C...

by AGuest 61 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

AGuest

NC, Don't bother to try to understand A Guest.
When oh when will you take your own advice?
She's been sprouting this nonsense for more than a decade and anyone who has tried to interpret what the hell she's going on about has ended up in the looney bin.
Proof, please. These dear folks deserve proof of such a heinously false assertion.
I don 't wish this to happen to you so I'd suggest doing something more productive with your time, like going out to watch the grass grow or something.
See my first response, above.
A slave of Christ,
SA
AGuest

I think that you and the WT use it in quite the same way. You said that those of the house of israel will understand--hear--things along those lines. This is what the WT uses when they say that those with receptive hearts will 'hear'. I see this only as an appeal to emotion fueled by confirmation bias. You are ringing a bell, not based on critical thinking, but on an emotion.
First, you mistake what I "said" - the message is TO the Household of God, Israel, yes... but NEVER did I say they would hear and understand. Some will - many, MANY won't. At least, not until they say "Blessed is he that comes in the name of JAH." Or something to the effect of recognizing that One. And many, MANY still haven't... and won't... until the full number of the nations have come in. So, it might help the bridge the gap of understanding between us if you condescend to stop saying what I've "said"... if you truly don't know... or understand. I don't mean that insulting, truly. I mean that in the sense that I TRULY respect YOUR intellect... and am only asking you to use it... properly. Because I think you can. For now, though, I think you're doing like some others and allowing your past "understandings" cloud what you THINK I've said or meant.
This is how it worked for me. The world was really turning upside down when JW's knocked. I had just seen the wall in Berlin come down almost over night (to my eyes). The Soviet Union was taking a dive. So when they told me that the world would change suddenly, and with little warning, that rang true for me. I thought I had already witnessed major changes very quickly, so I could see it all happening. It 'rang' for me.
That was you, though, NC. YOU. And many others, perhaps. But not everyone.
But that was really just reaffirming my confirmation bias, because I already had an opinion of what was going on in the world. I was not thinking critically, because had I been, I would have just looked at recent history and seen that while these highly symbolic things were happening quickly, they were years in coming. We'd gone through a cold war, Reagan came along and said "Tear Down That Wall" (not referring to the Berlin wall, to my understanding) there were endless meetings and a lot of diplomacy. But I was looking at it through a microscope, and the Berlin Wall just miraculously came down over night. So what they were saying was completly conceivable to me.
You probably won't believe me... and I mean NO disrespect to ANYONE... but I would have looked as you perhaps should have. World events were of no concern to me. Well, they didn't send me into the despair. They still don't. I dunno, maybe it's because I'm a child of the 60s-70s. Maybe it's because my dad did 3 tours in Vietnam. But... I mean... the worm goes in... the worm goes out. The beat goes on. Always has... and for time yet, will still. What will be... will be. I didn't cry on 9/11. I was absolutely horrified, yes... but no more than I was/am when bombs are dropped somewhere else. Or a child is molested and murdered somewhere else. Or a group of young men open fire on another group of young men. Or a woman is put to death for falling in love. ALL of it's horrifying to ME. But... it's the world. And the world does what it does. Always has.
Things don't 'ring' for me anymore. I ask too many questions. I break everything down and try to look at the history, the patterns, the many details. I try to consider details that disprove my perception of events.
And I totally understand that. Indeed, I don't judge... or condemn... you for it. I mean, I probably don't give you the admiration you might think I should FOR it, but if it works for YOU. I mean, hey, you like it? I love it...
So when I read you saying things like that, I think you are appealing to emotion and suppressing critical thinking.
And that's okay, dear NC - you are entirely entitled to think what you will.
There is so much that we just KNOW is true. It just rings true. We hear. And those things are very often very wrong. But if we aren't open to looking past that sudden pull that we feel, we are vulnerable.
I think I understand... and I appreciate your... mmmmmm... concern. Truly. But you truly don't have to BE concerned, at least not for me. For any others that you might be concerned about, wouldn't it make better sense to try and reason with them, whether on the board, or even perhaps off... than to ridicule, smear, "challenge" in a way that looks and feels like attacking? I mean some have admitted that they prefer an all-out frontal attack. So, okay, give it to them. But if someone tells they DON'T... how is "intelligent" to keep attacking? What does one hope to accomplish by that? Is it WORKING? If NOT... then perhaps such a one should CONDESCEND to LISTEN to what the other person says DOES work for them... and try THAT. I mean, sounds smarter and more "intelligent" to ME... but what do I know. I certainly don't know how to talk to people...
So yes, I think that people that come to the call of that bell are being vulnerable and not thinking critically.
But that's your OPINION, dear one. What YOU think. How can you tell me that I have NO right to "voice" what I think... while vehemently pushing what YOU think? Isn't that... hypocrisy?
And you are encouraging that by saying that those of the house of israel will hear and accept.
Never said it. To the contrary, I almost always say let those WITH ears to hear, hear... and those WITHOUT to perhaps receive them. Neither overlook the possibility... indeed, the very likelihood... that some, many, most OF that House... WON'T hear, let alone accept. YOU have "decided" that I've said they WILL hear AND accept. Why? Because that's what YOU hear. And that's the problem: YOUR hearing... NOT what I'm saying. Because... I promise you: you are NOT hearing what I'm saying... at all. That some DO, however... bugs you. Why? Because you believe that if ANYONE would hear... SHOULD hear... YOU should. That is not the case... or, apparently... the truth, however.
And please know that I am calm, truly. Just typing fast and it's easier to emphasize with caps than with, say, italics. So, please, try not to read any... mmmmm... "loudness" in my comments. I am not a loud person, at all. In any way, size, shape, or form.
It is a red flag to me, and I want it out there to be a red flag for others.
Which it totally fine, truly. I only ask that you remove the hypocrisy in and when your putting it out there.
Critical thinking is a skill, and only by being exposed to it can we really learn it. So I am doing some exposing.
I realize that you THINK you are doing that... and you are TRYING to, yes, to a greater or lesser degree. But the reality is that you're trying to disguise controlling others' thinking under the guise of "teaching" them "critical thinking." TRUE critical thinking, however, doesn't say "You MUST believe what I believe... because I know how to critically think and so that makes me smarter and wiser than you." TRUE critical thinking... and true teaching of it, says, "Here are the facts/terms/premises/theories/hypotheses/statements/assertions/questions/responses/comments, etc. Now, here are the tools. Use them... and decide for yourself."
People don't have to come to my conclusions. I only ask them to stop and think.
Dear NC, again, I don't want to offend... but you don't "only" ask that. Truly. You don't. You say, "Stop and think, but if you come to any other conclusion than I have and say YOU should, you haven't stopped and thought at all. So, you don't HAVE to come to my conclusions, but if you don't... you don't know how to critically think... and that means there's something 'wrong' with you - you're delusional, schizophrenic, hallucinating, bipolar, a con artist, or something like that. I mean, I not accusing you of any of those things... but, really, I actually am. You don't know how to critically think, though, so you won't even be able to see that that's what I'm doing. - "
But I want them to do so honestly and criticaly. Honestly, with all your ability, consider that some of these things are not true, no matter what chord they have struck.
And that's the problem: YOU assume we/they haven't. Because perhaps YOU didn't. And so if YOU didn't... I/they of course haven't, either. Yet, folks call me arrogant. Okay.
Again, I personally don't think we have to understand one another to get along. I get the feeling, though, that you disagree. Not sure there's anything I can do to change that, though...
Peace!
A slave of Christ,
SA
NewChapter

