Chai wrote:Don't want to stray too far from the subject, but that bit about the guidance counselor suggesting the girl have sex, let alone sex with a person with AIDS...
Now, I'm not saying this in the context of Witnesses at all, but rather some other faiths that are very very very fundementalist.
I could see where some church, one that teaches its children that they are the only chosen people, could advocate writing something like that. It would be like "See what THOSE people would have you doing"?
Just another turn on the old "look what the jews/catholics/muslims/snake handlers would do if you got into their hands."
I'm a Christian and I agree completely with you. This only causes more issues and misunderstandings.
On the positive at least they said to have sex with a condom.
Yes, linkat, i see what you are saying. Awake magazine was so similar to what you have just mentioned. It was blatant properganda, similar to saying that a non-JW councillor could advise a young girl to have sex with someone who had aids, but not that far fetched.
I think this over-the-top approach actually damages my respect for the movement rather than increases it. It's exaggeration is evidently meant to make me think 'oooh, JW, what a lovely and charming religion, it must be true!' but is just so ridiculous it does the opposite.
The Pentacle Queen wrote:Im not being aggresive here, but like chai, curious:
Neologist, have you actually ever read Awake magazine?
I am young, I have lots of experience of being young and what young people do. That magazine is completely out of touch with reality. Maybe not in Jehovas witness churches so much, but definately in 'normal' teenage surroundings.
What makes you think that it wouldn't be out of touch?
I've been reading
Awake magazine for over 30 years and I can see where it does not represent the mainstream of human conduct. However, we as Witnesses are well aware of the 'mainstream' and have rejected it.
Can anyone here truthfully claim that relaxed standards of sexual morality and unrestricted access to drugs has produced greater human happiness and well being?
I was first a Catholic, then an agnostic, as a teenager. I had nothing but grief. But, then again, it could have been that I was also a jerk.
neologist wrote:The Pentacle Queen wrote:Im not being aggresive here, but like chai, curious:
Neologist, have you actually ever read Awake magazine?
I am young, I have lots of experience of being young and what young people do. That magazine is completely out of touch with reality. Maybe not in Jehovas witness churches so much, but definately in 'normal' teenage surroundings.
What makes you think that it wouldn't be out of touch?
I've been reading
Awake magazine for over 30 years and I can see where it does not represent the mainstream of human conduct. However, we as Witnesses are well aware of the 'mainstream' and have rejected it.
Can anyone here truthfully claim that relaxed standards of sexual morality and unrestricted access to drugs has produced greater human happiness and well being?
I was first a Catholic, then an agnostic, as a teenager. I had nothing but grief. But, then again, it could have been that I was also a jerk.
I do not support drug use and am not a supporter of a free for all sex life, however, you can convince more people by being realistic about it.
Rather than give an exaggerated portrayal of a liberal viewpoint (ie have sex as a teenager and by the way have sex with a kid with aids as long as you use protection), give a realistic true issue. Perhaps the pressures of sex and the downside of engaging in sex as a teenager (pregnancy, common STD, bad reputuation, emotional issues). And the real way teenagers end up engaging in sex - unrealistic some boy coming up you don't know asking you; much more likely necking that gets carried away.
I've never read Awake, but I can say this...
As neologist said, he and his family have made a choice to not be in the mainstream. So, perhaps what is written as far as life style may not be so off the mark. It just depends on who you associate with.
OK, take me for instance. For many years I drank alcoholically, for many more years I have not. While I was drinking, I would have thought what non-drinkers did for fun on a typical Saturday night was a huge joke (I'm not just talking about ex-drinkers here, I mean anyone who doesn't drink, or not often at all).
There came a time not too long after I stopped drinking that I was with some good friends, and was rolling on the floor laughing at something we were doing. Then it hit me, whatever it was was something I never would have dreamed would have been fun.
I have a co-worker who is a Lutheran, and quite religious. In her family, they do all sorts of things that might very well appear in Awake, I don't know. She's a very intelligent woman, not innocent to the world, but chooses a certain lifestyle which as rubbed off on her grown sons. There's no "fakeness" in her, her husband, or sons, it's the way they are.
neologist wrote:Can anyone here truthfully claim that relaxed standards of sexual morality and unrestricted access to drugs has produced greater human happiness and well being?
To address just the first part -- absoLUTEly!!
"Sexual morality" -- woman doesn't have sex until she's married. Best case -- she's compatible with the guy, all ends well. Worst case -- and this has happened many, many, MANY times -- sex is bad. What does "sex is bad" mean? All kinds of possibilities. Man thinks violence is OK. (Until very recently, it was legally impossible to rape your wife.) Man is merely indifferent and woman never experiences sexual pleasure. Man is subject to Madonna/ whore syndrome and makes sure that the woman never experiences sexual pleasure... but since he is still horny, goes and finds a whore for fun on the side. (Just because people think that something is right and something is wrong doesn't mean they won't do it anyway -- history is filled to the brim with sanctimonious hypocrites.)
