X-JW Hypocrisy.

by DJ 52 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  JT

  Do you consider yourself to be tolerant?

  the poster asked a question, but in my view it is the wrong question, because to be "Tolerant" one must now what they are being tolerant of>

  for example someone may say that they see nothing wrong with having sex with children,

  now -if one disagrees does that mean that they are in intolerant person, - well yes in that case, but in another situtation they maybe.

  it depends upon what you are asking a person to be tolerant of - in the case of jw, any thought, comment that they give in relationship to "God told the GB this or that and now they are telling mankind thru the pages of the wt"

  well we all know that is just wrong- so why would i not disgree, it matters not how sincere they are, if they are wrong on an issue then you got to call a spade a spade-

  - the only issue that being intolerant creates in my view is when one then threatens to do bodily harm to another

  and the entire wt structure is built on "iF YOU DON'T DO AS THE WT SAYS GOD WILL KILL YOU"

  while most of us may disagree with jw , the use of bodily harm to them for rejecting our view rarely in my exp on the net - results in some harm being wished upon them

  in fact the opposite is done,

  each one of us knows FULL WELL that any jw who is loyal to wt and follows wt program of preparing for their old age, knows full well that the jw who does that will be up creek with no paddle

  we just had a thread that dealt with folks who followed the wt program on retirement for your old age

  and we know the results of it- so for one of us to tolerate a jw saying DEPEND ON JAH TO TAKE CARE OF YOU WHEN YOU REACH 65 is a joke
• 

  sf

  No, this is where you say..."yes....i'd love to have a chat with you on mic...when shall we meet?"

  ROFLOL

  Kowards.

  sKally
• 

  sf

  Ya see Franci, you want me to reply and explain to you in text. I refuse and it pisses you off royally. I am not about to let you ejaculate all over me...UNLESS we do it in voice 'text'. I might even surprise you and swallow every drop! Remember Franc, 'weebles wobble but they don't fall down'.

  Koward.

  sKally
• 

  DJ

  JT....Hi, if you read the thread, you'll see that I was not considering criminal acts. Child molestation is criminal. As far as the jw's are concerned....I'm not tolerant either...wow, we have something in common! duh LOL. I really don't think that you read the thread. love to you anyway...boo hoo......dj

  sKally.....omg!! gross.
• 

  gsx1138

  The only thing a tolerant person should not tolerate is intolerance. ~ Ghandi The WTS is the eptitomy of intolerance.
• 

  DJ

  Pleeeez don't post anymore to this thread. I just can't take it.....you are all much too much to much too much too much for me. Whatta you doin'-- reading the second sentence and then hitting reply.....OIU vay! the end already, pleeeeez. thankyou anyway..lol. dj
• 

  Abaddon

  DJ

  I tolerate the fact that everyone is entitled to an opinion, so I can say that I recognize the right to one's opinion on all matters. Yet, I fall short again.....because I do not respect all opinions. Some opinions are not worthy of respect yet I am tolerant to the fact that is a person's right to have an opinion. All in all, I flunked...

  DJ, you do not “tolerate the fact that everyone is entitled to an opinion”. With the Stinky Pantz thing I think you did not display tolerance in anyway; you seemed to be trying to deny her the right to even debate a possible alternative explanation to something on the grounds it conflicted with your belief structure and offended you. That isn’t tolerance, that’s suppression.

  On the other hand you are also wrong as you don’t fall short of being tolerant by not respecting all opinions. Tolerance is about accepting the right of people to have opinions that differ from you. You don't have to agree with them, or even respect them, but you have to give people the right to an opinion.

  This isn’t just my opinion about the meaning of tolerance;

  http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolerance

  Tolerance , in a cultural and religious sense, is the acceptance of other peoples who hold different and disagreeing beliefs, or otherwise represent ideologies or cultures that have a history of being disrespected. In this sense, "tolerance" is word similar to "respect." But unlike "respect" does not hold for any interaction with a disagreeable party, rather, that a disagreeable party simply be undisturbed.

