IICSA: survivors speak of influence of religion

[TrueTomHarley 4,731]

59 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

I sleep with a smile of Jesus in my face

You do NOT sleep with a smile of Jesus in your face. If you did, your manner of communication, respect, and kindness would align with his.

At the drop of a pin, you pick fights and take offense. Jesus didn’t do this. Picking on poor @Araunaof the fading eyes—shame, shame!

[TrueTomHarley 4,731]

1 hour ago, César Chávez said:

She disrespected me. Why aren't you trying to "rebuke" her?

What did Jesus do when he was “disrespected?”

1 hour ago, César Chávez said:

The one that is "wrong" here is you and her.

How insistent was Jesus on proving himself right?

1 hour ago, César Chávez said:

Keep your obtuse comments to yourself! The one that should be ashamed is you, ex-elder!

Even were I to take this as an insult, which appears the way you intend it, how many times did Jesus say to Peter (after 3 times denying him) “The one that should be ashamed is you, ex-disciple!”

I mean really, CC. If you want people to believe that you are a Witness, you should act like one.

[Anna 2,627]

7 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

That makes my understanding of staying away from people that are a bad influence, bad company

No, you love this, that's why you're always trolling on here 

[TrueTomHarley 4,731]

1 hour ago, César Chávez said:

Now lets get this obtuse post back on track, shall we!

No, I think we found a new track to explore.

Nobody is more unkind here than you. There may be some as unkind, but you are in the top tier. Plus, the fact that you claim to represent Jehovah’s organization, and they don’t, makes your unkindness by far the worst. I mean, nobody expects 4Jah or Witness to be nice..You are every bit as insulting as Alan, and far worse, because he represents the atheists and you don’t.

Nobody picks fights with every single person here, finding no difference between friend and foe. They are all foes to you.

Nobody excoriates brothers more than you for straying in even the tiniest degree from some aspect of counsel, as though every syllable was unyielding iron. And yet, nobody is a more blatant example than you for ignoring such counsel with regard to engaging apostates. Everyone else makes some acknowledgment of why they overstep that “line.” Only you oversteps it while still claiming to represent to the nth degree those who obey counsel.

It is very hard to believe that you are a Witness. Can you really be one? Possibly you are one of the “sons of thunder” who wanted to call fire and sulphur from heaven to avenge a slight to the Lord. But the Lord rebuked them for this. Accordingly, you too ought to be rebuked frequently so that if possible “you may be healthy in the faith.”—assuming you are actually there.

[Arauna 1,771]

33 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Plus, the fact that you claim to represent Jehovah’s organization, and they don’t

It does not make their hate-OCD better. It is false to think that JWs must pander to such deceit and unrighteousness. I do not recall Jesus pandering to mainstream thinking or placating the pharisees.  

I also come across strong to the American mindset. A country where boys who are unruly,  not polite or noisy are given drugs in school and diagnosed with ADHD ...... yes I understand the American mindset.  And it is truly warped..... that is why it is now unlawful to say anything against transgenderism.  This has been coming for a very ling time.

I do think I can learn to be more polite in my disdain of lies....but I do not think the people here are inclined to learn anything from others...... so yea .... I may be wasting my precious eyesight.

I do pop in now and then but I do not take these subjects too seriously..... or for that matter myself seriously here..... it is a waste of time. It is mere entertainment. 

Maybe I should add that I intended no harm or untruth when I added that short comment. So I apologise.  I just zoomed in on a word that was used. That is all. 

[JW Insider 5,944]

17 hours ago, Arauna said:

Please explain what I did wrong.  I am prepared to listen to you if you really have superior insight!  I merely commented that it was a lie and not a different opinion.

(Proverbs 26:17) Like someone grabbing hold of a dog’s ears Is the one passing by who [meddles in] a quarrel that is not his.

I have had hundreds of very similar exchanges with Allen/Billy/Cesar/D../E../F../etc., and, by explaining, might even be able to divert some of his sneering hatred back over to me instead of you.

First of all, you did nothing wrong. I see two possibilities here:

1. Cesar simply made a mistake when he misunderstood your post: he saw a response to something that made him think you were accusing him of lying, when you were obviously referring to Srecko. But as many of us have seen 1,000 times (probably not an exaggeration) Cesar has never been able to admit his own mistakes no matter how obvious they are to others.
2. It is also possible that Cesar understood, and actually did see that you were referring to what Srecko said but he objected to you contradicting him when he had said that it was Srecko's "opinion" and you said that it was more than just Srecko's opinion, it was a "lie."

All of us probably have some sensitivity towards what people say based on what we think of other things they have said. Everyone carries some "baggage." Sometimes I have found that it is easier to understand an exchange of ideas more objectively by imagining the exchange of ideas in a different context outside the forum, or by paraphrasing the meaning instead of the exact words, and even removing (or mentally swapping) the names of persons involved in an exchange.

I'll imagine two sisters (Sister "A" and Sister "B") going on a return visit to a woman (Woman "C") who has shown interest, but who has now learned something that disturbs her.

Woman C : But it looks like the WT writers can revoke previous teachings any time just by saying that "new light" has shined upon them.

Sister A : You are thinking something false, this conjecture that the WT is "changing" scripture altogether. Once again, that's just your opinion.

Sister B : Yes, [Sister A is right] ... and it's not just false conjecture or "just an opinion," it's really a blatant lie to say that the WT has changed scripture.

