by Amazing 83 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Bin:
You have a point. I was offended by the action for personal reasons that I will not discuss here.
And also, as a result of this discussion, I have discovered through research that at least some posts by now-banned posters are still available in the archives at Channel C through the "search" function. So, my apologies to Ros.
James Caputo's ID there was "vinoverita" (he signed his real name to his posts).
Pax,
Ruth
Hi Junction Guy,
So is this group made up of religiously diverse people? Is it mainly a born again group? Or is it a JW knockoff? Sorry, just a few more questions.
The group is somewhat diverse ... Free Bible Students, a few traditional Protestant denominations, some loner Christians, and perhaps an agnostic or two. I am still registered as is Tom Cabeen, and we are Catholic as is Kid Zero, but we are the exception. Kid posts more than we do. Jim Penton, a former JW and history professor (ret.) from the University of Toronto, and book author of Apocalypse Delayed, and JWs and the Third Reich is there along with a few other academic types. Carol Olaf Jonnson, author of The Gentile Times Reconsidered is also there on ocassion, as well as some other lesser known ex-JW authors. There is a strong contingent of anti-Catholic types who as Jim Penton admitted, push false propaganda that is unfair and hurtful. But, even the regular types like Penton have little use for discussions of Catholicism. Toreador, I was there when James Caputo was publishing his discussions on CC. He was not proselytizing as charged. He is simply a skilled and strong debator who frustrated those with lesser skills and weak arguments. James is to the Catholic debate as is my good friend Alan Feuerbacher is to the evolution-science-athiest debate. They are formidable to anyone who locks horns with them ... and those who were not about to handle the debates went crying foul. I stepped in to defend James and after a series of go arounds in public and private, my account was deleted. It was restored later after Ros and I talked at BRCI. A point in your favor is that at times, James would have better served his arguments by quoting salient points, and citing the source or link so one could read the full context if time permitted ... or perhaps he could have used bold font or yellow highlight to allow readers to quickly get to the specific sentences supporting his points ... however, in his favor, he both had the historical support on his side, and he at least provided the material ... and he is academically honest. My defense of James came before I started considering the notion of studying early Church history again, or entertaining the possibility of reconciling with the Catholic Church. So, of anyone, I was not bias in favor of Catholicism, and I feel I was in a fair position to be fair. Those who recall otherwise have yet to produce even one single example of how James Caputo was proselytizing or preaching or being disruptive. I have asked for evidence a number of times, and was given a lot of jibber-jabber ... but not one shred of evidence to support the charges against James. So until such is produced, I abide by the principle of innocent until proven guilty. And knowning James as I do, I stand by him now as a dear friend. Jim W.
Hi Tor,
I didn't take the Channel C board over by any means. Discussion of the early Church fathers caught the interest of many of the discussants. When I posted my citations and commentary, they freely interacted with them.
The beauty of a forum of that nature is that a lack of interest in a topic can cause the topic to stop dead after the initial posting, thus precluding the possibility for one to commandeer the forum. Put another way, if discussion of the ante-nicene Church did not interest the group, the group would have expressed as much by simply ignorning any submissions dealing with said topic. There was no reason to shut down the forum or threaten such a shut-down. The forum very much enjoyed the discussions - with the exception of two or three folks - as evidenced by the vigorous participation of many of the members.
Furthermore, I do not ask that anyone acquiesce to my way of thinking. I simply wish to express my views - views which were shared by other members of the forum. Why should Jim Penton be allowed to constantly express his view of scripture, history and the nature of the Church and not I? Why isn't he told to keep his views about the malignity of organized religion to himself? If he can fulminate against the Churches of Christendom with impunity, why can't I say beautiful things about one of them? Isn't that what free conversation is all about, Tor?
I never insisted on my way, either. I simply responded to questions and posts of other forum members. If they had no interest in what I had to say, they could have expressed that much by their silence. But, alas, silence came by imposition not by the general consensus of the board's participants.
