|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Oct 12, 2017 18:32:42 GMT
That bolded part... this is the regime so admired by so many conservative voters in the US. Reagan-era conservatives would shit themselves. Didn't Reagan actually call it "the Evil Empire"? Yes, although that, in part, rested on a seriously overestimated amount of military power behind Gorbachev's empty rhetoric. Basically, Putin exemplifies the type of heavy-handed, ask-no-questions, kill anyone who criticizes his regime type of despot you'd think the "patriot party", no fan of big government, would deplore... *But* democracy didn't go their way for 8 years, there was a black man in office and now press outlets overflow with unfavorable stories on their preferred candidate, so murdering tyrants who control their country's press and media suddenly wax more appealing. Probably a good time to mention Trump's recent comments on "shutting down" NBC - there are quite a few parallels there. If we didn't have a system of checks and balances we'd already likely be seeing some effort at a state media. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Oct 12, 2017 19:08:55 GMT
Look up the process of othering. Nice try, gadreel, but that poster isn't going to look up anything that might oppose his narrow worldview. The bolded part? A statement by someone who has never looked at history. True religions have been fighting over whose religion is the true one, and people have been dying over it as long as humans have had religions. I'm discussing the present.
There is no way that JW's in their present or past form could ever be considered a danger to society at large.
What you are considering is a preemptive strike to ensure that 100 years from now, the Russian government isn't gong to be dealing with an armed militia.
As they are now since their beginning, JW's literally have nothing to fight with. They are so geared toward a peaceful existence, they don't tell their congregants to vote in behalf of their protections.
Don't pretend to make this a macro issue simply to get some digs on me (lord knows you can't do it in actual debate...) and focus on the reality of what is - A religion is being banned for doing nothing of consequence.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Oct 12, 2017 19:11:33 GMT
Nice try, gadreel, but that poster isn't going to look up anything that might oppose his narrow worldview. The bolded part? A statement by someone who has never looked at history. True religions have been fighting over whose religion is the true one, and people have been dying over it as long as humans have had religions. I'm discussing the present.
There is no way that JW's in their present or past form could ever be considered a danger to society at large.
What you are considering is a preemptive strike to ensure that 100 years from now, the Russian government isn't gong to be dealing with an armed militia.
As they are now since their beginning, JW's literally have nothing to fight with. They are so geared toward a peaceful existence, they don't tell their congregants to vote in behalf of their protections.
Don't pretend to make this a macro issue simply to get some digs on me (lord knows you can't do it in actual debate...) and focus on the reality of what is - A religion is being banned for doing nothing of consequence.
Are you sure? in any case in the present they are engaging in othering, historically that is a process that results in bad things. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Oct 12, 2017 20:36:32 GMT
There is no reason to think all religions lead to the same path and there's no danger in thinking a particular path is a correct one and particularly when that religion has no major political or cultural impact and causes no harm to anyone. So it's all well and good to disagree with the notion of a true religion, it's goofy and idiotic to think that the notion of a true religion is inherently dangerous. JW's specifically state that their religion is not for everyone. In fact, they don't think it's for most people. They don't say what's right for everyone since nearly everyone doesn't even qualify for their religion. It's not their problem that people don;t like them for that stringency &/or confidence. Look up the process of othering. I'm aware of othering. The entirety of my comments was specifically addressing it.
I am restating that in the scheme of things it's not a big deal when the group that thinks themselves superior is distinctly separate from the society they claim to be different from and especially if they are peaceful in the first place.
JW thinking that their faith is superior and correct is not a danger to society at large, the individuals that make up the religion, or to the existence of various organizations whether government. Now if that group takes it to another level, that's a different story, but JW's very worst message is that Jehovah is going to destroy this wicked system of things through his son Jesus Christ and it's silly to get mad at them about that message when they are simply quoting Scripture.
To ban their Bible is to ban all other Bibles except that isn't what's happening since the other ones are being carried by patriotic people.
I'm saying
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Oct 12, 2017 20:45:32 GMT
I'm discussing the present.
There is no way that JW's in their present or past form could ever be considered a danger to society at large.
What you are considering is a preemptive strike to ensure that 100 years from now, the Russian government isn't gong to be dealing with an armed militia.
As they are now since their beginning, JW's literally have nothing to fight with. They are so geared toward a peaceful existence, they don't tell their congregants to vote in behalf of their protections.
Don't pretend to make this a macro issue simply to get some digs on me (lord knows you can't do it in actual debate...) and focus on the reality of what is - A religion is being banned for doing nothing of consequence.
Are you sure? in any case in the present they are engaging in othering, historically that is a process that results in bad things. They are not the only ones who engage in that. The Russian Orthodox Church engages in it. The citizens of any particular country engage in it. Both of those examples have far more clout, influence, & power than the thing being accused.
