Greetings!
This one is shorter than usual (!), since it makes a simple point, based on Jesus' example found in John 8:
http://awgue.weebly.com/would-jesus-shun.html
Thanks for reading, and as usual, please leave comments/corrections here.
Adam
Posts by adamah
-
27New blog post: Would Jesus Shun?
by adamah inthis one is shorter than usual (!
), since it makes a simple point, based on jesus' example found in john 8:.
http://awgue.weebly.com/would-jesus-shun.html.
-
-
-
165
Board of bitterness
by 1009 ini always was a critical jw, now df and agnost.
but still this religion fascinates me.
in my eyes most jw are very sincere, but dumb sheep.. this board is filled with ex-jw.
-
-
adamah
Rebel said-
Some do exactly that, I'm sure.
But not all of us. I've repeatedly posted over the years that all adults are responsible for their own actions. That includes people who brainwashed or misled others. They are responsible for their acts.
Yeah, I guess that's my broader point: we need to be careful when painting a large group of diverse people who MAY share certain traits with overly-broad brush-strokes, since people are individuals, and it's easy to fall into the trap of stereotyping (attributing a characteristic to ALL members of a group, whether JWs or ex-JWs).
Those who wake up to find TTATT typically ARE experiencing SOME sense of loss, whether it's a loss of belief in God, their sense of prestige/power/control (esp elders), their family relationships, their support/social network, etc. Hence they're going to experience the classic stages of grief (denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance) and often will cycle between stages, the depths of which will likely depend on how emotionally-invested they were in the belief, in the first place, eg someone who's got a strong ego (i.e. someone who has a strong sense of their self-worth and confidence in their decision-making capabilities) will likely rebound quicker than someone who is emotionally-dependent on others (i.e. seen as needy, clingy; those who are dealing with trauma/emotional and/or physical abuse/neglect issues).
Of course, a literalist religion like the JWs is hell-bent on breaking the will of the individual (just like the military strips down recruits in boot camp) and the Old Testament is TOXIC to one's ego, since it's permeated with the diatribes against the sins of man's haughtiness and the foolish pride of men, the need to rely on God for direction of one's own footsteps, etc. Those who didn't take all of that as seriously likely will rebound quicker than someone who actually "believed" and accepted it without question. And to some with mental/psychological issues (like OCD, bipolar, schizophrenia) will likely be deeply effected by the horror-filled imagery of the Bible, which seems all too real to them; inviting readers to "enter the story" is absolutely psycholoigcal abuse to them, and the JW famously cuts them loose to deal with the addition burden of shunning, and you'd better believe some end up commiting suicide after receiving untrained "counseling" that's dispensed by plumbers and window washers.
Adam
-
14
Personality Disorders Attracted to JWism
by skeeter1 inare there personality disorders that find the watchtower an appealing fit?
i have read it before that people with personality issues are attracted to extreme religions, and that extreme religions can make a "normal" person mentallly ill. .
to start off with, i was reading about obsessive-compulsive disorders and this "profile" seemed like the "normal" jws i know:.
-
-
adamah
skeeter, interesting thread.
I agree: some personality types are a better fit than others for JWs, and it's a bit like Goldilocks porridge: not too much, not too little, but just right. The JW message is such that individuals will select the group, and it's a natural-born-fit. JWs of course cannot FORCE anyone to join (aside from born-ins, who really don't stand a chance unless they're really strong-willed risk-takers).
Just remember, though: as an ex-JW, you're going to likely be listing traits you probably should be looking for in YOURSELVES, since leaving the JWs (whether under your own power or if DFed/DAed) doesn't mean these traits will automatically disappear overnight, on their own. Instead, people have to WANT to change, and you can't do that if you aren't even aware of a problem. So in that regard, it's a good thing to consider the topic.
Adam
-
165
Board of bitterness
by 1009 ini always was a critical jw, now df and agnost.
but still this religion fascinates me.
in my eyes most jw are very sincere, but dumb sheep.. this board is filled with ex-jw.
