Bolshevik

Not trying to "flame" . . . Maybe just pointing out irony . . . Feelings/emotions were considered irrelevant in twi. We were drilled to ignore them. How do you communicate that hurting feelings is wrong to someone who doesn't "believe" in feelings?

Having no time in my life before TWI, I don't know what it changed. I did learn about indifference. Both from within TWI and its fellowships, and from those not associated with TWI on the outside looking in, just watching.

How'd this all leap from "boring" to "whores"? Does anyone find this bored child unattractive?

The work ethic of a believer was supposed to be superior to any worldly person. Especially with the unique spiritual insight into things such as car engines. Corps doctored their resumes? "Doctor" Wierwille. He WAS a doctor . . . just not the type you initially thought.

I worked at HQ when this was done . . . if I wasn't in the audience. I just saw it AGAIN in my newsfeed. Weird to watch world laugh.

I believe I see what you're saying, I believe the Abrahamic Faiths are generally all-or-nothing, for-or-against, as they're self-described. But I believe there's a broader way of viewing these. It's too slippery a statement to say "choosing Christianity", which Christianity? Which Christ? Every time you define someone as an outsider, you'll eventually discover a new way to consider those who remain as outsiders. I think I'm thrown off by the "standard" in the opening post. How can you hold a religion to a standard?

I was referring to nationalism. Which is a choice, and is at times equated with religion.

Not trying to outright object. I'm thinking practically. Faith and religion only exist inside and between people. It's the people we have to deal with. So we generally accept faiths/religions based on the people/place/situations we have to live among. In the honest sense, if we're going to be honest . . . all faith and religion is false. But that does not mean they are not practical for navigating life. Isn't comparing religions comparing apples and oranges? We pick faiths and religions for a time that they are useful. For example: I am an American. I am not Australian. Am I then rejecting Australianism? Germanism? Finlandism? I don't know. Does the question need to be asked? (Nationalism being another religion)

"Joining" faith is about survival. I was a Wayfer at one time, because I had little choice in the matter. Wayfers fed and clothed me. Christianity currently dominates the landscape. There is at very least a social cost to not subscribing to it, which one must be aware of to compensate for loss. A faith being true or not, is not important. Being able to navigate among the faithful is higher priority than acceptance, or being won over. Why spend any more time testing faiths? I know I used to. But if they're all false, but on some level all pulling a thread a truth, what are we really testing?

See post #11. You have to be willing to look through a different lens. Your question, and I mean this to explain, is similar to, "Can we be moral if we never went to kindergarten?" I think morality is different for everyone, and is a mixture of many things, but mainly chosen.

Well I think another point, or maybe rephrase, Raf, is that stoning was Law, as far as I know. I don't think it's uncommon to follow laws we find immoral.

I don't know what any god has said or not. I do know maintaining social order, particularly where resources are scarce, generally leads to harsher forms of correction. I'm fairly sure that was true in many cultures throughout the same region of the Old Testament days. I think you're mixing our morality and Gods. Our morality can change, depending on circumstances especially. I won't argue for any gods. We are not more moral. We have options our ancestors did not.

I'm saying their survival in a harsh environment likely depended on being BRUTAL, if that's the word we're using.

Throw out all ideas about gods and religion. If you want to be around other people, if you like other people, if you want to work with other people, what behaviors would you choose to develop? One could argue religion gets in the way of morality. It puts minds in ruts.

They lived in a different world than today. Codes were generally stricter back then because consequences of behavior had different outcomes. They didn't have the benefits of technologies we have today. I wouldn't judge the strictness as less moral. I would add evolution only "cares" about passing on genes. In some situations, selfishness is best for survival of the species. In other situations, selflessness is best.

Why is this in "About The Way" Forum? Terms would need to be defined. Fight hate with hate is what the sign says?

I don't know that that is assumed. Choices can be illusions. Having no choice is a perception as well. That's a much larger discussion that I don't think there's an answer to.

Sorry. "Mormons not served here" *scratches head* Then I'll take a slice of JW pie, a Quaker Shake, and the soup of the day in a to-go cup.

*scratches head* Since Mormonism is a choice . . . you could stop for awhile, enter establishment, leave establishment, and then go back to being a Mormon. Unless the establishment chooses to perceive that label for you. After all the establishment's beliefs are also chosen. You could choose another establishment? Or the sign is just a facade. Religion, cults and Mormons have nothing to do with it. Whoever wrote that sign simply lacks creativity and a sense of humor.

I was born, raised, got married, had my firstborn while in TWI. Sounds like we're the same age. I have no answer. It comes up eventually. Enough time with people and it comes out. You can't explain yourself without explaining it. Trying to describe it and the cult word comes from other people's mouths. Then it hangs over you and you become an object of interest and caution. I haven't an effin' clue what to say. Hide it for as long as possible. People will judge you for many other reasons anyway.

They have good coffee! (Sorry I couldn't resist) I like your post, johniam.