"Mentally Diseased" are confirmed as offensive words of hate crime. Help needed, please.

by Amelia Ashton 122 Replies latest watchtower scandals

• 

  cedars

  Well, you have been on here for only a little over a month. You need to be patient.

  You seem to have your knickers in a knot, cedars.

  Nickolas - I didn't realise that being a "newbie" on here entitled me to a free run at being cannon fodder for people like you, who enjoy turning important threads like this into an opportunity to turn on individual posters. I also don't appreciate being patronized by your little dig about having my "knickers in a knot".

  The simple fact is this - I DON'T BELIEVE THAT ATHEISTS ARE MENTALLY DISEASED, and furthermore, you seem to be the only atheist on here who took my words to mean that. Everything I say on here about the Society is RELATIVE, because I don't happen to agree with the Society's translation of the bible anyway. I consider myself a Christian at present but have flirted with agnosticism. However, I must say that it is Militant Fundamentalist Evangelical Atheists like you, who are constantly out to start a war with open-minded Creationists, that gives Atheism a very bad name. Why don't you start a new forum called "Dawkins-Disciples.net" and spout your condemnation against Creationists on there rather than picking fights based on innocent and innocuous statements that are made with the intention of helping people explain their way through an interview with the police?

  Why can't you do the humble thing and just apologise for jumping the gun and thinking the worst possible things about me before even meeting me, or is humility just a weak creationist notion that is counter-productive to the survival of the fittest?
• 

  Little Imp

  IMO it is wrong for anyone to call anyone mentally diseased but a million times worse when it is coming from someone who purports to be a Christian. Furthermore, they have even put this in print and are teaching this to their congregations many of whom may be gullible and take everything they say at face value.

  I still find it incredulous that they would preach such a thing let alone print it! They are making judgment which the bible says Christians shouldn't do.

  Furthermore, we had a few people in our congregation who truly did have mental illness, they would often say how much being a witness had helped with their illness etc. Surely, then this might put into question their faith if they are now being lumped in with "apostates"?
• 

  cedars

  I agree Little Imp - NOBODY should have their mental faculties brought into question just for having differing beliefs, whether they may be Christian, Agnostic, Atheist or Hindu. Everybody is entitled to their own beliefs, and I believe that passionately. To be told I believe otherwise by somebody who doesn't even know me I would regard as an insult.

  What I can't understand is how my efforts to help someone reason with the police (without the luxury of knowing what her current beliefs were at the time of writing) could possibly be interpreted as adopting the kind of hateful rhetoric that is used by the same Society that I have been systematically condemning with my threads over the past month. It defies belief. Even then, I don't think Nickolas is "mentally diseased" at all, merely ignorant and prone to jumping to conclusions based on very few facts. His approach seems to be characteristic of people like Dawkins (who he probably worships) who belittle Creationists as being "believers in fairies".
• 

  erbie

  Indeed, it is shocking language and a poor example to set.

  I think that the history of the Watchtower confirms that this has always been the kind of verbal abuse and namecalling that they resort to. They have got away with it thus far but I think that, ultimately, they will be forced to step into the 21st century and comply with human rights issues. I suppose that in some ways this is happening already.

  Irrespective of our own personal views or agenda, they will not be allowed to be the bully boy in the playground for much longer.

  If I may, the fact that we are all anti Watchtower somewhat places us all on the same side, right?
• 

  cedars

  Erbie, well said!

  If I may, the fact that we are all anti Watchtower somewhat places us all on the same side, right?

  I certainly used to think that, and that should indeed be the case. However it would seem that there are those among us who are hell-bent on creating schisms between the creationists and atheists on JWnet. Quite what their ultimate agenda is, I have no idea. In my opinion, we should all be on the same side. Whatever your personal beliefs, both the views of atheists and christians alike are equally valid.
• 

  Little Imp

  I agree that perhaps that because we are anti Watchtower puts us on the same side. However, that aside, I truly believe that a lot of what they say and print is wrong on any view, but, because they say are Christians we should expect higher standards from them, not lower.

  I, too, found the constant namecalling given in their talks offensive and shocking when, in my opinion, people on the platform should be setting an example and certainly should not be preaching such like even if it is their personal opinion. They are in a position of responsibility and should lead by example.

  Namecalling on any view is NOT Christian behaviour.

  For all the faults churches may have I have never experienced this kind of behaviour in any of the ones I have attended services in.
• 

  cedars

  Having read and re-read my earlier advice to Amelia, I would just like to offer an apology to ANYBODY who interpreted my advice as being an attempt at labelling atheists or non-believers in Christ "mentally-diseased". I would have thought it obvious that this was not the intended meaning, but I apologise to any who may have genuinely reached that conclusion.

  I maintain that the comments from Nickolas were openly provocative and inflammatory. If he had genuinely taken offence at the way I worded my advice, then surely a better way to approach the matter would have been to adopt a more conciliatory tone, i.e. "Cedars - I'm sure you're not suggesting, in your advice to Amelia, that those who don't believe in Christ are mentally diseased?"
• 

  erbie

  Yes, it makes you marvel really. When you read the 'Proclaimers' book which gives an account of persecution against the Watchtower, is it any wonder when you consider the language they were using against both the authorities and other religions.

  I think they are learning that it is best not to throw stones. Especially when people can throw them back!

  We were taught that they were victimised. But were they really? I'm not so sure now. Not that I condone violence against the WT or anyone else but I do feel that they have done their fair share of trouble making.

  Perhaps they will now grow up. We live in hope.
• 

  Nickolas

  I apologise to the OP for this little tangent.

  May I suggest you take a deep breath and relax a little, cedars? Your advice to Amelia to bring scripture into the conversation with the police was poor and, if taken, would have been detrimental to the outcome. I paraphrased what I read in your statement and rather than clarify your words you went ballistic. That you have recognised and apologised for the possibility that your words could have been misunderstood is honest of you and this would have been far more effective to put me in my place than the initial course you chose. You've noticed no doubt that no-one is joining you in this side conversation. That may be because resorting to umbrage, name calling and sarcasm in response to someone taking issue with one's remarks is embarassing and immature. If you disagree with something someone says, as I disagree with both your advice and your illustration, you have a number of options. Flaming is one, but it will not be the one that will garner you much respect.
• 

  cedars

  Nickolas - to 'paraphrase' your latest post, since apparently paraphrasing is all the rage now on JWnet...

  "I've been here ages you pathetic little creationist maggot, and when I leap to a conclusion that is unfathomably beyond the intended meaning of your post, you will bend over and take it like a man. Only I am allowed to answer back when people take offense at my posts, YOU must remain quiet and speak when you are spoken to, because you are a newbie and nobody is interested in what you have to say."

  Point taken Nickolas, I apologise for getting my knickers twisted, for taking umbrage, for name calling and for being sarcastic. You are right, I am a simple stupid fairy-believing village idiot, and I could never possibly attain to the higher plain of intellectual existance that you inhabit, along with Richard Dawkins. Please ignore all of my posts from before, and direct any further messages to me via PM. Your humble servant, Cedars