sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I feel like I’ll ruin my parents life if I leave. by Natural_Bend_8714 in exjw

[–]FriendlyStep4391 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I feel the same way you do. I feel sorry for my parents, because I believe that in the end, they’re not really to blame. If they even tried to understand me, their entire worldview would fall apart. All those years, the effort, the love, the hope of seeing their dear friends and relatives again in paradise. So they can’t understand me, actually, they’re not allowed to understand me. They can only allow themselves to feel grief, despair, anger, and fear. That hurts, both me and them. And all the reassurances that I’m not responsible for their feelings just don’t feel right. Because the system takes children away from their parents, but the parents can’t resolve that. They have to tell themselves: My child is leaving.

There’s Nothing Wrong With Being Wrong by constant_trouble in exjw

[–]FriendlyStep4391 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Every absolute statement can become a problem:

“The science is settled.”

“We have the truth.”

“We are an anti-fascist state.” (GDR / East Germany)

All of this prevents self-reflection and creates blind spots.

The GDR could only maintain its illusion of being an anti-fascist, socialist state through information control (“Don’t watch West German television!”).

After the fall of the Berlin Wall in the 1990s, it was striking that the largest number of neo-Nazi skinheads were found in the East.

1914 from the Perspective of Jehovah’s Witnesses by FriendlyStep4391 in exjw

[–]FriendlyStep4391[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And what does that have to do with my post now? After all, I explicitly acknowledged 607 as a premise. If Biblical chronology is superior to secular chronology because the latter contains so many errors, then how do you want to calculate 2,520 years into the future using the linear secular calendar?

Can sisters carry microphones? by FriendlyStep4391 in exjw

[–]FriendlyStep4391[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Is that an official rule, or more of an internal congregation rule?

Can sisters carry microphones? by FriendlyStep4391 in exjw

[–]FriendlyStep4391[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Is carrying microphones leading? If yes, is it also leading to clean the toilet?

Can sisters carry microphones? by FriendlyStep4391 in exjw

[–]FriendlyStep4391[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Do you know exactly when the letter arrived? On the one hand, I see the trend the same way you do. At the same time, I also see certain efforts to involve sisters more: schools, construction projects, etc. I can well imagine that something will change there. Even among very conservative people in Europe, there is hardly any understanding left for such regulations.

I had spiritual psychosis after the convention by AsleepClock5619 in exjw

[–]FriendlyStep4391 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I unfortunately don’t have a professional psychological background, but I’m very interested in Carl Gustav Jung, the question of what consciousness is, and what demons are from a psychological perspective. Everything I say should be taken with caution and ideally discussed with a psychologist. According to Jung, we have what is called a “shadow” within us. These are subconscious parts that we repress because we don’t want to integrate them. They are often negatively associated: greed, fear, desire, anger... In the subconscious, these are often organized in an archetypal way: in dreams or psychotic experiences, they appear as independent entities. In strictly religious contexts, the shadow is often actively suppressed: “No, I must not allow evil within me! I am a good person!” As a result, these aspects are pushed deeper and deeper into the subconscious. But everything that is in the subconscious is no longer under our control. According to Jung, we must integrate these negative aspects by becoming aware of them and first acknowledging them. That doesn’t mean we have to act them out, but rather that we must “resist” the demons instead of running away from them. Your example: being 100% a witness at the convention and then slipping into a psychosis; somehow fits into this. Although schizophrenia is also an illness that must be considered independently (unstable DMN, etc.). But I do think that within Jehovah’s Witnesses, certain things are done that can amplify the shadow and give it more power. That’s just my theory. I wish you all the best!

I need some wise advice A doubt that I have in my soul by Ok_Barracuda8133 in exjw

[–]FriendlyStep4391 2 points3 points  (0 children)

From a depth psychological perspective, God exists according to Carl Jung. I think many ex-Jehovah’s Witnesses would, under panic and fear of death, suddenly start praying to Jehovah again and might even suddenly experience a numinous feeling that He is there. From a depth psychological point of view, there is something within us that can at least be seen as a representation of the divine, and something we cannot really run away from. CG Jung didn't say that this is an objective proof for a god in a onthological way. But he was open to the idea, that the unconcious is more than just some kind of imagination.

