by 4JWY 158 Replies latest jw friends
**sunspot just exactly who are you referring to as "them"
I'm not going to now say who it referred to (kinda defeats my purpose of NOT mentioning names, haha!), but I did NOT include you in that post! Not even a flickering thought!
I was intentionally being vague, and I apologize if I offended you..........that's what I get for making those "broadbrush" statements, huh?
hugs to Plmkrzy..
Annie
ATTN SIMON -
Can we please create a section of this board for people who like to butt into discussions simply to make ad hominem attacks with no discussion points such as:
The light is getting brighter!
and
LOVED the ostrich, Gerard! LOL!Perhaps we can even have a JW-bot that will make simple posts that they can attack to get all their aggression out. This would leave ACTUAL discussions free from their retarded posts.It's hard for "them" to get their heads out of the sand AND keep their noses in the air all at the same time, huh?
hugs,
Annie
amac. I think you take yourself and others too seriously.
Although it may not come across in a DB (the internet can be deceiving) I am actually quite the opposite. In fact, I'd probably be the first to belly up and buy a round for everyone here if we all happened in a bar at the same time.
In Russia, they just got a straight up NO!
Hmm .....
Unless I am mistaken, I think the Court made an order for the Moscow area and NOT the entire country of Russia. And of course I think the decision of the Court can be appealed.
hmmm ....
It is a free choice. People make the choice to become or stay a JW. If that wasn't the case, I wouldn't have been able to make the free choice that I did to not follow the WT anymore and to go ahead and TAKE a blood transfusion if needed. It required no action on my part besides making that resolution or choice in my head. That's free choice.
Another problem with blood transfusions is that the Watchtower fails to fully inform people about the blood issue. They create fear by lying to people about the dangers, and they use obfuscatory language to make it difficult for most JWs even to understand what they're supposed to believe. Should government dictate to a religion what its beliefs should be? Should government mandate "truth in advertising" for religions? I think that a real threat of banning over issues like this would force changes -- all for the protection of people too dumb to think for themselves -- once again, a basic activity of government.
I'd agree with this and it would nice to see the gov't this involved with ALL organizations, but it will never happen, they don't care that much! However rather than banning, if this did happen, they should be given the opportunity to comply. In Russia, they just got a straight up NO!
I guess it is not so much about a "free choice" but about the consequences for making the choice that is very agonizing since the JW person does lose something they cherish deeply - their family and friends. And that my friend, does require a huge amount of "action" on the part of the person.
When someone who is in a position of power over another (just as the JW leaders are over their flock) it puts a lot of pressure on a person to make a life and death decision that has nothing to do with the medical condition. When a coporation who is in a position of that power does not provide all of the facts to make an "informed decision" (such as happens in the blood doctrine) and threatens consequences (ie. shunning and loss of God) for not following the party line, then obviously the corporation with the power is being wreckless and deserves to be banned until its Directors change their ways.
Lets all remember here, the only reason why the Watchtower and John Burns want to be recognized in Moscow as a religion is so they can get their little tax exemption claim and make money off the flock and their magazines. Like this is a new huge "market" for the Watchtower and they know it. If you think the Watchtower is going to waste its time over religious rights because it is the right thing to do, you got another thing coming to you.
Thus, I think you should be very careful how you "parse" your words in this.
hawk
Amac, I'll reply fully to you later, but it seems that you and I agree on my basic point: under certain circumstances banning a religion is justified. Here we're examining what those circumstances are.
AlanF
Attn Simon:
Could we have a special section for trolls?
Gerard, please take any sensationalism back to your "THE WT AIRPLANE CONSPIRACY" thread...the WT is not my "beloved cult." < <amac
Pronunciation: pärs
| Verb | 1. | parse - analyze syntactically by assigning a constituent structure to (a sentence) grammar - studies of the formation of basic linguistic units break down , dissect, analyze, analyse, take apart - make a mathematical, chemical, or grammatical analysis of; break down into components or essential features; "analyze a specimen"; "analyze a sentence"; "analyze a chemical compound" |
yanno..........I finally got tired of seeing this here *parse* being bandied around and not having a clue to it's meaning. Was that Patio who started parsing around? (figured since it was a verb - could *ing* it) lol - she knows more words......................................................
Thank goodness for Jeeves.
Sorry for sounding like your mother sunspot...not actually refering to your mom
**Sorry for sounding like your mother sunspot
Absolutely NO problem, Plm! I guess I shouldn't have phrased it that way....:(
Thanks and hugs,
Annie
