TrueTomHarley

The Huffington Post is oblivious to this. It celebrates her BDSM as a triumph of the human spirit. From their point of view, there is nothing sordid about it at all. This article tells me more about the Post than it does about the Witnesses.
The portion of the story quoted is only that which makes the Witnesses look bad, so it is reasonable to think that is the intent or whoever quoted it. But the article in its entirety celebrates humanism more than it seeks to put down religion. Her JW upbringing is just setting the stage for the main event.
No, I don’t think she is blaming, either. The “context” is supplied by whoever quoted just the Witness portion of the article. She views her life as a triumph. So does the Post. Whatever ‘blame there is may be implied by detractors who hope to embarrass Witnesses by pointing to her “downward spiral” and what a fat reward THAT is for a JW upbringing. The Post is trying to have it both ways; impute shame over a “backwards” Witness upbringing while at the same time painting BDSM favorably. Given that they feel BDSM is a triumph, they might just as easily praise her JW upbringing for lining up the circumstances to lead her to it.
Essentially, the parents are guilty of living their faith. They may or may not have had their personal quirks to heighten or lessen theocratic training. It isn’t easy to raise kids. All are different. This story is no more than “Demas has forsaken me because he loved the present system of things.” Do you think Demas thereafter reminisced of how balanced those early Christians were? Or did he paint them as narrow, repressive, even brainwashing? The Post is happy to discard faith. All its focus is on the here-and-now.
Surely there is a tragedy in settling for a life of atheism, but the article conveys none of it. Rather, it conveys just the reverse. It’s a little like the guy who loses millions in the stock market. “Oh well, they were just paper gains anyway,” he says, as he celebrates the few thousands he has left.
That is what’s “wrong” with the article. It celebrates the amoral short term, completely oblivious to the long term—the “real life” as Paul puts it.

Everyone uses the word Orwellian today, it is the new insult.
It is the same as how verbal pugilists, upon failing to convince the other side, describe ones on that side as “arrogant.”
It is the same as how “cognitive dissonance” has become the new phrase of insult, as in, “Your cognitive dissonance must be massive to withstand the force of MY overpowering arguments.”
Blow it all off. It is just blowhards blowing hard, as they have always done.
On average, the people of this system of things are smarter than those of Jehovah’s Witnesses, better educated. Yet that advantages is squandered by their inability to get along, to yield, to work together for common good. Witnesses run rings around them in the practical deeds of their choosing, thus triggering taunts of Orwellian, arrogance, and cognitive dissonance. 

The Huffington Post is oblivious to this. It celebrates her BDSM as a triumph of the human spirit. From their point of view, there is nothing sordid about it at all. This article tells me more about the Post than it does about the Witnesses.
The portion of the story quoted is only that which makes the Witnesses look bad, so it is reasonable to think that is the intent or whoever quoted it. But the article in its entirety celebrates humanism more than it seeks to put down religion. Her JW upbringing is just setting the stage for the main event.
No, I don’t think she is blaming, either. The “context” is supplied by whoever quoted just the Witness portion of the article. She views her life as a triumph. So does the Post. Whatever ‘blame there is may be implied by detractors who hope to embarrass Witnesses by pointing to her “downward spiral” and what a fat reward THAT is for a JW upbringing. The Post is trying to have it both ways; impute shame over a “backwards” Witness upbringing while at the same time painting BDSM favorably. Given that they feel BDSM is a triumph, they might just as easily praise her JW upbringing for lining up the circumstances to lead her to it.
Essentially, the parents are guilty of living their faith. They may or may not have had their personal quirks to heighten or lessen theocratic training. It isn’t easy to raise kids. All are different. This story is no more than “Demas has forsaken me because he loved the present system of things.” Do you think Demas thereafter reminisced of how balanced those early Christians were? Or did he paint them as narrow, repressive, even brainwashing? The Post is happy to discard faith. All its focus is on the here-and-now.
Surely there is a tragedy in settling for a life of atheism, but the article conveys none of it. Rather, it conveys just the reverse. It’s a little like the guy who loses millions in the stock market. “Oh well, they were just paper gains anyway,” he says, as he celebrates the few thousands he has left.
That is what’s “wrong” with the article. It celebrates the amoral short term, completely oblivious to the long term—the “real life” as Paul puts it.

You are so malignantly obtuse.
The following two paragraphs appear in the book:
"The things Jehovah’s Witnesses have reinterpreted, or even flip-flopped on, are all superfluous things, the trimmings on the tree, and not the tree itself. The essential doctrines of Jehovah’s Witnesses that distinguish them from any other religion have been solidly established for over 100 years—teachings that the Trinity is unscriptural, for example, and that the soul does not live on after death. These are the important points that one should focus on. Among the basic tenets discerned 100 years ago is that human salvation is not the prime issue before all creation; rather, the vindication of God’s name and purposes is. It is a huge distinction. To overly carry on as though one’s own personal salvation is paramount invariably pushes ones toward being self-centered.
"Governing Body members take heart that blunders aplenty are to be found in Scripture—so that if they make a few, they feel right at home. In the first century the word went out among the congregations that the apostle John would not die until the Lord’s return. It took John himself to set the record straight. He didn’t bother doing so until nearing the end of his life. Perhaps he had thought it himself."

