give the guy the benefit of the doubt...i guess,( i don't know the man personally so how can i say for sure). in that, he had "good intentions" when he took such a hardline against specific types of gun ownership. this is a good example to learn from though (me too). in that, it's a good idea to fully think through any stance that you are going to take such a hardline on; realizing, the opposition to your stance may overwhelm you.
this is something that i would say to my friends at WT. don't you people get it? don't you see that you have brought so much of this on yourselves? by taking super hardline stances on things that you aren't even sure of(because they aren't black+white scripturally)? that is just ridiculous. people put their faith in your direction and many died or were raped because of hardline stances which you decreed as coming directly from god (only to be changed later anyway).
the same thing goes for borg as it does for piers morgan. if piers had just said, 'you know i hate gun violence, and this really needs to stop'...maybe talked about the kids a little, maybe even cried a little while speaking about dead children in a schoolyard. maybe if he didn't discuss this issue in the same tone that he did with other issues etc. it would have conveyed his point possibly equally as strong, and given him more support, +kept him safe from the backlash of the most aggressive group of americans(at least safer).
ok are you starting to get the point WT? when you take a stance that is so absolutely aggressive and absolutely (tyrannical), you push the good people away(realizing these issues aren't black and white hence creating doubt/fear among sane followers wondering what is wrong), and you insure that you give a platform to the craziest people inside the church, while also giving these crazies leverage over the sane people.
this recent post about money equating to satan, don't you see that you are drawing an absolute which in turn gives leverage to all the crazies in the org, and then this drives away the sane and prudent individuals who have made responsible decisions with their money? this isn't a great example, but the principle is there. you draw an absolute, unmoderated edict, and in turn it energizes all the loonys, while putting more pressure on the sane people to become themselves loony.
if you talked about the gray issues (SUCH AS MONEY), in a way that was reasonable (even if your views were heavily negative towards it), you would do more to put your own opinions in a positive light, while at the same time saving yourselves from this HUGGGEEEE and overwhelming backlash....not even to mention the empowerment of the crazies and or grossly incompetent over the reasonable and sane.
when i say crazies what am i talking about, who? aren't all the crazies in institutions? well no for one, but for two, it is tongue and cheek to describe, basically, individuals who aren't very intelligent, and are generally led by their emotions, and also who try to take more control than is due to them....these are crazies, why? because if you were to give them full reign, society would be, in fact, completely crazy.
here are some pics of pierce morgan, look at what this debacle has done to him. (note these are pictures that are generally used to hold the individual in a strong light) as in pics generated directly for advertising his show, or wiki page. looks like a man falling apart to me.
i think some things are black and white, but we see the danger in trying to force things to be black and white, which simply are not.
you may read this post and wonder why i articulate myself this way, but in other posts at times i sound like a raving wild man....well for one, i am a raving wild man, and for two, i like making more adversity for myself in venues such as these, for the purpose of challenging myself, as well as challenging others to think. i am not here to make friends, i know there is a certain group on this page that are totally out of their minds with paranoia about me, to you, again, i assure you, i am not interested in making rl friends here, or having some sort of "board renown". at this particular time in my life, i just need a venue to speak like this, that's it.
btw, piers is not an american citizen, i am not trying to incite hate, i am simply stating that: he should have known the kind of backlash he would get speaking on such a sensitive issue with such vehemence, without even being a citizen? i can't even fathom that, how could he not have known what he was getting into.