  By that definition, I am tolerant. I think you’ve a fundamental misconception over the word, look at what you say here;

  Those who are homosexual and those who are "tolerant" of the behavior.......are they tolerant to the belief of those who are intolerant of that behavior? If they call themselves tolerant while exhibiting intolerance to those who view it as sin....are they tolerant of the belief that person?

  I am tolerant of the expression of the belief that homosexuality is natural. I am tolerant of the expression of the belief that homosexuality is wrong. I allow people to express their opinions. I am tolerant.

  But that is DIFFERENT to respecting those opinions. I agree with one, and disagree with another. I have every right to disagree or direspect differing opinions, just as you do. If you rattle opinions I think are wrong in my face, I’ll say what I say, just as you would.

  I don't judge people, that belongs to God alone and...

  Er, you might not think you judge people, but you do. You judge that you have the right interpretation of the Bible. You cannot prove this. Countless other people judge they have the correct interpretation of God’s will, Christians, Muslims, etc.. Many of these interpretations are mutually exclusive. And none of them can be proved.

  You judge your interpretation is right, just as they do. Thus, any condemnation of people based on the Bible IS based on your judgement, as you cannot prove either the inspired nature of your source text, or the exact interpretation.

  What seems to be the case is that you can’t stand people disagreeing with your opinions, as you have seemingly walked away from the debate you started as you don’t like the opinions you’re getting.

  Onacruse;

  "We're right, they're wrong, and we can prove it."

  You say xJWs can have this mentality. You are over simplifying. JWs do have that attitude. They base it on a closed cultic worldview. Some xJWs can have the same attitude, but you fail to account for the fact that, rather than citing some scripture that MAY be inspired, or a piece of literature written by someone that may or may not be spirit directed, an xJW is more likely to be taking a whole host of factors into consideration.

  Example; the Flood. It didn’t happen (as in a Global Flood at the time frame specified by the Bible). I think many people holding this opinion would say “We’re right, they’re wrong, and we can prove it” to someone disagreeing. You can reject this opinion as being similar in certainty to those expressed by JWs, but if you do so I feel you fail to recognise the totally different paradigm used in forming this opinion.

  AGuest

  What I can NOT tolerate... is those who profess to be something they are absolutely not...

  Great, I agree with you. The Bible advises me that Satan disguises himself as an angel of light, to use discernment, to beware of false prophets, and to judge a tree by its fruits. On these grounds I feel it reasonable to ask you to prove that god talks to you.
• 

  DJ

  abbadon,

  Yes, I suppose you are entiltled to blatantly ignore two renowned dictionaries. If it suits you.....

  To ignore the fact that Stinky and I have both apologized is childish. You can, if it suits you.....

  You can ignore what the meaning of judging another. If it suits you.....

  You can ignore the fact that I claim intolerance and even cherish it, while you feel the need to ignore the definition and use another interpretation to make you feel right with your own intolerance, while claiming to be it. Sounds familiar eh? Sort of like, believing the interpretation that you choose....I thought you accused religion of that. You can lie to yourself and see no hypocrisy in yourself. If it suits you........
• 

  onacruse

  Abaddon:

  Thanks for your thoughts. From the other things you've said here, I don't think you and I are really all that far apart on this issue.

  You say xJWs can have this mentality. You are over simplifying.

  Emphasis on "can." I don't see how that's an over-simplification.

  JWs do have that attitude. They base it on a closed cultic worldview.

  However, that I think IS an over-simplification. I personally knew many JWs that explored ideas far outside the pablum of WTS literature, including a couple of COs with whom I had extended conversations. Not all JWs are brain-dead intolerant automatons, anymore than all exJWs are by default more informed, intelligent, or tolerant, as you yourself next state:

  Some xJWs can have the same attitude, but you fail to account for the fact that, rather than citing some scripture that MAY be inspired, or a piece of literature written by someone that may or may not be spirit directed, an xJW is more likely to be taking a whole host of factors into consideration.

  About the only thing I can categorically say is that every JW I knew does believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. otoh, no small number of them questioned, at least to some degree (and privately, of course) the "status" of the GB and WTS, and picked-and-chose from the literature what they personally believed.