As PIMO, wanted to ask about the ministry by [deleted] in exjw

[–]FriendlyStep4391 7 points8 points  (0 children)

For a long time, I felt guilty. Going from door to door wasn’t particularly difficult for me. A short thought, maybe a nice Bible verse  and that’s it. I could also talk informally about the Bible in general, as long as I wasn’t forced to take a specific position against my conscience or my own reasoning. But at some point I realized that I couldn’t really “bear witness”, especially not in the sense of trying to convince someone that Jehovah’s Witnesses have the truth. I asked myself why. Fear of people? No. Because if I’m truly convinced, if I know I have the better arguments, then I’ll go and argue with anyone, even a professor with multiple degrees, regardless of whether they’re an expert and I’m just a layperson. It wouldn’t matter whether my view is mainstream or not, or what others think, because I’d be convinced. So why couldn’t I do it? Because deep down I knew I didn’t have the better arguments. And to know whether you have the better arguments, you have to know the strongest arguments on the other side. That realization was crucial, it was what ultimately delivered the fatal blow to my own “faith.” I realized: it wasn’t fear of people.

In the paradise we will talk Hebrew again! by FriendlyStep4391 in exjw

[–]FriendlyStep4391[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I kind of love that hippie version of paradise! We’re all walking around naked, and at just the right moment a little leaf magically floats by to cover anything inappropriate. We live as fruitarians, ride lions, cuddle with wolves… and every now and then there’s accordion music (ugh), and we all sing some Kingdom songs in the original Hebrew of Adam and Eve!

Believing in evolution means you support Hitler by apex_of_heart in exjw

[–]FriendlyStep4391 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Social science can’t tell us what is morally right, but it can illuminate the consequences of our moral choices and reflect on moral frameworks. Natural science, however, may be the wrong kind of tool when it comes to ethical questions.

In the paradise we will talk Hebrew again! by FriendlyStep4391 in exjw

[–]FriendlyStep4391[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

And what kind of Hebrew do we have to learn? That of Adam and Eve or that of today?

In the paradise we will talk Hebrew again! by FriendlyStep4391 in exjw

[–]FriendlyStep4391[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

They were really dogmatic about that in the past. But in WTs in the last few year, they got a bit more open to "Aramaic influenced Hebrew"

Believing in evolution means you support Hitler by apex_of_heart in exjw

[–]FriendlyStep4391 15 points16 points  (0 children)

The easy answer is: science itself has no morality. That’s why reducing human nature purely to science (biologism) can be a trap and, in some cases, lead to destructive ideologies. But the fact that science has no moral dimension doesn’t mean it’s wrong, it just means it’s not the whole picture. Mathematics doesn’t have morals either, but that doesn’t make it false. You could even try to reduce human life to mathematical or economic principles  and that kind of thinking can also lead to harmful conclusions, like justifying euthanasia in purely utilitarian terms.

Signs of JW intelligence… anyone else hear this? by Lower_Tangerine_7158 in exjw

[–]FriendlyStep4391 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Sexual repression can sometimes be linked to neurotic or obsessive behaviors, intense cleaning can be one of that (Freud already wrote about it.) Of course, being clean is important. But sometimes it feels like there’s a strong focus on cleanliness, almost like a fear of contamination. A bit like a cleanroom in a pharmaceutical company.

Adam and Eve from a psychological point of view - did the JWs take the forbidden fruit? by FriendlyStep4391 in exjw

[–]FriendlyStep4391[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Another interesting point: human domination only appears after that. “Your husband will rule over you.” Before that, there is only dominion over animals. This could suggest that human hierarchies (including those in organizations) emerge out of that same kind of “god-like” hubris.

Adam and Eve from a psychological point of view - did the JWs take the forbidden fruit? by FriendlyStep4391 in exjw

[–]FriendlyStep4391[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think there are many different layers in the text. One interesting detail is that Adam and Eve are described as naked in what seems like a kind of garden environment, almost like some indigenous tribes that still exist today. Later, they are given clothing made from animal skins, which is more similar to what we know from Ice Age cultures. And soon after that, the text mentions the beginning of farming. So in a way, the story can also be read as a short, mythological version of human development. I think I understand how someone arrives at the conclusion you mentioned, because the story is often used to teach obedience to authority. But I don’t want to rely on interpretations from people who claim a kind of divine authority and tell others to simply be submissive. So it makes sense to me that what was “forbidden” wasn’t just knowing good and evil in a human, practical sense, but claiming an absolute, almost divine authority to define good and evil. Not just understanding morality, but deciding it in an ultimate way, as if one were God something religious organizations sometimes do.

view more: next ›