Fed up with JW's

BH672 · Post by **BH672** » Thu Feb 15, 2007 9:32 pm

Ciao, Bella!;551475 wrote: I don't mind how someone interprets the Bible, as long they don't try to convince me I'm wrong.

If nobody is being told that they're wrong, does that mean everyone is right?

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Thu Feb 15, 2007 9:49 pm

BH:-6

That is a possible understanding. If you would like that explained I can do so.

Shalom

Ted:-6

BH672 · Post by **BH672** » Thu Feb 15, 2007 9:56 pm

Hey, Ted!

It was tongue-in-cheek, I was curious as to CB's reply. Do you think it's reasonable to allow for everyone's 'rightness' on any particular topic?

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Thu Feb 15, 2007 10:00 pm

BH:-6

That is certainly a good question. It seems to me that you cannot say it that way without qualifications. Is it right to act in such a way as to impact negatively or positively on others without their consent? Personally I think not. That is the problem I see in the current discussion on Jehovah Witnesses.

I should add that I live in a democracy of sorts and thus there are times when I must tolerate unwanted intrusions into my personal actions and feelings. That is the price we pay for living in community.

Shalom

Ted:-6

BH672 · Post by **BH672** » Thu Feb 15, 2007 10:06 pm

How could we qualify that question that it may be used?

I agree with you about this thread. After 275 posts, the issue has become self-justification.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Thu Feb 15, 2007 10:11 pm

BH:-6

I think that it can be qualified by putting in some specific topic or behaviour. It is difficult to answer a question that is so broad in its interpretation.

For example in this topic one might ask "Is it wrong to be a Jehovah Witness"? My answer would be I don't think so.

We could also ask "Is it wrong to deprive folks of lifesaving blood transfusions? I would say in the case of children it most definitely is. When one attains the age of majority I would say that is a personal decision irrespective of my own personal feelings. I would like to add that if the individual is developmentally challenged then it is a decision that is to be left up to the courts.

Shalom

Ted:-6

BH672 · Post by **BH672** » Thu Feb 15, 2007 10:20 pm

Ted;551503 wrote: I think that it can be qualified by putting in some specific topic or behaviour.

The mindset that declares, "I am unwilling to be told that I am wrong," intrigues me [regardless of topic]. By refusing to impact either negatively or positively without consent, do we simply enable and presuppose the individual to be correct?

Ciao, Bella! · Post by **Ciao, Bella!** » Fri Feb 16, 2007 3:23 am

BH, it means I don't give a darn what someone else thinks.

If you think you're right, you're right. Who am I to argue with you? Yes, maybe this thread has become self-justification. But, the entire world is like that, isn't it?

BH672 · Post by **BH672** » Fri Feb 16, 2007 5:43 am

Ciao, Bella!;551574 wrote: Yes, maybe this thread has become self-justification. But, the entire world is like that, isn't it?

No.

Ciao, Bella! · Post by **Ciao, Bella!** » Fri Feb 16, 2007 7:23 am

What if I were to know, current thread subject aside, that I am absolutely right, as in my name is Caio, Bella!?

Would you tell me I was wrong? Would I have to listen to you? Or, could I merely tell you to go away.

Elvira · Post by **Elvira** » Fri Feb 16, 2007 7:31 am

Ciao, Bella!;551700 wrote: What if I were to know, current thread subject aside, that I am absolutely right, as in my name is Caio, Bella!?

Would you tell me I was wrong? Would I have to listen to you? Or, could I merely tell you to go away.

Your name to you may be Caio Bella, but your name to me is hello beautiful. Am I wrong, or are we both right in our own perspective?

Ciao, Bella! · Post by **Ciao, Bella!** » Fri Feb 16, 2007 11:19 am

Elvira;551713 wrote: Your name to you may be Caio Bella, but your name to me is hello beautiful. Am I wrong, or are we both right in our own perspective?

LOL, you hit it on the head! I like your avatar, btw.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Fri Feb 16, 2007 2:02 pm

BH:-6

The whole concept of someone being right or wrong has a great many problems. Such a concept depends on many factors: one's perception or point of view, culture, time or era, location, others' perceptions and beliefs. For example, "Is cannibalism wrong." Certainly it is wrong in our culture but in the past in some cultures it was quite acceptable and not considered wrong in any way.

Is encouraging children to engage in sexual activity wrong. It is here but M. Mead has shown that in some south Pacific islands it was the common practice.

Morality is relative and not absolute.

Shalom

Ted:-6

911 · Post by **911** » Fri Feb 16, 2007 3:13 pm

Whew, my eyes are tired. I should've started reading this when it first came up and it's a shame I didn't.

