Posts by Introspection

67

God's image

by Rex B13 in

jw
friends

we are made in god's image and he is a person, not just some invisible, omnipresent force.

here is some more research for those who love to ask questions yet won't do the digging.. the bible consistently portrays god as a passionate individual, whose inner experiences of love, compassion, grief, delight, joy, peace, anguish, and moral outrage at atrocity dwarf ours in the extreme.

the bible makes no apology for this, but rather exults in the living one, in contrast to the dead and lifeless idols that surrounded its writers.. one scholar put it thus:.

Introspection

Well, that's fine, just make sure you don't confuse the order - it's supposed to be that man is made in God's image, not the other way around. One problem is how you understand God as a person. All the other persons you know are humans, so isn't that really the basis for people's understanding of what a person is? Is it possible that it is simply a human need to understand God as a person rather it being in fact the true nature of God? That would be a "personal need" wouldn't it?

29

My Encounter with a Witness

by Unclepenn1 in

jw
friends

well, the other night i had invited a young man to my house to share with him, respectfully, the false prophecies of the wt, using older wt books.

the conversation started very nicely, with the usual small talk and such.

i decided to ask some questions, that i knew the answers to, but just wanted to get the gears in his head turning.

Introspection

Hi Unclepenn,

Well atleast you tried, which is something I haven't done yet. Of course, fortunately I have no family members or anyone really close in the organization, but one guy I used to live with is moving away so I want to sit down and have a little talk with him before he goes.

I posted a message in the quotes thread under Mental Health that says a good rule of thumb is people won't change their views more than 5% at any one time. Well, in the case of JWs that might be 1% or less. I think with some people, like in the case of my friend who's moving it's quite possible for me to destroy his faith in WTS doctrine, but that's not what I want to leave him with. Maybe this is where our goals differ a bit, because I would not recommend a specific path for him, but each individual does have a responsibility to examine their own beliefs. It's understandable that this would be hard when you've never done it before, or if you're just hanging on to your beliefs despite sound reasons against it. For these reasons, it seems to me there's no quick and simple answers in reasoning with witnesses.

26

This is VERY weird

by Mulan in

jw
friends

i have a friend in malaysia, who is a muslim, and she has been sending me lots of things since the wtc attack.

most are theories she is hearing in that predominantly muslim nation, about zionists, and american conspiracies agains islam.

this morning she sent me a very weird thing.. the flight number for one of the flights that hit the towers, was q33.

Introspection

.

26

This is VERY weird

by Mulan in

jw
friends

i have a friend in malaysia, who is a muslim, and she has been sending me lots of things since the wtc attack.

most are theories she is hearing in that predominantly muslim nation, about zionists, and american conspiracies agains islam.

this morning she sent me a very weird thing.. the flight number for one of the flights that hit the towers, was q33.

Introspection

Has anyone seen "Kevin Bacon" anywhere?

5

WTC AND THE GOD OF LOVE

by Daveboy in

jw
friends

an 18 year old boy here....witnessed with horror as the plane crashed into the wtc.......also a disfellowshipped jw.. why?

is there really a god of love up there, watching it happen and do nothing about it?

who among us, if we saw the plane crashing into the tower and have the power to stop it would not do so?

Introspection

Sorry to hear about your girlfriend Dave. One might wonder if there is any order out there, or if it's really just a bunch of people doing their own thing and not giving any thoughts to the impact on other people..

6

Martial arts as a metaphor for verbal conflicts

by Introspection in

let me know what you guys think of this.. if there isn't much response maybe i'll type a little less, don't want to be boring everyone if it's not of interest.... well, i was thinking about how arguments happen online on this board and elsewhere, and it occurred to me it has some things in common with some basic martial arts principles.. first of all, something very basic that nobody seems to think about is that you need to see what your opponent is doing.

it seems that often people get upset and are more likely to be focused on that feeling, rather than how they will respond to the other person's argument or actions.

(of course, a calm and collected fight probably doesn't make a good movie) in verbal arguments, this can take various forms.

Introspection

Let me know what you guys think of this.. If there isn't much response maybe I'll type a little less, don't want to be boring everyone if it's not of interest...

Well, I was thinking about how arguments happen online on this board and elsewhere, and it occurred to me it has some things in common with some basic martial arts principles.. First of all, something very basic that nobody seems to think about is that you need to see what your opponent is doing. It seems that often people get upset and are more likely to be focused on that feeling, rather than how they will respond to the other person's argument or actions. (of course, a calm and collected fight probably doesn't make a good movie) In verbal arguments, this can take various forms. Look at it this way: when the same arguments are re-hashed from the two sides over and over again, it becomes old. If you were watching a movie where two guys are using the same moves over and over, would it be interesting to you? Besides, it doesn't get anywhere.

