Tina,
Thank you for the kind words. I'm glad you liked it.
Big hug back at'ca woman
Dave
Monomaniacal Ex-JWs?
by dunsscot 44 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
dunsscot
AF:
: ... But I think I recall Covey talking about the unhealthy habit of becoming overly engrossed in one activity or pursuit.:Kind of like becoming a Jee-Hoover Witness, eh?
Anyone (Witnesses included) can become inordinately involved in one activity. Either way, immoderate activity does not seem to promote mental and physical soundness at all.
: It seems that there are individuals using this medium of communication whose life's aim is to "help" JWs out of the "borg" or 'bring down the Tower.'
:That is true.
Glad to see you admit your "noble" goals in life, AF. I personally think you are wasting your time (spinning your wheels) and sticking your nose where it does not belong.
: If it tricks your trigger, I guess there is nothing anyone can do to prevent you from "helping" JWs out of the "borg."
:Freedom of religion and all that, eh?
Of course you have the freedom to continue possessing and acting on the basis of a faulty noetic structure. That is certainly your prerogative as an American. I would just want to make sure that I was following the first principle of the lex naturae, to wit, bonum est faciendum et prosequendum et malum vitandum.
: But I wonder if some here have not become monomaniacal in their deconstructive methodology.
:Kind of like the Jee-Hoover Witnesses, eh?
Jehovah's Witnesses do not simply try to dismantle or de-center the beliefs of others.
: They just cannot seem to let JWs enjoy freedom of worship.
:Kind of like Jee-Hoover Witnesses don't let anyone else enjoy freedom of worship, eh?
Folks are free to worship God in any manner they choose and they are also at liberty to reject theism altogether. That is their business. Even the apostle John fittingly wrote these words in the ultimate chapter of Apocalypse:
"He that is doing righteousness, let him do righteousness still; and let the filthy one be made filthy still; but let the righteous one do righteousness still, and let the holy one be made holy still" (Apoc 22:10-11).
I exercise wholehearted pistis in these words and try to apply them on this very medium of communication.
: They must interfere in the religious life of JWs.
:Kind of like Jee-Hoover Witnesses interfere in the religious lives of others, eh?
We do not interfere in anyone's religious life. In imitation of our Lord and Master (Jesus Christ), we offer life's water free. If anyone does not wish us salaam, however, when we share in the door to door work--we shake the dust off of our feet and go to the next door offering figurative bread and water to yet others.
: Yet what do they have to offer in return?
:Freedom from being in a cult, for starters. Freedom to think for oneself, too. Ah, blessed freedom!
I am not yet convinced JWs constitute a cult in any pejorative sense of the word. Furthermore, I have the freedom to think within the boundaries that God has set and, there ain't nothin' wrong with that. That fact is that every single existent in the world is limited by his or her facticity. Every rational agent thinks someone else's thoughts after them (an allusion to Johannes Kepler).
: Nothing, except believe what you want to or drink yourself half silly everyday and conduct a life governed by hedonic utility that is devoid of God.
:How sad that that's all you've learned from your time on this board. The fact is that ex-JWs on this forum are as varied in their styles of life as any other non-JWs are. Very few are advocating any particular life style. The fact that many tell about their life styles, or comment on various life styles, is in no way advocating such.
I did not say that everyone here has a hedonic orientation. Dave evidently does not. Neither does Copernicus, so far as I can tell.
: Furthermore, maybe some of you here have convinced yourself that the Bible is false, God does not exist,
:Those are things that cannot be proved or disproved absolutely.
:Whats your point?
My point is that some reject God and the Bible to salve their consciences. If there is no God or no future eschaton, many folks reason that we should simply eat and drink, for tomorrow we shall die. They may also reason that the WT cannot possibly be God's spokesperson since there is no God. A healthy dose of agnosticism might be in order here.
I might add that *nothing* can be proved or disproved absolutely. There also appear to be some things that we know are true, but cannot prove them to be such.
: and Jehovah's Witnesses are not God's people.
:That's a fact that has been proved in hundreds of different ways. For example, JWs unscripturally use excommunication and shunning as a weapon. They often use it against people whose only offense is to disagree with JWs, sometimes even on minor issues. An organization that has misused its power like this for some 70 years, over and over and over again, is detestable to God, according to Scriptures you know very well.
You're badly mistaken. Excommunication is never supposed to be used as a weapon in the Organization. Maybe it is sometimes utilized in this way. But the Scriptures clearly show that disfellowshipping and shunning are primarily for the mutual benefit of the Christian ecclesia and the unrepentant believer. I have never personally known anyone who has been excommunicated for disagreeing with the Witnesses on minor issues. Usually one who is shunned rejects a number of key Witness teachings and becomes a poisonous root in the community. The apostle Paul provided directives for dealing with such men and women, however. We try to apply his counsel, albeit imperfectly.