You can't make something an inevitability simply because it's happened before.
You must look at the individual record and the individual record clearly shows JW's have been peaceful throughout their entire existence. There is no reason to think that is going to change and especially when they face persecution of their religion across the globe, in places like France and S. Korea no less, and haven't felt the need to change that stance.
Again, Russia is a much greater danger to its citizens than JW's ever will be.
This leads to the very clear conclusion that JW's are dangerous primarily because they seem to be good at hurting feelings of people more powerful than them.
|
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Oct 12, 2017 20:58:32 GMT
cooljgs said:
In Russia, pinhead. Why don't you go over there and help them peacefully resist their oppressors? By the way, if you aren't a JW, they will tell you that their religion is true and yours is false.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Oct 12, 2017 21:19:04 GMT
cooljgs said: In Russia, pinhead. Why don't you go over there and help them peacefully resist their oppressors? By the way, if you aren't a JW, they will tell you that their religion is true and yours is false. I understand that you only care about yourself, but the thread specifically was discussing Russia banning a harmless religion, so why get bent out of shape over it now?
It's interesting that you think a peaceful religion is so dangerous as to warrant scrutiny and yet not think the same thing of government when we know full well how much easier it is for them to become totalitarian.
|
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Oct 12, 2017 21:31:58 GMT
If cooljgs is so bent out of shape over his JW buddies having their harmless religion banned in Russia, maybe he should contact Trump so he could talk to his good buddy Putin and maybe get this thing resolved.
Translation: Don't we have enough to deal with in this country without getting upset over a country we have no say in?
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Oct 12, 2017 21:36:32 GMT
Are you sure? in any case in the present they are engaging in othering, historically that is a process that results in bad things. They are not the only ones who engage in that. The Russian Orthodox Church engages in it. The citizens of any particular country engage in it. Both of those examples have far more clout, influence, & power than the thing being accused.
You can't make something an inevitability simply because it's happened before.
You must look at the individual record and the individual record clearly shows JW's have been peaceful throughout their entire existence. There is no reason to think that is going to change and especially when they face persecution of their religion across the globe, in places like France and S. Korea no less, and haven't felt the need to change that stance.
Again, Russia is a much greater danger to its citizens than JW's ever will be.
This leads to the very clear conclusion that JW's are dangerous primarily because they seem to be good at hurting feelings of people more powerful than them.
The worlds stupidest argument for allowing something, Ted Bundy shot women and ejaculated on their corpses, by your statement that is now acceptable because it has been done before. The rest of your argument is that the JW's are fine, so we should let them engage in divisive rhetoric, which is exactly what we should not do. |
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Oct 12, 2017 21:38:18 GMT
Look up the process of othering. I'm aware of othering. The entirety of my comments was specifically addressing it.
I am restating that in the scheme of things it's not a big deal when the group that thinks themselves superior is distinctly separate from the society they claim to be different from and especially if they are peaceful in the first place.
JW thinking that their faith is superior and correct is not a danger to society at large, the individuals that make up the religion, or to the existence of various organizations whether government. Now if that group takes it to another level, that's a different story, but JW's very worst message is that Jehovah is going to destroy this wicked system of things through his son Jesus Christ and it's silly to get mad at them about that message when they are simply quoting Scripture.
To ban their Bible is to ban all other Bibles except that isn't what's happening since the other ones are being carried by patriotic people.
I'm saying
You comments support othering, they support the JW taking the violent stance that they are the only ones with the truth (emotionally violent as by their belief set all who do not follow their truth are doomed to damnation), you may a have addressed it,but only to support it. |
|
|
|
Post by looking4klingons on Oct 13, 2017 5:11:42 GMT
Nice try, gadreel, but that poster isn't going to look up anything that might oppose his narrow worldview. The bolded part? A statement by someone who has never looked at history. True religions have been fighting over whose religion is the true one, and people have been dying over it as long as humans have had religions. Well, now, he did carefully hone it down to "no political or cultural impact"... essentially saying it's not dangerous so long as its not dangerous.  Which is accurate..... JW's never involve themselves in warfare. So no one has "been dying over it," at their hand. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Oct 13, 2017 11:08:03 GMT
They are not the only ones who engage in that. The Russian Orthodox Church engages in it. The citizens of any particular country engage in it. Both of those examples have far more clout, influence, & power than the thing being accused.
You can't make something an inevitability simply because it's happened before.
You must look at the individual record and the individual record clearly shows JW's have been peaceful throughout their entire existence. There is no reason to think that is going to change and especially when they face persecution of their religion across the globe, in places like France and S. Korea no less, and haven't felt the need to change that stance.
Again, Russia is a much greater danger to its citizens than JW's ever will be.
This leads to the very clear conclusion that JW's are dangerous primarily because they seem to be good at hurting feelings of people more powerful than them.
