Posts by seattleniceguy

144

Is repititive imprinting of ideas a primary cult tactic?

by hubert in

in a post by syn that lady lee has brought up again, there is this statement by syn.

i could underline my watchtower in 10 minutes, tops, and be sure that all the answers were right.

many esteemed researchers have shown that repetitive imprinting of ideas is a primary cult tactic, and i tend to agree with them.

seattleniceguy

sweetscholar,
Are you Michelle from California? Please PM me if so.
SNG

53

LOOKS OR PERSONALITY?

by Mary in

jw
friends

ok, if you had to choose between looks and personality, which wins?

guys: if a girl is only mediocre in the looks department but is absolutely fab-u-lous in the personality dept...........which is more important to you?

or are they equally important?

There's a proverb in Japan: "You tire of a beautiful woman in three days."
I mean, obviously, everyone wants both. But a beautiful girl with no personality (or worse, a bad personality)? Please. You'd be better off taking a girly magazine to bed - all the looks, none of the headache.
But on the other hand, some of the way we look is actually directly connected to personality. A bright and cheerful person has a bright and cheerful face. Someone who actively takes care of themselves will have a decent body.
So I think if you really concentrate on personality, you can't go too far astray.
SNG

144

Is repititive imprinting of ideas a primary cult tactic?

by hubert in

in a post by syn that lady lee has brought up again, there is this statement by syn.

i could underline my watchtower in 10 minutes, tops, and be sure that all the answers were right.

many esteemed researchers have shown that repetitive imprinting of ideas is a primary cult tactic, and i tend to agree with them.

seattleniceguy

sweetscholar,

Michelle, clam up please. your non-addressing of specifics is idiotic and typical. you're hung up on my tone but if I was an anti-JW with the same exact tone, you'd be cheering me on. or at the very least, not willing to criticize it. hypocrite.

LOL. The funny thing that everyone here knows except for you is that Michelle is one of the few people here that believes almost exactly as you do. You go ripping into one of the three or four people on this entire board that would probably be supportive of you. Nice work. :-)

SNG

16

WT's Strong Hold on the In-active

by sandy in

ok, this past friday i organized a meetup for ex-witnesses in my local area.

i invited my brother who was never baptized (was almost baptized at 13 but one of the elders asked him to wait till he studied throught he second book).

after the elder asked him to wait he never attended the meetings again with the exception of memorials and some assemblies.

seattleniceguy

Yeah, I've noticed this too. It's almost like the inactives believe more strongly, to make up for their inaction.
Indoctrination is a funny thing. It introduces deeply embedded patterns of thinking and feeling that don't go away easily. Ironically, that's one of the reasons that culture changes so slowly in the congregations. Take, for instance, the Society's crusade against aluminum. For years, people are brought up believing that this stuff is evil, that the government and industry are in cahoots to screw everyone over with their dastardly aluminum cookware. Somewhere along the line, the Society realizes that they are being bonkers and quietly stop denouncing aluminum in print. And yet, the irrational fear will hang on for decades. The indoctrination sword cuts both ways.
Mental entrapment is what it is. A lot of ex-Witnesses are physically free but they still believe the lie. That's one of the biggest purposes of internet resources - to help such people come to true freedom.
SNG

55

JW mom told 6 y/o grandson Santa was fake

by unbeliever in

jw
friends

and that christmas trees were pagan sticks.

she really did it this time.

he does not understand what a pagan stick is but he sure understands about santa not being real.

seattleniceguy

Personally, I don't think I could tell my kids that Santa was real. My reality complex is too strong. I like Elsewhere's suggestion.
However, it is way out of line to go bursting other people's bubbles. I mean, WTF, man? That's just passive-agressive.
SNG

144

Is repititive imprinting of ideas a primary cult tactic?

by hubert in

in a post by syn that lady lee has brought up again, there is this statement by syn.

i could underline my watchtower in 10 minutes, tops, and be sure that all the answers were right.

many esteemed researchers have shown that repetitive imprinting of ideas is a primary cult tactic, and i tend to agree with them.

seattleniceguy

defd,

Were you not also a Witness at one point in your life?

Yes, I was before I knew all the facts. The primary reason I still have any interest in the Witnesses now is because I have family members (not to mention a few friends) that I care about who I would like to see attain mental freedom. Posting on the board is one contribution I make toward a future free of fundamentalism.

SNG

173

Birthday celebrations and customs - Are they for Christians?

by AlmostAtheist in

jw
friends

i sent my birthday document (http://thebentinel.com/jw-birthdays.html) to a poster here that is at the very least a jw-sympathizer, if not a full-blown jw.

the response i got back indicated that my reasoning on it was seriously flawed and essentially any idiot with a passing knowledge of scripture and history can tell that birthdays are not something christians should celebrate.. of course, if you're not a bible-believer or a god-believer, you couldn't care less about pagan origins and all that.

but let's keep this conversation on the 'appropriate for christians' vein.

seattleniceguy

I can't seem to find the post, but someone once posted about how dogs are mentioned something like 50 times in the Bible, always associated with bad things. Since birthdays are mentioned only twice, that makes dogs 2500% more evil than birthdays!
SNG

144

Is repititive imprinting of ideas a primary cult tactic?

by hubert in

in a post by syn that lady lee has brought up again, there is this statement by syn.

i could underline my watchtower in 10 minutes, tops, and be sure that all the answers were right.

many esteemed researchers have shown that repetitive imprinting of ideas is a primary cult tactic, and i tend to agree with them.

seattleniceguy

sweetscholar,

My interest in this site is primarily due to the fact that some of my family are Witnesses.