-
-
adamah
Oh, i dunno about 'dishonest' OR trolling. Far from it: 1009 seems perfectly in keeping with what you'd expect to find in an ex-JW, as someone who's self-absorbed, yes, but that's ONE of the personality traits that is a prerequisite to be attracted to BECOME a JW, in the first place. The 'lure' of the message of JWs is that YOU are special, and YOU have figured out what the overwhelming majority of "Worldlies" are just too stoopid (sic) to realize. That's a message that attracts a certain personality type to JWs, and those traits doesn't just automatically disappear, simply because you're DF/DA.
In fact, if a person displays TOO MUCH of a self-absorbed attitude, they're likely to be DFed for acting "too big for their britches", and hence you'd expect there to be MORE narcissistic behavior on display here! However, you don't; it's likely because some/most DA/DF learn that they need to grow as people to move beyond the JWs, and that as stooges once burned, they've let their fantasies and desires be manipulated by others to their own disadvantage. Most eventually see it as an opportunity to grow as people, and realize they've got a lot of work left to do.
And as uncomfortable it is to recognize, there were MANY ordinary fine and upright German citizens would simply didn't care (or didn't want to KNOW) about the atrocities that were committed by their Government in their name; they simply refused to see what they didn't really want to see, and didn't exactly LOOK for it, either. They didn't WANT to know, and some lived very well during the War years. Afterwards, these same types said, "6 million Jews were killed, but why is that MY fault?" denying in sharing even a small part (if only a fraction) of the collective blame. It's called "going with the flow", and it's human nature, being the kind of apathy that accounts for perpetuation of organizational practices like the JWs' shunning policy.
SImilarly, the GB needn't be particularly evil masterminds of psychological manipulation, since the organizational structure they operate in allows a similar diffusion of responsibility; they operate under the same concerns as the typical R&F member, knowing without saying that the other members will accuse them of apostacy if they move too far ahead of the others. That's exactly what Ray Franz' book confirmed: the sheer boringness of the GB, where even the members didn't want to stand up against the hardcore authoritarian members.
Psychologist Stanley Milgram's study focused on subjects who were manipulated to perform "evil" acts under such situations, and these people were later described as being regular ol' Joes and Janes; a later author even wrote about such people, describing the sheer banality (normal, if not boringness) of people who carry out "evil" acts (And that "evil vs good" nonsense is typical JW binary dualistic thinking, coming from Zoroasterian thinking). The people who carry out evil acts often are NOT sadists who enjoy being cruel to others, but simply good people (who you'd like to throw a beer back with) who find themselves under the "wrong" circumstances.
So in essence, the ex-JWs are turning the GB into scapegoats and blaming THEM for all that's wrong with the JWs, and active JWs blame "bitter" apostates who constantly attack their beliefs rather than simply taking a "live and let live" attitude, and both groups have made the same logical error: creating "strawmen", an opponent that doesn't actually even exist.
Adam
-
183
Article: It's Time to Outlaw Extreme Shunning in Modern Society
by AndersonsInfo inhttp://gilmermirror.com/bookmark/23272594/article-extreme%20shunning#.ufwjurllscm.facebook.
extreme shunningthe gilmer mirror.
its time to outlaw extreme shunning in modern society by: richard e. kelly .
-
-
adamah
Since Besty broke the string of questionable assumptions apart, let's just address them, one by one:
Personal rejection is a fact of life in modern society.
A dubious claim, since not EVERYONE personally rejects those they claim to love. In fact, MOST people living in a modern society don't do that, since that's the entire POINT of a family: it's the group of people that you share DNA with, and hence humans selfishly place their best-interests above all of those who don't share their genes.
But even if it WERE true, it borders on the childish defense of, "But Mom! Everyone ELSE does it, so I can do it, too!". That's called an 'appeal to popularity', and Mom only says how you shouldn't jump off of the Golden Gate Bridge, since others are doing it. Popular doesn't constitute right (and your pointing to the practices of the World seeking justification is more than a bit ironic, no? Remember Jesus' whole, "my kingdom is NO part of this World" thing?)