Here's another scenario.. Sometimes people use arguments which are irrelevant, it may sound very good and could be very logical, but it may not address the points the other person is making. Well, it seems to me if you had this in a martial arts film it would be like someone showing off his form without laying a hand on the other guy, I mean it may be nice techniques but you're not responding to anything the other person is doing. I'm sure you'd agree that would be rather silly.

A lot of schools of martial arts have sensitivity training. Wing chun, which is the style Bruce Lee was trained in has it, and Tai Chi which I do also has it in the form of push hands. They talk about sticking and listening energy in push hands, which is really pretty simple: by sticking and maintaining contact with your opponent and "listening" to their moves, you learn to feel what your opponent is doing and respond accordingly in real time rather than just getting caught up in what you're going to do.

Now when it comes to talking or verbal communication, listening is certainly something you actually do, literally, when you talk or communicate with someone. But is it in practice? It seems like sometimes you see people argue, they don't really hear the points the other person is making, so they just go on with their own stuff - not unlike showing off your moves and not actually engaging in a fight. And then there are those occasions when people go over the same basic ideas over and over, not unlike little kids who fight with the same mechanical moves, the standard left-right punches, or maybe like the kid who just got out of Karate class kicking the doors at the mall. (the door is inanimate of course, but it does swing back)

So looking at it that way, it seems rather comical to me. But of course people get hurt, both emotionally and physically. I think another similarity here is where flexibility comes in, as well as rooting. In martial arts, you want to have a low center of gravity and be rooted so you can use your weight in your favor, rather than throwing the four limbs about wildly in a fit of frenzy. You also want to be flexible and supple, that allows you to redirect the opponent's energy - otherwise you're using force against force. In a way a verbal conflict is similar, because your arguments should have some kind of solid foundation, and at the same time you want to be flexible instead of being rigid and stiffen up because that's tough, that's strength.. That may be true, but it may not get you anywhere, especially if you have no real foundation to rely on, and eventually you might end up hurting yourself by holding to such a rigid stance.

14

bump in the night

by finnrot in

jw
friends

as i read this board i notice that there are a lot of people that like myself don't believe in god anymore, and when i run accross a post where someone is professing their belief in god, that i have nothing but utter distain for them, almost like they don't belong here.

for a newbie that's kind of a ridiculous position i guess.

as i was growing it was constantly shoved down my throat that every other belief system was contlolled by the devil and run by his little demons, so after 1975 came and went and i realized that the one true religion was full of crap also, that left me with only reality to grasp, and that's, you live you die and the the worms eat you.

Introspection

Hi Finnrot,

It's like when I hear people say that their not religious but their very spiritual, to me that's a cop out, you're either in or your out. I guess they feel if they say they're spiritual that if there is a God they're hedging their bets and they'll get in heaven on a technicality.

Actually, when I hear people say that I tend to think what that really means is people will believe in whatever they want, rather than a traditional religious system - a sort of a la carte style. I don't think your conclusion necessarily follows though, because not all religions even maintains a belief in God, especially a personal God separate from oneself. It seems to me what most people mean by not believing in God anymore is really that they no longer believe in that particular idea of God, which is of course a very popular one. But the fact is, for some other people their idea behind the word is a very different one. If we're dealing with the actual idea behind those words then meaningful communication is possible.

20

Patriotism?

by proplog2 in

jw
friends

i was raised a jw and during the 1950's i experienced the ugly side of flag worship.

date: 1960. place: midwestern industrial city.. scene: school gymnasium/auditorium.

2,000 students assembled to recognize the foreign exchange students.

Introspection

Prop, I can appreciate where you're coming from. But really, are you going to avoid entering public buildings which has a flag as well? What if they had a flag where you worked?

Interestingly, I know many people out there - particularly non-caucasians of all nationalities - have flags displayed now. The reason isn't because they're particularly patriotic, even though some of them do intend to show support. For the rest of them, the reason is simply the fact that they're not white. Essentially, they're afraid of the mindless mobs out there who might discriminate against them.

Now having said that, I will also say that I don't think it's all about race, but frankly it's a matter of unstable minds. I'm sure some angry punks (of all ages) will turn on people of their own race regardless of what that might be. Terrorist acts happen here and there, but I do feel that people with the potential to act irrationally are all around me. I am more alert to these than I am to terrorist acts. These could very well include potential terrorists, but overall I think they would be in the minority. This is why I am carrying around a metal flashlight (mag-light) simply because it's a heavy blunt object, and going to martial arts class again. It is my belief that the need for self-defense has increased over the last couple of weeks.