I have these people come to my house and they have been nothing but kind when I told them I wasn't interested. They would give me a booklet and leave. I read the booklet. I tend to do that. I'll read about other religions if the opportunity arises but sadly, I don't usually seek it out unless I have a specific question in mind.

They come on Saturdays here. It's usually two women and two children. They are polite and leave. Of course, I have to talk to them through the storm door while I hold back my dog, that may be why they are nice.

CB, if you are going to go to all the trouble of using a camera and a recording device on your TV, go all out and get the total package. You can get an intercom, also. When the doorbell rings, you can open the camera on the TV and talk to them from your living room. It's a good safety tool also, especially since your husband is asleep and would not be able to help you if it were someone else at the door and they tried to hurt you. You might think about it and not just for the JW's.

I have more problems with magazine selling kids than I do with JW's or Mormon's. I had one kid cuss me and then tell me my storm door was dirty (it was the day after a big storm and it was dirty!) and would I buy a magazine if he cleaned it for me. I told him to talk his rude butt away from my dirty door before I let the dog have a go at him.

The way you guys are talking about this religion reminded me of Amway dealers. Talk about a cult! :wah: They were heartless and rude in the late 70's and early 80's. And a bit scary!

BH672 · Post by **BH672** » Fri Feb 16, 2007 4:32 pm

Ciao, Bella!;551700 wrote: What if I were to know, current thread subject aside, that I am absolutely right, as in my name is Caio, Bella!?

Then I would say, "Congratulations!"

Do you include the comma and exclamation point with your signature?

BH672 · Post by **BH672** » Fri Feb 16, 2007 4:35 pm

Ted;552173 wrote: Morality is relative and not absolute.

Are you absolutely sure?

;)

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Fri Feb 16, 2007 4:42 pm

BH:-6

Yes, I'm absolutely sure. There is only one absolute in the cosmos and that is God.

Shalom

Ted:-6

BH672 · Post by **BH672** » Fri Feb 16, 2007 4:47 pm

Ted;552306 wrote: BH:-6

Yes, I'm absolutely sure. There is only one absolute in the cosmos and that is God.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Hey, Ted!

Do you suppose He is ambivalent about morality?

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Fri Feb 16, 2007 5:15 pm

BH:-6

I think that God is aware of the relativity of morality and considers whether or not one's behaviour is harmful or unwelcome by the other.

It is impossible to judge the past on the basis of todays knowledge and from a 21st cent. point of view. The past must be judged on the times in which the action you are judging happened. Were the crusades immoral? Is capital punishment immoral? Is eating pork immoral? Is being and active member of a naturist club immoral? Was it wrong for Martin Luther to make use of the inquisition to get rid of his opposition? Was it wrong for an ancient Jewish man to have sex with another woman outside his home?

For the present a hot topic today is homosexual activity. I really do not believe that God cares if two loving, committed folks enjoy the pleasure of each others body. God is more concerned about justice than such trivialities.

Shalom

Ted:-6

BH672 · Post by **BH672** » Fri Feb 16, 2007 5:20 pm

Ted, your posts cover a lot of ground!

How does God demonstrate that He is concerned with justice?

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Fri Feb 16, 2007 5:25 pm

BH:-6

The Bible is loaded with comments about justice which in the Bible by the way refers to distributive justice and not retributive justice. Micah 6:8 and Matt 25:33ff are good examples.

God still speaks to us today of justice. That is what promotes soup kitchens, social assistance in various ways from the churches, the support churches for food banks and the requirement that we oppose injustice wherever we see it.

Jesus whole life was spent in fighting for justice and and egalitarian society. The non-violent opposition that Jesus practiced is what ultimately got him crucified.

Shalom

Ted:-6

BH672 · Post by **BH672** » Fri Feb 16, 2007 5:29 pm

So you believe that justice and morality are spiritually entwined?

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Fri Feb 16, 2007 5:31 pm

BH:-6

The central message and the aim of all his teaching was to promote the kingdom of God beginning here on earth. That is a kingdom where God reigns and in which there is distributive justice and equality. There was to be no more systemic oppression of the many by the few.

Shalom

Ted:-6

BH672 · Post by **BH672** » Fri Feb 16, 2007 5:34 pm

That does not sound relative to me, Ted.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Fri Feb 16, 2007 5:36 pm

BH:-6

Whether or not they are entwined depends on what you mean by the use of that word.

As I see it morality and justice are part of the same thing. Morality is about justice and not necessarily "right or wrong". I rather doubt you will have a morality problem if you have justice.

In fact part of the problem with the Roman empire was their theology stated victory first and then peace. G. Bush is still trying to follow the Roman example. Jesus message was justice first and then peace. D. Crossan, M. Fox and others.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Fri Feb 16, 2007 5:37 pm

BH:-6

I was one step ahead of you in that second last post.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Fri Feb 16, 2007 5:39 pm

I don't know how we got from JWs to morality but it is a much better topic.

