Interesting replies and thoughts!
Thanks!
is it vital for credibility to have the name of the writer of an article referenced?.
does this allow for honesty and accountability?
does this assist in ensuring that whatever is presented is as factual as possible, or not biased in some way toward the religion's ideas?.
Interesting replies and thoughts!
Thanks!
i was just pondering whether jws are capable of having a calm, in depth discussion about religious or faith topics?.
i have just finished listening to a great podcast by "dogma debate" (dan) episode 333. this fantastic, in-depth conversation between a theist and an atheist was a masterful example of how a dignified conversation can take place without it resorting to abruptness or even nastiness.. jws on the other hand seem incapable of having such discussion without ending up in the following ways:.
1)they get dogmatic and defensive if a differing view is presented.. 2)if the conversation doesn't go their way, they cut it short saying something like "well, we had better agree to disagree" or the like.. so why the arrogance?
I was just pondering whether JWs are capable of having a calm, in depth discussion about religious or faith topics?
I have just finished listening to a great podcast by "Dogma Debate" (Dan) episode 333. This fantastic, in-depth conversation between a theist and an atheist was a masterful example of how a dignified conversation can take place without it resorting to abruptness or even nastiness.
JWs on the other hand seem incapable of having such discussion without ending up in the following ways:
1)They get dogmatic and defensive if a differing view is presented.
2)If the conversation doesn't go their way, they cut it short saying something like "well, we had better agree to disagree" or the like.
So why the arrogance? Why the defensiveness?
Thoughts?
given the proliferation of websites, youtube channels, books and other forms of media attention focusing on the extreme policies, teachings and scandals of the watchtower bible and tract society; where does this now leave the governing body's credibility?.
The GB are really only focussed on controlling those "in-house".
Their efforts are going toward keeping those who are already JWs on the treadmill.
This makes sense, as NO SANE outsider would take them seriously.
So do they really have credibility? Well, to a "captive audience" the answer is yes....but even those "captives" are starting to see the 'crazy' just ooze out of the GB each month!
i thought it was bad enough that jw`s put in weekly reports of fs hours every month in the d2d work when in fact the average publisher would never mention this "good news of the kingdom" to the householder .. more often than not it would be something like some mundane thing about what they have observed about the householders property whether they have kids ,what a lovely garden they have before being cut off by the householder with i`m not interested knowing jw`s are trying to convert them/sell them the watchtower and closing the door.. yet the jw goes away happily putting in a report telling jehovah they have spent so much time in the fs witnessing about him and the kingdom of christ jesus...... cart witnessing is even a worse lie ,why ?
because jw`s make no attempt to witness to anybody they expect people to come to them to be witnessed to which of course never happens .
they spend hours upon hours a month telling jehovah by their fs reports they hand in how much they have witnessed for him ,when in fact they have done nothing of the sort .. they chit chat among themselves witnessing to nobody for hours on end and then lie in their fs report they have been witnessing for jehovah ?.
It seems so foolish now looking back, that we felt we had the obligation to submit a "report" of our time!
I suppose that it what being in a cult does to us - makes us do ridiculous things without question!
loyalty appears to be the buzzword constantly promoted by the gb at the moment.
we hear it at conventions, assemblies, and meetings.. let's face it loyalty covers so much.
shunning of family, friends etc.
Ah yup! How convenient that the new new world translation had those words changed! Obviously it was by design, and tied in so well with the convention topic!
again with the pants... tony, if you can't stop looking at young men in tight pants don't take it out on the rest of us.
https://www.facebook.com/john.cedars.5/posts/868329653345317.
And when I was at bethel during the mid to late 1990's, we were repeatedly counselled on "baggy clothing being inappropriate for Christians"!
If our suits were deemed to be too loose, or not fitting, the Bethel elders would make it a point of concern!
Seriously, how times turn....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhq5viughny&feature=youtu.be.
quite frankly im disturbed at the lack of love and compassion.
especially for the first sister they talk about!.
Imagine how deflated and worthless that sister with health problems will now feel when the only things that validates her in the JW world is stripped away from her?
She is a "flaxen wick" and "crushed reed" who needs to be taken care of.
No crushed reed will he break; and as for a dim flaxen wick, he will not extinguish it. In trueness he will bring forth justice. —Isaiah 42:1-4.
Now she will be treated differently, and viewed differently now that her title has been removed.
(Now, to be honest this JW gold-fish bowl of "importance" is silly - we know, but I am trying to think of how she would feel)
Nope...those elders have a set of man-made stipulations from the Branch to implement...
again with the pants... tony, if you can't stop looking at young men in tight pants don't take it out on the rest of us.
https://www.facebook.com/john.cedars.5/posts/868329653345317.
And sadly, my very in Elder father doesn't believe this ever happened.
Australia has not had the "privilege" of ToMo3's rants, and until they hear it themselves here, they remain blissfully ignorant of the wackiness of the Society...In fact they deny something so wacky could ever have been said by a GB member. (and of course, the will not watch any videos from the internet)
is it vital for credibility to have the name of the writer of an article referenced?.
does this allow for honesty and accountability?
does this assist in ensuring that whatever is presented is as factual as possible, or not biased in some way toward the religion's ideas?.
Is it vital for credibility to have the name of the writer of an article referenced?
Does this allow for honesty and accountability? Does this assist in ensuring that whatever is presented is as factual as possible, or not biased in some way toward the Religion's ideas?
I know that some of our fellow forum members have written articles for the Society, so please do not feel that I am questioning your sincerity at the time.
These questions came up in my mind as I once again contemplated how the Society goes to great lengths to keep the writers of articles anonymous. This applies to actual "doctrinal" material (in magazines, books etc) as well as both internal and external branch letters and documents.
How much easier is it for them to present inaccurate or biased material when there is no ACCOUNTABILITY or TRANSPERENCY?
This is apparent especially when it comes to letters from the Branch of a legal nature (such as in the case of child abuse issues - eg the Palmer case) No one seems to have signed off on the directions from the branch. No one is taking accountability.
So would it make a difference if the Society referenced the writers by name? Would it create a culture of honesty and transparency? Would it even matter?
Thoughts?
again with the pants... tony, if you can't stop looking at young men in tight pants don't take it out on the rest of us.
https://www.facebook.com/john.cedars.5/posts/868329653345317.
If this isn't an example of behaviour like the Pharasees displayed, then I don't know what is!
"They bind up heavy loads on the shoulders of men"
"They disregard the law by means of their traditions"
"They make the word of God invalid"
etc...