Now, see, here's how I think: if I truly don't understand something you post... but truly WANT to... then all I need do is ask for clarification.
Yes, I would also ask if I didn't understand. But I have to know that I was not understanding in order to know to ask. I don't always know that when I'm reading your posts.
As far puctuation being herd mentality or group think, being a writer, I think this is kind of silly. I've had this discussion with newer writers who feel unduly bound by the rules of grammar and puctuation, so I'll just share what I tell them. I think of it as a social contract. I am asking someone to take their time to read something I have to say. I feel a responsiblity to make that smooth for them. If I really want them to understand what I am saying, I will respect the language they have become accustomed to. I also have a selfish motive. I want them to understand. If I force them to spend a great deal of time and energy deciphering my style, my mistakes, and reconstructing what I write into a language they better understand, then I will lose them and they won't read what I have written. So there is a choice I make. Do I want to communicate, or do I want my reader to struggle with my style and perhaps lose the message I was trying to convey? I choose to communicate and not burden them with the other.
Of course, there are times when unique style may be completely appropriate. I think of poetry. Poetry is more like artwork with words. The appearance, sound and unique style are part of the process. Poetry is also a different kind of contract. A person reading poetry has already decided that they will spend a bit more time thinking and playing with the words. But poetry is usually not the most direct form of communication. It can be, but for the most part, it is more highly open to personal interpretation, and there really is no wrong way to understand it, as it appeals to emotions. People take what they want from poetry, and it's not always what the author originally intended.
I'm not telling you how to write. Write as you wish. I'm just telling you how I respond. I spend a great deal of time simply deciphering, and because I do, I don't always spend as much time understanding. That will likely continue, but it is not my deficiency, as I have very good reading comprehension. If people regularly misunderstand me, I tend to look at how I'm expressing myself and try to fix that. I rarely consider the it the reader's fault.
AGuest

