Thanks very much for such a kind response! I agree with everything you said in that message. :)
Posts by Seeker
-
19Should the goverments act?
by PerFect inhi all,.
since the courtcases in moscow and france are on the wall, what are your thoughts on this.. should authorities act by making laws against destructiv sects?.
what kind of laws, and what criteria should identify a destructiv sect?.
-
-
-
90
WHY ALAN FRAUDBACKER IS DOOMED!
by You Know infor some reason i can't post on the original topic about the fds on why the watchtower is doomed thread.
so i just started a new post.
as regards af's long-winded post on that thread, it is obvious to me that you don't know what you are talking about, and that you are merely trying to obfuscate the issue with this enormously long post.
-
-
Seeker
In the parable the slave is PUT IN CHARGE. In fact he is APPOINTED to a specific duty. That simply doesn't apply to all Christians. You are very much mistaken.
No, I'm not mistaken, for it is just a parable, like all the other parables Jesus taught. You are not running around looking for literal pearls, are you? What if Jesus had told the parable this way: that a slave was digging a ditch, and he did such a fine job, his master had him tend the master's private garden as a reward? Would you apply this to digging for spiritual food, and that this refers to a class of spiritual diggers who provide a garden of bountiful goodness?
If you are going to read into the parable a greater fulfillment, you have to provide some evidence that this is what Jesus meant. You are doing the same thing householders do at the door to JWs when JWs ask them to read a scripture that disproves the trinity. When the householder is done, the JW asks what it says. The householder responds, "Well, it says such-and-so, but what it means is this." And the JW responds back, "Yes, but what does it say?"
You are saying, "I know it's a parable, but this particular parable really means this," without giving evidence to back this claim, the same way the householder tried to do it.
-
19
Should the goverments act?
by PerFect inhi all,.
since the courtcases in moscow and france are on the wall, what are your thoughts on this.. should authorities act by making laws against destructiv sects?.
what kind of laws, and what criteria should identify a destructiv sect?.
-
-
Seeker
I can understand your frustration with me, for I've not defended my statement. It's not like me to do that, but that's because I wasn't trying to prove something, but merely explaining why I felt a certain way as a side thought.
As for what you are saying, it's clear that we don't see eye-to-eye on this subject, for I do not necessarily agree with all that you say. However, this is not a subject I am willing to publicly discuss, and I will not do so.
Despite our disagreement, I hope you will understand that absolutely nothing has happened to me, I am doing fine (in fact, I'm doing very well), my mood is as it ever was, and this particular belief that I hold is one that I have held for years, and not something I've only just recently come to. It's just never come up before here, so you've never seen this side of me.
I will ask you to trust my past reputation that I have applied my usual scrutiny to this issue, and done my usual critical thinking, even if I'm not willing to provide evidence here. I'm still me, this has always been me, and nothing has changed.
Thanks for caring, though. And you are right to call me on it, even if I'm not willing to get into detail.
-
76
I attended the meeting tonight.....
by silentlambs ini went to the meeting tonight to check out things in the local congregation.
this spiritual paradise is showing a few cracks.
when i arrived about ten minutes before the meeting started, i felt like a ghost.
-
-
Seeker
I understand where joel is coming from.
What sl did in relation to what he experienced is so very very minor.
Of course it is, and we all recognize this, and applaud SL's actions overall. But we also know that opposers get no leeway whatsoever from JW's or the WTS. 999 good things get wiped out by one bad thing, to which they will point gleefully, "See! See, told you he was no good!" Chidish, yes, but that is the reality. We see this over and over in online discussions with JWs. You present a hundred facts and they shut their minds down because you made one typo.As joel said, those in an advocate position have to be very careful how they act. That is the purpose of public relations, after all, to be very careful that the group or organization always puts their best foot forward.