Shalom

Ted:-6

BH672 · Post by **BH672** » Fri Feb 16, 2007 8:28 pm

Ted;552335 wrote: I was one step ahead of you in that second last post.

What do you mean, Ted?

Ted;552336 wrote: I don't know how we got from JWs to morality but it is a much better topic.
CB got offended at me for asking her a very appropriate question.

Is Jesus message of 'justice first then peace' getting through in our post-modern culture?

Rain · Post by **Rain** » Fri Feb 16, 2007 8:53 pm

I had asked questions of CB. She in turn misinterpreted them and got angry. She even mentioned that she was indeed angry. Not wanting to get in to an argument, I just left things alone. As in any computer chat, things can be misinterpreted. I felt that happened. So anyone having other thoughts of what I did, now you know my side.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Fri Feb 16, 2007 9:28 pm

I noticed that too, Rain. That's why I said what I did. I admire you for not engaging in someone's argument.

Ciao, Bella! · Post by **Ciao, Bella!** » Fri Feb 16, 2007 9:37 pm

Rain;552449 wrote: I had asked questions of CB. She in turn misinterpreted them and got angry. She even mentioned that she was indeed angry. Not wanting to get in to an argument, I just left things alone. As in any computer chat, things can be misinterpreted. I felt that happened. So anyone having other thoughts of what I did, now you know my side.

Go back, read the last few posts about me, and clarify. I didn't get angry until you snarked that I was. Then, find another way to relieve your boredom. Don't make me your target. I'm not interested.

Ciao, Bella! · Post by **Ciao, Bella!** » Fri Feb 16, 2007 9:38 pm

Read my member name.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Fri Feb 16, 2007 9:39 pm

Try to be civil here please. You're a little argumentative and there's no call for it.

cinamin · Post by **cinamin** » Fri Feb 16, 2007 9:40 pm

Ciao, Bella!;552466 wrote: I didn't get angry until you snarked that I was.

Excuse me, what is snarked?:-3

Ciao, Bella! · Post by **Ciao, Bella!** » Fri Feb 16, 2007 9:42 pm

BH672;552441 wrote: What do you mean, Ted?

CB got offended at me for asking her a very appropriate question.

Is Jesus message of 'justice first then peace' getting through in our post-modern culture?

That's the first time I've seen this question. However, since you're asking it NOW..., I think it's peace first, then justice.

But, that's just me. You're absolutely free to think what you like.

Delilah · Post by **Delilah** » Fri Feb 16, 2007 10:10 pm

Rain, you needn't of had to justify your leaving the thread, it was very clear and obvious that you were only asking a few questions and received hostility for it. I commend you also on not indulging Bella in an arguement. Kudos to you

I was going to write a reply to her myself, but inspired by your sense, I will refrain.

BH672 · Post by **BH672** » Fri Feb 16, 2007 10:15 pm

Ciao, Bella!;552472 wrote: That's the first time I've seen this question. However, since you're asking it NOW..., I think it's peace first, then justice.
Ted had some interesting things to say about this, CB. He thinks it's the other way around:

Ted;552334 wrote:

In fact part of the problem with the Roman empire was their theology stated victory first and then peace. G. Bush is still trying to follow the Roman example. Jesus message was justice first and then peace.
CB, do you think justice and morality should influence each other?

cinamin · Post by **cinamin** » Fri Feb 16, 2007 10:16 pm

'scuse me, can someone please tell me what snarked means?

BH672 · Post by **BH672** » Fri Feb 16, 2007 10:25 pm

cinamin;552482 wrote: 'scuse me, can someone please tell me what snarked means?

I Googled it and got this.

Rain · Post by **Rain** » Fri Feb 16, 2007 10:30 pm

Ciao, Bella!;552466 wrote: Go back, read the last few posts about me, and clarify. I didn't get angry until you snarked that I was. Then, find another way to relieve your boredom. Don't make me your target. I'm not interested.

I'm not bored. You're too entertaining for that. :wah:

If you weren't interested you wouldn't be spending all of your time keeping this thread #1. You my dear are obsessed and angry. Take a valium and mellow out.

Ciao, Bella! · Post by **Ciao, Bella!** » Sat Feb 17, 2007 7:42 am

Rain;552488 wrote: I'm not bored. You're too entertaining for that. :wah:

If you weren't interested you wouldn't be spending all of your time keeping this thread #1. You my dear are obsessed and angry. Take a valium and mellow out.

Let's see... You posted once or twice, in a decent manner, and I replied in the same vein. You started a conversation with me, asking a list of questions. My answers didn't go the way you wanted, so you started with the personal attacks, calling me angry, and now obsessed. Where is your degree in psychology?