I am aware of the evidence that Witnesses talk about which supposedly proves that the Bible is God's word. I've read the Witness books on the topic and looked at a few web sites. The problem is, the evidence is extraordinarily weak. Did you know that people who believe in the Koran have similar books of evidence that the Koran is God's word? They even have almost identical headings: prophecy, scientific accuracy, and so on. And yet I'd venture that somehow you do not believe in the Koran in spite of this "overwhelming evidence."

but I do not go off like this with regular people on the street. on this site is mostly apostates or apostate types or religious hypocrites and scoundrels big time. I hate to say that but it's true. anyway, that's it for now. also, try focusing more on the sum and substance of what I've been saying, rather than whining and harping about my tone so much. because that's ultimatley the point anyway. I could be the most abrasive guy on the planet, and still be telling you the truth. think about it.
[ bolding mine ]

I thought about it. Now here's something for you to think about. You've made an excellent point: It doesn't matter who a person is - their points should be considered on their own merit. Even the devil can tell the truth, as the saying goes. I agree with that. We must examine any claim on its own merit, without regard to who the person is who is making the claim.

Now here's where the contradiction comes in. In the same breath that you talk about looking at an argument on its merits, you dismiss most of the others on this site as "apostate types or religious hypocrites and scoundrels big time." Do you see the problem here? It doesn't matter whether you think someone is the runt of a litter of piglets. According to you yourself, that is immaterial. What do you have to say about their ideas?

That's the whole problem with labels - they shut down thought. You've made it clear that if you don't like what someone says, you just toss out the "apostate" label instead of responding to their argument. You have done this many, many times on this thread. The Watchtower Society employs this technique all the time. Don't like an argument? Just say that it's "apostate reasoning" and you don't have to respond to its actual content.

In other words, it's not about the other party getting thicker skin. We're all adults here. We can handle a stranger on the other side of the internet calling us names. But people won't waste their time debating with a bombastic blowhard who doesn't take the time to listen to the other side.

Lest you again say that I'm harping on your tone, I'm not. I'm trying to look at what underlies it. Abrasiveness is fine. Dismissiveness of ideas you don't like (via namecalling in your case) is not logical, will not win anyone over to the Christ, and certainly won't win you many friends. Anyway, I'm sorry if this has turned into a sermon. Hope you stick around and learn lots.

SNG

144

Is repititive imprinting of ideas a primary cult tactic?

by hubert in

in a post by syn that lady lee has brought up again, there is this statement by syn.

i could underline my watchtower in 10 minutes, tops, and be sure that all the answers were right.

many esteemed researchers have shown that repetitive imprinting of ideas is a primary cult tactic, and i tend to agree with them.

seattleniceguy

Ah, yes, the one point I can concede.
Yes, I'll hand it to you, the Bible contains accounts of Jesus calling people names. So I suppose you're showing off your Christ-like personality whenever you call people names. Awesome.
The only reason I've pointed it out at all is because it's kind of funny. I'm not harping on your tone. You can call me names all day long, I don't care. You should be aware, however, that name-calling doesn't get you anywhere in a debate. All it does is make you look foolish.
I mean, think about it. Let's say some people are having a nice conversation over coffee. You burst into the room frothing at the mouth, shouting and screaming, throwing things around. Is this something an adult does? Or is it something a child does? You won't get any respect unless you act like an adult. That's why no one is respecting you here.
SNG

144

Is repititive imprinting of ideas a primary cult tactic?

by hubert in

in a post by syn that lady lee has brought up again, there is this statement by syn.

i could underline my watchtower in 10 minutes, tops, and be sure that all the answers were right.

many esteemed researchers have shown that repetitive imprinting of ideas is a primary cult tactic, and i tend to agree with them.

seattleniceguy

sweetscholar,

I haven't responded to any of your points because arguing from the Bible is meaningless to me. It would be like if someone tried to prove a point to you by quoting the Koran. "See, it's all here in black and white!" they would say. But that doesn't mean anything if you don't accept the Koran as the voice of truth. Similarly, I believe that the Bible is just a bunch of ancient religious writings, so carring on about this or that scripture doesn't particularly mean anything. You might as well be quoting Garfield the Cat.

At any rate, my posts have not been to debate with you - as that would clearly be a pointless endeavor - but merely to offer suggestions or point out ironies, such as your suggestion that we put aside our "huffy puffy I know I'm right attitude." I mean, really, you have to be able to imagine how seeing this coming from you is pretty damn funny.

Cheers,
SNG