Whats so wrong with us

by brother devoted 33 Replies latest jw friends

  • Satanus

    Heheh. Well, i expect the dialogue lover to start dialoguing really soon. Let's see, 9 responses to his original post.


  • NewSense

    Our dear "brother devoted" has asked the question: "What happened?" Well, I ask the same question, albeit with a slightly different twist. My question is: "What happened to allow all these f****** little trolls to slither in?" I find myself thinking about what the former leader of mainland China - Deng Xiao-ping - said regarding the so-called "spiritual pollution" of foreign ideas and concepts that would invariably enter China along with capitalism and foreign capital. He said: If you leave the door open, some flies are bound to come in."

    Due the "open door" policy of this forum, I guess trolls are something that we have to tolerate, something akin to flies crapping on your food at a picnic. But there *are* pop-up blockers and spam blockers. I wonder if Simon could install a TROLL FILTER. That would be cool, although probably unworkable from a practical point of view. Alas!

    Well, dear brother devoted-to-all-of-the-Society's-hypocrisy-greed- and-lies, putting sarcasm aside for a second to answer your question, I have to say that, really, nothing has happened. Freedom of speech is still a part of the Constitution. And most people are still friendly enough so as to welcome a conversation with a "neighbor" or even a stranger. Most folks are good folks, willing to listen to others and engage in human contact. But there are limits to everything, including free speech. First, you have to realize that 99% of what Witnesses say is pure, unadulerated bull****. Victims themselves, Witnesses are cajoled, browbeated and psychologically intimidated into propagating their lies, often under the sophistic guise of "spiritual warfare." They are trained how to lie so as to lure others into their cult. They are trained on how to spread their poison throughout their neighborhoods. They are induced to destroy lives and tear apart families. This is not necessarily a good thing.

    This aside, there are always limits on free speech, as I have said. There are limits in regard to place and time. In other words, people cannot say whatever they damn well please, wherever they damn well please , whenever they damn well please. Furthermore, there is a balance that must be respected between freedom of speech on the one hand, and people's right to privacy on the other. Freedom of speech cannot encroach upon people's right to privacy. People have the right to say: "I'm not interested." And they can say this to Witnesses or anybody else. As has been pointed out previously, this same basic concept also applies to telemarketers and others. In short, people have the right to be left alone, just as they have the right to worship their concept of God. I assume from your troll-like comments that you are a Witness. How would you like people coming to your Kingdom Hall and harassing you during your Sunday afternoon Watchtower study? You would not like it too much, right? Well, in the same vein, many people do not like to be disturbed on their weekends either. Got it? Capice? Comprende usted lo que digo?

  • NewSense

    Oh, and another thing, dear brother. It's totally ironic that you should ask: "Are they afraid of dialogue!" That is one of the most ironic things that I have ever heard. I mean, the words - "Are they afraid of dialogue?" - spoken by a Jehovah's Witness!!! Well, if that is not the most ironic - and hypocritical - thing I have ever heard! Do you have ANY godamn idea what would happen if you were to ever dare to engage one of the elders in a "dialogue" by expressing an opinion or idea that deviated even ever-so-slightly from the Borg's "bottom line." And why are Witnesses so cowardly so as to shun any formal debate in public? They would never agree to it, for that they will easily be exposed as the hypocritical liars that they are. So, please don't make us sick by coming here and spouting your tripe about "dialogue."

    Another reeason why Witnesses don't engage anyone else in true dialogue is because it can be easily shown how their doctrines are continually changing, all under the guise of NEW LIGHT. Simply stated, most of their "arguments" are utterly untenable; Witnesses don't have a damn leg to stand on when it comes to dialogue. For example, will the residents of Sodom be part of the resurrection? Well, the answer is "yes" and/or "no," all depending on which Watchtower from which year you happen to be reading. And, do you know the Society's current teaching on blood fractions? Which ones are permissable? Does anyone really know? Can Witnesses now vote?

  • Wolfgirl

    Dialogue is an exchange of views, opinions, beliefs, and facts. What happens when someone at the door says, "Sure, I'll talk to you about what you believe if you're willing to listen to me talk about what I believe." Or, "I'll accept your literature if you accept mine." No, there is no dialogue. Only an attempt to convince other people that your belief is right, without opening your mind to the fact that there is no "right" (no one can PROVE there is a god, and no one can PROVE there isn't) and without even attempting to listen to the possibility that you might be wrong.

  • frenchbabyface

    I've seen a few EXITING "NO TREPASSING" signs in Texas = (Exiting as their were getting you informe that you will be SHOT !!! (Ok - most are I'am sure HUMOR ...)

    but to stay a bit on the topic : my sign would be "CULTS here You'll talk to the hand, if you can't hear what I Also I've to tell you "

  • blondie

    It is necessary to balance the freedom of speech with property rights and privacy rights and the difference from exercising free speech on public versus private property.