Soon you will know what true Orwelian dystopia is - you who put your faith in human science, human philisophy and human governments. 
You use the word Orwelian lightly- without understanding what you are saying - you do not "know" all , even if you think you do.. You evaluate what we teach in a fleshly and materialistic / evolutionary way .......I can only feel sorry for you. 

There is always that psycho ex-mate who just cannot let go.

Tom, you never know how true that can be. There was this woman at work "Carmen" who apparently got wind that I was a JW and all and decided to start hitting on me. In the break room on a Friday she asked me to go to happy hour with her and her gf's. I said, looking at her seriously "Carmen. Happy hour begins at home." Then she said "But what if your wife has other plans?" I said (in front of a bunch of the guys) "Carmen, my wife has nothing better to do with her free time than to spend it all with me." All these guys busted out laughing.
This stuff happens all the time I'm sure w/brothers because what you can't have is what you want sometimes.

Word on the street is that the miscreants here planned to send some Moabite women your way to trip you up. So much for that idea.

We overthink this. It is no more than heeding the coach.

This helped me to see the source of Alan’s enmity towards me. It is pure envy.

I think a lot of people who have left and a lot who have stayed have a lot in common. They haven't made the truth their own. Instead they either abdicate their free will to an organization or they blame an organization for their having left. In either case if the shoe fits is that "each one must carry his own load". Now you can't look at someone and know what box they fit into, but obsessive focus on the organization and the GB is, of course a clue. Supposedly we're supposed to be intently looking at and studying the perfecter of our faith - Jesus.
Elders aren't magical wise men, neither are members of any governing body. You can of course cherry pick and create whatever movie you want to play in your own head as the manner of your life and whether you're happy with it or not - still it's your own bed - you made it, you continue to make it and you must lie down in it.
Happy people will be happy, and unhappy people will be unhappy. As soon as people "stop kicking against the goads" and know that they are solely responsible for their own choices and the consequences which flow from these, they can begin really living. (as much as living can be living in this particular rendition)

The Huffington Post is oblivious to this. It celebrates her BDSM as a triumph of the human spirit. From their point of view, there is nothing sordid about it at all. This article tells me more about the Post than it does about the Witnesses.
The portion of the story quoted is only that which makes the Witnesses look bad, so it is reasonable to think that is the intent or whoever quoted it. But the article in its entirety celebrates humanism more than it seeks to put down religion. Her JW upbringing is just setting the stage for the main event.
No, I don’t think she is blaming, either. The “context” is supplied by whoever quoted just the Witness portion of the article. She views her life as a triumph. So does the Post. Whatever ‘blame there is may be implied by detractors who hope to embarrass Witnesses by pointing to her “downward spiral” and what a fat reward THAT is for a JW upbringing. The Post is trying to have it both ways; impute shame over a “backwards” Witness upbringing while at the same time painting BDSM favorably. Given that they feel BDSM is a triumph, they might just as easily praise her JW upbringing for lining up the circumstances to lead her to it.
Essentially, the parents are guilty of living their faith. They may or may not have had their personal quirks to heighten or lessen theocratic training. It isn’t easy to raise kids. All are different. This story is no more than “Demas has forsaken me because he loved the present system of things.” Do you think Demas thereafter reminisced of how balanced those early Christians were? Or did he paint them as narrow, repressive, even brainwashing? The Post is happy to discard faith. All its focus is on the here-and-now.
Surely there is a tragedy in settling for a life of atheism, but the article conveys none of it. Rather, it conveys just the reverse. It’s a little like the guy who loses millions in the stock market. “Oh well, they were just paper gains anyway,” he says, as he celebrates the few thousands he has left.
That is what’s “wrong” with the article. It celebrates the amoral short term, completely oblivious to the long term—the “real life” as Paul puts it.

This helped me to see the source of Alan’s enmity towards me. It is pure envy.

This helped me to see the source of Alan’s enmity towards me. It is pure envy.

