All Your Contacts in One Single Church?

stvdv · Jan 17, 2021

thomas t said:
I was talking about leaving a church AND the family, not sure if I brought this across clearly?

Oh, maybe I was not clear either. I did leave my whole family + Church (not just parents and brothers, sisters. Even uncles etc. ALL)
So, it is very much possible for me. I don't say it's possible for you. IF you say "I can't do it" THEN I accept that.
But please, do not impose your inability in this specific case on me.

thomas t said:
of course you can generalize here.
All humans need social contact says Bible: Genesis 2:18.

Again, your claim is wrong here.
And you violate RF Rule #8 even by doing so. Never generalize when talking about other people and their feeling/faith.
It's also disrespectful and arrogant. I don't disrespect your opinion, so don't impose your opinion on me

thomas t said:
But it's not only the Bible pointing to this fact, in my opinion.
Science also agrees (cited by the following articles):
Social Interaction Is Critical for Mental and Physical Health (Published 2017)
Social Relationships and Health: A Flashpoint for Health Policy

Again

Let me make it very clear to you. My religion says it is possible.

You have no right to belittle my faith, claiming you can generalize here.

Never claim your opinions to be facts, esp. not using a Bible verse as proof for your claim.

Vinayaka · Jan 17, 2021

Village mentality, ethnocentricity, a box, etc. certainly sets up an 'us versus them' mentality, but that's also a personal choice. Two or 3 people from the same church or group can vary substantially on how they go about their business. I think the possibility of becoming close minded increases, and it's perhaps something everyone could use to be more self-reflective. Have a look in the mirror, and ask, "Am I like that?"

thomas t · Jan 18, 2021

stvdv said:
It's also disrespectful and arrogant.

no it wasn't disrepectful and arrogant because social contact is notheing negative. Neither did I violate any rules.
When someone says: "I have close social contacts"... there is nothing wrong with it.
Even if someone claims "I need close social contacts" - there is nothing about it that could be dangerous to your reputation. Countless pop songs are called "I need you" - meaning the significant other.

stvdv said:
You have no right to belittle my faith, claiming you can generalize here.

So I'll generalize in a sense that I say people *in general* are likely to have mental health issues when they don't have close social contacts.
Science is clear here. I could back this claim up using sources (see last post).

stvdv · Jan 18, 2021

thomas t said:
So I'll generalize in a sense that I say people *in general* are likely to have mental health issues when they don't have close social contacts.
Science is clear here. I could back this claim up using sources (see last post).

You used a Bible verse to prove your claim. That's absurd, assuming other religions are wrong

At best you can claim "In my humble opionion ....etc..."

But I understand you don't understand this being a Christian, as they are known to being used to evangelizing that many don't see the arrogance in it anymore

thomas t · Jan 18, 2021

stvdv said:
You used a Bible verse to prove your claim. That's absurd, assuming other religions are wrong

It was meant like this:

thomas t said:
For Bible believers, the mere fact that God recognises the need for close social contacts this early in the Bible... is telling, I think.
But it's not only the Bible pointing to this fact, in my opinion.

stvdv · Jan 18, 2021

thomas t said:
Even if someone claims "I need close social contacts"

You twist what I said
I have no problem if someone says "I need close social contacts"

You claimed "All need close social contacts"

thomas t said:
of course you can generalize here.
All humans need social contact says Bible: Genesis 2:18.

EDA: I just read your reply to my other post right now

Okay. So that means you can't generalize. With that I agree

thomas t said:
It was meant like this:

thomas t said:
For Bible believers, the mere fact that God recognises the need for close social contacts this early in the Bible... is telling, I think.
But it's not only the Bible pointing to this fact, in my opinion.

thomas t · Jan 18, 2021

stvdv said:
So that means you can't generalize

as I said: science showed that social contacts are necessary.

BTW: how do you think your statement comes across: "I don't need close social contacts!" this is not arrogant?

I didn't twist what you said; I pointed out that needing close social contacts is nothing detrimental to your reputation.

stvdv · Jan 18, 2021

thomas t said:
as I said: science showed that social contacts are necessary.

BTW: how do you think your statement comes across: "I don't need close social contacts!" this is not arrogant?

No. That is not arrogance ... just a neutral observation about my self, which I shared:
1: I do not make claims about what others can or can't
2: I just share my own personal experience from my own life; no more no less
3: I also do not say I am better or worse than others for not needing close social contacts

Arrogance starts when I would claim I am better than others for not needing social contact. I don't do that. I see it even as a virtue if someone is good in entertaining healthy relationships. It's one of the biggest challenges IMO for a human.

