New topic
PrintableSensualMelody said: narcotizedmind said: SisterGirl said I don't think this thread was meant to be for persons to be persuaded into respecting our religion just IceNines approach to at least being tolerant towards it, posters' thoughts and other interesting subjects.
We do not expect persons to respect us. Whether they do or don't is fine. There are those who are tolerant, those who are not and those who are indifferent. Me personally for example, I would not say cruel things about anyone or about what they choose to believe or not to believe. Also what may be considered bull, crazy, stupid or ridiculous to some may NOT be to others. We each have an opinion but to be down right rude to a certain group just because we do not have the same beliefs or outlook is just plain juvenille. What people need to learn is compassion when it comes to other people because the world does not revolve around any of us, tolerance is what is needed. I may not agree with certain things people do or say, but I would not be cruel or rude to them because of it. Prince made a choice and you do not have to like it but you sure do have to live with it. "It's just around the corner" IceNine said I have decided to respect his views and his opinions although I do not agree with them
SisterGirl, you make some interesting points. But are you saying that you "respect" the views of white supremacists, even though you do not share them? Should I respect the views of people who believe in female circumcision? What about people who believe that eating certain parts of Tigers will enhance their sexual performance? Should their views be respected? Or people who believe that the earth is flat? For me JWs come very close to falling into this category of thinkers. Sometimes we need to raise our voices against ignorance and injustice (even Jesus seems to have believed that violent direct action was sometimes unavoidable - the money lenders incident?). I suppose one problem here is that the word 'respect' seems to cover quite a wide semantic field. In my handy Oxford it says: "v.t. Regard with deference, esteem, or honour; avoid degrading or insulting or injuring or interfering with or interrupting, treat with consideration, spare, refrain from offending or corrupting or tempting." The trouble with deliberately not offending people is that we run the risk of becoming timid little mice that will never say anything lest it makes someone feel uneasy. As much as possible I try to be honest with people, and say 'I think you're insane', if they seem to me to hold absurd views. I really cannot see what is wrong with this. ___ SensualMelody said: I believe that Sistergirl is referring to respecting others' choices when it comes to religion. She is not referring to tolerating cruel and vicious behaviours on the part of others. Simply put, freedom of worship is a precious priviledge. I won't stomp on your rights. You won't stomp on mine. One thing that witnesses cannot be accused of is timidity. Nor can we be categorized as one's not taking positive action for change. We just have methods based on our belief system, which incidentally requires that the positive changes begin with ourselves. I'm sure you have seen where Sistergirl has raised her voice against ignorance and injustice. What this thread is about is NOT raising a voice against an individual who is exercising his right to worship God the way his heart inclines him. In other words, If you want to be catholic...I respect your choice. If you are of the Jewish faith, I respect your right to be that. If you are athiest, I respect your right to choose that. If you are Jehovah's Witness, I respect your right to choose that. You see it's about respecting others people's right to worship as they see fit. That's all. Yes my post was clear that's for sure, thank you Sensual Melody for explaining in detail (since detail is normally needed on this when posting) and elaborating even further on what I posted. - | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
lovebird said When the JWs refer to themselves as sheep,(Lambs of God)
and people of other Christian religions as goats that will go down in everlasting destruction and will not recieve salvation from God, this isnot respectful of other peoples beliefs and religions. Excellent point lovebird  If all the JWs promise to change their behaviour in this respect, then so will I.
MightBQueen (but let's hope not) said one really good, obvious thing i can say about JWs right now is that we, as an organization, do not participate in wars and armed conflicts. what other major organized religion can claim this?
The Quakers. In fact I doubt that any major organized religion does. Please name the ones that do and give your evidence. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
narcotizedmind said: lovebird said When the JWs refer to themselves as sheep,(Lambs of God)
and people of other Christian religions as goats that will go down in everlasting destruction and will not recieve salvation from God, this isnot respectful of other peoples beliefs and religions. Excellent point lovebird If all the JWs promise to change their behaviour in this respect, then so will I.
MightBQueen (but let's hope not) said one really good, obvious thing i can say about JWs right now is that we, as an organization, do not participate in wars and armed conflicts. what other major organized religion can claim this?
The Quakers. In fact I doubt that any major organized religion does. Please name the ones that do and give your evidence. JWs do. are quakers still a major religion? in any case, they will participate in non-combat military duty. JWs will not. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
MightBQueen said JWs do.
are quakers still a major religion? in any case, they will participate in non-combat military duty. JWs will not. and earlier we, as an organization, do not participate in wars and armed conflicts
I took you as meaning 'The JW church does not condone wars and armed conflicts'. I wish you had said 'No member of the JW organisation will participate in wars and armed conflicts' if that is in fact what you meant. My point was that "as an organisation" virtually no world religion would advocate war as a good thing (I thought you would point your finger at certain Muslim sects...). Obviously the individual members of many religions are free to think for themselves. For instance many committed Christians, rightly I think, considered the war against Hitler as a struggle against evil. Presumably your lot did nothing. I have no information about the membership of the Quakers. The ones I have met were almost all highly intelligent and very impressive people. How do you define "major"? | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
narcotizedmind said: MightBQueen said JWs do.
are quakers still a major religion? in any case, they will participate in non-combat military duty. JWs will not. and earlier we, as an organization, do not participate in wars and armed conflicts
I took you as meaning 'The JW church does not condone wars and armed conflicts'. I wish you had said 'No member of the JW organisation will participate in wars and armed conflicts' if that is in fact what you meant. My point was that "as an organisation" virtually no world religion would advocate war as a good thing (I thought you would point your finger at certain Muslim sects...). Obviously the individual members of many religions are free to think for themselves. For instance many committed Christians, rightly I think, considered the war against Hitler as a struggle against evil. Presumably your lot did nothing. I have no information about the membership of the Quakers. The ones I have met were almost all highly intelligent and very impressive people. How do you define "major"? "major" can mean numerous or prominent. the WT society had a lot to say about hitler at the time. his own church did not openly oppose him - altho individual catholics certainly did. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
SensualMelody said: Simply put, freedom of worship
is a precious priviledge. I won't stomp on your rights. You won't stomp on mine. This is the core of the matter of "freedom of religion". It is not a matter of respecting eachother's OPINIONS or beliefs. And it is not a matter of respecting the PERSON who expresses their opinions and beliefs. It is a matter of respecting their RIGHT to have that belief, to have that opinion and to FREELY express it. Respecting someone's rights is something else than respecting the person and/or their opinions and beliefs. You are not my "friend" because you threaten my security. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I don't like war either, but are the people supposed to
just let Osama Bin Laden and his followers keep killing people? Some things are necessary. We are lucky to be Americans where we have freedom of religion. Just imagine if we never fought back and we were forced to become muslims or whatever. Would you still believe that we should never have war? I asked my aunt who is a JW why they never serve in a war or armed forces or whatever and her reply was that we might kill one of our brothers. If you were in the middle east or some other parts of the world you wouldn't even have the freedom to be a JW. A lot of men died for freedom. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
lovebird said: I asked my aunt who is a JW why they never serve in a war or armed forces or whatever and her reply was that we might kill one of our brothers. If you were in the middle east or some other parts of the world you wouldn't even have the freedom to be a JW. A lot of men died for freedom. JWs exist in those countries... but not openly. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |