Posts by amac

Then why are you arguing with me?

Because your ego precedes you. Being smart does not make you right. Also, a simple apology for your offensive post would have done nicely, but you prefer to rest on your viewpoint rather than apologize. So...your ego precedes you.

Seriously, my remarks have not been especially pointed at you, since I don't know you from a hole in the wall.

I beg your pardon, but they were pointed directly at me, and continue to be, even in the closing of your last post.

They're meant generally for people who, like your remarks seem to indicate about you, have little or no appreciation for the value of human relationships. While I'm sure you're offended at that statement, consider the fact that my remarks that you quoted above, prefaced by your comments that provoked them, would be appreciated by 99% of people, and without a lot of explanation. In the past dozen years I've talked to many, many people who've had little exposure to JWs about the way JWs shun people and have little regard for their families when organizational interests get in the way. They're uniformly horrified that anyone, for any reason, could so easily abandon father, mother, brother, sister, son or daughter. So when you say that it wouldn't bother you much if your wife abandoned you or your children shunned you, and worse, that you've fooled yourself into thinking that you wouldn't suffer any harm if they did, what do you think most people would conclude about you? Would it be along the lines I've described? Or would they think you're a fine family man?

I think making a conclusion about anyone based solely on a couple DB posts is ridiculous.

I never said that it would "not bother me much."

I've rethought your questions about wife and child abandoning...in the context of arguing about banning a religion, I was considering "harmful" as denoting either physical injury or the type of pscychological damage that made something break up there or malfunction, because that is what I would equate with the necessary damage to require banning. After reconsidering I realize that hurt emotions are the same as psychological injury, so yes, I would be very hurt emotionally if my wife or child abandoned me.

I'll even propose a test: You arrange that you, your wife, your kids and I get on a telephone conference call, and I'll read your comments to them. You can't tell them in advance about the questions, though, since that would be cheating. The point is for you and me to see their reaction cold.

No need to be an ass about it. I actually did tell my wife what I posted and explained why I posted it. She was in agreement with my sentiments.

So you agree that there's a difference bettween passive assent, and active instigation. That point is crucial to my entire argument as to why the JWs need to be severely censured, if not banned outright.

Yes, I have always thought that the WT actively instigates shunning.

Fine. As long as you understand that there are levels of enforcing, varying from extremely weak to extremely strong, we agree. In any case, I feel that your wording tends to play down the severity of the problem, whereas mine tells it like it is.

You really like to harp on semantics don't you. I think when I said that the WT enforces their view on blood transfusions, that there isn't a single person on this board who isn't familiar with the degree with which they enforce. Sorry for not highlighting that.

The fact that 35 boys were molested by one man in a 20 year period shows that my assumption is correct. The odds that a molester in one JW congregation could remain undiscovered (obviously, except to his victims) is so close to zero as to be indistinguishable from zero. If you disagree, then by all means call your local Child Protection Services or whatever they call it, and run this example by them. Then you'll see that I'm really not assuming anything, statistically speaking. Unless you call percentages like 99.999999% "mere statistics".

The only fact that you revealed and admitted to being privy to was that one JW molested 35 boys over 20 years. That's it! Based on that, to conclude he had cooperation from his religion is ridiculous. That would mean that every single child molester who ever topped molesting 35 boys in 20 years must also have had cooperation from their religion. Perhaps you know more details that made you come to this conclusion but just didn't share them with us. In any event, this is more likely a moot point because we both agree with the errors of the WT's reporting policy.

Which is precisely why Watchtower leaders, along with a few other screwy religious leaders, needs to have a threat of banning hanging over their heads in order to force them to do what's right! On their own, they'll simply continue to do what they've always done, to the harm of children.

Perhaps so, but the threat of banning is much different than outright banning such as occured in Moscow, which you seemed to be in agreement with.

: I think the first step is, of course, creating the proper legislation. If they still do not fully comply or find ways to circumvent these, then a clear plan of reform should be presented to them. If still no compliance, then I would be in agreement in banning. Or better yet, back to HS suggestions of licensing and fines.

Then you and I have no real disagreement about banning.

I disagree with the banning in Moscow, but you seem to agree with it. So if you concede that other steps should be taken prior to banning, such as legislation and specified reform than yes, we are in agreement.

Probably true. But remember that Watchtower monitors these boards, and has since Rutherford's death bowed in the direction that the wind is blowing. My aim here is to produce some wind. As soon as enough pressure, through the media, politics or court action, is applied they'll go along because if they don't, the Brooklyn properties will be forfeit, just as the Anglican Church in Canada was bankrupted by lawsuits stemming from their toleration of molestation.