: But I think that if I ever left JWs, I would put faith in Acts 5:35-39.
:Here you've stepped through thin ice. It has been proved beyond doubt that JWs are not "of God". Assuming God exists and acts on mankind's behalf, how do you think he acts? The Bible indicates that it's through various people. False religious organizations are exposed through the actions of people. Do you object to that? If so, then you can stop preaching the JW message right now.
In your subjective imagination, it has been proved that JWs are 'not of God.' You need to believe that in order to salve your conscience. That is fine, but please do not act like you are speaking ex cathedra. Your perceptions are your perceptions, AF. While God admittedly uses humans to expose falsity, the said humans utilized must really make sure that they are truly exposing error. I am not so sure that is what you are doing. A case in point is your article on Isa 40:22.
:Let's give a concrete example. Suppose you had been raised since birth in a Christian sect that practices free sex with children (don't bother arguing that such a sect isn't really Christian; you'd be missing the point). Suddenly you realize that this practice is wrong, and you get out. You realize that your religious leaders have been practicing pedophilia for years. What will you do? Leave them to God? Or do everything in your power to expose them and stop the molestation?
Your premise is utterly flawed, unless you were abused or you have evidence that JWs (as a group) think it is okay to have "free sex with children." We have already discussed the lack of verifiable evidence that obtains for the claims of Silentlambs. I will not go there again.
: History has certainly borne out the truthfulness of this passage.
:How?
There have been numerous sectarian movements in ancient and modern times that have failed. A notable example is the Jim Jones cult.
: But if God is the author of the said work, you will not be able to overthrow it, but will in fact be found fighters against God.
:Fine in principle; impossible to test in practice. If you disagree, then devise a test.
Pray and read God's Word.
:And again, you as a JW today may already be in this position with respect to any number of other organizations. Can you prove with certainty, for example, that United Bible Societies is not "of God"?
I personally have no real beef with the United Bible Societies. I may try to challenge others on doctrinal grounds. But I always encourage the reader to make up his or her own mind after he or she reads the debate.
: But I end with my original question. Are some ex-JWs monomaniacal?
:Monomania implies either mental illness or excessive focus. Some ex-JWs therefore, are certainly monomaniacal, just as some of all people are. Most on this board are simply focused. You have a problem with that? Are you prepared to define "excessive focus" or "mental illness"? If you try, watch out that your definitions don't point straight back at you and your friends.
First, I have not called anyone here 'mentally ill.' I am not qualified to make those kind of judgments. Secondly, I think it is difficult to define "excessive focus" in words. One may come out better delineating the formula "excessive focus" by employing examples.
If one spends every day and night engrossed in a certain activity, it seems that one is being excessive in his or her focus. Do you think that one who sits at home watching the "soaps" day in and day out everyday is monomaniacal? What about someone who plops himself or herself in front of a computer screen for hours as he or she focuses on overthrowing the Tower or exposing JWs as a cult?
Duns the Scot
-
dunsscot
:Covey had wisdom? That'd be a first for an American Evangalist. Please feel free to post some of his pearls (in my experience anyone can do one liners that sound good but to be truly wise one must start with a basis in fact .. then again for all I know you may think Venus hosts dinasaurs and earth ran out of useable oxygen in 1986.
Are you talking about the same Covey that I am? I hope so. As I mentioned, it has been a while since I read his books. But I thought _ 7 Habits_ had some precious pearls of wisdom, and I still implement Covey's advice in my personal life. The book is here in my personal library still.
A lot of what he says is "common sense." Maybe it is just the way he packages his words.
Duns the Scot
-
dunsscot
Dear Dave,
To avoid being monomanical, I am going to be brief. You made some valid points in your submission that I will readily concede. However, I think you wrongly took my statement as a blanket one, when it was actually aimed at a few folks on this forum. There is nothing wrong with a man or woman having a drink or two. I will probably have one later myself. :-) But a lot of the posts on this board seem to encourage others to pursue a hedonistic way of life. But being drunk and stupid or promiscuous is not the way to go through life (adapted from Animal House).
Additionally, while you make a good point about abused ones being here, I am not so sure this place is the best environment for ones who have suffered spiritual abuse. Maybe such ones might seek a counselor or a controlled support group. I am not sure that this forum in any way takes the place of professional help. I guess the point I am making is that the situation you used in your illustration is not strictly analogous to the one that obtains here. But I get your point.