A fact most people experience early on.
Sure, many people DO experience personal rejection. Is that supposed to serve AS some type of justification for doing it, another 'appeal to popularity' or 'appeal to tradition' (i.e. that's just the way we've ALWAYS done it)?
Some people are rejected at birth.
Sure. But is that just another way of saying, "Just suck it up, you babies, since some people have it worse than you"? That's the classic reasoning employed by bullies everywhere, a diminishing of the impact of their actions.
If someone lives at home, they won't be rejected because they're disfellowshipped.
Agreed (first non-question claim in the string: there's a glimmer of hope)!
Not because of any official tenet or protocol employed by Jehovah's Witnesses anyway.
Hope is dashed, since we're back at that dismissal thing. Sure, you cannot imagine there's ANY possible way for THAT to be viewed by a R&F member, not even accidentally! That's blind denial of responsibility, AKA implausible deniability.
People don't commit suicide because of rejection in itself.
Technically true, but semantics. Most people commit suicide when in the depths of despair, from the overwhelming sense of hopelessness which RESULTS from feeling they're trapped in a painful unthinking and unchanging system that demands blind obedience and conformity, and they see no other way out.
Nobody has to take the blame for such a thing.
No, it's exactly the opposite:
EVERYBODY needs to take a shared responsibility for creating and supporting such toxic environments, whether current supporters or in the past. Don't worry: there's plenty of blame for everybody to share, so grab a plate and dig in.
You're telling me that Jesus could intervene on behalf of an adulterness to prevent her physical death from stoning by mob (where stoning was the ancient form of 'karet', cutting off), but JWs are STILL resorting to a psychological form of stoning that in some cases, results in physical death?
JWs need to REALLY study Jesus' example to get some "new light", since shunning is a PRIME example of following Pharisaical traditions that lead to such mob mentality behaviors, hence placing Jesus' example above the OT rules which you paradoxically claim that you believe he replaced!
Simply put:
JW practices such as shunning are the tactics used by emotional thugs, bullies, then excusing their childish and cruel behavior and excusing their actions under the banner of serving Jesus.
Adam
-
183
Article: It's Time to Outlaw Extreme Shunning in Modern Society
by AndersonsInfo inhttp://gilmermirror.com/bookmark/23272594/article-extreme%20shunning#.ufwjurllscm.facebook.
extreme shunningthe gilmer mirror.
its time to outlaw extreme shunning in modern society by: richard e. kelly .
-
-
adamah
Prime said:
If someone is suicidal or commits suicide, it's not because of expulsion from a congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses. There are persons I know/knew that were disfellowshipped and quite frankly, they really didn't care. Those that did care were often reinstated.
Bud, you're arguing against your own organization's beliefs: did you NOT listen to the public talk, or read the WT magazine on shunning?
The WTBTS has admitted shunning HAS to be uncomfortable for the shunned IN ORDER FOR IT TO WORK.
Prime said:
If it is a family member that chooses not to associate with you and you believe they're wrong because of their decision, there's nothing to feel bad about. If the family member believes they're not in the wrong, they also have a support group. Namely, anyone that isn't a JW. If a person believes they are in the wrong, they can be reinstated. Anyway you look at it, there's an open door.
Personal rejection is a fact of life in modern society. A fact most people experience early on. Some people are rejected at birth. If someone lives at home, they won't be rejected because they're disfellowshipped. Not because of any official tenet or protocol employed by Jehovah's Witnesses anyway. People don't commit suicide because of rejection in itself. Nobody has to take the blame for such a thing.
You're simply trying to allay a guilty conscience, trying to avoid bearing any and all personal responsibility for being a cog in an unthinking machine and merely following orders, denying the obvious: shunning is a form of social ostracism, an attempt to control others for WHATEVER reason. Since JWs cannot use reason, they simply IGNORE, DENY someone's existence.
