannot prove to you that the f&d slave is such, anymore than you cannot prove to me that it isn’t. It’s a matter of opinion and that little aforementioned word again.
On the subject of mind control…I could go as far as to give in a little on that argument only because you yourself have admitted that one can submit to mind control willingly. This happens in religions and outside of them. Take for example your marriage…it too has ‘rules’ and ‘consequences’ for not following them, right? if the lady cheats on you or vice versa I gather it won’t feel very good. But if you care enough you’ll follow the ‘rule’ and avoid the consequence. See? Now who invented such a rule and more importantly, why would you follow it willingly? Was it mind control? Could it be because your ideals and sense of self worth compels you to it? Possibly…
But the fact is you bought into the idea of marriage and you willingly follow its ‘rules’…until you decide its no longer worth it for you…same with any religion, you have a choice…
-
aposta-Z
Sorry to be going off topic from this thread, but I had to.
"Take for example your marriage…it too has ‘rules’ and ‘consequences’ for not following them, right? " -Elephant
Rules and consequences of a marriage or any relationship are to be agreed upon first by the members involved. Some have an open non-exclusive relationship. Some don't.
There is nothing close to a mind control situation in marriage. Unless you are in an abusive relationship. -
Elephant
aposta-z-
my point exactly my friend...
-
Retrovirus
Welcome, Elephant!
You say
On the subject of mind control…I could go as far as to give in a little on that argument only because you yourself have admitted that one can submit to mind control willingly. This happens in religions and outside of them.
I think you said much the same about micromanagement earlier. Am I correct in understanding that you see no problem with it unless the micromanaged person objects?
If a person is raised in a high-control environment and is consistently discouraged from self-expression and then marries an controlling, abusive spouse, is that OK? Are children raised in that environment likely to become independant and respectful adults?
If it is a religion that provides the controlling environment, is that "better" that such a home? If this controlled person wants to leave, but fears to because they have always been warned of the perils of a Satan-dominated world, are they really free to do so?
. . and to return to topic, if the publications of the controlling religion exhorted that person to make up their own mind, wouldn't it mess with their head?
Retro
-
linuxbob
Elephant,
I think I see your point...it is an abusive relationship.
-
Elephant
I think you said much the same about micromanagement earlier. Am I correct in understanding that you see no problem with it unless the micromanaged person objects?
If a person is raised in a high-control environment and is consistently discouraged from self-expression and then marries an controlling, abusive spouse, is that OK?
answer- the words 'high-control' and 'consistently' detract from the idea of 'absolute'... in other words, there is opportunity for choice...
Are children raised in that environment likely to become independant and respectful adults?
answer - the word 'likely' admits that the answer can be yes...
If it is a religion that provides the controlling environment, is that "better" that such a home?
answer - i dont quite understand this question...are you saying is it okay for religion to substitute a home, as in a family?
If this controlled person wants to leave, but fears to because they have always been warned of the perils of a Satan-dominated world, are they really free to do so?
answer- not if you believe that it IS a satan dominated world...if you dont, it shouldnt be much of a problem...
. . and to return to topic, if the publications of the controlling religion exhorted that person to make up their own mind, wouldn't it mess with their head?
answer- again, it depends on wether they believe it is so...
...again, your argument in favor of mind control is weak because you cannot decide if in fact you have a choice or not...if you're convinced that you don't have a choice...well then yes, you are pretty screwed...
...or ...your eye has become simple after all...
-
Retrovirus
Hi again Elephant
answer- the words 'high-control' and 'consistently' detract from the idea of 'absolute'... in other words, there is opportunity for choice... Are children raised in that environment likely to become independant and respectful adults? answer - the word 'likely' admits that the answer can be yes...
Circumstances don't dictate what people will become, true. Yet it's well researched and documented that prople raised in over-controlled (or micromanaged?) or abusive environments are more likely to become tyrants or victims themselves. Do you think we should just ignore this substantial risk?
answer - i dont quite understand this question...are you saying is it okay for religion to substitute a home, as in a family?
Oh no, I was just following the analogy along, happy to drop it
answer- not if you believe that it IS a satan dominated world...if you dont, it shouldnt be much of a problem...
It's not that simple; there are many stages a person goes through when changing a fundamental belief. Also if the person has been isolated from that world. . .yes, it can be a big problem.
...again, your argument in favor of mind control is weak because you cannot decide if in fact you have a choice or not...if you're convinced that you don't have a choice...well then yes, you are pretty screwed...
I'm puzzled! Where have I argued in favour of mind control? Choice or not is addressed above.
...or ...your eye has become simple after all...
Now if I were a JW that would be a compliment, I think. As it is I'll just say that argument by . . . is pretty simple too, and I've seen it before here.
Retro