So just as SL is acknowledged to be imperfect and to have personal feelings, and to have been grossly mistreated last night, it is also valid to point out a small mistake that could be used against him. No, it's no crime what he did by any means, but the JWs in his Hall could turn it into a crime of the heart just like that. So when a friendly reminder is given to SL, he being an imperfect man trying to do the right thing, can acknowledge that yes, next time it might be better not to burn rubber out of the parking lot. Why give the JWs any excuse, no matter how lame, to turn attention from the real issue at hand: protecting the innocent children.
From what I read of joel's post, this is the point I think he was making. I think it is a valid point, too. What are friends for, after all, if not to give friendly reminders?
-
19
Should the goverments act?
by PerFect inhi all,.
since the courtcases in moscow and france are on the wall, what are your thoughts on this.. should authorities act by making laws against destructiv sects?.
what kind of laws, and what criteria should identify a destructiv sect?.
-
-
Seeker
Quit watching the CBS evening news with "Captain Dan the News Man "Rather or one of his useless side kicks and do what you and others on this board have taught me - critically read and think something through.
I don't watch TV news. I get my news from a number of sources, from different points of view, and then I think about it critically and make up my own mind.
And I stand by what I said, though the examples I have in mind are on a more subtle level than the examples (all valid) that you gave. Yes, checks and balances have worked for many years in this country. And yes I believe that this balance is being eroded, and I have evidence that makes me think this. And no, I'm not willing to get into a discussion of this here, for a number of reasons. I'm sorry. We'll agree to disagree on this point.
No, I'm not getting paranoid like You Know. When I think of examples, I am also thinking of court cases, but recent ones. I'm not depending on some gloomy Web site prophet to guide my thinking the way You Know is. But what I've learned over the past few years of critical thinking is that most people aren't even aware of some of the more subtle trends at work. Sooner or later they will wake up and see what has happened, and I hope that they will have the strength to rise up and restore those checks and balances (in fact, I suspect it will happen, so you see I'm not a prophet of doom or anything).
But critical thinking has led me to this observation, and I will choose to stand by it for now. And I repeat, I do not wish the government to make value judgments on my behalf.
-
19
Should the goverments act?
by PerFect inhi all,.
since the courtcases in moscow and france are on the wall, what are your thoughts on this.. should authorities act by making laws against destructiv sects?.
what kind of laws, and what criteria should identify a destructiv sect?.
-
-
Seeker
hawkaw,
Good reminders. As I said, I don't have a problem with what France is doing, but I would rather that groups not be banned outright.
As for checks and balances, it's a good reminder, but I no longer believe in them. Oh, not that it's not a good idea, for it truly is. But that these checks are rapidly being thrown to the wayside as citizens bleat to their governments, "Protect us from ourselves!" Governments, being governments, are only too willing to comply, and with it goes down the constitutional protections we depend upon.
In other words, I'd rather put up one big check against the government now, rather than trust they will do the right thing after they try to control one group or another.
-
84
Bonsai Kitty
by suzi mayhem inok.. i know i've been a bit of a buster in the past, but this is for real.
there is a site out there, and apparently a demand, for modified housepets.
in a nutshell, what these ahem... [people] do is take a kitten, sedate it, insert the poor thing into a glass bottle with air holes drilled into it, and run tubes into it to feed it, and tubes into it to take care of everything else.
-
-
Seeker
Seeker, I disagree that simply because no one has actually made a Bonsai Kitten it is okay to joke about it. Animal cruelty exists regardless.
It's fine to disagree, that's the nature of art and humor. But we do disagree, so those of us who hate cruelty to animals but also find that site humorous (not because of cruelty, but because of the way the parody is written) can continue to enjoy such humor. Those of you who hate cruelty to animals and find that site not funny at all can ignore it.
With your line of reasoning it would be okay to joke about how to slowly dismember me so as to derive the most benefit from my organs simply because it hasn't been done yet. It wouldn't find it funny, not one bit, no matter what the tone may be.