>>You were asked several times to tone down the diatribes and you simply put up a blind eye to the repeated requests, even poking fun at the admins attempts to quell the runaway Catholicism freight train.>>
Again, on what basis are some diatribes permitted and others forbidden? Moreover, I poked fun at the admins ridiculous attempt to control the content of the discussants' posts by jury-rigging the site so that Catholic sounding words appeared in a form more in line with her own theology. (i.e. if one typed the word "priest" it showed up as "elder." If one typed the word "Church" it showed up as "congregation").
>>You seemed to be like a JW elder on a roll in a judicial committee meeting, so cocksure of himself that the party under interrogation was guilty, and that by God you were going to beat it out of them till they folded.>>
Others like Tom Cabeen, Jeff Schwehm, Jim Whitney and others would testify contrarily.
>>Of course that was some time ago and I have slept since then. I bet you never took no for an answer at the door back in your JW field service days either>>
I was a Jehovah's Witness for all of a year and a half. And during that time I was traveling with my job and didn't do much door to door ministry at all. So, I can't say I can relate to the whole Jehovah's Witness culture, much less mindset.
>>At least that was my impression from reading "some'"of your material. (Noone could have possibly read it all) ;-) >>
What's your name, Tor? Perhaps I'll remember you from the good old days of Channel C:>)
With affection,
James:)
Junction Guy, You aren't missing much at Channel C. Ros rules that discussion board like the Governing Body rules Jehovah's Witnesses. With an iron hand and with no consideration for either the opinions or the feelings of anyone else. I know from experience. I used to participate in discussions on her board regularly. Too regularly in fact. I found myself spending way too much time there, time that I realized could be spent more productively. When I mentioned my feelings on this matter in one of my last posts there Ros decided to try to make me look foolish by posting the contents of one of my private E mails to her which she characterized as me having previously "begged" her to be allowed to participate. Why, she asked quite sarcastically, had I done so if I didn't think posting on her board was time well spent. I posted a reply telling her that she was wrong to post the contents of a private E mail and to belittle me publicly. I told her since she had done both publicly that she owed me a public apology, But instead of providing one she chose to simply delete her offensive post along with my posting privileges. I have heard from several others that over the years Ros has treated many other people in the same rude manner, often without explanation, deleting the accounts of people with whom she has had either doctrinal or personal disagreements. So often so, in fact, that her board has now turned into a virtual spiritual ghost town with sometimes days passing without a single post being added. Some of the few people she has allowed to remain are now so afraid of offending its "sheriff" that their posts are, for the most part, lacking any interesting ("controversial") content. Political discussions are banned. Discussions of the war in Iraq are banned. Discussions of Catholicism are banned. Defenses of religious doctrines which Ros personally disagrees with, such as the Trinity, are banned. And the list goes on. All I can figure is that Ros is now making up big time for all those years when she, as JW woman, was not allowed to hold any position of "power."
I fear fjtoth might have got the point
another look at the book "mistakes were made, but not by me" will not do any harm to any of us.
as to Ros, I have been on channelC just for a short while but have not noticed any of the behaviours that are highlighted here by some posters. but of course I have to admit that I also have my "blind spots" and therefore could be wrong
mistakes were made (but not by me) - great book - recommended.
Why would anyone want to be on that board then?
Fjtoth<
Have I told you lately that you're brilliant?
As one who has been reading Chanel C for years, I must say your posts accurately sum up the situation.
yesidid
Yesidid,
Thanks. But of course I don't deserve any credit, really. As you've observed, it's pretty obvious what's going on in this thread.
It is deceptive to claim that the thread is "a kind response." What is so "kind" about making the biased claim that Channel C won't listen to anything that is "respectful" and "balanced"? What is "kind" in claiming that contributors to that forum are intellectually dishonest, sarcastic, unkind, unfair and unreasonable, that they "offer little more than pent up frustrations and attacks," that they employ "a double standard," etc., etc.???
Frank
