Responsibility

[nobspeople]

You get caught breaking the speed limit, you are responsible for the ticket and or court costs, if not more.
Breaking the speed limit without getting caught still opens you to the possibility of potential repercussions.
Yet, you aren't all knowing, powerful, present, etc.
You're simply a mortal, flawed living animal.

All this said, still, people claim we are responsible for our own sins, and the sins of 'our fathers', so to speak (according to some). This same sin was created (or allowed to be created) by the modern christian god (again, according to some).

For discussion:
Where's god's responsibility in all this?
What's god responsibility for when it comes to sin and the everlasting life some claim it can provide? Does providing a sacrifice suffice? Does god not have any responsibility in this - does it get an excuse?

[JehovahsWitness]

You said: The God of the bible is depicted as always loving, the personification'of love in fact The bible says: Romans 9:13 says that God hated Esau ... Psalm 5:5 says, "The arrogant cannot stand in Your presence; You hate all who do wrong."...There are six things the Lord hates.. . Proverbs 6

... those scriptures from your bible refute your POV

Okay so regarding those scriptures and your conclusion ... may I respond ? ...

.... I couldn't care less if you respond or not. ...

Well in that case I don't mind if I do; My response is as follows ....

... those scriptures from your bible refute your POV

That would depend on ...

1) what the writer meant by the word "hate" .

2) whether one accepts the premise that being or acting in a loving way negates the simlumtaneous existence of hate of any kind.

3) What is meant by the expression "the personification of love"

It is not a foregone conclusion that simply citing the word "hate" in scripture, is enough to prove your point. You want to stick to the literal meanjng of the word, that is a good starting point ....



Given the scope of the original word the writer (who did not speak English) used and the absence of arguments and supporting evidence on your part, there is no valid reason to conclude you are anything but mistaken.

You have a most wonderful weekend,

JEHOVAH'S WITNESS

[Purple Knight]

While my personal opinion is that JW's go too far on this, disfellowshipping for things like watching the wrong movies,

So you feel confident enough you know enough about Jehovah's Witnesses to say they consider "watching the wrong movies" a disfellowshiping offense?

I'm actually speaking from what former JWs have said. Believe it or not I do my homework.

Now, I have already located the video. The person who made it talks about how the elders pulled him aside and wanted to know why he went and watched Thor, and how him just reviewing movies on youtube (none of them R) was considered wrong and put him at risk of being kicked out. Regardless of whether they're supposed to do that for that exact thing, they're giving their own followers that impression when they call elder meetings on them and ask them why they watch certain movies or listen to certain music and ask them not to do so anymore.

One thing I noticed on rewatch is that he says he hasn't actually received his disfellowshipment letter yet, though he is expecting one at any moment and he details the reasons.

I will go ahead and post the video and give you the timestamp if you tell me you won't seek this person out and try to actually get him disfellowshiped.

I'm even admitting I was technically wrong, they didn't disfellowship him for watching Thor, though they certainly gave him the impression they would if he went on watching the wrong movies and that seemed very deliberate. And regardless of whether they actually do it, to me, this is still going too far. And again, by and large I'm defending keeping bad influences out. I just don't think Thor qualifies as a bad influence, despite being a bad movie. And I don't think I know more than your elders about it either, I just tend to think (and my opinion is formed partly listening to those who came out of the JWs and think things were too restrictive) that watching movies can't hurt you, and anyone who comes from a squeaky-clean organisation like the JWs where their reality is highly moral, watches a violent movie and immediately imitates that fiction, something was wrong with them. We all hear about the kid who played Grand Theft Auto and imitated, but we don't hear about the thousands more who played it and didn't. Ergo, something is wrong with that person, and most functional people can separate games and movies from reality.

Does it creep in? No. Not if understanding is emphasised. Just as there are examples of evil in the Bible, and they are there to make sure people understand, don't do this, this is bad, as long as there is understanding, exposure doesn't rot people, though proximity can. Through a television there is absolutely no proximity.

