Bendrr

Joined

• started 227 topics
• posted 1,625 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Bendrr

• 
  135

  My theory about the behavior and obsession of some ex-JWs

  by Simon in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i've had this theory for some time and alluded to it occassionally but have never explored it in detail.. it is of course a huge generalisation so no, not everyone will fit into the boxes and i'd like people's opinion.

  i don't know everyone's circumstances so it's based on a small sample of some of those i do know something about.

  it could be completely wrong, it's just an idea.. basically, i have seen a difference between some of those ex-jws who walked out vs those who were kicked out.. the most bitter and obsessive seem to be the kicked out and, i must add, those who were legitimately kicked out.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Bendrr

  My point is that just because someone is an ex-JW does NOT make them a friend or a nice person or whatever.

  Sad but true.
• 
  135

  My theory about the behavior and obsession of some ex-JWs

  by Simon in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i've had this theory for some time and alluded to it occassionally but have never explored it in detail.. it is of course a huge generalisation so no, not everyone will fit into the boxes and i'd like people's opinion.

  i don't know everyone's circumstances so it's based on a small sample of some of those i do know something about.

  it could be completely wrong, it's just an idea.. basically, i have seen a difference between some of those ex-jws who walked out vs those who were kicked out.. the most bitter and obsessive seem to be the kicked out and, i must add, those who were legitimately kicked out.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Bendrr

  Simple, Hillary.

  I see you highlighted the word 'could', which of course the whole statement hinges on.

  I've already made two posts in this thread about how disfellowshipping is the punishment given for lack of repentance, and it is really more for a lack of repentance than for the "sin" itself.

  So on an ex-JW forum, to make such a statement that some deserved to be disfellowshipped, that is going to generate some controversy. It isn't Simon's entire post, which I took for what he said it was, just the one small portion we have all been discussing. I'm not arguing with him or you; he himself said it was a sweeping generalization and a theory, just joining in with my own opinion for whatever it is worth.
• 
  135

  My theory about the behavior and obsession of some ex-JWs

  by Simon in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i've had this theory for some time and alluded to it occassionally but have never explored it in detail.. it is of course a huge generalisation so no, not everyone will fit into the boxes and i'd like people's opinion.

  i don't know everyone's circumstances so it's based on a small sample of some of those i do know something about.

  it could be completely wrong, it's just an idea.. basically, i have seen a difference between some of those ex-jws who walked out vs those who were kicked out.. the most bitter and obsessive seem to be the kicked out and, i must add, those who were legitimately kicked out.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Bendrr

  The kicked-outs I'm thinking of are those where there were good reasons to kick them out based on the rules in place. So, it could be because of drugs, morality issues or whatever. Basically, they didn't measure up to the standards in place for the group they wanted to belong to and were given the boot.

  Pretty controversial statement, considering it could be taken to support the decision made by judicial committees to disfellowship people who are our fellow ex-JW's and friends.

  For the last eight years, we've had countless discussions of the rules in place in the JW's and the enforcement of those rules. The consensus is, unless I've missed new light in my absence, that the rules are harsh and enforced in a cultish manner by kangaroo courts presided over by imperfect and often very biased men who render sentence based less on the "sin" itself than the amount of repentance shown, something left entirely up to their own opinion.
• 
  135

  My theory about the behavior and obsession of some ex-JWs

  by Simon in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i've had this theory for some time and alluded to it occassionally but have never explored it in detail.. it is of course a huge generalisation so no, not everyone will fit into the boxes and i'd like people's opinion.

  i don't know everyone's circumstances so it's based on a small sample of some of those i do know something about.

  it could be completely wrong, it's just an idea.. basically, i have seen a difference between some of those ex-jws who walked out vs those who were kicked out.. the most bitter and obsessive seem to be the kicked out and, i must add, those who were legitimately kicked out.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Bendrr

