Let me explain what I mean by negative respect. Negative respect, for me, means that one shows respect by means of privative honor. When one negatively respects someone else, one shows negative respect by not doing or saying anything harmful to the one toward whom negative respect is directed. Now do you understand?
Ok, so the "say nothing if you don't have something positive to say" rule... I can live with that... but other's do not have to... that is what "freedom of expression" is all about.
Is that what the ageist comments in this place are about? To lighten the mood?In general yes. No one (or atleast not me) is at all concerned with the physical abilities of the GB. We are concerned with their mental faculties, however. By using these physical traits to describe them, it helps paint a picture of just how the poster sees them.
No hypocrisy at all. One can positively respect the flag without putting one's hand over one's heart. This act would not be hypocritical. Neither would respecting Hitler as leader while disobeying him be hypocritical. We must obey God as Ruler rather than men (Acts 5:29).Hypocrisy is defined as "saying one thing while believing another", so yes, that is hypocrisy to "respect the leader" while "disobeying his leadership". You can re-define it any way you want, you can justify it any way you want, but it is still hypocrisy.
Beyond all of that, you are mixing up the messages.
I would think that you would agree that the term "elder" is very loaded in this context, since it also denotes a position within the congregation.
So, to say "respect your elders" has two different and distinct meanings.
Which one of them are you reffering to?