[nobspeople]

While my personal opinion is that JW's go too far on this, disfellowshipping for things like watching the wrong movies,

So you feel confident enough you know enough about Jehovah's Witnesses to say they consider "watching the wrong movies" a disfellowshiping offense?

I'm actually speaking from what former JWs have said. Believe it or not I do my homework.

Now, I have already located the video. The person who made it talks about how the elders pulled him aside and wanted to know why he went and watched Thor, and how him just reviewing movies on youtube (none of them R) was considered wrong and put him at risk of being kicked out. Regardless of whether they're supposed to do that for that exact thing, they're giving their own followers that impression when they call elder meetings on them and ask them why they watch certain movies or listen to certain music and ask them not to do so anymore.

One thing I noticed on rewatch is that he says he hasn't actually received his disfellowshipment letter yet, though he is expecting one at any moment and he details the reasons.

I will go ahead and post the video and give you the timestamp if you tell me you won't seek this person out and try to actually get him disfellowshiped.

I'm even admitting I was technically wrong, they didn't disfellowship him for watching Thor, though they certainly gave him the impression they would if he went on watching the wrong movies and that seemed very deliberate. And regardless of whether they actually do it, to me, this is still going too far. And again, by and large I'm defending keeping bad influences out. I just don't think Thor qualifies as a bad influence, despite being a bad movie. And I don't think I know more than your elders about it either, I just tend to think (and my opinion is formed partly listening to those who came out of the JWs and think things were too restrictive) that watching movies can't hurt you, and anyone who comes from a squeaky-clean organisation like the JWs where their reality is highly moral, watches a violent movie and immediately imitates that fiction, something was wrong with them. We all hear about the kid who played Grand Theft Auto and imitated, but we don't hear about the thousands more who played it and didn't. Ergo, something is wrong with that person, and most functional people can separate games and movies from reality.

Sounds very 'scientologist' of them - suppressive person and all that. Frightening really.

[Purple Knight]

Sounds very 'scientologist' of them - suppressive person and all that. Frightening really.

It's not a cult, they're just very restrictive. It can seem like a cult to the people who escape, because that was all they knew.

To me, the ones who get highest points for being restrictive and still having ease of escape are the Amish. They deliberately send each and every young Amish person out into the outside world, so they can see what it is, saying here, that is what that is, do you choose that, or do you choose to be Amish? They only want people who know the alternative firsthand and want to choose to be Amish anyway.

[nobspeople]

Sounds very 'scientologist' of them - suppressive person and all that. Frightening really.

It's not a cult, they're just very restrictive. It can seem like a cult to the people who escape, because that was all they knew.

To me, the ones who get highest points for being restrictive and still having ease of escape are the Amish. They deliberately send each and every young Amish person out into the outside world, so they can see what it is, saying here, that is what that is, do you choose that, or do you choose to be Amish? They only want people who know the alternative firsthand and want to choose to be Amish anyway.

We have different definitions of 'cult' obviously
I've heard claims it's for the protection of the members, but I don't buy it UNLESS it's a cult. Adults that aren't brainwashed should have the ability to come and go as they please, associate with who they want, think for themselves and be responsible for their own actions. No need to a group of people - or one person - to make those decisions for everyone else UNLESS it's a cult IMO.
I know I know, the 'c' word is frowned upon here - don't wanna hurt anyone's delicate feelings! But if the definition shoe fits....

[JehovahsWitness]

While my personal opinion is that JW's go too far on this, disfellowshipping for things like watching the wrong movies,

So you feel confident enough you know enough about Jehovah's Witnesses to say they consider "watching the wrong movies" a disfellowshiping offense?

I'm actually speaking from what former JWs have said.

You could be posting what the Queen of England said, I have just posted Jehovahs Witness policy from the OFFICIAL website . There is no discussion on this matter, it is a fact, that is not our policy. We only have one recognised authoritive in body that decides Jehovahs Witness policy and your ex-witness friend is not it. Anyone that contents there is another official line is mistaken.