  You've got to keep one thing in mind about those who are disfellowshipped. When a JW "sins", whether it was fornication or adultery or smoking a cigarette or whatever, they can either be reproved or disfellowshipped. The decision to disfellowship is made because the elders judge whether or not the person is repentant enough. They're disfellowshipped for not being repentant and that decision is made in secret by imperfect and often biased men. And all this based on the JW's interpretation of one scripture which ignores everything Jesus said and did.
• 
  28

  Double Standard?

  by Bendrr in

  1. social
  2. current

  jwd is the premier ex-jw site without a doubt.

  simon, you've done one hell of a job in creating and maintaining a meeting and learning place for current, exiting, and long-gone dubs.

  for that i salute you.. we can come here and speak our minds about the wts.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Bendrr

  We may be getting sidetracked with the nukes bit, EF. But like it or not, it is very likely to come to the point one day when one has to be used again. The real question is whether it is used pre-emptively or in retaliation. The Cold War we won because we won the arms race, basically waiting until the enemy couldn't afford the bigger and better guns anymore. The lesson there is deterrence and what I'm advocating is a show of force that deters Islamic terrorism. Discourage the followers of the radical clerics from strapping on bomb belts or hijacking planes overwhelmingly. Yes, it might end up taking a nuke to do that or at least the threat of one. Personally, I'd rather it be the threat.

  What I was trying to get at, is how do we counteract the radical Imams and Mullahs without military intervention? We've thrown foreign aid dollars at foreign poverty for years now. Simon has a point, that we have to stop aiding dictators. It's kind of "damned if you do, damned if you don't". Bush Senior should have ordered Saddam taken down in the first Gulf War. And France and Russia shouldn't have been selling him banned weapons and sending Spetznaz troops to help him haul "cargo" to Syria. Clinton should have accepted the multiple offers of Osama Bin Laden in handcuffs. Carter should have struck back hard at Iran when the hostages were taken, instead of the disaster that happened.

  We also can't simple be isolationist with regards to the Middle East. Even if Middle Eastern oil weren't an issue for us, and if we were to tap our own reserves maybe it wouldn't be, Israel cannot be left alone without our support otherwise there will eventually be no Israel. And as I have said, they don't just hate us for our interventions. They hate us because we're infidels. The radicals want a one-world Caliphate and as long as you and I and Simon exist, we're in the way.

  Mike.
• 
  28

  Double Standard?

  by Bendrr in

  1. social
  2. current

  jwd is the premier ex-jw site without a doubt.

  simon, you've done one hell of a job in creating and maintaining a meeting and learning place for current, exiting, and long-gone dubs.

  for that i salute you.. we can come here and speak our minds about the wts.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Bendrr

  I know you have stated before that we find the various suicide bomber's family and then exterminate their next of kin.

  I'm pretty sure I didn't say that, EF. You may have read it in my infamous nuclear weapons thread, but I doubt it was me who said it. And honestly, stop buying the hype. I have never advocated or even condoned the idea of killing a billion Muslims. I simply advanced the idea, which I do support, of one or two nukes used in response to a major terror attack, such as with hindsight being 20/20 probably should have been done to Mecca already. "Scare the Jihad out of 'em", I think is how I termed it, "show them there's a power greater than Allah".

  Mike.
• 
  28

  Double Standard?

  by Bendrr in

  1. social
  2. current

  jwd is the premier ex-jw site without a doubt.

  simon, you've done one hell of a job in creating and maintaining a meeting and learning place for current, exiting, and long-gone dubs.

  for that i salute you.. we can come here and speak our minds about the wts.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Bendrr

  Outside of simply bashing them and calling them "shiteheads for allah" do you have any course of action you suggest we take to confront Islamic fundamentalism?

  EF, you know my stance, offensive as it may be to you, which is to scare the Jihad out of them by showing them a visible and present power greater than Allah.

  Actually I'd be more interested in knowing how you'd pacify the "Sh**heads for Allah". Same question goes to Simon. I'm not asking it in sarcasm, this is turning into an interesting discussion so since y'all know what I've said on the matter, I'd like to discuss your side of the issue.