Sometimes such attempts to control WILL result in suicide, esp in those who are most unable to withstand societal rejection, namely those who've been psychologically 'knee-capped' after having been raised in a manner that places utmost importance on being a member of a blessed group, places blind obedience to authority above individuality and making personal choices: these WILL absolutely retard the development of a healthy ego (since parents who don't possess such thinking cannot possibly encourage it in their children). A typical JW family is thus a breeding ground designed to produce more followers, more publishers.
Are you really just not able to see that, or acting as if you're morally-blind?
For the sake of your children and YOURSELF, take the blinders off, guy. You're completely arguing against common sense here, and now taking a position that's ever MORE outlandish than claiming that JWs engage in "extreme shunning" (which I agree is hypobolic).
If you haven't read my blog article on shunning, then there's no time like the present for YOUR sake.
See, if you're correct that shunning is NOT harmful, then that's very GOOD NEWS, INDEED! Notify the Society and tell them there's no need to deliver future talks at DC designed to alleviate such guilt, since no one has to take responsibility for ANY harm they cause!
That includes past participants who now are willing to publicly admit they felt guilty WHILE doing it, but did it anyway. They are now off the hook!
Adam
-
30
One Day is as 1000 years to Jehovah
by confusedandalone ini wake up this mornign to find this on my facebook page... instant deletion.
if 1000 years is as one day...the following is true....if 1000 years is as one day...the following is true..... .
someone did the math, of the 1000 years = one day equation.
-
-
adamah
Prologos said:
some of the pre-big bang theories of vaccuum fluctuations demand that time exixted before the appearance of space and matter. so,the creator (if there is one) would exist in that eternal time and not move through it as we do.
Oh, yeah: I forgot to mention that reading Hawking's "A Brief History of Space and Time" can be helpful for grasping fancy words useful to create some sort of pseudo-intellectual metaphysical mumbo-jumbo sentences that you don't have to understand, but that the dedicated Christian apologetist can insert into these discussions, too.
Phizzy said:
The writer pretending to be Peter is neither prophetic nor perceptive, and of course, 2000 years later the expectations of those early chrisitians have still not been realised. His excuses do not hold water, it ain't never gonna happen.
Yup.
As I pointed out in my blog article, the widely-recognized fraudulent writing known as "The Book of 2nd Peter" has an overarching goal of patching up doctrinal flaws seen in the Hebrew OT and attempting to suppress evidence that still existed in the Hebrew Torah (Masoretic Text) by hiding the evidence which discounted Christian beliefs. The translators attempted to translate such contradictions out of existence via the Greek Septuagint, and supported the effort by the addition of 2nd Peter into the NT.
It was done with the handling of the doctine of Adam's original sin, God's lie to Adam ("the DAY you eat from it, you shall die") covering for in 2nd Peter, removing "perfect" Eve's covetness for wisdom (oops: coveting is a sin, per the 10 commandments, so how could "perfect" Eve covet BEFORE disobeying God and sinning by gaining wisdom?), etc, etc.
If someone is even half-way able to exercise their atropied ability to reason and examine the evidence, and can handle in-depth analysis of the original Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic texts to see the changes that have occurred, the Bible (OT/NT) is going to be their worst nightmare. Most will simply not do the hard work, which is exactly what Jesus was seeking: sheeple.
Adam
EDIT: I suspect 'Peter' also may have been trying to cover incredulity over claims of God's literal creation of Earth, Sun, plants, animals, etc on single days. To someone living in the 2nd Century CE, 1,000 yrs may have seen like an incredibly long time-frame to accomplish all of those tasks, and giving God 6,000 yrs to accomplish all of that may have seemed reasonable to counter the scientifically-minded types of his day (before geology, knowledge of decay rates of radioactive elements, etc).
Of course, we now know the universe is MUCH older, and even the 6,000 yr headstart given by 'Peter' is woefully inadequate to get to 15 billion yrs (the age of the Universe, where the Earth is 4.5 billions of years old).
