Sex isn’t “dirty,” but it is usually messy.
If it isn’t, you’re not doing it right!
i bring this up because like me i sure many of the men who was kids in the wt cult got their first taste of what a nude women looked like.
it was the adolescent male sex education for most of us.
one friend i had who's dad was a elder told me they always had playboys in his house because his dad subscribed to them.
Sex isn’t “dirty,” but it is usually messy.
If it isn’t, you’re not doing it right!
october 31, 2017 to all congregations re: new visitor exhibit at bethel.
The Fall Guy: At 3 minutes in the video we're informed, "At the heart of the site [new UK Branch] will be the printery."
Only now it won't.
This organization is apparently rudderless.
More evidence for not only a lack of "divine guidance and direction" via the non-existent "Holy Spirit," but this is proof that the buffoons at the helm are clueless.
anyone who questions the governing bodys authority is labelled as an apostate and almost always they bring up the story of korah and his revolt against moses.. watchtower august 1st, 2002, the article loyally submit to godly authority paragraphs 8-15.. https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2002563.
in not so subtle hint, the gb likens themselves to moses, and those who disagree with the gb are korah.. paragraph 15 is actually quite damaging to the gb's argument though:.
it was so unnecessary for all those people to lose their lives.
Yet Jesus "questioned" the Sanhedrin and he's a hero!
i'm finding i'm getting more and more interested in debunking the bible/ christian beliefs.
looking into the evolution and history of how religion develope.
i'd like to study this further but i don't know what subject it would be classified as?.
Try In Gods We Trust by Scott Atran.
It’s an ambitious undertaking and a fairly challenging read, but it’s the most thorough scholarly and interdisciplinary examination of the question of which I am aware.
i happened to come across a time article in 2008. it was basically talking about the high turnover in american faiths.
it mentioned the jdubs and highlighted the following point.. an even more extreme example of what might be called "masked churn" is the relatively tiny jehovah's witnesses, with a turnover rate of about two-thirds.
that means that two-thirds of the people who told pew they were raised jehovah's witnesses no longer are — yet the group attracts roughly the same number of converts.
Ruby: That's a sweeping condemnation
Yes it is and I'm okay with that.
These conclusions are ones that I have come to after a combination of:
Ruby: I would argue that moral courage and integrity can take many equally valid forms
Okay. Argue away.
Ruby: An individual can be courageous even if they decide to live what you term bullshit.
A key distinction which you seemed to have missed is not that I think it's bullshit, but that the individual thinks it's bullshit and still remains captive to the cult, pretending to believe things which they don't because they are afraid. How is that courageous? Where is the moral integrity in living a lie?
Don't get me wrong. The fears are real. I know, I did it myself for six or seven years. But ultimately those fears are soul-crushing if we let them be.
I understand as well as anyone here the consequences of leaving a cult, but it's illogical and contradictory to say someone is "courageous," if they remain in one because they are afraid.
Courage is doing the right thing in spite of being afraid, not holding back because of fear and suffering in silence.
i happened to come across a time article in 2008. it was basically talking about the high turnover in american faiths.
it mentioned the jdubs and highlighted the following point.. an even more extreme example of what might be called "masked churn" is the relatively tiny jehovah's witnesses, with a turnover rate of about two-thirds.
that means that two-thirds of the people who told pew they were raised jehovah's witnesses no longer are — yet the group attracts roughly the same number of converts.
Ruby, as I mentioned to Shepherdless previously:
"I'm short on time at the moment, but I wanted to acknowledge your question. I probably won't have time for a decent response for a couple of days."
You see, I have a job and a life. I only post on here when I see topics of interest or if it fits my research and/or amuses me.
So it's kind of annoying for you to suggest that my lack of response to Shepherdless' question means I don't have sources to back up my assertion, particularly since s(he) hasn't responded to my comments.
I'll repeat them for you because I'd like your response. It would certainly help me frame an answer.
Are you familiar with the concepts of:
In the meantime, here is a link to the list of works which I have cited and/or consulted over the last few years as part of my research into the questions of: Who joins a cult? Who leaves? Who stays?
FYI: This research began as a personal project, but as I progressed, I was able to advance it to a more academic level. Recently I was able to present my findings on the topic at an international conference dealing specifically with the topic of recovery for current and former cult members. (For reasons that are hopefully obvious, I am leaving out certain details.)
Feel free to review this list of references and resources. It's quite extensive and thorough. I'm sure there's more than enough to keep you busy for a while.
While you're wading through that, Ruby, I'd ask you to reflect on your general overall tone and approach to virtually all of our interactions on this board: you are nearly always adversarial and snarky.
It's not cool.
jp
let’s say that you haven’t been around a kingdom hall in years and everyone knows you are not a “true believer “ anymore.
yet a tragedy strikes and you want to give a real heartfelt expression of your feelings— what would you say?
would you acknowledge the resurrection hope that the witnesses entertain or say something very different?.
I would take a page from the playbook of non-cult members (aka: normal people) and say, "I'm sorry for your loss!"
If we were ever close, I would offer to be available to talk.
i happened to come across a time article in 2008. it was basically talking about the high turnover in american faiths.
it mentioned the jdubs and highlighted the following point.. an even more extreme example of what might be called "masked churn" is the relatively tiny jehovah's witnesses, with a turnover rate of about two-thirds.
that means that two-thirds of the people who told pew they were raised jehovah's witnesses no longer are — yet the group attracts roughly the same number of converts.
Ruby, yes.
Although if someone knows it’s bullshit and still remains in the religion, they might not be lacking in self-awareness, but they most certainly are deficient in moral integrity and courage.
i happened to come across a time article in 2008. it was basically talking about the high turnover in american faiths.
it mentioned the jdubs and highlighted the following point.. an even more extreme example of what might be called "masked churn" is the relatively tiny jehovah's witnesses, with a turnover rate of about two-thirds.
that means that two-thirds of the people who told pew they were raised jehovah's witnesses no longer are — yet the group attracts roughly the same number of converts.
Shepherless: Could you expand on what you mean by point 1? Also, if you have any easy links to publicly available relevant scientific data, I for one would be interested to see it.
Sure, I'm short on time at the moment, but I wanted to acknowledge your question. I probably won't have time for a decent response for a couple of days.
In the interim, I've a couple of questions for you so I know what to share. Are you familiar with the concepts of:
Also, what do you mean by "street-wise"?
Thanks,
jp
i happened to come across a time article in 2008. it was basically talking about the high turnover in american faiths.
it mentioned the jdubs and highlighted the following point.. an even more extreme example of what might be called "masked churn" is the relatively tiny jehovah's witnesses, with a turnover rate of about two-thirds.
that means that two-thirds of the people who told pew they were raised jehovah's witnesses no longer are — yet the group attracts roughly the same number of converts.
Thank you LongHairGal.
The implication of my post is that people that stay in this religion are:
I have abundant scientific data to back this up. So if anyone doubts this, bring it on. Show me your evidence to refute my claims.
BTW, again note that intelligence is NOT a reliable predictor or who will or will not join a cult.