I never sang the anthem or any religious songs because this will put one on the side of a human government or other religions who do not accept the name of Jehovah as their God.
. Yes, there are classical composers like Tchaikovsky who was homosexual ...... but his preferences were not in his music...... he was forced to commit suicide when it came out in high society that he was homosexual. I watch several ballets with his music and listen to his symphonies and sing a song he wrote.
Do you not think that sexually explicit posing for pictures awaken  fleshly desires in men?   The bible warns about this....... thinking in a fleshly way and promoting fleshly desires. To you it seems to be nothing - but it will not bring approval from Jehovah. But maybe you do not care? It is nice to be an attraction when you are young....
There are many JWs who have given up a life of making a lot of money or making a name for themselves. They follow the example of Jesus who did not go after materialism or a kingdom with influence. It is called "the narrow road"..... but some find it too narrow....... they are not prepared to give up selfish pursuits.
We have been in the perousia a long time but now we are in the first lockdown in the history of the world!  The signs are here and yet people are still eating, drinking and going on as normal.  Did the bible not warn us that people will start mocking about the end and that the love of many will cool down? 
I have been in the Truth since the age of 21. I did not grow up in the Truth. Did I make mistakes, yes I did. Did I get up after falling and go on under Jehovahs hand.  Yes, I did.  Am I happy that I did not follow a world-carreer (which was in my grasp).  I do not look back one day! Jehovah has been kind to me and we will soon be under a very totalitarian government....... just as bible predicted. One will not be able to buy or sell if you stick to the moral principles of jehovah.
Habakuk said.... the time is panting to the end.  Jehovah wants the lost sheep to come back. Are you back? 

I listened to poetry of Karl Marx recently. The goal of communism is this:  Karl Marx hated God so much that he swore  revenge on God.  He decided to create a philosophy which would destroy all religion and take away all morality from human beings. Break up old culture, family bonds, property ownership - in fact everything which has stabilized modern societies which gave some human rights. He would use the idea that all outcomes for people must be equal.....an idea which came out of the French revolution. This will catch those in the net who are not spiritual but 'materialistic' to want more things to create the idea of equality of outcome.   This is why we see the west going godless, without morality, LGBTQ and transgenderism and sexual boundaries overturned, property rights will soon go too!  etc etc. and all those who scream for equality of outcome - which is totally different too equality under law. equal treatment and equal justice.
Marx wanted to get his revenge on God by creating a system which would suppress all righteousness (religion) with the end of his satanic goal would be to force all humans to obey animalistic and materialistic goals....... bottom line - all these people will be too unrighteous (no morals) for God to redeem.
Marx got a windfall -which was Darwinism -  a branch of satanic 'religion' which claims to be science but is not.  Look at the inroads it has made in mankind. Death and murder has been the result of atheism and Darwinism.  100 million humans starved and killed in the 20th century in communist countries...... and the west is going totally neo-communistic...at present too!....... only they call it a new name - the 'great reset' or communalism. 
Most universities are in the throws of this movement - one cannot even get a job if you challenge the "religion / trend of evolution and these new philosophies .....so it does not surprise me that AlanF is so full of himself.  It is temporary.  We are trying to do him a favor by showing him how indoctrinated he is..... but he seems to be a hopeless case of pride.

Envy is at the root of evil. The evangelistic atheist is ideologically possessed by a missionary zeal mirroring that which is seen on the radical left.
The Psychology of Envy and Social Justice

Be precise. With what toppings?

Maybe there will be a short squeeze come into play.

Sometimes that Babylon Bee knocks it out of the park. I like how at the atheist convention, musical entertainment is provided by Bad Religion. I suspect Alan was put in charge of that.
“We will not be taken in! We don't need the crutch of spirituality too many rely on!"
I have made before that the analogy is apt—religion is a crutch. The premise that we don’t need one is what is faulty. It is the fallacy of ad negatory substitutum. 
The premise that fits is of someone pulling himself through pig manure on all fours, too proud or too stupid to realize that a crutch would be useful.

Translation: “Shazam! I never thought of that.”

Sometimes that Babylon Bee knocks it out of the park. I like how at the atheist convention, musical entertainment is provided by Bad Religion. I suspect Alan was put in charge of that.
“We will not be taken in! We don't need the crutch of spirituality too many rely on!"
I have made before that the analogy is apt—religion is a crutch. The premise that we don’t need one is what is faulty. It is the fallacy of ad negatory substitutum. 
The premise that fits is of someone pulling himself through pig manure on all fours, too proud or too stupid to realize that a crutch would be useful.

Demented moron.

You have triggered one of these silly fallacies Michael Shermer carries on about, dressed up in Latin verbiage to make clear that whoever uses it is educated.
In English, it means, “just because I don’t have the answer to something, that does not mean that your answer is correct. (“Fallacy of negation,” I think it is. My bad—no Latin)
It is a fallacy to be employed when you are criticizing a evolutionist position. It MAY NOT be employed for the opposite position, criticizing one who thinks creation. 
Therefore I will let the question stand, with the caveat that it doesn’t mean anything, as it wouldn’t were it used to criticize evolution.
This is very much like when @AlanFcarries on about no poop being found in the Sinai desert and thinks he has struck logical pay dirt. Yet when you cite something contradictory in his evolution mantra, he will wag his head and cry “fallacy of negation.”
@Araunais right. It is almost like the priesthood of a religion—abounding in so many ‘heads I win/tails you lose’ scenarios.

Yes. A turd is a turd is a turd. No way is it a diamond.
Down with Mommy Macro.