  Example; the Flood. It didn’t happen (as in a Global Flood at the time frame specified by the Bible). I think many people holding this opinion would say “We’re right, they’re wrong, and we can prove it” to someone disagreeing. You can reject this opinion as being similar in certainty to those expressed by JWs, but if you do so I feel you fail to recognise the totally different paradigm used in forming this opinion.

  I'm not sure I get the point you're making, so please clarify if for me, if you like. But, the Flood is a good example; virtually every JW would insist that the Flood actually occurred, as described in the Bible and within the last 6,000 years; disregarding all the geological evidence that says otherwise.

  Craig
• 

  Abaddon

  onacruse: Your last paragraph hits what I was trying to explain regarding the "We're right, they're wrong, and we can prove it" thing.

  Despite the fact JW's do 'leaven' their belief structure with some outside information, and may be willing to discuss alternate beliefs and may ignore the bits they think are silly, they will be confident the Flood took place at the time the Bible stated, despite there being not only an absence of evidence it did, but a proponderance of evidence it did not.

  Thus their statement "We're right, they're wrong, and we can prove it." is empty, as they cannot "prove it" to someone who doesn't share the same or similar presuppositionalistic paradigms as they have none of the evidence that should be there if it happened.

  Thus you can't compare the paradigm by which a JW will reach a conclusion with the one that many xJW's use. More open minded people (and that doesn't mean all xJWs) will evaluate what happened on a what probably happened=what there is most evidence for. With the Flood, this clearly gives the conclusion that there was no Global Flood. There is evidence for this belief, thus the statement "We're right, they're wrong, and we can prove it" is demonstrably provable.

  DJ:

  Yes, I suppose you are entiltled to blatantly ignore two renowned dictionaries. If it suits you.....

  In addition to the one I cited, here are more definitions. Mirram Webster, Oxford and Cabridge are the three most respected dictionaries on the planet I can find online, they don't define tolerance as 'respect'.

  http://www.askoxford.com/dictionary/tolerance

  acceptance, broad-mindedness, charity, fairness, forbearance, forgiveness, lenience, open-mindedness, openness, patience, permissiveness, sufferance, sympathy, toleration, understanding.

  http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=tolerance

  sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own, the act of allowing something

  http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=83592&dict=CALD

  willingness to accept behaviour and beliefs which are different from your own, although you might not agree with or approve of them

  http://www.wordsmyth.net/live/home.php?script=search&matchent=tolerance&matchtype=exact

  the ability or practice of accepting the race, religion, customs, opinions, or the like of other people; absence of negative prejudice; open-mindedness. the ability or practice of accepting the race, religion, customs, opinions, or the like of other people; absence of negative prejudice; open-mindedness.

  http://www.bartleby.com/61/31/T0253100.html

  The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others

  http://ultralingua.net/results.html?lookup_action=en|english|english&lookup_letters=tolerance

  Willingness to recognize and respect the beliefs or practices of others.

  http://www.onelook.com/?other=web1913&w=Tolerance

  The endurance of the presence or actions of objectionable persons, or of the expression of offensive opinions; toleration.

  http://machaut.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/WEBSTER.sh?WORD=tolerance

  The endurance of the presence or actions of objectionable persons, or of the expression of offensive opinions; toleration.

  http://www.rhymezone.com/r/rhyme.cgi?Word=tolerance

  1. willingness to recognize and respect the beliefs or practices of others

  2. a disposition to allow freedom of choice and behavior

  http://www.allwords.com/query.php?SearchType=3&Keyword=tolerance&goquery=Find+it%21&Language=ENG

  the ability to be fair towards and accepting of other people's religious, political, etc beliefs or opinions.

  http://65.66.134.201/cgi-bin/webster/webster.exe?search_for_d:/inetpub/wwwroot/cgi-bin/webster/web1828=tolerance

  [L. tolerantia, from tolero, to bear.] The power or capacity of enduring; or the act of enduring.

  http://poets.notredame.ac.jp/cgi-bin/wn?cmd=wn&word=tolerance

  1. a disposition to allow freedom of choice and behavior

  2. willingness to recognize and respect the beliefs or practices of others

  http://lookwayup.com/lwu.exe/lwu/d?s=f&w=tolerance

  1. a disposition to allow freedom of choice and behavior 2. willingness to recognize and respect the beliefs or practices of others

  5 'respects' out of 17 definitons, and all those defining tolerance as respect are obviously using the same source for their definitons, so it's actually 1 out of 9 different definitons (removing all duplicates and including the wikipedia reference already given). The original Latin has NOTHING to do with respect, and the majority of authorities seem to agree tolerance does not equate with respect. Obviously you can define any word any way you like. I tolerate that behaviour, even though I might not respect it.