Are you hoping to bankrupt the WT? By all means, go for it, but it would seem to me that since they are fully supported by their members that an income would still be available. Even if they did go bankrupt, I'm not sure it would affect local congregation activity, in fact it might simply increase the donations.

So now you admit that shunning can produce physical as well as psychological harm. Good!

No, I don't consider the loss of business to be physical harm. I consider a punch in the nose or a getting a disease to be physical harm. Does shunning cause psychological harm? Absolutely...but so do rude drivers on the freeway and employees at the DMV. Not that the harm is equal, because I'm sure that is the first thing you would pounce on, saying again what disregard I have for family, but none of them are enough to ban ways of life or organizations over.

What if a religion taught people that it is best to be a hermit, dig a hole in the ground in the middle of nowhere and only come out when they needed supplies and NOT to talk to anyone? Would you propose they be banned? I think you would.

I do not think they should be banned. If people want to live their life like that and be hurtful to family members feelings and emotions, that's their choice. There is no law that could ever stop people from acting like that. So if they want to get together and start an organization to get recruits, that's fine, it's up to the individual to condemn them and not join.

YES! There are many examples in court records where this very thing has been condemned. The notion of "alienation of affection" comes to mind. Do you think that JWs don't actively practice alienation of affection? Or do you think that that's a perfectly fine thing for organizations to instill in their members?

I think alienation of affection is a horrible thing, but I also think it happens and is influenced to happen in such a small number of cases that it does not warrant banning. For whatever screwy reasons, it only seems to happen when a JW leaves the organization and has a mate still in, and even then is only a percentage of that. I think the fact that it happened to you makes you more sensitive to this problem and gives you your motivation for wanting the banning of JWs.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. You ignored my example of someone being threatened with death if he didn't sign a check. Anyone who is threatened into making a 'choice' has certainly made a choice, but not freely. My point about this is with respect to those raised as JWs and those who converted later in life but gradually realized that they were snookered.

I ignored it because I do not think it is a good example. Getting your head blown off is a bit more motivating then people not talking to you.

It seems that you, along with a great many people, including some prominent sociologists of religion, don't know the difference between free and coerced choice.

I do know the difference. I also understand that our difference of opinion lies in our definitions of free choice. Your idea of free choice is the ability to make a choice with no outside consequences being imposed to direct your decision. It's my impression that those rarely exist, and only differ in the amount of coercion. For example, a TV ad vs. shunning vs. getting your head blown off.

My definition of free choice is the ability to make your own choice despite outside coercion. It's this God-given free choice or free will that has added so much color to mankind's history.

Once again you're making the classic mistake of the cult apologist: "everyone is free to choose."

That's not a mistake, free will is a fact. Free will is what has allowed mankind to buck imposing injustices through out history. Free will is the one thing that every man and woman has that cannot be taken from them, but it can be given away.

You can't be serious! The passage's context makes it crystal clear what it's talking about:

"There six things the LORD hates--no, seven things he detests: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that kill the innocent, a heart that plots evil, feet that race to do wrong, a false witness who pours out lies, a person who sows discord [sends forth contentions] among brothers." (Proverbs 6:16-19; NLT)

: Is their some deeper meaning to the Greek word translated as "contentions" that denotes breaking up human relationships?

It's Hebrew, but I think that the full passage, along with a little thought, should answer your question. But if you really need me to hold your hand and explain this, I'll do it.

No hand holding needed, but the context would have been nice. My scripture recollection is horrible and I don't have a bible in my office to have looked that scripture up when I replied. Knowing the full context, yes, I agree with that principle.

You've pretty much proved my point about your not having a clue about human relationships. You class spitting on someone as worse than deliberately breaking up a family. Yes, I really do pity your family.

No I didn't and you are twisting my words, shame on you. I classified spitting on someone just above shunning them. I don't imagine someone friendly associating with someone and then spitting on them. I classified it that way because I see it simply as the next step after shunning someone and the step before inflicting bodily harm on someone. You pity my family, again your ego makes you much too presumptuous.

The fact is that the guy threatened the Society with a lawsuit if they disfellowshipped him for molesting those girls because they didn't have the required two eyewitnesses to each act of molestation.

Well you didn't reveal that little fact in your question now, did you?

Their history proves it, since they only recently instituted even the rule that elders should report molestation cases in states where it's required -- after the adverse publicity generated by Silentlambs.

Well I guess you could say the same for society in general since the acknowledgement of this widespread problem has only been freely addressed in the past decade. And you could still say the same for all the states and the people in them that STILL do not require clergy or people working with children to report child molestations, because there is a lot of them.

Your, um, thinking problem is not the mere fact that, um, you and I think differently on this issue. Your problem is that you're wrong about the value of human relationships, because your words indicate that you don't have enough regard for your family to care whether they stick with you or not. That's a peculiarly JWish problem.