Adam
-
30
One Day is as 1000 years to Jehovah
by confusedandalone ini wake up this mornign to find this on my facebook page... instant deletion.
if 1000 years is as one day...the following is true....if 1000 years is as one day...the following is true..... .
someone did the math, of the 1000 years = one day equation.
-
-
adamah
Oh, THAT one. The scripture that gives the conversion factor for going from God Standard Time to Mankind Time is here:
2nd Peter 3:8
8 But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day. 9 The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.
Verse 9 says God wants to give us all time to repent, AKA the "Waiting on Godot" verse.
But being that the overarching premise of the book of 2nd Peter seems to be to serve as a patch-job for controversies in the then-fledgling Early Christian Church (where the Book of 2nd Peter is widely recognized by NT scholars as being a fraud, the last book to be added to the NT), I guess that would explain why I've always thought of that conversion factor as being used as an excuse to cover for God's threaten Adam, "the DAY you eat of the forbidden fruit, you shall surely die".
Of course, Genesis later reveals that Adam lived to the ripe old age of 940 years, so by God Time, Adam died with a little over an hour to spare! God didn't lie!!
(And just forget all about the verse where the serpent said to Eve, "God knows THE DAY you eat from it, you won't die, but your eyes will be OPENED" (the same Hebrew word for 'day' which God had earlier used), and that Adam and Eve's eyes were opened that very same day! The answer to that one requires a deep understanding of quantum mechanics, Einstein's theory of relativity, Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle, with a bit of Avogadro's and Boyle's Gas Laws thrown in for good measure. So go study those, and get back to me. Frankly, I could explain it to you all right now, but in your current level of understanding, you likely just wouldn't understand it, anyway!)
Adam
-
28
Noah's Ark and the flood
by confusedandalone inso this morning i was thinking about a few things that hit me like a ton of bricks:.
1. god destroyed the entire earth because man was evil - yet right after he destroyed them for being evil he said that he will never destroy all of manking again because the are evil.... 2. god asked noah to bring two of every kind on the ark.
then he gets off the ark and sacrifices some of these animals.
-
-
adamah
Yeah, but the Genesis Flood account itself clearly states that nephilim were present, both before and AFTER the Flood. SO either they were REALLY strong swimmers (treading water for a year), OR God forgot to patch whatever security vulnerability it was that allowed fallen angels to hack into the password-protected door of the firmament, letting them exploit the irresistable "daughters of men".
Some human narcissism on display there, with the account likely written by an older man who looked at all the nubile young flesh on Jewess hotties, and writing that angels would similarly see them as incredibly irresistable, too, worth relinquishing Heaven for.
Funny really: people who spend their lives trying to GET into Heaven, when it may not be all it's cracked up to be, since so many angels are willing to defect! The grass IS always greener, right?
I wrote an article about how the concept of fallen angels and nephilim may explain the mob-mentality of the Sodomites, depicted in the story of Lot:
Adam
EDIT: funny, as the ad on the bottom of the page gives the site:
Amongst the 'evidence' is PROOF of the Biblical account of Sodom and Gomorrah:
He ALSO finds evidence on the SURFACE:
Apparently 'supportive evidence' for the veracity of the account in Genesis is any ol' black dirt you can locate and point to....
Adam
-
19
Countering JW shunning: How a social psychologist's work from 50 yrs ago points to a new approach
by adamah ini've written a blog article on the topic of jw practice of shunning, inspired by a few recent threads on jwn where the results of social psychologist stanley milgram's work on authority figures came into the discussion:.
http://awgue.weebly.com/countering-jw-shunning-how-the-implications-of-stanley-milgrams-work-may-suggest-using-a-different-approach.html.
as usual, the article will be available for reading there, but please discuss over here in this thread.. .
-
-
adamah
Thanks for BTT that other thread, Oubliette; the OP asks some great questions, and there's some great answers in it.