As far puctuation being herd mentality or group think, being a writer, I think this is kind of silly.
I'm not a writer, dear one... but even so, that's not what I meant... or stated... at all. I meant (and stated), in response to your statement was to what is customary to STATE (in lieu of how I use quotations), that I don't subscribe to the customary.
I've had this discussion with newer writers who feel unduly bound by the rules of grammar and puctuation, so I'll just share what I tell them. I think of it as a social contract. I am asking someone to take their time to read something I have to say. I feel a responsiblity to make that smooth for them.
You are writer. You should feel responsible. I'm not a writer. I'm just a lady on an Internet social forum, one that doesn't include "use proper grammar, punctuation, and sentence structure in your posts." Were that the case, more than half of the dear folks here would have to be banned. You're trying (and why, I have NO idea), to put me into your... mmmm... idea... of what I should be (a "writer"), as well as how I should be it (non-spiritual). Why? Why can't I just be me... like you are just being you?
If I really want them to understand what I am saying, I will respect the language they have become accustomed to.
I ABSOLUTELY agree! And so I write TO "them" EXACTLY the way they are "accustomed to" - how my Lord said it TO me... and so I repeat it to THEM. Now, you, though, because you are NOT so accustomed... rather than try and BECOME accustomed... what ME (your "writer") to change my style to suit YOU. (Again, no screaming - just fast typing...). What IS that?
I also have a selfish motive. I want them to understand.
And here is where you and I are most different: it is not up to ME as to whether others understand. I just put it out there. If they "hear" - good. If they don't... okay, too. Not my point... or purpose. Not my power.
If I force them to spend a great deal of time and energy deciphering my style, my mistakes, and reconstructing what I write into a language they better understand, then I will lose them and they won't read what I have written.
Maybe. Or... maybe the WILL spend that time. Like a person whose found a buried treasure, who knows it's there but knows they will have to dig to get it out of the ground. OR... maybe they "speak" the same language to begin with. Can you allow yourself to understand, dear one... that perhaps you don't get it because... you don't get it? I speak a little Spanish; Paolo speaks it fluently. Paolo is speaking to Julia... in Spanish. Can I really walk up to Paolo and say, "Hey, wait - you need to say what you said to Julia differently so that I understand it"?
You're not saying you want to understand me, NC. You imply that you are, but that isn't the truth here. The TRUTH is that YOU don't want to understand ME; you want ME to understand... so as to agree with... YOU. And I DO understand you. I don't necessarily AGREE with you, though.
So there is a choice I make. Do I want to communicate, or do I want my reader to struggle with my style and perhaps lose the message I was trying to convey? I choose to communicate and not burden them with the other.
As do I. And those I usually direct my... mmmmmm... messasge to DO understand. Without struggling with my style. They even state that, here, openly. Frequently. You are assuming, though, that I want YOU to understand me... but that isn't what this is about. I haven't asked you to understand me. Not once. If you do, wonderful. If you don't... then simply ask for clarification - if you WANT clarification. But, please... don't come at me under the guise of "we need to understand one another", when the truth is that you're really only concerned that I understand you... and that you think I and others don't know how to/aren't using critical thinking. I get that that's what you want me to understand... and I really do understand that.
Now, that you don't understand why I don't AGREE with you on that... I think that's on you. I think you're not ALLOWING yourself to understand why.
Of course, there are times when unique style may be completely appropriate. I think of poetry. Poetry is more like artwork with words. The appearance, sound and unique style are part of the process. Poetry is also a different kind of contract. A person reading poetry has already decided that they will spend a bit more time thinking and playing with the words. But poetry is usually not the most direct form of communication. It can be, but for the most part, it is more highly open to personal interpretation, and there really is no wrong way to understand it, as it appeals to emotions. People take what they want from poetry, and it's not always what the author originally intended.
I think posting on a social Internet forum is an appropriate time... and place... for unique style, as well. I do get, though, that you don't necessarily agree with that. But I can receive that. Doesn't mean I'm going to change my style to accommodate you, though...
I'm not telling you how to write.
C'mon... let's keep it honest: yes, you are. You are doing it under the guise of "only suggesting", yes... but the goal is still to tell me how to write.
Write as you wish.
Really? Are you SURE? Because if you are, then as you say, we don't have to visit THIS topic again... right?
I'm just telling you how I respond. I spend a great deal of time simply deciphering, and because I do, I don't always spend as much time understanding.
So, you know what you do... and don't do... but want me to change to accommodate you. Isn't it just as easy (and perhaps a bit more reasonable) for you to change what you know you don't do... so as to do it... than to have me change my style?
That will likely continue, but it is not my deficiency, as I have very good reading comprehension. If people regularly misunderstand me, I tend to look at how I'm expressing myself and try to fix that. I rarely consider the it the reader's fault.
People rarely misunderstand me, dear NC. Yes, some SAY they do... but that's because I'm not saying what they want me to, what they want to hear FROM me. And so, they SAY they don't understand... NOT because what I'm stating doesn't make sense (because it does), but because it's just too difficult for them to hear, receive, accept.
Sorry, but... that's on them.
Again, peace to you!
A slave of Christ,
SA
cofty

