crisis of conscience (page 5)

Terry

Until it can be proven that he indeed lied en masse regarding the matters he reveals, and until the mountains of evidence can be shown to be fabricated nonsense, why not accept the facts?

Has somebody accused Franz of lying?

Terry

I find it odd that you don't know that he did go public to the press and on TV. It didn't boost ratings, he didn't get invited back.

I find it odd you don't know the difference between using the threat of going public with its execution.

AK - Jeff

Has somebody accused Franz of lying?

Not my point. You have seemed insistent on degrading the worth of his book, by character attack. I submit that his character is proven by the book.

Jeff

AuldSoul

Terry: Gosh, opinions are dangerous things, clearly!

Only when they run rampant and veer into suspicion of motives or second-guessing the past course of someone in whose shoes we've never lived.

Terry: How better qualified can I possibly be to express such an opinion?

How better for the "opinions" you have expressed? Only in two ways: You could be his wife (which I doubt you are) or you could be him. The latter would be the best way, although people's reflections on their life are only ever an indication of how they currently view their former selves. To be least qualified, you could be a person who has never met the man. Anything in between would put you about equally poorly suited to challenge his "fitness."

You have no data to support your unfounded and slanderous conclusions. No reality. Only conjecture.

I freely express my opinions. I expressed my opinion of your crass disregard for reality in your very post to this thread that espouses its virtue. On another thread I expressed my opinion that lying is not a good choice in most (if not all) cases, and that one can usually arrange a more suitable alternative.

But then, I don't hold much truck with the doctrine of "REALITY above all else." I am freer with my speech than can be permitted one so bound to reality. Opinions are not reality, Terry. According to you, giving any weight to things which cannot be proven is a bane, a blight to the human race.

Yet, in this thread your posts are rife with unreality posing as potential reality that never materialized. That is not opining, Terry. The dark nature of your multitude of purely conjectured speculations regarding Ray Franz is, in my opinion, shameful for one so keen on "reality" in other respects.

True or false: There is no evidence that any other choice on the part of Franz during his entire lifetime would have resulted in a materially (real) better result for any member of any species, including himself.

True. Reality is, at best, unkind to opinions. I sincerely hope it went down crosswise after you labeled my response "silly" and I hope you choke for a while on the bone. "Silly" would be the person who read your tripe and gave it a whit of credible consideration.

Terry

Not my point. You have seemed insistent on degrading the worth of his book, by character attack. I submit that his character is proven by the book.
Jeff

You've arrived at an awkward corollary.

Nothing of the sort!

I responded to the Topic and the question of how "I" felt reading Crisis of Conscience. Nothing more.

I felt creepy. I gave reasons why I felt creepy.

I gave reasons why I had those reasons.

I responded to the criticism that Franz is somehow such a jolly good fellow for writing the book that he is above and beyond any measure of criticism.

All well and good.

Somebody should sit you down and explain the difference between giving an informed opinion and slander.

Franz's book is about all we have by way of an insider's point of view as to how the Watchtower Society has functioned with the information it had at its disposal and the men who shaped its purpose.

If the Society is fair game to one who dwelt within in; by the same token the person writing about the Society is fair game as well. I too was a member.

AuldSoul

Terry,

Until this thread: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/127859/2263455/post.ashx#2263455

I believed that your intent was exactly as you expressed in your most recent reply to AK-Jeff. Belief is not reality, and I suspend belief pending further input in almost every area of my life.

This linked post successfully convinced me I was wrnog. After having developed such conviction I went back and read your previous posts again, and I formed an alternate conclusion regarding their nature.

You are not the first I have seen attack someone's character through a guise of "self-exploration," but you are the first I have seen do it so blatantly and then cry foul when caught out in the act.

This last post you made ... your "final thought" as you put it ... was disgusting, in my opinion. But, unlike you, I am expressing my opinion directly to the author in the same milieu where the authorship occurred.

AK - Jeff

Somebody should sit you down and explain the difference between giving an informed opinion and slander.

I know the difference - and if you read my posts on this subject I can tell you I did not ever say or indicate such did I? I accused you of trying to detract from the value of the book by attacking the author - all of which you do, not by informed opinion, but by wandering lament and unproven speculative reason.

AS has made a few good points. I hope you think about them. I think I made a couple myself. But I am done discussion in which words are attributed to me that I did not state or imply. Ever hear of red herring?

Jeff

Terry

You have no data to support your unfounded and slanderous conclusions. No reality . Only conjecture.

Now you've gone hysterical. My slander consists of my opinion that Franz was sneaky and probably should have confronted the GB with his discoveries instead of going around behind their collective back. Oh wahhhh! Some slander, indeed!

You have no data to support your unfounded and slanderous conclusions. No reality . Only conjecture

And you, of course, do.

Your failure to fall in love with my analysis is based on what superior personal knowledge or understanding of fact?

I don't hold much truck with the doctrine of "REALITY above all else."

Clearly demonstrated!

The dark nature of your multitude of purely conjectured speculations regarding Ray Franz is, in my opinion, shameful for one so keen on "reality" in other respects

I think you need a hug. (((((((( AULD SOUL )))))))))

"Silly" would be the person who read your tripe and gave it a whit of credible consideration.

Your long response is not such a consideration? Of course it is; thus, proving you are silly.

Q.E.D

Terry

I accused you of trying to detract from the value of the book by attacking the author - all of which you do, not by informed opinion, but by wandering lament and unproven speculative reason.

Reading comprehension: Needs Improvement.

My original post:

Having said all that; the book Crisis of Conscience (beyond being self-serving for Franz) is an invaluable document that gives a glimpse into the inner workings of the JW religion in a way otherwise impossible.

Terry

A curiously revealing letter:

A Lie Is A Lie Is A Lie Ray Franz
From: Ray Franz
To: Positive Atheism
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2001 5:11 PM
Subject: Ongoing dispute and trying to keep reality and fantasy separated
Ongoing dispute.
This ongoing dispute over religious beliefs will never end as long as people in the majority continue to display theirs in public.
Yesterday I almost received a punch in the mouth. This occurred at our coffee klatch at McDonalds.
An individual entered our discussion of current gas prices with the old urban legend of the Ford with a 60-miles-per-gallon carburetor which Ford wanted to buy back because they put the carburetor on by mistake. Supposedly an oil company had bought up the patent in order to sell more gas.
I challenged this and the individual immediately got angry and said, "Are you calling me and my father-in-law a liar?"
What to say? I said the only thing I could and that was that this story had made the rounds for many years and I had heard it from other people. What else could I say? A person passing on these stories is basically a liar. Believing something does not make it true.
It is much the same about the legends, myths and stories about gods, goddesses and a spiritual world--all from the past and current believers who have faith in these pronouncements. The intent is to bolster their faith by destroying any challenge to their spiritual beliefs.
What is a rational, thinking person to do? Well, it is being done today in the confrontation taking place over those pushing their favorite spiritual, religious dogma into the public venue of society, government and education.
Medical science has disproved the 18th century myth that a complete human being exists in miniature at the beginning of pregnancy. This evidently is still a valid belief to those who are against abortion.
Just when does a fertilized egg become a human being?????
Ray

crisis of conscience

Share this