    Also, there is a difference when a municipality passes a law restricting information from its citizens and when a citizen makes an individual decision to restrict that information. The municipality does not have that right but the individual citizen does.

    In the WT versus Stratton, one of the arguments was that the village of Stratton did not need to make a law restricting JWs since the indivdual citizen need only post a no trespassing sign to restrict their visits. In the past JWs have ignored such signs but now the WTS recognizes that these ones were breaking the law. Now forewarned by the WTS, individual JWs who ignore such signs will have to suffer the consequences. The Court also notes that any citizen may post "no trespassing" signs and prevent entry by canvassers or solicitors. Local governments and police are certainly authorized to prosecute trespassers under appropriate criminal laws. It is, however, for citizens and not government to choose whether private property is to be a forum for the expression of First Amendment rights.

    The Court also notes that any citizen may post "no trespassing" signs and prevent entry by

    canvassers or solicitors. Local governments and police are certainly authorized to prosecute

    trespassers under appropriate criminal laws. It is, however, for citizens and not government to

    choose whether private property is to be a forum for the expression of First Amendment rights.

  • Scully

    brother devoted writes:

    this whole thing about wanting to erect signs seem to cut off the freedom of speech that America says it prides itelf on...What happened?

    Answer me this: What makes your Freedom of Speech? (as you define it, your right to disturb people who do not wish to be disturbed by you) more important than anyone else's Right to protect the sanctity of their home? What makes your Freedom of Speech? more important than my Freedom of [and from] Religion?

    The rights and freedoms we enjoy as citizens does not mean that we can trample on or ignore the rights and freedoms of others. You are certainly "Free" to speak to anyone who wishes to engage in conversation with you. I am certainly free to call the police if you show up on my doorstep uninvited, after ignoring my No Trespassing sign.

    Why are you so ungrateful toward people who want to preserve their privacy, who provide you with the fringe benefit of simplifying your preaching work?? Why are you so resistant to increasing the efficiency of your door-to-door work?

    Doesn't the "Freedom of Speech" argument seem a little silly when you think of this No Trespassing issue as a way of streamlining your ministry, and only calling on those people who don't mind your visits?? Don't you remember the separating work?? Don't you appreciate the efforts of someone erecting a No Trespassing sign, which is essentially saying "Don't waste your time here", so that you can be more effective and visit people who welcome you??

    Love, Scully

  • jgnat

    Dialogue requires two people. Dialogue follows a pattern similar to this.

    Speaker A: "Here's a thought __________"
    Speaker B: (listens, thinks), "Yes, and here is a thought to add to it ______________"
    Speaker A: (listens, thinks), "But, if you consider, ________, would it change your comment?"
    Speaker B: (listens, thinks), "I don't think so, because of __________"
    ....and so on.

    Dialogue means that least two people are speaking, listening to each other, and thinking before they respond. Dialogue cannot be rehearsed, because human responses are endlessly variable. As experience has shown, if a householder varies from the script, a Jehovah's Witness is lost. This is because dialogue is not the intent of the JW. The Jehovah's Witness has no intention to allow his/her own beliefs challenged/modified by an "outsider's" clear thinking.

    I have checked all of Brother Devoted's threads. There are twelve of them, so this was not hard. Brother Devoted has not revisited a single thread to respond to questions in kind.

  • Will Power
    Will Power

    New Sense: That was extremely well put.

    I have to laugh everytime my hubby is interrupted with a telephone solicitor call. (which he hates) I started using the line "not interested and please take me off your list." Like put me on the "do not call list" Then I tell him by rights they have to do it! Now after his quick interruption of not interested etc. he has added this little line as well. I'm very sure he does not see the connection between this and door knocking, but of course I do.

    I have the freedom to approach my nieghbor oin conversation

    This is something else that makes me chuckle in the "whats wrong with us" discussion. Ever notice that you can live next door to a witness for years and years and never know they are one? Our neighbours were really surprised after 10 years. Guess these are the ones that love the scripture about not being believed in your own home town, so they go right to a different "territory". It could never be embarrassment, or fear of people "cooling off" toward them.

    Each time I have tried to engage a house to houser, they end up running away! They will not ever stand and defend their beliefs. They will not engage in dialogue canned or opinionated on anything off their rehearsed repetoire. As soon as they are in uncharted waters - THEY deem the conversation going nowhere. Good grief. Ironic is too nice a word. This is where the cult shows its ugly colours.

    You hate to lump everyone into the same basket, love the benefit of the doubt, don't let a few spoil it for the rest etc, etc. But when the mandatory door knocking must be practiced by their law, you don't have to have any fine print. Blanket statements like "no trespassing" work.

    I, as well, would not put up such a sign - only because I am an informed consumer, and love "dialogue" with these "free speechers"

    sorry if I have offended anyone


  • Realist


    the freedom of one ends where it starts to cut into the freedom of someone else. if i don't want others on my property they have to respect that.

Share this