I'm even admitting I was technically wrong...

Good, I'm glad that matter has been clearer up. There is no official list of banned books and movies which if watched would get someone disfellowshipped. End of story.





JW

[nobspeople]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #32]

There's a lot of speak of the technicality of disfellowship, but if not technically disfellowshipped, (being hung up on words) if they're 'giving someone a hard time' for watching this or that, reading this or that, or anything of the sort, isn't that just as bad as disfellowship?
It's like the leaders have to keep such a strict leash on their people - to keep them in line and keep that influence and control - that people can't make up their own minds on things?
Sounds very, well, you know....

[Purple Knight]

We have different definitions of 'cult' obviously
I've heard claims it's for the protection of the members, but I don't buy it UNLESS it's a cult. Adults that aren't brainwashed should have the ability to come and go as they please, associate with who they want, think for themselves and be responsible for their own actions. No need to a group of people - or one person - to make those decisions for everyone else UNLESS it's a cult IMO.
I know I know, the 'c' word is frowned upon here - don't wanna hurt anyone's delicate feelings! But if the definition shoe fits....

To me it's really simple. Cults actively try to stop you from leaving.

This doesn't mean they have to make it easy to leave, but it's still a nice thing to do.

You could be posting what the Queen of England said, I have just posted Jehovahs Witness policy from the OFFICIAL website . There is no discussion on this matter, it is a fact, that is not our policy.

I find it odd that they should have to address that question, and that there are accounts of people being blamed and shamed for the movies they watch. It seems to me like some JW churches are doing this, and that the information you posted is of little help to the people pulled into elder meetings and asked why they watch certain movies or listen to certain music. If there are Elders intentionally terrifying people into giving up the movies they like, it's effectively identical to disfellowshipping for it regardless of whether that's a bluff and regardless of whether it's the official policy.

[brunumb]

You could be posting what the Queen of England said, I have just posted Jehovahs Witness policy from the OFFICIAL website . There is no discussion on this matter, it is a fact, that is not our policy. We only have one recognised authoritive in body that decides Jehovahs Witness policy and your ex-witness friend is not it. Anyone that contents there is another official line is mistaken.

There can be a vast difference between what is published policy and what is practiced in real life. It's all about maintaining appearances and that becomes abundantly clear from the testimonies of ex-JWs.

[Purple Knight]

You could be posting what the Queen of England said, I have just posted Jehovahs Witness policy from the OFFICIAL website . There is no discussion on this matter, it is a fact, that is not our policy. We only have one recognised authoritive in body that decides Jehovahs Witness policy and your ex-witness friend is not it. Anyone that contents there is another official line is mistaken.

There can be a vast difference between what is published policy and what is practiced in real life. It's all about maintaining appearances and that becomes abundantly clear from the testimonies of ex-JWs.

It could also be a matter of the tales of extremely harsh restrictivity coming from relatively few communities of JWs that do this, because the Elders of that particular community have decided to.

In general, a community running itself is a good thing. In general, decentralised power is a good thing. States' Rights are great. Let the bad policies destroy themselves. Unfortunately with a big organisation with stated policies that may run counter, you're going to get at least a few unnecessarily terrified people caught in the undertow of unclear expectations.

My favourite example of this isn't even religious. It's bosses who say, do this, not that, here you go, that's the job, and then you follow all those things and suddenly get accused of, "doing the minimum," which burns my biscuits every time I hear it, because it's such a gaslight and a logical contradiction. If "the minimum" is not really satisfactory, then that's not the actual minimum, is it? They want people who go "above and beyond" rather than just making those above and beyond things part of the job. Most employees will do what you tell them, the catch is, you have to tell them, which is why you make more money than they do. Sorry for that rant, I just think it's a bit related to people who aren't technically breaking stated rules who still get pulled aside by Elders and asked why they watched this movie or listened to that song.