Activists vs rationalists

by donkey 15 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  donkey

  in your view, would victims of abuse within Jehovahs Witnesses congregations be better served by seeking help through available resources other than those provided by Silent Lambs?

  Would someone be better served by another person who has suffered similar fate or by a specialist in the field? Would you let someone else perform dental work on you because they also have bad teeth or would you rather go to a dentist?

  The cameraderie from an organization such as Silent Lambs is undoubtedly a majoir blessing to victims. Bill Bowen has done great ork up to now and at great sacrifice to himself and his family. I like Bill. However, if he is to continue to have the maximum effect and provide the maximum benefit the organization needs to act rationally, expressing outrage appropriately. If SL seeks mainstream media recognition then the organization needs to act in such a way that the public will support the cause for which they stand and have NO DOUBT about any other agendas.
• 

  Kingpawn

  Donkey,

  If someone reads from alternative sources that don't fit within the mainstream,does that automatically identify them with the authors whom they learn from?

  This is what Cookie asked. But when you answered:

  I see nothing wrong with identifying someone with their written views.

  You had misunderstood her question. What she was asking, in essence, is if, for example, someone reads Marx's writings and becomes a believer in the theory of Communism, does that automatically make the reader a fellow Communist?

  In your answer, when you said "...identifying someone with their written views," (emphasis added), the person in the above example now believes in Communism, but that belief does not make s/he a Communist. But using the reasoning behind your reply one would be justified in calling the new believer an actual Communist. It's a small difference I know, but the gap between what Cookie asked and what you thought she meant would widen over time.

  On another topic...when Jim quoted a reply you'd made about him probably being a gay hater...I have to agree with you that you didn't call him one (because of the word "probably"). Hinted at, yes, but actually stated, no.

  My pretax $.02
• 

  donkey

  My apologies in advance for being a dub "ass".

  What she was asking, in essence, is if, for example, someone reads Marx's writings and becomes a believer in the theory of Communism, does that automatically make the reader a fellow Communist?

  If someone belies in the theory of Christianity does that make them a Christian? If someone believes in the theory of evolution does that make them an evolutionist? If someone believes in the theory of Nazi-ism does that make them a Nazi?

  If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and quacks like a duck - is it a rhinocerous?
• 

  cookie

  Donkey reasoned by asking this question:

  'If someone believes in the theory of Christianity does that make them a Christian?

  Most of us on this board probably remember the example of Ghandi (given dozens of times from the podium and written in those magazines) where he said in essense,

  'I love Christ but hate Christianity'

  Donkey,

  I believe that Ghandi was a Hindu; but he certainly appeared to believe in the theory/spirit of Christianity.

  It has been my observation that there is a big difference between most theories (ie.communism) and the practice of those ideals . A lot of the ISM'S have lofty goals on the surface,but in reality we find totalitarianism at its core.

  Can anyone(xjw's) relate to this?

  Cookie
• 

  donkey

  Cookie, your statement was one in which generalization fails. Just reading about and having knowledge of a subject does of course not mean you agree with the subject I will readily concede that.

  Clearly saying "I love Hitler but I hate Nazi-ism" would not be acceptable would it? So when myself and others have gotten in the face of those who have written besmirching things about Jews we have looked at WHAT they are saying. Take a look at the anti-Semitic sentiments being manifest in the threads such as the denial of the concentration camps, the insinuations that the Jews were punished for wrongdoing and the latest round of the worlds leaders being controlled by rich Jews.

  So lets be specific here when people read and agree with anti-Semitic content are they equal to anti-Semitic Nazis? My answer is clearly yes.

  Edited by - donkey on 24 November 2002 11:18:40
• 

  cookie

  Donkey, you wrote:

  " your statement was one in which generalization fails" "Clearly saying "I love Hitler but I hate Nazi-ism" would not be acceptable would it? No, it certainly would not; and my comment does fail when put in that light. But I don't believe the two are comparable.

  Ghandi said:I love Christ but I hate Christianity.He was obviously making the observation that the two are incongruent. The Spirit of Love cannot be reconciled with the atrocities and abuses commited in the name of Christ. (I would venture to say that many on this board feel the same way as Ghandi did; and some may no longer call themselves Christians because of that sentiment.)

  Is there any distinction that could be made between Hitler and Nazism?. I don't know of any.

  Nazism (fascism) is an economic ideology that preceeded Hitler. He was not its founder and he obviously thrived in an organization that made him into such a powerful and abusive ego maniac. In my mind,Hitler/Nazi are interchangeable ;but not so with Christ and the Christianity that Ghandi was obviously referring to.

  But that takes us away from the subject, which you 'readily conceded':

  "Just reading about and having knowledge of a subject does of course not mean you agree with the subject "

  Some of the posters have read and commented on revisionist theories. Perhaps I am missing something;but how is reading,referring to, and (possibly even) agreeing with some revised history anti-Semitic?

  In another post,JJ said that if he were wrong about any of it, he would apologize to the whole board.To me, that meant,he is allowing for the possibility that he still believes that his sources may not have all the answers. But he is searching. Is there something so wrong with that?

  Maybe when history unfolds with more clarity,all of us will need to readjust our thinking. Who knows? )Perhaps the truth lies somewhere in the middle of this debate. But isn't discussion a good way to either flush out truths that may be important,or eliminate them as possibilities?

  Cookie