  To ignore the fact that Stinky and I have both apologized is childish.

  You can, if it suits you.....

  I was insulted by you seeking to suppress someone's freedom of speech, as I have explained. It's really funny that after that you then try to teach us about tolerance.

  You can ignore what the meaning of judging another. If it suits you.....

  Actually, what you're ignoring is the fact your opinions of other are based upon your opinions about the Bible, which are not provable. If you decide, for example, that the Bible condemns homosexuality, and maintain that opinion in light of what modern science knows, despite the clear evidence the Bible is not inspired, it is YOUR judgement doing the condemning. Consider;

  • If the Bible said black people were "bad", would you accept it? I don't think so, as you would not judge it to be right to accept such an obviously wrong belief.
  • If the Bible said women were "bad", would you accept it? I don't think so, as you would not judge it to be right to accept such an obviously wrong belief.
  • If the Bible says homosexuality is wrong, why would you accept such an obviously wrong belief, unless you were judging them?

  Bible believer's justifications for maintaining Biblical beliefs that are clearly morally wrong are as valid as Quran believer's justifications for maintaining Quranic beliefs that are clearly morally wrong are as valid as Book of Mormon believer's justifications for maintaining Moronic beliefs that are clearly morally wrong are as valid... you get the idea.

  To me, this is the sickness of fundamentalism. Just as you choose the definition of tolerance that you find most attractive, my definition of fundametalism is 'a set of beliefs that are maintained despite them running contrary to the common set of morals and values of the age'. Like;

  • women are inferior
  • homosexuals are bad
  • black people are inferior
  • Jews are bad
  • little boys and girls should be circumsized
  • a girlchild of nine is old enough for sex
  • it's okay to kill for your religious beliefs
  • violence is justifiable to secure political ends
  • commit suicide to join with the aliens
  • ideological purity is more important than the harm done by it
  • depopulation of the Earth is a desirable end, even if it has to be forced
  • cut the heart out of prisoners of war to make sure the sun rises

  All those beliefs are or were held by various religions or belief systems and they are held with exactly the same level of proof as to their correctness; a piece of paper with words on it (or an oral tradition) someone says came from god (or is otherwise infalliable), but cannot prove.

  You can ignore the fact that I claim intolerance and even cherish it, while you feel the need to ignore the definition and use another interpretation to make you feel right with your own intolerance, while claiming to be it.
  

  Sounds familiar eh? Sort of like, believing the interpretation that you choose....I thought you accused religion of that. You can lie to yourself and see no hypocrisy in yourself. If it suits you........

  Oh DJ, you can be proud of your intolerence as you like. See what company you keep! The logic that justifies your intolerance is shared by some of the most unpleasent people in the world.

  As to definitions, I think I've shown YOU'RE choosing the one you like, I'm choosing the commonly accepted one. When I do use a word in a semantically loose fashion, as above with 'fundamentalism', I'm happy to highlight it. As to comparing our paradigms.... don't be silly...

  ... wave your sacred scripture of choice (you'd be as blindly Hindu if you born in India as you seem to be blindly Christian now), choose your words carefully, ignore the sort of people your logic links you to.

  I'll wave my museums and Universities right back at you. I know that they know they haven't got it ALL right, but at least they can give me good reasons for what they believe, and will change their beliefs in response to new evidence that invalidates former beliefs, rather than a quote from a book written by goatherds and fishermen that cannot be proved to be anything other than a book written by goatherds and fishermen.

  You fail to see, if there is a god, then most ideas about god can have nothing to do with it. Man's conceptions of god are so flawed and petty and human (and are so marked by the time period they originated from) that they really require determination to accept as truth. Good luck to you with it, I hope it makes you happy.