It really is a difficult and painful process to ADMIT to shunning, and reflecting on WHY it was wrong, and focusing on the damage it does to oneself.
It's interesting to see how many said they didn't shun, or how they KNEW at the time it was wrong/felt guilty.
You'd actually expect to see more who said, "You know what? I didn't CARE if it was wrong, since the Bible told me THEY NEEDED to be shunned! It was steadfast faith to God I cared about! I INTENTIONALLY shunned, and was PROUD to do so and saw it as SERVING Jehovah, since I knew it was making Jehovah HAPPY!"
The interesting part is how much like in sexual harassment lawsuits, the reaction of the target of harassment is what matters: sexual harassment cases hinge on how the action was PERCEIVED, NOT the intent of the harrasser. Therefore, the court considers what the harassee did to make it clear that the harasser's behavior WAS unwelcome to them.
Guess I'm saying that even an honest oversight (not seeing or even recognizing the person) could be blown out of proportion in the shunnee's mind, and it would be impossible to know if it was intentional or not without trying to clarify the shunner's actual intent.
Xanthippe-
Adamah I agree with everything you say on Milgram, mob mentality, losing your humanity by shunning at the command of an organisation. However how to present this to family members who are shunning me is the problem. They would not talk to me about it and if I put it in a letter they would not reply. This has gone on for almost 25 years. I basically just get on with my life and leave them to it, I've tried everything I can think of.
Xanthippe, I hear you; it's difficult. Just realize there are others out there in the same situation, so you're not alone.
That's why the indirect approach is needed: since you are shunned, by definition you cannot plead on your own behalf directly to them! (To use a religious analogy, we need a "mediator", except with a twist: someone who will plead on THEIR behalf, pointing out the harm they're self-inflicting).
That's why I'm suggesting the value of creating a video which is uploaded to YouTube, containing the many voices of those who have shunned others in the past but NOW see the harm and damage it caused them, is needed. Sometimes the people we most should listen to are the ones we most refuse listening to! Sometimes we need to hear it from a stranger, since hearing it from loved-ones (or, the ones we CLAIM to have loved) obviously carries much baggage with it.
So the point is, although such a message may not personally benefit YOU, it may help someone you'll never even meet? Does that give any sense of feeling empowered? It should, as that's the very definition of an altruistic act: helping another EVEN IF you KNOW you don't stand to personally benefit from the action.
BTW, in the video above, I like the way Jess Black defines a 'cult': a group that relies on policies that are outdated or even contrary for the time (eg blood policy). If you haven't seen it, don't miss the last two minutes where he talks about how his parents exceeded his wildest expectations by leaving the JWs, and how he has a much-closer relationship with his Mother than he ever imagined.
Of course, to the shunned the practice represents an affront to OUR egos, with one's sence of self-worth challenged and deprecated by one's own family as if we're worthless (literally, WORTH LESS) having been placed below their loyalty to what are essentially strangers.
An expression attributed to Elanor Roosevelt seem fitting:
No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.
So true....
But the sad TRUTH is that this really boils down to accepting that there is no way to force people to have a loving relationship with us; there's no faking that which doesn't exist (without resorting to delusions and denials).
It's something Bonnie Raitt wrote a song about:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfwylq9ZDyw
It's not simply a JW issue, either: it's part-and-parcel of existence as a human being.
Sometimes the best thing is to just let it be, and just say "it is what it is", where the last stage of grief following loss is simply 'acceptance'. I've had to accept that my family (JWs or not) are what they are, and I can accept them as they are, or waste energy/time to try to change them. Note that although I may or may not change THEIR hearts and minds, I get a sense of value by thinking SOMEONE ELSE might benefit from our efforts.
In the end, we can only lead thirsty horses to water, whether they realize they're dehydrated or not, and whether getting we lead them using carrots or sticks (JW uses sticks, we need to focus on carrots). The decision to drink is SOLELY up to them, and must be made voluntarily by realizing and accepting the personal responsibility for their own acts and not cite "I was just following orders".
Adamah
