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?
She started what is, interesting, a non-religious cult.
Of course a group need not be religious to be a cult.
But I was thinking how ironic it is in this case. The very idea of there being a leader with followers is antithetical to Rand's philosophy of individualism.
I guess it just proves that some people can't help their narcissistic bent and others can't help but adore them.
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?
Terry, those are some great quotes. Thanks for sharing them!
i recently heard a story from a jw about stupid scientists.
there was an awake article about archeaologist who found an ancient piece of art.
it was sent to a university for dating.
Finkelstein, thanks for posting those resources!
I do however, have to disagree with this one statement of yours:
It should be accepted that since most JWs are not well educated on certain matters
The reality is, most JWs are not well educated on anything!
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.
Miss Fit, your sister, Little L, is certainly one "L" of a girl!
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.
violas: Well Oub, I do know that if you accuse your brother wrongly there are consequences. That is slander ...
In my experience this is NOT true if the one making the accusation is an elder.
i don't know if y'all have this yet or not.
i'm still having issues with this new site and i am unable to post photos & files, so here is the link to the pdf file.
2011 child safeguarding policy: https://www.dropbox.com/s/hpac00sfjoqyg8l/2011%20child%20safeguarding%20policy.pdf?dl=0.
my elder brother made the mistake of telling me about the wts policy of theocratic warfare.
he first called it 'lying for the truth' then he tried to tone it down to theocratic warfare.
he justifies this position by citing the scriptures that say do not throw pearls to the swine for they will trample them under foot and tear you to pieces.. my question is .
From Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 2, 244-245:
LIE - "Lying generally involves saying something false to a person who is entitled to know the truth and doing so with the intent to deceive or to injure him or another person."
So if the other person is not "entitled to know the truth" then not only do you NOT have to tell the truth, but you can say anything you want.
It's their major "loophole."
The WTBTS has a long history of using this legalistic ploy to justify any number of dishonest activities and claim it is part of serving Jehovah.
They make the Pharisees of the Bible look like amateurs.
Let's review: It's a cult!
one of the elders was missing his service bag and suspected that one of the publishers stole it.
he was determined to root out who did it so he decided to give a local needs part on the ten commandments focusing on you must not steal.. he enlisted the help of a trusted ministerial servant and got him to stand at the back of the kingdom hall during the part.
he told the ms that he would read off the ten commandments and when he got to the one "you must not steal" he would pause longer than usual and see if anyone acted nervous or suspicious.
i recently heard a story from a jw about stupid scientists.
there was an awake article about archeaologist who found an ancient piece of art.
it was sent to a university for dating.
Here is a blurb from the Georgia State University Department of Physics and Astronomy:
Carbon dating is a variety of radioactive dating which is applicable only to matter which was once living and presumed to be in equilibrium with the atmosphere, taking in carbon dioxide from the air for photosynthesis.
So unless an "ancient piece of art" was once alive, no archaeologist would try to date it with this method.
This sounds like another JW legend right up there with talking Smurfs.
Remember: What passes for "science" in JW-land is pretty much not. Whaddya expect from a bunch of uneducated yahoos talking about things they don't understand?
Click here for an overview of radioactive dating methods.
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?
I came across this interesting short bio on Ayn on the New York Magazine website.
It's a review of the book, Ayn Rand and the World She Made, by Anne Heller.
It contained, among other things, this rather odd quote:
“Tell me what a man finds sexually attractive,” Rand wrote, “and I will tell you his entire philosophy of life.”
The reviewer made this comment:
Rand tends to inspire either religious-grade conversion or wild denunciation, and over the last 40 years a good-size library of violently partisan books has emerged: inside accounts from worshippers, detractors, worshippers turned detractors, detractors turned worshippers. A truly neutral biography seems impossible.