Astounding! I can't believe these stories. I wish I was present when these things happened...when I was an active JW, I often took pleasure and advantage of every opportunity to correct jerk brothers who were not Christ-like.

Maybe we should.....but this isn't "YOUR" board, nor do you have the "right" to decide who should post what and where.

Hehe, it was meant to be tongue in cheek.

The reason that I DIDN'T address your points, was because whatever you call yourself,(so I got the TITLE or the LABEL wrong, big deal), you find someone who is hurting and upset (and JUSTIFIABLY SO) and swagger in and demean my thoughts and feelings in a very unkind and insensitive way.

People who pick at wounds are people I seldom respond to...because you're not here for a human-to-human discussion, but to tear down those who are already TORN down......what the hell ore do you expect when you are met with anger or indifference (my not replying to you)? What pleasure does THAT bring to you?

First off, I don't call myself anything, and perhaps you should avoid labeling people.

Now, let's review my posts and see where I was insensitive, picking at people's wounds, tearing down others. Here are my posts:

Post 1&2

There are many things in our society that are NOT HEALTHY, this does not mean it is OK for a government to tell us what we can and cannot do with our lives, as long as we are not causing harm to others. And although DFing and shunning are hurtful to others, it does not cause them harm. You shouldn't ban people's religion, simply because they don't talk to people. That's how I feel. Good analogy XQsThaiPoes, I don't think that anyone would suggest banning alcohol again although it is much more damaging and tears many more families apart than JWs.

I think he is saying that it is silly that they would ban a "harmful" religion, but freely license alcohol which is much more harmful than JWs could ever be. And on top of that, they are tops at puttin the devil juice back.

I am definitely open minded to the damages that the WT causes. I still do not think anything they do warrants banning. The stock market causes many more suicides than the WT ever could. Should we ban the stock market? No, because people make a conscience choice to participate in it. Unless a person is drugged or physically forced, they make a conscience decision to either become a JW or stay a JW.

I AM aware of the negative effects of the WT organization. Through this website I AM aware of personal struggles and even cases of suicide. I am also aware of the negative effects of many other things, foods, organizations, practices, consumer products, ways of life in this world that are much more negative on people than the WT and I am not about to promote the banning of those.

4JWY - Try to detach yourself from the emotional aspect of being intimately familiar with the negative impact that the WT has caused to those you know and compare it to some of the other problems in the world. I am sure you will see that it is miniscule in relation and certainly does not warrant banning ahead of many of the more negative things in the world.

You are absolutely right. My discussion does revolve around the idea of banning religions. I was under the impression that this thread was a defense for the reasoning behind banning the JWs. If it is not, then I apologize for going off track. If it is simply about whether or not the WT is harmful or not, then I would agree that they are very harmful and damaging to some, BUT they are very helpful and comforting to others, some people just like to be led.

However, I am turned off by both you and Sunspot's method of arguing, resorting to ad hominem arguments and saying things like "Typical JWcultspeak" and "typical of watchtowerthink." Taking my wording and then twisting it to "Life is not miniscule. Is yours?" is not only wrong but completely irrelevant to the discussion. I never inferred that life is miniscule.

I am NOT so sure that you ARE as "open-minded" as you claim. Just in saying in the next breath (line) that the STOCK MARKET is a part of the problem I addressed, is ludicrous.

I didn't say that the stock market is part of the problem. Rather then RE-explain, it might be best for you to reread my post.

If YOU are comfortable serving the Watchtowergod, so be it.

FYI, I don't serve the "Watchtowergod."

: "Detach yourselves from your emotions" - no, thank you. They contribute to my color in life which is something more vibrant now than ever.

I'm sorry to say then you will always be susceptible to being easily influenced by others, unless you decide to think objectively. And NO JWS are NOT good at detaching themselves from the emotions, that is how the WT traps them is through their emotions of love, guilt, subservience, etc. If it was logic, the religion would have fell apart ages ago.

Sunspot -

For starters, I am NOT a JW apologist, I try to be a COMMON SENSE Apologist. It's been said many times that the best way to learn is to entertain thoughts that you do not agree with.

If you don't want to "waste your time" in replying to my points, that's fine. But to continue with condescending remarks of lumping me into an unfavorable group simply shows me that you do not have any reasoning for you ideas besides your emotional bitterness. Rather than discussing my knee-jerk JW apologist reactions with others, reply to the points in my last thread and we can have a civilised discussion. If you are on this board to simply rant and rave, perhaps we should divide it into one half a discussion board and the other half a rant and rave board.

I'm always "up" for a GOOD debate,