I hate to tell you this, but I can think for myself, and do so willingly. I can't be your marionette, parroting your thoughts and actions.

Shweet tatersalad · Post by **Shweet tatersalad** » Sun Feb 18, 2007 8:58 am

Perhaps CB is getting tired of the repeated torment from certain people who just keep trying too push this cult crap on her.For a brief moment this thread was taking a calm and different track,where there was no fighting.But The JW answer a question with a question door step barrage just had too come through.It annoys people too their breaking point.Then the home owner with the dog crap on his doorstep ends up looking like the bad one.Because Retard robots won't take no for an answer.

I do think setting up a camera is a good idea,would make good film on you tube.

we can call it Waco and kool- aid at your front door.

I have been speaking with some X-JW's at work and talking too them about some of the tactics they use.When they so much as a hint that some one might be vulnerable they get the street addy or phone number and they use GOOGLE EARTH too locate the house and they go after it.

They very much prowl the net for weak and groomable people too impose their filth.

So you see if we seem angry it's because you have brought it out of us because we are backed into a corner and we are forced too defend our selves.

BH672 · Post by **BH672** » Sun Feb 18, 2007 9:28 am

S t,

do you believe the end justifies the means?

Shweet tatersalad · Post by **Shweet tatersalad** » Sun Feb 18, 2007 9:39 am

BH672;553579 wrote: S t,

do you believe the end justifies the means?
I believe in the right too protect your home and Family.

Are you a JW supporter??

This is no game.Pledge your allegiance,or go back too your hide and seek .

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sun Feb 18, 2007 10:42 am

This thread is quickly becoming Jackass Central.

Too many people here who just want to carp at others and argue the same damn point over and over again, ad nauseum. We get it already! You hate being bothered by Witnesses! Then get an electric fence for those of you who think you're actually defending yourselves against something. Geez, you'd think they're coming onto your property armed and ready to gas you out of your home for not reading Watchtower. That ain't it.

Ciao, kindly lay off Rain, she isn't troubling you or remotely doing as you say. You are fishing for an argument and FG doesn't need any more of those right now.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Sun Feb 18, 2007 2:44 pm

Ciao, Bella!;552673 wrote: I hate to tell you this, but

Cripes. I thought that perhaps someone'd said something interesting. Oh well.

ZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz..............

BH672 · Post by **BH672** » Sun Feb 18, 2007 3:55 pm

Shweet tatersalad;553584 wrote: I believe in the right too protect your home and Family.

Are you a JW supporter??

This is no game.Pledge your allegiance,or go back too your hide and seek .

Is that a yes or a no, S t?

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Sun Feb 18, 2007 8:05 pm

BH:-6

My comment about one step ahead was referring to the fact that I had responded and then the old head had another thought so I put it in.

According to scholars Jesus message was one of justice first followed by peace. If we read Micah 6:8 it asks what God requires of us and then answers "do justice and love kindness." Dom Crossan who is the premier Jesus scholar in the world and well versed in ancient Roman history is clear that Rome figured that they could conquer a region and then apply justice.

The problem with that approach is that you may win in the short term but somewhere down the road you will have to fight all over again and it enters into a never ending cycle.

My reference to G. Bush is in this nature: If one has a headache and several doses of aspirin have not helped then you go to something else. For few years now Geordie has tried the force of arms and the mess only gets worse. So what does he propose but add more troops. It won't work either.

The problem is the response to 9/11 which was a terrible event with the loss of so many innocent lives. However, that event was a symptom of the basic problem. Instead of trying to get to the root problem and resolving it he just throws more bombs at it. The problem is not solved and another "9/11" will in all likelihood occur.

This is not appeasement but a legitimate attempt at problem solving.

Of course the American and the Canadian governments do not lead and problem solve they simply administer the countries for the multinationals. The big industries come first and the people last.

Jesus fought against the dominations systems of his day and here 2000 years later we are still making the same damnable mistake. We seem to learn nothing from history except that we learn nothing from history.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Sun Feb 18, 2007 8:17 pm

It does seem to me that folks have made their points on the original topic. Time to drop it and move on otherwise we just go in circles ad nauseum.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Ciao, Bella! · Post by **Ciao, Bella!** » Sun Feb 18, 2007 9:43 pm

"Ciao, kindly lay off Rain, she isn't troubling you or remotely doing as you say. You are fishing for an argument and FG doesn't need any more of those right now."

If you'll step back and look objectively at your post, you'll see that you're way off base.

Rain wants to persuade me I am wrong. I don't see her point of view, so I can't lie to myself, just to soothe her ruffled feathers.

I think if Rain lets it go, she'll be pleasantly surprised. I think you'll find the same holds true for you, as well.

So, we'll just learn to ignore each other. Won't be any problems in the future then, right?