In other words, it's OK to be disrespectful when the topic's really important to you?
Or it's understandable?
I understand it and have been guilty of it, but I can't defend it.
in view of the fact that there are mostly ex-witnesses on this forum, the question is," are jw's truly welcomed here?".
it seems to me that if a poster supports the witnesses in any way, that they will know about it.
In other words, it's OK to be disrespectful when the topic's really important to you?
Or it's understandable?
I understand it and have been guilty of it, but I can't defend it.
in view of the fact that there are mostly ex-witnesses on this forum, the question is," are jw's truly welcomed here?".
it seems to me that if a poster supports the witnesses in any way, that they will know about it.
Whenever anyone posts and takes a position on a topic that is emotionally charged for some, that thread usually seems to become disrespectful pretty quickly. Not everyone on it acts disrespectfully, but there will be some posters who get emotional and start making some disrespectful statements. This seems pretty common on most dbs.
The one topic that is most emotionally charged for the greatest number of posters here is defending the WTS.
The second is probably child abuse.
Remember when we were out in service back in the day? How did we want to be treated by unbelievers? Is that how we treat JW's now?
This kind of ties into the "why angry" thread...
if you were to tell a witness that they were "brainwashed" or that they were "under mind control", they certainly would not rationally accept it.the reason is because witnesses cannot distinguish between mind control and "obeying the faithful and discreet slave".
it is only after a person stops exposing himself to the subtle mind controlling tactics of the watchtower that a person can see how thoroughly duped they are in their beliefs.
how might you be able to tell that you are no longer your own person, able to make your own decisions in your life?
Sounds like a good conversation, Min.
You.re not re-opening this discussion, are ya? I just re-read it and it sounds like a good debate.
In principle, no.
In fact, haven't found anything yet. There are things I susepct would take some time and struggle, but I have ruled nothing out - that is, I still believe that anything can be forgiven.
what is the current thinking of the watchtower society concernng higher education these days?
in 1977 i entered college from a full pioneer status and was duly criticized from the local elders.
back at that time, higher education was actively discouraged.
I had the highest SAT in my senior class (higher than my friend who went to Harvard), had several academic honors, and I was admitted to Reed College at close to a full ride, but I didn't go to college due to pressure from family and friends of the family.
political threads seem to be the one which generate the most vitriolic arguments on this board.
please stay away from arguments in this thread.. i'd like to know what type of political philosophy you enodorse, not just some results from an on-line test.
furthermore, i'd like to know why you feel the way you do and what criticisms could be laid against your philosophy.
Hey, if the WTS can explain chronology :)
political threads seem to be the one which generate the most vitriolic arguments on this board.
please stay away from arguments in this thread.. i'd like to know what type of political philosophy you enodorse, not just some results from an on-line test.
furthermore, i'd like to know why you feel the way you do and what criticisms could be laid against your philosophy.
Not sure any of us is qualified to debate the science of global warming... but the risk vs the reward is pretty simple. If we decide to play it safe, all it costs is money. If we don't play it safe and we're wrong about that decision, we don't get to hit "Undo" - many of those costs are irreversible.
My father applied pesticides professionally for 20 years. As he was dying of a rare cancer, he read Silent Spring by Rachel Carson, and said that he had seen the things described in the book with his own eyes. The question isn't if we are affecting the natural world - the question is, do we understand what we are doing? If we don't, why are we doing it?
political threads seem to be the one which generate the most vitriolic arguments on this board.
please stay away from arguments in this thread.. i'd like to know what type of political philosophy you enodorse, not just some results from an on-line test.
furthermore, i'd like to know why you feel the way you do and what criticisms could be laid against your philosophy.
I would have to say, Bradley, to read history first - then form your own opinions.
Heinlein once said that a good historian tells you what happened, and lets you figure out why.
how many of you get pissed off when somebody asks you one of the following questions?:.
do you go to church?
have you been to the latest sermon/mass/meeting?
Yeah, I've noticed that too - a lot of people have an assumption that if you're raised in a faith, you are that faith forever. It's irritating, I'll agree.
I guess JW's can't afford to have that assumption or there would be no conversion.
political threads seem to be the one which generate the most vitriolic arguments on this board.
please stay away from arguments in this thread.. i'd like to know what type of political philosophy you enodorse, not just some results from an on-line test.
furthermore, i'd like to know why you feel the way you do and what criticisms could be laid against your philosophy.
I should add as an example that the "global economy" is more efficient, as jobs move to places with cheaper labor, less worker protection legislation, and less enviromental monitoring, but it is not neccesarily smarter - just cheaper.