  Mike.
• 
  28

  Double Standard?

  by Bendrr in

  1. social
  2. current

  jwd is the premier ex-jw site without a doubt.

  simon, you've done one hell of a job in creating and maintaining a meeting and learning place for current, exiting, and long-gone dubs.

  for that i salute you.. we can come here and speak our minds about the wts.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Bendrr

  Sorry, Bendrr, but your bigotry just doesn't fly here!
  

  But I know that YOU feel safe, cause you are always 'packing some heat', ,, so what's your beef? Didn't meet up with any punks at the 7/11 lately to take out your aggression on?

  
  Talesin, Simon was kind enough to allow this thread to continue after it was temporarily removed to the admin section. If you have issues with me beyond the subject at hand, you know where to find me if you want to discuss them further, otherwise I don't have much of anything to say to you on this thread. Good-bye. Now back to the thread.

  Simon, at one time or another regimes such as that of Saddam Hussein received aid from the U.S. As I recall, back when Iraq got aid from us was when they were at war with the newly taken-over Islamic Republic of Iran. The Mujahideen in Afghanistan also received aid in their fight against the Soviets.

  It wasn't so much support of them at the time as it was the battle against the Soviet Union. At the time, Iraq and the resistance in Afghanistan didn't have thousands of nukes pointed at us. We, and you, ultimately defeated the Soviet Union and I'll concede that some of what we're seeing now may be fallout from the Cold War.

  What we're seeing now in Iraq is not so much a war against the West as it is a war against a powerful free democratic nation in the Middle East. One that isn't a theocracy, one that isn't a kingdom, one that isn't controlled by the mullahs and ayatollahs. As I've said before, the terrorists didn't give a damn about Iraq before now.

  I'm just trying to get you to understand that I won't view Islam as some lovey-dovey "care bears" religion when bombs kill Brits in subways and planes hit skyscrapers in New York. I fully realize that there are Muslims who abhor the actions of radical Islamofacists as much as we do. Just as most Catholics detest what has been done in Northern Ireland and most Christians here support the execution of Tim McVeigh and the one that Eric Rudolph will hopefully soon face.

  I'm also trying to put it in perspective for you. Tim McVeigh and Eric Robert Rudolph don't have millions of followers primed and ready to continue their murderous tactics. Osama Bin Laden does. Radical militant Christian groups make me sick, but they don't have the funding and support that Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, and the other "Sh*theads for Allah" have. That doesn't make me sick, it scares the hell out of me because we're still afraid of offending people when we talk about border control and mass-transit passenger screening.

  If you want to write it off as "bigotry", that's up to you. I've been called worse by better. But every day all of us make judgements based on what we know and what we believe.

  Mike.
• 
  28

  Double Standard?

  by Bendrr in

  1. social
  2. current

  jwd is the premier ex-jw site without a doubt.

  simon, you've done one hell of a job in creating and maintaining a meeting and learning place for current, exiting, and long-gone dubs.

  for that i salute you.. we can come here and speak our minds about the wts.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Bendrr

  There is a huge difference.
  

  You are slamming a whole religion and culture and not criticising at all. Making comments like "Nuke Mecca" is not criticism - it's bigotry.

  All right then, I can see that that comment really bothered you so for the purposes of this discussion I'll retract it and I apologize.

  And yes, I'm slamming an entire religion if you want to call it that. I call it being extremely critical. The belief that Allah rewards Muslims suicide bombers is worthy of the name I gave the extremists. Evilforce quoted it in this thread, "S**theads for Allah". Their fanatical hatred of the Jews, one that only Hitler could have shared. Their treatment of women.Look. How would you like it if the Church of England had its own police force poking its nose into your private life? If you led a small group of another faith, they could throw you in jail. Unthinkable in our countries, but guess what? It happens in Islamic nations such as Saudi Arabia and Iran. Remember, Iran's full name is Islamic Republic of Iran.

  Catholics didn't bomb the world trade centre but the ones who did were Mulsim, but then the ones who bombed the UK for 30+ years were Catholics. Does this mean we can express hatred of all Catholics and that they all deserve to die? Of course not.

  Hate the act and the people carrying out the act, not the other people who just happen to share a similar creed, belief or skin color.