The worlds stupidest argument for allowing something, Ted Bundy shot women and ejaculated on their corpses, by your statement that is now acceptable because it has been done before. The rest of your argument is that the JW's are fine, so we should let them engage in divisive rhetoric, which is exactly what we should not do. How is it possible that you continue to miss the point? You are singling out a the notion of a position being the superior position when literally EVERYONE does it if they decide anything at all. Your argument is flawed the moment you equate my statement with a serial killer. You might as well bring in the Nazis. You do it by by saying singling out is wrong and using it as a justification for what is happening to JW's. Let's assume that there is the mythical inevitability of superiority leading to whatever danger you think, then why is it a wise course to deal with the most peaceful ones first? You think rhetoric that causes no harm whatsoever, encourages not causing harm, & simply is a message that says "Wait for God to do something" (is more dangerous than the country that bans it? |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Oct 13, 2017 11:13:26 GMT
I'm aware of othering. The entirety of my comments was specifically addressing it.
I am restating that in the scheme of things it's not a big deal when the group that thinks themselves superior is distinctly separate from the society they claim to be different from and especially if they are peaceful in the first place.
JW thinking that their faith is superior and correct is not a danger to society at large, the individuals that make up the religion, or to the existence of various organizations whether government. Now if that group takes it to another level, that's a different story, but JW's very worst message is that Jehovah is going to destroy this wicked system of things through his son Jesus Christ and it's silly to get mad at them about that message when they are simply quoting Scripture.
To ban their Bible is to ban all other Bibles except that isn't what's happening since the other ones are being carried by patriotic people.
I'm saying
You comments support othering, they support the JW taking the violent stance that they are the only ones with the truth (emotionally violent as by their belief set all who do not follow their truth are doomed to damnation), you may a have addressed it,but only to support it. Now you're being silly. There's nothing violent about their message that isn't already published in scripture. Are you saying the Bible should be banned or are you simply suggesting the law should remove the violent bits? In regards to the notion of supporting othering I don't have a problem with it when it doesn't affect others outside of group since I think it is far more universal then you seem to think. Further there are far more dangerous examples out there, some of which include churches that try to destroy others rather than talking about it, countries that force patriotism on citizens, & philosophers who think only their view of a subject is worthy of positive discussion. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Oct 13, 2017 11:35:16 GMT
Nice try, gadreel, but that poster isn't going to look up anything that might oppose his narrow worldview. The bolded part? A statement by someone who has never looked at history. True religions have been fighting over whose religion is the true one, and people have been dying over it as long as humans have had religions. Well, now, he did carefully hone it down to "no political or cultural impact"... essentially saying it's not dangerous so long as its not dangerous. Well, you're not dangerous so long as you're not dangerous...  The only one that is completely harmless for all time is me.  Again, I get that paranoia can add danger where it does not exist on the basis of it maybe existing. However, that is exactly the type of mentality that removes rights from people that deserve them. I imagine it's a "better safe than sorry" way of thinking of things. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Oct 13, 2017 12:07:21 GMT
A cult that lets kids bleed to death rather than getting a blood transfusion has no place in any civilized society. Yay Another vote for Russia! |
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Oct 13, 2017 16:04:05 GMT
A cult that lets kids bleed to death rather than getting a blood transfusion has no place in any civilized society. Yay Another vote for Russia! Don't consider it a vote for Russia. Russia is built on corpses of it's own people. Consider it a vote against ignorance and stupidity. |
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Oct 15, 2017 17:45:21 GMT
You comments support othering, they support the JW taking the violent stance that they are the only ones with the truth (emotionally violent as by their belief set all who do not follow their truth are doomed to damnation), you may a have addressed it,but only to support it. Now you're being silly. There's nothing violent about their message that isn't already published in scripture. Are you saying the Bible should be banned or are you simply suggesting the law should remove the violent bits? In regards to the notion of supporting othering I don't have a problem with it when it doesn't affect others outside of group since I think it is far more universal then you seem to think. Further there are far more dangerous examples out there, some of which include churches that try to destroy others rather than talking about it, countries that force patriotism on citizens, & philosophers who think only their view of a subject is worthy of positive discussion. Twice now you have used the 'other people do the same so it's ok defence' Ted Bundy used to shoot women, that does not make it ok. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Dec 15, 2018 14:23:40 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Dec 16, 2018 3:14:26 GMT
The Watchtower seems to be sending out mixed signals. Since (as the WT teaches) God uses persecution to serve his purpose in testing the integrity of his people, efforts to stop the persecution (like Brumley's statement) would be an attempt to interfere with God's purpose. And without persecution (also as the WT teaches), you may be in the wrong religion. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Feb 6, 2019 11:42:23 GMT
|
|