Arrogance is also obvious when others claim to know what I should or what I am able to do. Especially when done on a virtual forum. Nobody ever met me, so he should not claim to know what I can or can't do. That is just absurd.

thomas t · Jan 18, 2021

stvdv said:
1: I do not make claims about what others can or can't

science says in general people have a need for close social contacts, in other words they depend on others. For me that's the most human thing there could be.

stvdv said:
2: I just share my own personal experience from my own life; no more no less

and here you say that you are less dependent on this need. Actually you say you don't need any close social contacts at all.
To me, this comes across as saying you are stronger than the average Joe.

stvdv · Jan 18, 2021

thomas t said:
science says in general people have a need for close social contacts, in other words they depend on others. For me that's the most human thing there could be.

With this I have no problems. Probably they did some survey and in general people answered the survey in this way. So that makes sense to me.

thomas t said:
and here you say that you are less dependent on this need. Actually you say you don't need any close social contacts at all.
To me, this comes across as saying you are stronger than the average Joe.

That is the key "This need". This specific need I don't have, but there are plenty of other areas that others are much stronger than I am. The moment I realize this, how can I be arrogant about this tiny little 1 thing that I am less dependent than the average Joe?

And I would not even have mentioned this 1 thing IF you would not have claimed that all need close contacts.
IF someone imposes his opinion on me as a claim THEN it's my duty to tell them to stop this behavior, as I alone know myself best on this forum
And then twist the things and telling me "now you are arrogant, aren't you?" is not nice behavior either, as I only defended myself
Of course I do not need to defend myself. America can also disarm all their nukes. But that might lead to big problems

Vinayaka · Jan 18, 2021

thomas t said:
science says in general people have a need for close social contacts, in other words they depend on others. For me that's the most human thing there could be.

It's on a range. My two parents were on opposite ends of the spectrum. Mom was content working in the garden or other farm chores all day, alone, even after we'd left her nest. Dad, on the other hand, could have gone to a large social gathering twice a day. I also think there is a tendency amongst people to project their individual degree of 'social need' on to others. If 0 means you could be a hermit alone, and 10 means you call a friend when you get up, and see 50 people every day, then I'd give myself a 2.

thomas t · Jan 18, 2021

stvdv said:
That is the key "This need". This specific need I don't have,

stvdv said:
IF someone imposes his opinion on me as a claim THEN it's my duty to tell them to stop this behavior, as I alone know myself best on this forum

Scientists tried to find a relationship between health and social contacts. In my opinion, they didn't just ask "tell us, do you need social contacts, yes or no?"
They asked about the health of interviewed persons and also asked questions about how many social contacts they had... based on this data they later tried to establish a link between these two areas of people's lives in attempt to find out whether or not frequent social contacts have an impact on your health.

As humans, social interaction is essential to every aspect of our health. Research shows that having a strong network of support or strong community bonds fosters both emotional and physical health and is an important component of adult life. Over the years, there have been a number of studies showcasing the relationship between social support and the quality of physical and psychological health.

The Research
While most studies examining the benefits of social support have focused on the elderly (Steptoe, Dockray, & Wardle, 2009), having a strong social network is crucial for psychological and physical health, regardless of age. For example, a study on incoming college freshmen found that social support was effective in reducing depression in both those who have healthy self-esteem and those with a poor self-image (Cohen, Sherrod, & Clark, 1986). The authors of this study found that belonging to a social network helped ease the stress for people entering university life.

Social involvement is also important as we age. In a study of Europeans over the age of 50, Sirven and Debrand (2008) found that individuals who participated in social or community activities were more likely to report good or very good health. The study was based on data from the Survey of Health, Aging and Retirement in Europe (SHARE) and included 11 European countries and 22,000 households (31,000 individuals).

bolded mine, see Why Being Social is Good for You
When I started the thread I didn't mean you, by the way.

Clara Tea · Jan 18, 2021

thomas t said:
She says, in case of leaving the church, she would lose everything: family and friends.
I can understand that.
However, in my opinion, there is no environment that's more toxic to a victim of sexual abuse... than the place where the perpetrator goes to and receives backing.

All contacts are with one religion. You say that this is bad because no one will stop an abuser. But I say that all who follow God should stop the abuser.

Child molesting priests should be stopped by all. Instead, the priests (and their bosses) convince victims that it would hurt the religion and hurt the church if they sued or complained. This is wrong behavior (it is aiding and abetting a felon, and tantamount to molesting a child).

We have an obligation to God, not to sinning humans. We are required, by God, to stop sin (sin of ours and sin of others).