Holler at ya later,
Dan (Your bud)Duns the Scot
-
dunsscot
Dear Mum,
:GROW A SMEGGING SPINE GREG! Do what's RIGHT because it's the RIGHT thing to do! Your cult is KILLING PEOPLE, body AND heart! You don't have to 'return' to anything. You could move FORWARD to honesty and genuine integrity. Of corse you'll have to learn what those words mean before you do, and that will require some actual work. You're used to having preprogrammed 'moral' responses fed to you via Crooklyn's hypnotic q&a indoctrination sessions.:
Do what is right because it is the right thing to do? But what is "the right thing to do"? You tell me! Please also tell me how you KNOW indubitably that it is the "right thing."
I already possess honesty, integrity, and what is more--I am truly happy. Can you say the same about yourself, mum?
:If you're so morally bankrupt that you can't live without some committee of rabbis telling you how many hairs you are permitted to grow on your 'nads, then by all means STAY with your cult. At least your fear of their vengeful God keeps you from indulging your baser natural tendencies. Some people really are better off in the cult straitjacket; perhaps you, who claim to have no innate moral compass, are one of those.:
Speaking of moral bankruptcy and "no innate moral compass." But I will not mention her vile deeds.
Ta-ta mum,
DanDuns the Scot
-
Commie Chris
Duns: your response to my post about social ecology confirms what is evidently the view of many on this Board: Your knowledge of philosophy does not extend to anything pratical, despite your pretentions to rationality. I am busy with work and don't have time now to respond in detail, but I'll get back to you. It won't be hard.
For now let me say that I did not "exhalt creation" - I advocated examining all of nature in order to understand the place of humanity within the global eco-system and better understand human nature (yes, I believe there is such a thing as human nature and we do not need to resort to mysticism, god or metaphysics to understand it).
Further, social ecology by no means vitiates the qualitative differences between humanity and other species. It is patently obvious that mankind has evolved mental capacities far beyond any other species, but social ecology rejects the simplistic idea that this implies a "superiority" of man over the rest of nature. Social ecology recognizes the fact that nature is full of qualitative differences, but that this diversity naturally gives rise to unity in diversity, not to hierarchies such as have been developed in the comparatively recent history of humanity.
Finally, dialectical processes are evident throughout nature, and in a "normal" relationship between man and nature. It is quite accurate to speak of nature "intending" certain things, including for humanity although not in the metaphysical sense that you imply. I'll expand on that later.
Please help yourself to a free piece of pie on the way out.
-
joelbear
Commie Chris,
Thank you for pointing me in the direction of Social Ecology. I never realized there was a set of study organized in this fashion. I am currently majoring in Math and minoring Sociology. My goal is to eventually get a research position at a University. I have been in Banking for 25 years and I hate it. Soon I will be economically capable of making a change.
Please come to my web page and read my Lifeism page. I would enjoy having your thoughts on my admittedly simplistic approach.
www.joelbear.com Click on Lifeism.
Thanks for some great posts.
hugs
Joel
-
Commie Chris
You're more than welcome Joel, and thanks for the hugs. As I have said before, I am no intellectual (but I not anti-intellectual either. In fact, some of my best friends are intellectuals) and I am not an expert on social ecology or any other philosophy. But what I have read has a ring of truth that resonates with my own experiences. I recommend The Ecology of Freedom, by Murray Bookchin (Black Rose Books) or The Modern Crisis, also by Bookchin.
Hugs back atcha,
- Chris -
Michael3000
"They just cannot seem to let JWs enjoy freedom of worship."
Dunnsie, ole boy, you seem to have forgotten the first rule to enjoying and exercising your rights:
Your right to do what you want ends when it endangers or damages the rights of others.
JW's way of life endangers AND damages lives. That is all.
--Michael
-
Tallyman
Dung Scot,
Has anyone told you that you smell bad?
I mean your words.
When I read them, they dredge memories of my former
Worshipful Watchtower life and call it olfactory hallucinations,
but my nostrils fill with a Rotten OdorWe do not interfere in anyone's religious life.
Interference, Meddling, Intrusion is your Stock'n Trade as a jW.
In imitation of our Lord and Master (Jesus Christ), we offer life's water free. If anyone does not wish us salaam,
Why would you want anyone to wish you a Salami?
Because you're a Meathead?however, when we share in the door to door work--
Sheer. Not "share". You have Nothing but Sheer.
And you try to find the sheople and in order to shear them sheer.
we shake the dust off of our feet and go to the next door
Dung, not "dust", Dung Scot, and by doing so, you keep stinking up the neighborhoods.
Don't you realize yet, that the Vast Majority of Reasonably Intelligent people have no interest in the Watchtower's New Odor?
Obviously not, Dung Scot.
.