Hi
cofty

Just got back and had a browse. I realise this thread is called "C" - for reasons only known to Shelby - but I'm not feeling motivated to join in.
Shelby please stop breaking up everybody's posts into a hundred pieces and rambling on at length about every syllable - its enough to bore anybody to tears.
I think the OP had something to do with a claim that you "know" stuff about god and therefore you don't need faith - whatever. I have heard it all before. Its all just egocentric posturing designed to impresses your disciples.
AGuest

Just got back and had a browse. I realise this thread is called "C" - for reasons only known to Shelby
Ummmm... it's the first letter of your avatar name. I got lazy and didn't feel like typing out the other four letters.
- but I'm not feeling motivated to join in.
Of course, you aren't. No worries - I'm not offended... or surprised... at all.
please stop breaking up everybody's posts into a hundred pieces and rambling on at length about every syllable - its enough to bore anybody to tears.
I think I'll keep my style, thank you, even if you do mind, as it suits MY "needs". In the meantime, might I offer you a hankie?
I think the OP had something to do with a claim that you "know" stuff about god and therefore you don't need faith - whatever.
Well, reading it would give you a bit more knowledge about that it had to do with, but I didn't actually expect that and my suspicions have been confirmed each time you've posted. So long as we moved the issue from dear Palm's (peace!) thread, which was the purpose, though...
I have heard it all before.
No, actually, you haven't. You just think you have...
Its all just egocentric posturing designed to impresses your disciples.
I have no disciples... or followers... or groupies... or posse. As for posturing, egocentrically or otherwise... have you met that black kettle named "Cofty" over on the "Truce" thread? If not, I think you should as you two seem to have a LOT in common... including egocentric posturing...
A slave of Christ,
SA
bohm

Aguest: I have no disciples... or followers... or groupies... or posse. As for posturing, egocentrically or otherwise... have you met that black kettle named "Cofty" over on the "Truce" thread? If not, I think you should as you two seem to have a LOT in common... including egocentric posturing...
However, according to Sebastius, you are "mentoring" people:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/beliefs/242313/4/Faith-and-Trust-The-Same-Things
funny how we so many who are all noticing the same things happening right now...
AGuest

Perhaps dear Sab (peace to you!) is not referring to the definition of "mentor" YOU are, dear Bohm (peace to you!). And yes, there is more than one definition. You'd have to ask him in order to know which one, though (you know, rather than assuming you know and all).
Peace!
A slave of Christ,
SA
cofty

Its a simple word.

C...

Share this