Sirona · Jan 18, 2021

Vee said:
That can indeed be a problem, but I can tell you as a JW that nothing forces us to stick with one group of people and never meet anyone else. I don't know the details of this person's life and why things happened that way, but generally speaking, I'm free to make friends with other people if I want to.
Of course it is much easier to get along with people of the same background, but if something goes wrong with one or two people in my congregation, first I'll try to solve the problem, but some things are too serious and need other measures. I can either try to get closer to others in the same group if they make me feel welcome, or change congregations. In my areas there are at least 8 or 9. Even if I want to stay within the circle of Jehovah's Witnesses I have that choice.
I also know people who left the religion all together and they might have had some trouble if all their friends and family were JW, but they moved on to other activities, met new people, and made a new life. People adapt. I moved several times in my life and found myself alone in places where I didn't know anyone. It was hard but I always ended up making 2 or 3 good friends and having activities that contributed to my well being. Being part of a particular religious group doesn't necessarily mean to be condemned to social isolation.

1. Granted, I'm no insider but I was an avid reader of Watchtower in my youth (I was interested in anything related to the Bible) and sometimes I still read JW stuff out of curiousity. (I think the illustrations were much nicer then.) First of all it must be stated that the Watchtower doesn't declare rules but "recommendations". Like many controversial groups, JW's practice double speak, so if there's a "recommendation" in the Watchtower, every JW automatically knows it's a rule but such a rule usually ends with "Whether to practice activity X is left to the individual's consciousness" to make them appear "tolerant" to the public, so in the end they all make the same "decision of individual consciousness".

2. JWs are discouraged from making friends with people from the “current system of things” or outsiders. There's an example at the end of the story of Dinah (story 20) in My Book of Bible Stories, where JW kids are indoctrinated not so seek outsiders as friends, who would get them "into trouble".

3. If a member leaves the group by their own will or is excommunicated, JWs must shun them. This includes even closest family. Therefore, breaking away from a cultic group may be harrowing especially if you have no ties with the outside world.

stvdv · Jan 18, 2021

thomas t said:
Scientists tried to find a relationship between health and social contacts. In my opinion, they didn't just ask "tell us, do you need social contacts, yes or no?"
They asked about the health of interviewed persons and also asked questions about how many social contacts they had... based on this data they later tried to establish a link between these two areas of people's lives in attempt to find out whether or not frequent social contacts have an impact on your health.

As humans, social interaction is essential to every aspect of our health. Research shows that having a strong network of support or strong community bonds fosters both emotional and physical health and is an important component of adult life. Over the years, there have been a number of studies showcasing the relationship between social support and the quality of physical and psychological health.

The Research
While most studies examining the benefits of social support have focused on the elderly (Steptoe, Dockray, & Wardle, 2009), having a strong social network is crucial for psychological and physical health, regardless of age. For example, a study on incoming college freshmen found that social support was effective in reducing depression in both those who have healthy self-esteem and those with a poor self-image (Cohen, Sherrod, & Clark, 1986). The authors of this study found that belonging to a social network helped ease the stress for people entering university life.

Social involvement is also important as we age. In a study of Europeans over the age of 50, Sirven and Debrand (2008) found that individuals who participated in social or community activities were more likely to report good or very good health. The study was based on data from the Survey of Health, Aging and Retirement in Europe (SHARE) and included 11 European countries and 22,000 households (31,000 individuals).

bolded mine, see Why Being Social is Good for You
When I started the thread I didn't mean you, by the way.

I understand all this perfectlty. And my first reply made that pretty clear
I was very specific in this reply (post #1) and 100% correct sharing my experience about myself ONLY

I just said that I am perfectly fine being alone

IF you have a problem to accept this fact THEN you have a problem
How many studies you show me, the simple fact I stated will still be true

TagliatelliMonster · Jan 18, 2021

thomas t said:
I think it is a great problem when all socail contacts, family and friends, can be found in one and the same church.
In this video*

(German language), a Jehova Witness explains that she is convinced to have been sexually abused by her father.
Yet she stays in that church (minute 6:50). She says, in case of leaving the church, she would lose everything: family and friends.
I can understand that.
However, in my opinion, there is no environment that's more toxic to a victim of sexual abuse... than the place where the perpetrator goes to and receives backing.

The problem that I see here is isolating oneself to the extent that 100% of your contacts can be found in one single church. This is running the risk of losing everything, if that particular church goes wrong.

Parents, in general, must ensure that children have contacts into more than one environment, I think. Otherwise it could get dangerous.

The problem of isolating oneself to one single church is not limited to Jehova Witnesses though, as I see it.

* I'm posting this German vid to an English site only to provide a checkable source - at least some can check it here if they want.

Another problem of such isolation is, even when nothing goes "wrong", it will never go well.
Exposure to other points of view is crucial in overall development and education.

Restricting one selves to one small bubble of like-minded individuals, will inevitably result in a worldview with blinders on and it will make one oblivious of the "outside world".

It's never a good thing.

