All right cut the crap.... why are we fighting over the Big News? (page 2)

rmt1

Brooklyn used to explain how the bible doesn't contradict science by, among others, saying that when Job said "skin of my teeth," he was actually being given divine spirit - no, not a metaphor of a body part that obviously or apparently doesn't have skin, so that it means "no margin", no - we're talking divine spirit - and that this corroborates with how science has to tell us that the tooth actually has a "skin." Why the fuck a JW thinks that it matters why or whether a tooth has "skin" or whether Job really cared what enamel was is besides the point: Brooklyn works very hard to dream up shit that makes them sound like they have science on their side and not the other way around. If this blood business is hard core and they can document that what *they researched was Fully Available to anyone else researching such matters, and can demonstrate that Brooklyn could not have arrived at some of its more informed correct conclusions without bypassing such data that would undermine things it has obfuscated, then, there's something to care about. I'm sure Brooklyn will give it hell's best shot to simulate that they did not find such data in their findings, or will find a way to discredit or question these other findings as, "Yes, your honor, we did consider these findings but experts X Y and Z have given reason to dismiss them." Experts being in quotes. I don't know, this might be interesting. But it would not be surrpised if Brooklyn told their people that Satan has control of everything and hid the more correct science. And they would believe it. And there would be more tacking back and forth light gets brighter talks. But I smell that this could be another Colin Powel hunt for weapons of mass destruction, i.e., someone standing at a podium trying to explain that Brooklyn has not proven that it did NOT know about controversial findings X Y Z. Proving a negative, difficult. Am I off on any major points?

steve2

I don't see any fighting. I see something healthier: People freely expressing their opinions - and oftentimes in the real world, opinions vary and it's no big deal. As difficult as it may be to see an opinion that is different than mine, I'd rather acknowledge it exists that play the old game of, "Let's just all agree."

AuldSoul

I have to agree with Steve2. What good is a discussion forum with a bunch of nodding bobble-heads? We ALSO support and comfort and console. But this is a discussion forum. Discussions get heated on certain issues. No big deal.

Friends pull through anything, if they are really friends. We'll pull through this too.

AuldSoul

Check_Your_Premises

Wow!!! I can't believe you just said that!

Well my point is that I think (I get to put my thoughts out there also) that the discussion reached a point of impasse.

And naturally it began to take a darker turn. Nobody was convincing anybody of anything anymore.

I started to read about people questioning motives and character of others here.

It just didn't seem to me that the discussion was any longer productive.

And as I stated above, all our discussions here are not going to determine anything.

The only question is can this argument withstand the scrutiny of the judicial process. That can only be answered by the duly appointed legal representatives.

Check_Your_Premises

I have to agree with Steve2. What good is a discussion forum with a bunch of nodding bobble-heads? We ALSO support and comfort and console. But this is a discussion forum. Discussions get heated on certain issues. No big deal.

I do feel much better with you saying this. You are one of my favorite people on this site, and you have always been a good friend.

I saw you in the thick of the fray, and naturally I didn't like people taking shots at you.

Check_Your_Premises

I don't see any fighting. I see something healthier: People freely expressing their opinions - and oftentimes in the real world, opinions vary and it's no big deal. As difficult as it may be to see an opinion that is different than mine, I'd rather acknowledge it exists that play the old game of, "Let's just all agree."

Well said.

I agree that healthy debate is a good thing. Friends just need to realize when an impasse has been reached, and agree to respect eachother's conclusions. The point of my post was to attempt to signal that such a point had been reached.

Part of me was a little embarrassed. I felt we were airing our dirty laundry. I imagined the old coots in brooklyn having a good old time watching the board spin out of control.

On the other hand though, history shows that free and open debate always leads to a stronger sense of truth then any small group that demands unanimity from a place of authority. Like the old Soviet Union, the WT will crumble under the weight of it's internal contradictions. Men were never meant to have the authority or monopoly on truth that they claim.

So such open and heated debate looks unseemly, but I would rather have that any day than the "organized" WT fantasy land.

CYP

Ticker

I agree too with some of these comments. Were not fighting, were debating. Of course we all want the Watchtower to aswer for its wrongs. We have all laboured to shed light on the hypocrisy of the Society even risking our family contact due to the shunning policy.

Yes their are definately some that are dissapointed but in no way does this signify any form of intimidation on their part! Rather these ones have likely been deeply hurt due to the Watchtowers misleading policies. I know of several who have lost family due to the blood doctrine of the Watchtower society and I personally wish nothing more then for them to gain retribution. These ones who have lost the most have no fear of the Watchtowers intimidation. Only possibly thoese still suffering from indoctrination or with family in the Watchtower Organization would feel any real intimidation from the local level of the Society.

I feel honestly it was a bit overhyped by many on this board, and many let it run away a bit, but its exciting and I understand. Still though besides that I think its commendable that people are seeing the seriousness of endangered lives due to the Watchtower policy on blood.

Yet still I believe that the odds of this brochure campaign having success are unknown at this point and some may have seeked a quick swift justice. This is not the case with the "Big News". If it does gain momentum then it will snowball into a great way of relief to thoese who have suffered at the hands of the Watchtower Society. I agree were all on the same side and may this have the success hoped for.

Ticker

Gerard

I just don't see what all the disagreement is about.

It makes me sad to see so many raising their hopes on a ~~squirrel's fart~~ weak legal theory called BIG NEWS! Most of you have suffered enough and I am sad that some of y ou fell to the hype and its marketing and now you are owners of a brand new Nothing.

I am willing to help in any practical way or campaign, but before, I want you to have a reality check and remember:

A court can not consider a plaintiff's negligent infliction of injury count without entangling itself in matters of the religion and burdening the free exercise rights of the defendants. Under both the free exercise clause and the establishment clause, the first amendment prohibits civil courts from resolving disputed issues of religious doctrine and practice.

Unfortunately, the assay (re: BIG NEWS!) has not, can not and will not change this law.

G

Finally-Free

I don't have a problem with the news. I do, however, have a problem with the sensationalizing of news for the purpose of manipulating people to some action. Particularly when the news itself is withheld while the masses are manipulated into an unreasonable frenzy.

W

Check_Your_Premises

I don't have a problem with the news. I do, however, have a problem with the sensationalizing of news for the purpose of manipulating people to some action. Particularly when the news itself is withheld while the masses are manipulated into an unreasonable frenzy.

Even if the Big News is completely worthless, I don't believe the person who allegedly "sensationalized" and "manipulated" did so with that intention.

I think it was only sensationalized if it is in fact worthless. If it has teeth then I don't think it was hyped ENOUGH!

If it is worthless, the person who did the sensationalizing most certainly did so from what she thought was a well informed opinion.

I certainly wouldn't want to discourage others from coming up with new and clever ways to hurt the WT by slandering the character of a person who is, at worst, legally naive.

The thread that finally prompted me to write this thread was titled, "Can we trust Barbara Anderson?". Was that really fair or necessary or appropriate. If this is the Big Snooze, then that just means we got more work to do. "A" for effort Barbara!

CYP

All right cut the crap.... why are we fighting over the Big News?

Share this