I wouldn't find it funny one bit either, for it would be addressing you specifically, and that's wrong. However, that exact scenario, done in the abstract, was presented for laughs in Monty Python's The Meaning of Life, and it was a very funny scene. Maybe not to you, but to those of us who saw the absurdity of this sketch and how it commented on current trends found it funny.
Maybe it's because I'm such a gentle person that I don't mind humor based on absurd cruelty that has never actually happened, simply because it is so opposite of the kind of person I am. Much humor is based on this dichotomy. Hard to explain, except that's how art and humor can be. You either like it or you don't.
-
90
WHY ALAN FRAUDBACKER IS DOOMED!
by You Know infor some reason i can't post on the original topic about the fds on why the watchtower is doomed thread.
so i just started a new post.
as regards af's long-winded post on that thread, it is obvious to me that you don't know what you are talking about, and that you are merely trying to obfuscate the issue with this enormously long post.
-
-
Seeker
Of course it's a parable. But, contrary to your implied claims that all Christians are given responsibility to feed God's household, the lesson of this particular parable applies only to the slave that is put in charge over the domestics. James later wrote that not many should be teachers among God's family because they shall receive a heavier judgment. So unless you can explain how it is that each individual Christian supposedly receives an appointment over God's household to teach them God's word.
It was a parable about a slave, and how he proves either faithful or not and what the reward would be for faithfulness. Such a slave would be put in charge over the domestics to feed them physical food (in the parable). The parable doesn't say anything about teaching the domestics, just feeding them. The WTS tries to turn this into a spiritual feeding, but the parable says nothing of the kind. Therefore, tying it into what James said about teachers is going beyond what is actually written.
Unless you can show that the parable actually meant spiritual food, your point doesn't follow.
-
19
Should the goverments act?
by PerFect inhi all,.
since the courtcases in moscow and france are on the wall, what are your thoughts on this.. should authorities act by making laws against destructiv sects?.
what kind of laws, and what criteria should identify a destructiv sect?.
-
-
Seeker
I do understand you, PerFect, just fine. I know what you mean. It's like the way the U.S. government will step in to protect the children of Christian Scientists who want to pray over their kids to cure them of a serious health problem. Or taking a JW child and getting a court ordered transfusion.
I can't actually find fault with this, to be honest, for there comes a point where a line is crossed. Do you respect the right of someone to choose a religous belief? Yes, but what if that belief causes harm to others? Then you have a dilemma.
I don't have an answer. My original post was merely an expression of my general discomfort at having the government making decisions for us, instead of having us decide for ourselves. But as you point out, there are times when beliefs go too far and something must be done then.
But the more general question, should JWs be banned in a country, is one that I am against. Let people decide for themselves, with full information given so they can make an informed decision. Yes, there will always be people who can't think clearly for themselves and will fall victim to all sorts of frauds in their life. But I don't think having them be babysat by the government is the answer. Some people will make bad choices in life, and that's going to happen no matter how closely you watch them.
-
19
Should the goverments act?
by PerFect inhi all,.
since the courtcases in moscow and france are on the wall, what are your thoughts on this.. should authorities act by making laws against destructiv sects?.
what kind of laws, and what criteria should identify a destructiv sect?.
-
-
Seeker
I'll take the contrarian stance, once again, and state that I am against most government actions taken against the WTS. I'm not so sure about tax issues, however. That might be fine, so in France I have less objection than I do to Russia's actions. Let me explain why:
I'm all for educating people about the dangers of the WTS. Education is good. I'm not in favor of governments telling citizens which groups are acceptable and which ones are not. As it happens, I agree with them this time when they look down on the WTS. But where does this lead? Which group, or idealogy, will be condemned next? I'm not confortable with the government legislating morality to this extent. Telling me what the proper way to think is. That can lead to groupthink, and I fear that.
Educate people, warn people, let everyone have a basis for understanding the dangers involved. But let it be an indvidual's decision ultimately. Don't depend on the government to tell you right from wrong, for that way lies danger.