151

Intro's quote-o-rama

by Introspection in

i guess i've been inspired by stephen's quote threads, so i'm going to start one myself.. not one particular author here, just whatever i can find:.

q: why do you think that people are so protective of their egos?

why is it so hard to let go of one's ego?.

Introspection

Intro's quote-o-rama

by Introspection in

i guess i've been inspired by stephen's quote threads, so i'm going to start one myself.. not one particular author here, just whatever i can find:.

q: why do you think that people are so protective of their egos?

why is it so hard to let go of one's ego?.

Introspection

Of all the messages I've posted recently, I have the most doubts whether this will be timely.. But of course given the contents, maybe it's appropriate. Perhaps I should take more of a direct approach in talking to JWs for that matter... Less beating around the bush to avoid bruised egos eh?

A Ken Wilber Seminar at Naropa Institute, taken from the book One Taste:

Student: I was discussing an integral view with some other students, and they said that because I was making judgments I was showing a real lack of compassion. I didn't think I was.
KW: Yes, there is probably more confusion about this issue than any other in spiritual circles. Basically, most of the trouble comes from confusing compassion with idiot compassion, which are the terms Trungpa Rinpoche used for this crucial distinction. We in this country--and especially in new-age circles--have a type of tepid egalitarianism and political correctness that says no view is really any better than another, and therefore all views are to be cherished equally, as a sign of rich diversity. If we don't make any judgments about better or worse, then we are showing real compassion. So we have judgmental versus compassionate, and that is the common understanding.
But, you see, that stance is a massive self-contradiction. On the one hand, it says that all views are equally part of a rich diversity, and thus no view is better than another. On the other hand, it strongly claims that this view itself is better than the alternatives. So this "compassion" states that no view is better than another, except its own view, which is superior in a world where nothing is supposed to be superior at all. It is a ranking that denies ranking and a judgment that all judgments are bad. So, although it is often truly well-intentioned, it's nonetheless a type of hypocrisy, because it is strongly doing that which it condemns in everybody else.
That hypocrisy has nothing to do with real compassion; in fact, that is idiot compassion. Idiot compassion thinks it is being kind, but it's really being very cruel. If you have an alcoholic friend and you know that one more drink might kill him, and yet he begs you for a drink, does real compassion say that you should give it to him? After all, to be kind you should give him what he wants, right? Who are you to impose your views on him, right? Giving him the drink would therefore show compassion, yes? No. Absolutely not.
Real compassion includes wisdom and so it makes judgments of care and concern: it says some things are good, and some things are bad, and I will choose to act only on those things that are informed by wisdom and care. Giving a severe alcoholic a case of whiskey because he wants it and you want to be "kind" is not being kind at all. It is showing idiot compassion, not real compassion.
Zen calls this the difference between "grandmother Zen" and "real Zen." In order to awaken from the dream of samsara, the ego itself must be really kicked around, often severely. Otherwise you will simple continue to play your favorite games. Grandmother Zen doesn't challenge you. In order to be "kind," grandmother Zen will let you sleep a little late if you want, and stop meditating early if you don't like how it's going, and allow you to wallow in you. But real Zen uses a very big stick, and lots of loud yelling, and there are occasionally broken bones and certainly shattered egos. Real compassion kicks butt and takes names, and it is not pleasant on certain days. If you are not ready for this fire, then find a new-age, sweetness-and-light, soft-speaking, perpetually smiling teacher, and learn to relabel your ego with spiritual-sounding terms. But stay away from those who practice real compassion, because they will fry your ass, my friend. What most people mean by "compassion" is: please be nice to my ego. Well, your ego is your own worst enemy, and anybody being nice to it is not being compassionate to you.
Now maybe you and I aren't accomplished masters, and so maybe we don't always know what is real compassion and what is not. But we must start to try to learn to exercise real compassion instead of idiot compassion. We need to learn to make qualitative distinctions. These are hierarchical judgments that involve the ranking of values. If you don't like hierarchy, well, fine, that is your hierarchy: you hierarchically value nonhierarchies more than you value hierarchies. That's fine with me, just be honest enough to correctly label what you are really doing. If you don't like value rankings and want to avoid them, then fine, that is your value ranking--you rank nonranking as better than ranking--and that itself is aranking, your ranking. At least be honest about this. The fact is, ranking is unavoidable in values, so at least do it consciously, honestly, and above board, and stop this hypocritical stance that you are being "nonjudgmental," which itself is a colossal judgment.