---------------The actual relevant portions of the exchange-----------

Srecko: WTJWorg religious teachers, scholars with GB+Helpers, "revoking" past and present teachings (each time a “new light” shines on them)

Cesar: The false statement here is your conjecture to say, the Watchtower is "changing" scripture altogether. Once again, that's just your opinion.

Arauna: it is a lie - not opinion.  

 

[xero 329]

4 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

(Proverbs 26:17) Like someone grabbing hold of a dog’s ears Is the one passing by who [meddles in] a quarrel that is not his.

I have had hundreds of very similar exchanges with Allen/Billy/Cesar/D../E../F../etc., and, by explaining, might even be able to divert some of his sneering hatred back over to me instead of you.

First of all, you did nothing wrong. I see two possibilities here:

1. Cesar simply made a mistake when he misunderstood your post: he saw a response to something that made him think you were accusing him of lying, when you were obviously referring to Srecko. But as many of us have seen 1,000 times (probably not an exaggeration) Cesar has never been able to admit his own mistakes no matter how obvious they are to others.
2. It is also possible that Cesar understood actually did see that you were referring to what Srecko said but he objected to you contradicting him when he had said that it was Srecko's "opinion" and you said that it was more than just Srecko's opinion, it was a "lie."

All of us probably have some sensitivity towards what people say based on what we think of other things they have said. Everyone carries some "baggage." Sometimes I have found that it is easier to understand an exchange of ideas more objectively by imagining the exchange of ideas in a different context outside the forum, or by paraphrasing the meaning instead of the exact words, and even removing (or mentally swapping) the names of persons involved in an exchange.

I'll imagine two sisters (Sister "A" and Sister "B") going on a return visit to a woman (Woman "C") who has shown interest, but who has now learned something that disturbs her.

Woman C : But it looks like the WT writers can revoke previous teachings any time just by saying that "new light" has shined upon them.

Sister A : You are thinking something false, this conjecture that the WT is "changing" scripture altogether. Once again, that's just your opinion.

Sister B : Yes, [Sister A is right] ... and it's not just false conjecture or "just an opinion," it's really a blatant lie to say that the WT has changed scripture.

---------------The actual relevant portions of the exchange-----------

Srecko: WTJWorg religious teachers, scholars with GB+Helpers, "revoking" past and present teachings (each time a “new light” shines on them)

Cesar: The false statement here is your conjecture to say, the Watchtower is "changing" scripture altogether. Once again, that's just your opinion.

Arauna: it is a lie - not opinion.  

 

Seems like a fair analysis.

[TrueTomHarley 4,731]

16 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Sometimes I have found that it is easier to understand an exchange of ideas more objectively by imagining the exchange of ideas in a different context outside the forum, or by paraphrasing the meaning instead of the exact words, and even removing (or mentally swapping) the names of persons involved in an exchange.

This is not a bad idea. I could benefit from it (but probably won’t)

I’m not entirely sure the relevance, but I used to love this takeoff on the old Certs ad:

”Certs is a breath mint”

Certs is a taste mint”

”a breath mint.”

”a taste mint.”

“Breath”

”TASTE!!!”

“Oh, yeah??!!!”

“YEAH!! WHAT ARE YOU GONNA DO ABOUT IT??!!!!!”

[JW Insider 5,944]

16 minutes ago, xero said:

Seems like a fair analysis.

For the specific point that Arauna refers to, I think it's fair. However, I got interrupted with a long phone call before adding an important point in Cesar's favor. Arauana was not clear about a separate point where I believe she was also agreeing with Cesar against Srecko, but she quoted Cesar's response to Srecko instead of going back to the original statement by Srecko in her quote. So it made it look like she was quoting Cesar and responding to him:

 

------Arauna, responding to Cesar's response to Srecko------

------------------------------------------------------------------

This could very easily have been the "trigger" because the "you" looks like it refers to Cesar.

[xero 329]

Just now, JW Insider said:

For the specific point that Arauna refers to, I think it's fair. However, I got interrupted with a long phone call before adding an important point in Cesar's favor. Arauana was not clear about a separate point where I believe she was also agreeing with Cesar against Srecko, but she quoted Cesar's response to Srecko instead of going back to the original statement by Srecko in her quote. So it made it look like she was quoting Cesar and responding to him:

This could very easily have been the "trigger."

I hate to say it, but this reminds me of something my non-JW dad used to say "The meaning of life doesn't mean anything to a person with tight shoes". So a lot of the moaning I here sounds like 1st world problems. All that disappears when you have "tight shoes" - whatever that physical pain/psychological pain currently is.

[TrueTomHarley 4,731]

12 minutes ago, xero said:

So a lot of the moaning I here sounds like 1st world problems. All that disappears when you have "tight shoes" - whatever that physical pain/psychological pain currently is.

A relative of mine is a need-greater in a developing country, one of those where houses may well be on stilts due to the downpours.

People there fear COVID, she says, but they fear starvation more. They are setting traps to catch rats. They are fishing in sewers for eels. Women are selling themselves into prostitution, doubly risky for them because they know they will be jailed if caught.

Do you mean these kind of problems, while we flail away at a antitype that blew up in our faces?

[xero 329]

4 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

A relative of mine is a need-greater in a developing country, one of those where houses may well be on stilts due to the downpours.

People there fear COVID, she says, but they fear starvation more. They are setting traps to catch rats. They are fishing in sewers for eels. Women are selling themselves into prostitution, doubly risky for them because they know they will be jailed if caught.

Do you mean these kind of problems, while we flail away at a antitype that blew up in our faces?

Yeah, people in the west who have time to worry about some of this stuff can count themselves fortunate.