What else -- women became pregnant at 15 and faced fun choices like marry someone they didn't love (maybe who raped or coerced them), or be shunned as immoral and raise a "bastard."
And on and on and on.
sozobe wrote:neologist wrote:Can anyone here truthfully claim that relaxed standards of sexual morality and unrestricted access to drugs has produced greater human happiness and well being?
To address just the first part -- absoLUTEly!!
"Sexual morality" -- woman doesn't have sex until she's married. Best case -- she's compatible with the guy, all ends well. Worst case -- and this has happened many, many, MANY times -- sex is bad. What does "sex is bad" mean? All kinds of possibilities. Man thinks violence is OK. (Until very recently, it was legally impossible to rape your wife.) Man is merely indifferent and woman never experiences sexual pleasure. Man is subject to Madonna/ whore syndrome and makes sure that the woman never experiences sexual pleasure... but since he is still horny, goes and finds a whore for fun on the side. (Just because people think that something is right and something is wrong doesn't mean they won't do it anyway -- history is filled to the brim with sanctimonious hypocrites.)
What else -- women became pregnant at 15 and faced fun choices like marry someone they didn't love (maybe who raped or coerced them), or be shunned as immoral and raise a "bastard."
And on and on and on.
I think relaxed sexual morality can means different things - I was sort of looking at it from the viewpoint of sleeping around alot and having lots of one night stands. Not necessarily having pre-marital sex in a well meaning relationship or looking at sex as being bad.
sozobe wrote:neologist wrote:Can anyone here truthfully claim that relaxed standards of sexual morality and unrestricted access to drugs has produced greater human happiness and well being?
To address just the first part -- absoLUTEly!!
"Sexual morality" -- woman doesn't have sex until she's married. Best case -- she's compatible with the guy, all ends well. Worst case -- and this has happened many, many, MANY times -- sex is bad. What does "sex is bad" mean? All kinds of possibilities. Man thinks violence is OK. (Until very recently, it was legally impossible to rape your wife.) Man is merely indifferent and woman never experiences sexual pleasure. Man is subject to Madonna/ whore syndrome and makes sure that the woman never experiences sexual pleasure... but since he is still horny, goes and finds a whore for fun on the side. (Just because people think that something is right and something is wrong doesn't mean they won't do it anyway -- history is filled to the brim with sanctimonious hypocrites.)
What else -- women became pregnant at 15 and faced fun choices like marry someone they didn't love (maybe who raped or coerced them), or be shunned as immoral and raise a "bastard."
And on and on and on.
True, there are many cases of spousal abuse. And, while many will try to use the bible to justify these aberrations, they are clearly not a part of God's intent for married couples. A good husband is concerned with a wife's well being and treats her as part of his own body. Also the other way around. That seems to me to be a good predictor of 'compatibility'. And trust.
Often in cults such as JW, people who are not necessarily as honest as their naive hosts suppose, find a culture wherein a measure of protection from the law, and the mainstream, may be found. The cults tend to try to "manage" situations internally and only bring in law from the outside as a last resort...for really "serious" situations. Jw's are far from the worse afflicted, and even cults like the Roman Catholic Church suffer from this.
Still, it is one of the ways in which religion can be detrimental to society (from a humanist point-of-view) even as a direct result of well-meaning intentions.
I always find the comparisons between religion and non-religion, which can be seen especially clearly in relation to war, amusing :
Christian starts war = Christianity caused war
Atheist starts war = Human Nature caused war
Funnily enough, both are human, both are subject to human nature, and both are caused by beliefs.
Quote:Still, it is one of the ways in which religion can be detrimental to society (from a humanist point-of-view) even as a direct result of well-meaning intentions.
vikkor,
It's like you are saying, in response to the question "Is cake bad for you?"
"Sure, cake can make people fat, but so do lot's of foods"
It doesn't alter the fact that cake is bad for you.
Hey Eorl,
I've had a similar conversation in the past in relation to pizza. Cake isn't at all bad for you. Eating too much is. There's almost no food that is bad for you (otherwise they would be called poisons), but eating too much of one thing can be.
It's also like saying a medicinal drug is bad for you...well, taken in quantity many medicinal drugs can kill you.
That said, cake doesn't do much good for you either.
edit : I know that wasn't exactly the intent of your post...just that it doesn't seem quite a comparable comparison.
I agree, nice point.
Although christains would never admit to 'christianity' being a part of human nature. They think it's the truth, so thats quite an 'outside' opinion.
Eorl, the circle-the-wagons response to which you refer is extremely rare amongst Jehovah's Witnesses. In over thirty five years I know of only one instance in my home state of Washington. Needless to say , those involved are no longer with the organization.
I remember from one of your earlier posts that you have experienced this. I am sorry for any injury this may have caused. The only thing I can say is that JWs claim only their God to be perfect. We are not.
