Easy answer: THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD.
Real science is basically about repeatable measurements of objective facts being the only reliable indication of truth. As Heinlein wrote: "what are the facts, and to how many decimal places?"
in my social psychology class, we are studying a chapter on persuasion.
here is an interesting excerpt from our study book, "social psychology: unraveling the mystery" by douglas kenrick, steven neuberg, and robert cialdini, page 171. please tell me if you think it applies to jws, ex-jws, and this board in general.. .
p. 170, "done deals".
Easy answer: THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD.
Real science is basically about repeatable measurements of objective facts being the only reliable indication of truth. As Heinlein wrote: "what are the facts, and to how many decimal places?"
well, i'm finally reading coc, and i must tell you that despite already being an ex-dub i was *shocked*.
the thing that got me was the gb's apparently unselfconsciously acting above all the rules that they would apply so harshly to everyone else.
maybe i'm naive, but i didn't expect that level of hypocrisy.. so what did you find most shocking in coc?
msil: Good for you. But I still have family to rescue.
well, i'm finally reading coc, and i must tell you that despite already being an ex-dub i was *shocked*.
the thing that got me was the gb's apparently unselfconsciously acting above all the rules that they would apply so harshly to everyone else.
maybe i'm naive, but i didn't expect that level of hypocrisy.. so what did you find most shocking in coc?
NYTel: Have you read CoC yourself?
(Fred: Thanks for showing up. I feel like Sally Field. "You hate me! You really hate me!!")
well, i'm finally reading coc, and i must tell you that despite already being an ex-dub i was *shocked*.
the thing that got me was the gb's apparently unselfconsciously acting above all the rules that they would apply so harshly to everyone else.
maybe i'm naive, but i didn't expect that level of hypocrisy.. so what did you find most shocking in coc?
veniceIT: Yeah, the Mexico/Malawi thing was amazing, wasn't it? And to think the whole point of not calling themselves a "religion" was to avoid ceding ownership of property. *sigh*
siegswife: well, I knew about those DFing for married sex rules, but then I was raised a dub and was an MSvt for a while, so I wouldn't expect that everyone else would know. Shoot, my wife didn't know that Pay Attn To All The Flock even existed until I told her, and she had been a dub all her life.
well, i'm finally reading coc, and i must tell you that despite already being an ex-dub i was *shocked*.
the thing that got me was the gb's apparently unselfconsciously acting above all the rules that they would apply so harshly to everyone else.
maybe i'm naive, but i didn't expect that level of hypocrisy.. so what did you find most shocking in coc?
Well, I'm finally reading CoC, and I must tell you that despite already being an ex-Dub I was *shocked*. The thing that got me was the GB's apparently unselfconsciously acting above all the rules that they would apply so harshly to everyone else. Maybe I'm naive, but I didn't expect that level of hypocrisy.
So what did YOU find most shocking in CoC? Perspiring minds want to know!
my wife is a saved christain.
she believes all that crap.
her sister playes the piano and sings in the churches.
Good. Bad. I'm the guy with the map of the human genome.
reading the watchtower 'readers ask' article (which so clearly is not a reader asking) about 'should we pray for disfellowshipped ones' and i had the horrible feeling of 'doublethink' kicking in - twisted reasoning trying to take me over and allow me to accept the incorrect thinking.
isn't this like a conditioned disgusting habit ?.
is this posting like i'm taking it to the elders ?.
Relax. Human brains are amazingly fallible, which is why so many stupid things refuse to die out. If you feel a pull toward believing something false, that's entirely normal! Giving in to that pull, letting your hindbrain win over your forebrain, would be the only true failure.
It's not the destination, but the journey, as they say....
most persons who die through lack of blood have made that choice for themselves.
the consequences of such a course of action (often death) generally have an effect which is limited primarily to the individual who is refusing treatment.. however, the victim of a decision to shun has no input into that decision.
therefore the 'victim' of shunning is a helpless recipient of that policy.
Hillary -- I still don't get it. (Which isn't to say that there isn't something to get.) Both exclusion of blood and exclusion of association can be imposed by parents on children. The consequences are quite different, but any issues of will and self-determination seem identical in both cases.
this case is about a british jw, on behalf of jehovah's witnesses at large, sued the watch tower bible and tract society of pennsylvania.
this case goes base to 1997, but is interesting in that the british jw man alleged 'defamation of character' against the wts.
he sued over an article appearing in the watchtower magazine.
Stephanus: Is 'privilege' the legal term, or your description?
this case is about a british jw, on behalf of jehovah's witnesses at large, sued the watch tower bible and tract society of pennsylvania.
this case goes base to 1997, but is interesting in that the british jw man alleged 'defamation of character' against the wts.
he sued over an article appearing in the watchtower magazine.
I'm not surprised he lost. For historical reasons, many things a religion does are protected just because they're a religion.
Reminds me of the legal doctrine that a legislator can say things in debate that normally would be considered slander and not be liable, because of the legal assumption that anything said in debate is political speech and therefore must be protected.
I don't think very highly of these legal doctrines, but I can see their utility in the maintenance of a free society.