by defender of truth 193 Replies latest members adult
Jehovah's Witness Discussion Forum
The place to discuss anything relating to Jehovah's Witnesses and the WatchTower Bible and Tract Society... or just make new friends!
Does this imply that you are not allowed to take part of a discussion if you are not a witness, ex-witness? I am not a witness, never have, never will. Should I leave, or should I stick with the program?
Ismael
Does this imply that you are not allowed to take part of a discussion if you are not a witness, ex-witness? I am not a witness, never have, never will. Should I leave, or should I stick with the program?
Ismael
For a nano second, I thought your question was serious.
Laika asked (in response to the OP):
"Does this actually happen that often? I mean, I've seen such posts, but not to the extent I could imagine anyone growing tired over it?"
Maybe you don't read FHN or BOTR's posts very often. This thread should be evidence enough.. ;)
.....
FHN said:
"If you want to discuss beliefs and your questions or issues about them, stop being arrogant and treating people who do not share your conclusions as if they are children that you can jump on, correct and scold... You turn the board into a school playground and behave as children... So then, prove you're superior by not behaving in such a childish way...your behavior is unacceptable."
Oh, the irony. :)
When someone is rude, say so. Losers.
As you wish.
FHN said:
"If you want to discuss beliefs and your questions or issues about them, stop being arrogant and treating people who do not share your conclusions as if they are children that you can jump on, correct and scold... You turn the board into a school playground and behave as children... So then, prove you're superior by not behaving in such a childish way...your behavior is unacceptable."
Oh, the irony. :)
Indeed. Matthew 7:3 comes to mind...
FHN said:
"I believe that fear is the best tool with which to control people. Fear works better than brute force and it's cheaper than prison."
I think that this comment, as wise as it is, applies to religious discussion as well.
For instance, after reading FHN's little monologue, seemingly about my being one of a group of bullies, I very nearly left jwn. I was bullied myself at school, and I also have been by abusive family members.
The victim within me reacted to being told off, and ordered to behave and speak differently if I was to continue participating.
Then I stopped and thought, 'no, something is not right with this comparison. I am not the one telling others how to speak or act. I just try to question and challenge everything I disagree with. Everyone learns something that way. I prefer such a challenge to sitting there silently whilst people tell us that God loves us all without any evidence to back it up, whilst reading the latest horrific news story of animal cruelty and watching my parents health degenerate towards the unpleasant end.
I find such a notion of a loving, theistic God offensive to me now. Why should I feel bad about questioning the contradictory logic or so-called evidence for this absent heavenly parent? Why should I say "Thank you for that interesting point" whilst inwardly screaming "that makes no sense, it contradicts other things you've said and doesn't even answer what I have asked?!" '
Life is much too short to be anything but yourself. If I can't speak my mind in real life in order to hold my family together, I WILL speak it here. And if I have insulted anyone, or offended them needlessly, please tell me. Better to do that than b*tch and moan about it behind my back. I am not psychic. I will then explain further or apologise.
...
Those who argue for any kind of censorship of religious discussion seem little different to me, in principle, to those who burned both Bibles and heretics in order to silence those that disagreed with their views.
There is more than one kind of bully.
There's one that threatens you, to keep you from speaking up or breaking free; one that beats you to keep you under their control; and another that guilts you into believing that you shouldn't even have a problem with being controlled, that you should just accept being told how to speak and act.
We don't need to insult anyone personally. We also don't need to tell others what kind of questions they can ask, as well as how to ask them; or which views and beliefs they are allowed to attack or criticise, either.
We are free to argue, free to complain, and free to criticise.
...
Back on page 2, Apognophos made a good point that is relevant to the quote from the OP..
Agnophos said:
"I simply don't see any negative effect from the average person's belief in God. It's easy to use religious extremists as a strawman, but the civilized world does not stand for much of that extremism, and the areas where we do encounter extremism in the first world can be dealt with on an individual basis without attacking the very concept of religion. Doing that just makes people go into defensive mode and become even more entrenched in their position. The best way to make extremism go away is not to argue with it, but to improve living conditions."
Education and improving living standards are definitely keys to combatting the control that religious organisations and sects often exert over people..
But then how do we define 'extremism'? Take the 'religious issue' of homosexuality and the views of even some moderate Christians on the 'issue', for instance. If it were not for the moderate Christians who were either personally unsure about, or opposed to, the gay marriage bill (I know some of these personally), progress both legally and in society in general would have been how much swifter?
That is just one example, but it seems clear to me that belief in the Bible's standards for getting into heaven does nothing but impede the progression of mankind towards a (generally) universal moral of ' don't harm anyone, don't try to control or restrict them unless they hard anyone else, anything else is acceptable '. Or maybe I have no idea what the hell I'm talking about.
What do you think?...
"I simply don't see any negative effect from the average person's belief in God. It's easy to use religious extremists as a strawman, but the civilized world does not stand for much of that extremism, and the areas where we do encounter extremism in the first world can be dealt with on an individual basis without attacking the very concept of religion. Doing that just makes people go into defensive mode and become even more entrenched in their position. The best way to make extremism go away is not to argue with it, but to improve living conditions."
I agree with all of that but wonder how exactly you believe that "improving living conditions" could supercede any and all extremist religous movements, and I'm not talking about suicide bombers in particular. What conditions would you suggest have been changed to prevent the catholic/protestant killings in ireland more important than religion?