It's in fact also what I hate about "social media". They aren't "social" at all. They have algoritms running that track your every move and based upon that data, they create a "profile" on you. Then they will bombard you with stuff (ads, "recomended" views/reads, etc) that all fits "your profile". In doing so, they will create for you your own personal "digital social bubble" and once again, you will be prevented to be exposed to other points of view or news articles that don't agree with the stuff you usually consume or what-have-you.

It feeds tribalism and it is extremely counter productive in a world that keeps getting smaller.

If you would like to see an example of the societal harm this causes, look no further then the brexit and Trump following.

Putting and actively keeping people in a "data bubble", be it in real-life or online, never results in anything good.

thomas t · Jan 18, 2021

Clara Tea said:
All contacts are with one religion. You say that this is bad because no one will stop an abuser.

didn't say that.

stvdv · Jan 18, 2021

Clara Tea said:
All contacts are with one religion. You say that this is bad because no one will stop an abuser.

I also understood that it's bad if in such cults abusers are not stopped

Clara Tea said:
But I say that all who follow God should stop the abuser.

Child molesting priests should be stopped by all. Instead, the priests (and their bosses) convince victims that it would hurt the religion and hurt the church if they sued or complained. This is wrong behavior (it is aiding and abetting a felon, and tantamount to molesting a child).

We have an obligation to God, not to sinning humans. We are required, by God, to stop sin (sin of ours and sin of others).

I totally agree

stvdv · Jan 18, 2021

Sirona said:
2. JWs are discouraged from making friends with people from the “current system of things” or outsiders. There's an example at the end of the story of Dinah (story 20) in My Book of Bible Stories, where JW kids are indoctrinated not so seek outsiders as friends, who would get them "into trouble".

IF they meant "Don't seek outsiders as friends who will get you in trouble" THEN I agree it's best to not befriend "troublemakers"
IF they really mean "All outsiders get you in trouble" THEN this itself sounds troublesome to me

In this age, I hardly can't believe they meant the first, hence I tried to find what they really say on their website and found the following link. Seems to me, when quickly glancing over the contents that they are encouraged to select "Good company". Nothing wrong with that. All what I read on their website, seemed like common sense to me; but I did not search for errors, just the big picture.

And I agree with the big picture "Tell me your company, and I tell you who you are (or are soon to become)"

https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/ws20150815/watch-associations-last-days/#?insight[search_id]=b9e6deb1-182c-4362-b03c-1c9c162f64e1&insight[search_result_index]=3

Sirona said:
3. If a member leaves the group by their own will or is excommunicated, JWs must shun them. This includes even closest family. Therefore, breaking away from a cultic group may be harrowing especially if you have no ties with the outside world.

This is quite clear, so I assume this is what they are told told do. Seems to me that Freedom of Religion is not adhered to, as how I interpret it, when I read this. I prefer Freedom of Religion, as in not judging other Religions/(non)Faith as inferior etc. and esp. not generalizing all followers. We are far from my ideal

thomas t · Jan 18, 2021

stvdv said:
IF they meant "Don't seek outsiders as friends who will get you in trouble" THEN I agree it's best to not befriend "troublemakers"
IF they really mean "All outsiders get you in trouble" THEN this itself sounds troublesome to me

In this age, I hardly can't believe they meant the first, hence I tried to find what they really say on their website and found the following link. Seems to me, when quickly glancing over the contents that they are encouraged to select "Good company". Nothing wrong with that. All what I read on their website, seemed like common sense to me; but I did not search for errors, just the big picture.

And I agree with the big picture "Tell me your company, and I tell you who you are (or are soon to become)"

https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/ws20150815/watch-associations-last-days/#?insight[search_id]=b9e6deb1-182c-4362-b03c-1c9c162f64e1&insight[search_result_index]=3

This is quite clear, so I assume this is what they are told told do. Seems to me that Freedom of Religion is not adhered to, as how I interpret it, when I read this. I prefer Freedom of Religion, as in not judging other Religions/(non)Faith as inferior etc.

I think you misunderstand JW terminology.
By Christian churches they mean themselves.
According to this site: https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/christian-denominations/
they differenciate between the one true form of Christianity (which is them, according to them, if I got this right) and " 'Christian' denominations", which is the rest.
My conclusion, since they define all other denominations as "Christians" and themselves as Christians, it becomes clear what they mean when they say that ...

To keep our good relationship with Jehovah, we do not choose to associate with anyone who practices bad things. This includes people who say that they worship Jehovah but choose to disobey him.
(citing from your source)

In lights of the above page, it gets clear whom they mean by "people who say that they worship Jehovah but choose to disobey him"...

All Your Contacts in One Single Church?

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV

devotee

non-denominational Christian

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV

non-denominational Christian

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV

non-denominational Christian

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV

non-denominational Christian

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV

devotee

non-denominational Christian

Well-Known Member

Hindu Wannabe

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV

Veteran Member

non-denominational Christian

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV

non-denominational Christian