  How many Catholics are there and what is the percentage of extremists? Versus, how many Muslims and what is the percentage of radical Muslims? It's just not a fair comparison to begin with.

  I don't hate all Muslims, but I have distrust for Muslims at this point for the very real fact that we don't know which ones in our home countries are the fanatics planning mass murder. I'm also not calling for the wholesale slaughter of all Muslims and skin color has nothing to do with it. The terrorists want to kill us because they're Muslim and we're not. Far as I'm concerned the hatred over religion starts with them, not me or you.

  I hate the act and I hate the people carrying out the act, just as you do. I also hate those who cheered and dance in the streets celebrating them. That makes them suspect as far as I'm concerned. I hate all those who supported and funded them. I don't hate, but also don't exactly love or entirely trust, those who don't make a real effort to root out elements in their own midst who may go out and do the same thing. For example, Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is only slightly more trustworthy than Iran. Or how about Pakistan? Their military and police are corrupted throughout by "sympathizers" of the extremists like Al Qaeda and Bin Laden is likely hiding out right there across the Pakistani border if he isn't in Iran. Syria is basically waging war with the Coalition via terrorists and suicide bombers.

  My point is, at this point in time we are at war with Islamic terrorism. Let's call it what it is, Islamic terrorism. The mistrust and prejudice, though I call it postjudice, are fairly well justified because we don't see the enemy extremists until it's usually too late.

  Mike.
• 
  28

  Double Standard?

  by Bendrr in

  1. social
  2. current

  jwd is the premier ex-jw site without a doubt.

  simon, you've done one hell of a job in creating and maintaining a meeting and learning place for current, exiting, and long-gone dubs.

  for that i salute you.. we can come here and speak our minds about the wts.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Bendrr

  JWD is the premier ex-JW site without a doubt. Simon, you've done one hell of a job in creating and maintaining a meeting and learning place for current, exiting, and long-gone dubs. For that I salute you.

  We can come here and speak our minds about the WTS. Their lies about dates, their lies about changing doctrine, their doctrines that destroy the lives of innocent children, their doctrines that tear apart families. They teach that we're all going to die horrible deaths at Armageddon because we post here and celebrate Christmas, and they rejoice at the prospect of so many unrighteous dying and they teach their children to rejoice as well at our deaths.

  There are even other religions that come under merciless scrutiny here. The mormons, Scientology, the Catholic Church, if they screw up they get skewered. That's as it should be, since some lurker may need to know the truth.

  So why is it that Islam is "hands-off"? Why does Islam get a pass, why is it treated as beyond reproach? Jehovah's Witnesses didn't fly hijacked airliners into skyscrapers. Suicide bombers in Israel aren't Baptists. Catholics didn't pull off the first bombing of the World Trade Center. Scientologists didn't bomb Madrid train stations. Pentecostals didn't attempt a massive chemical bombing in Jordan. Moonies didn't suicide-bomb the USS Cole. Buddhists didn't bomb the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

  Be fair! Islam is just as legitimate a target for bashing as any other religion that has radical fundamentalists willing to murder in the name of their god.

  Most religions anticipate a coming theocracy, and you and I don't want any part of most of their ideas of "paradise", but they don't go about trying to create theocracy through bombings and the wholesale murder of "infidels". True, some try to pass silly laws, and that's why we have courts and separation of church and state to keep the balance, but that's about as far as they go. You see, they don't encourage their flocks to kill as many infidels as possible so as to get 70 virgins in Heaven.

  Yes, I realize that I'm extremely prejudiced against Islam as a result of a small percentage of Muslims. No arguments there. Given that there are an estimated one billion plus Muslims in the world, what would you define as a "small percentage"? How small can we make that percentage before us "infidels" feel that there isn't a clear and present danger?

  Therefore I request that you, Simon, a fellow ex-Jehovah's Witness "brother" of mine, leave your own personal politics behind and allow critical discussion of Islam just the same as critical discussion of the Jehovah's Witnesses is allowed.

  Yours in apostacy,

  Mike, no longer enslaved by any religion whatsoever since 1992.