I also ask this to FHN and to consider that perhaps in some circumstance, religion can be the biggest of a few factors that initiate hostile tensions between human beings for generations. It can be used analagous to how "skin color" was used as a primary diferentiator for slavery and the killing of blacks by the KKK and many others (not to forget many slavers hid behind the bibles condoning standards of slavery).
Consider even the fact that two large groups of people who are otherwise the same ethnicity, can inhabit a land, and have different religions as a starting point that fuels prejudice, hate, and murder, is reason enough to be concerned for the future welfare of peacfull coexistence in much of the world. I don't have the solution, havent tried to think of one really and dont believe abolishing all religion is necessary. However, the fact that even the "religious moderates" can be coerced by religious peer pressure to kill is scary. Please watch this short 2min clip of a question posed by Dawkins at the end of a Sam Harris vs Robert Wright debate before adressing my comment...
@Apognophos I really appreciate the honesty, I don't understand, but thanks. To me religion is an organized collection of beliefs and cultural systems and you can't separate the emotional, tribalistic or instinctual aspect of human nature, because that's religion.
We're basically in agreement. Since you appreciate that religion is a natural outgrowth of the human psyche, I think you already understand that it is a symptom, an effect, not a cause. Religion is not necessarily harmful. It depends on a person's situation in life. The people who have a hippy-dippy sense of spirituality are harmless (as long as they aren't promoting unproven medical remedies).
A lot of the extreme religious violence that we see today is based in poverty, bitterness over disadvantage, and racism. If you took a typical radical Islamist and separated him from his group, gave him a home and job in a first-world society, and gave him a nice flatscreen TV and an iPad loaded with Angry Birds, you might see a new man. More realistically, it takes generations for societies to improve and for extreme ideologies passed down from earlier generations to mellow out, but maybe this helps you get what I'm saying.
I am not disagreeing that religion contains problems. It has its problems. Show me any human institution that doesn't have problems. Man's inhumanity to man doesn't depend on religion though. Toddlers beat on each other and even little, helpless babies. I watched a four year old punching his 9 month old brother in the head and pulling his hair last week, every time he got the chance. Some of the worst in humanity comes with religion and some of the best of humanity comes with religion. Some of the worst in humanity comes without religion. Some of the best in humanity comes without religion.
I'm a theist. At times I will say something about a particular belief that is undeniably abusive.
So flying jets into the World Trade Center as part of a jihad and The Inquisition were simply "instinctual"? Good to know.
Yes, they were. If someone from the U.S. converts to Islam, I don't think they're any more likely to perform acts of religious violence than before. This would come from a predisposition as a disgruntled outsider who sees an opportunity to take out his anger against his former homeland, plus exposure to extreme teachings. But it's not something that automatically happens just because someone learns a new belief system. It's based on their nature and life experiences up to that point, which cause them to seek out a religion that fits them, and to veer down an extremist path.
But then how do we define 'extremism'? Take the 'religious issue' of homosexuality and the views of even some moderate Christians on the 'issue', for instance. If it were not for the moderate Christians who were either personally unsure about, or opposed to, the gay marriage bill (I know some of these personally), progress both legally and in society in general would have been how much swifter?
I agree with all of that but wonder how exactly you believe that "improving living conditions" could supercede any and all extremist religous movements, and I'm not talking about suicide bombers in particular. What conditions would you suggest have been changed to prevent the catholic/protestant killings in ireland more important than religion?
I also ask this to FHN and to consider that perhaps in some circumstance, religion can be the biggest of a few factors that initiate hostile tensions between human beings for generations.
I can't deny that you guys might have a point. But I feel that people tend to believe in a God that happens to resemble themselves. This God has the same likes/dislikes as them and the same tendency towards mercy or vengeance. Now, you might argue that, as Witnesses, we were indoctrinated to believe in a God who sometimes had different standards than ours; we were told to hate what God hates, and then we were told what God hates.
To answer that, I can only point out that as a religion the Witnesses have a low retention rate, and cults in general have low retention rates. Many followers burn out because they are being held too closely to standards which are not aligned with their authentic selves, and they eventually lose the will to continue subjecting themselves to the religion. Whereas some JWs actually do fairly well in the religion, because they don't have a problem with the things about the beliefs and lifestyle that bothered us; the religion fits them better than it fitted us.
But it's true that the religion's shunning keeps a lot of people in, forcing them to pretend to believe or to make themselves believe, in order not to be ostracized. And unfortunately that's a tendency in society in general; most people do not want to be ostracized, and there may even be a threat of violence for people who think differently. By contrast, in a society where free thinking is more accepted, people will diverge over time from their parents' views as they come into their own as adults.
So I have to agree that religion can be dangerous when practiced in an extreme form in a restrictive community. But when it comes to the above examples of views towards homosexuality, or the conflict in Ireland, I think it still comes down to additional factors besides religion, such as tribalism and limited resources. Otherwise, we would never expect to see anyone cross religious borders to help another group. Clearly for some people, Christianity and other belief systems can bring together diverse peoples or encourage peaceful coexistence. So I think we need to be willing to consider positive examples of religion as well as negative ones if we're going to be fair.
