Viviane, I would agree that Rand was not the most polished or eloquent writer.
Are you familiar with Lois Lowry's book, The Giver? Although it's written at a lower level and with better story structure and style, It's clearly derivative.
for those of you familiar with ayn rand and her ideas on morality, rationality and reason, what is your opinion of those ideas?.
i'm talking about her actual ideas, not the ideals that libertarianism has adopted and, in some cases, perverted.
do you think she's a charlatan?
Viviane, I would agree that Rand was not the most polished or eloquent writer.
Are you familiar with Lois Lowry's book, The Giver? Although it's written at a lower level and with better story structure and style, It's clearly derivative.
i found this statement from a recent article about isis to be quite interesting in view of the way that any jw can be accused of apostasy with little or no possible repercussions or consequences for the accuser: .
in islam, the practice of takfir, or excommunication, is theologically perilous.
if a man says to his brother, you are an infidel, the prophet said, then one of them is right.
Perhaps I didn't set up the OP correctly. I was trying to focus on the fact per this Islamic principal there are consequences for false and even baseless accusations of apostasy.
i found this statement from a recent article about isis to be quite interesting in view of the way that any jw can be accused of apostasy with little or no possible repercussions or consequences for the accuser: .
in islam, the practice of takfir, or excommunication, is theologically perilous.
if a man says to his brother, you are an infidel, the prophet said, then one of them is right.
VI: I was told that in my judicial committee. Specifically, "If you were in Israel you would be stoned."
Me too.
I told the elder in response, "Well then, I guess it's a good thing for me that we're Christians!"
for those of you familiar with ayn rand and her ideas on morality, rationality and reason, what is your opinion of those ideas?.
i'm talking about her actual ideas, not the ideals that libertarianism has adopted and, in some cases, perverted.
do you think she's a charlatan?
Faye: One can enjoy reading an author without agreeing with all of their ideologies.
Amen to that!
i stumbled upon some articles in psychology today written by joe navarro, an ex-fbi counterintelligence agent.. this one talks about predators as priests or clergy as well as in other organizations and why they are attracted to it .... https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/spycatcher/201404/why-predators-are-attracted-careers-in-the-clergy.
this article talks about identifying dangerous cult leaders ... how many characteristics do you see in some of the gb leaders past and present?.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/spycatcher/201208/dangerous-cult-leaders.
WBF, I read with great interest the second article, Dangerous Traits of Cult Leaders, by Joe Navarro M.A.
Navarro's concluding comment is very telling:
When a cult or organizational leader has a preponderance of these traits then we can anticipate that at some point those who associate with him will likely suffer physically, emotionally, psychologically, or financially. If these traits sound familiar to leaders, groups, sects, or organizations known to you then expect those who associate with them to live in despair and to suffer even if they don’t know it, yet.
I would say that at least 48 of his list of 50 apply to the GB members individually and collectively. (It might be 50 for 50, but I have no knowledge concerning items #9 or 10).
Let's review: It's a cult!
i found this statement from a recent article about isis to be quite interesting in view of the way that any jw can be accused of apostasy with little or no possible repercussions or consequences for the accuser: .
in islam, the practice of takfir, or excommunication, is theologically perilous.
if a man says to his brother, you are an infidel, the prophet said, then one of them is right.
I found this statement from a recent article about ISIS to be quite interesting in view of the way that any JW can be accused of apostasy with little or no possible repercussions or consequences for the accuser:
In Islam, the practice of takfir, or excommunication, is theologically perilous. “If a man says to his brother, ‘You are an infidel,’ ” the Prophet said, “then one of them is right.” If the accuser is wrong, he himself has committed apostasy by making a false accusation. The punishment for apostasy is death.
Imagine if JWs had THIS policy in place? It would make a lot of elders think twice before accusing or even insinuating that a person was guilty of apostasy.
just to continue my theme about religious freedom and how we approach criticizing the wts, i've also been thinking about 'shunning'.. i think shunning is the most unifying complaint that most ex-members of religious groups that practice it have in common.
it is the layer that runs under every other complaint - whatever the reason for leaving it seems "... and i was shunned" can be added to it as the final rap on the charge sheet.. of course it seems like a no-brainer to many of us and we hardly ever stop to really think about it - shunning is bad, the watchtower believes in shunning therefore the watchtower is bad.
they need to stop it.
BTW, who are the "we" in the thread title?
just to continue my theme about religious freedom and how we approach criticizing the wts, i've also been thinking about 'shunning'.. i think shunning is the most unifying complaint that most ex-members of religious groups that practice it have in common.
it is the layer that runs under every other complaint - whatever the reason for leaving it seems "... and i was shunned" can be added to it as the final rap on the charge sheet.. of course it seems like a no-brainer to many of us and we hardly ever stop to really think about it - shunning is bad, the watchtower believes in shunning therefore the watchtower is bad.
they need to stop it.
R&R: I believe any religion has a right to throw you out of church for bad conduct. They own the building and have the right to not allow any member who's conduct is unbecoming of the congregation.
Agreed!
R&R: They don't have any rights out in the streets, funeral homes,hospitals,wedding banquet halls and any other meeting place. The only reason they shun members is to scare the rest of the members (that you will be in the same predicament if you do the same).
Exactly!
Ultimately, with cults such as JWs, the practice of institutionalized shunning is really about control, not morals.
check this out.
got this bound volume from my dad.. .
just to continue my theme about religious freedom and how we approach criticizing the wts, i've also been thinking about 'shunning'.. i think shunning is the most unifying complaint that most ex-members of religious groups that practice it have in common.
it is the layer that runs under every other complaint - whatever the reason for leaving it seems "... and i was shunned" can be added to it as the final rap on the charge sheet.. of course it seems like a no-brainer to many of us and we hardly ever stop to really think about it - shunning is bad, the watchtower believes in shunning therefore the watchtower is bad.
they need to stop it.
Yes, I believe institutionalized shunning is wrong.
It demands absolute compliance of all individuals in the group in that they must blindly and without question accept the decision of the leaders, usually without even knowing why.
It obviates free choice. It destroys relationships and ruins families. It is wrong.