Jim W.:
Apparently the humor is working since it's found a response. Some agree with it and you yourself have paid attention to it enough to comment on it. No matter how much you deny it, you wittingly brought CC issues here so you could vent your dissatisfaction before many. Though your complaints are admittedly with only "two specific people," you chose to place them before the hundreds and thousands who might visit this thread, many of whom have never heard of CC. That seems quite childish to me.
You fool only those who hold to your viewpoint. To say you are being "kind" while accusing your opponents of being "unreasonable" and 'vehemently hateful' is highly insincere, to say the least.
Additionally, your claim that I don't know what's going on fails to take into account that I've paid attention to CC for years and that I nearly prayed for the day when your long, long, long rambling verbiage would come to an end. I prefer to be your friend rather than your enemy, but as you yourself have said: "The truth is always kind." Consider the truthfulness of what I'm telling you here a kindness on my part.
Frank
A kind response to Jim Penton & Ros of Channel C
by Amazing 83 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
fjtoth
-
NanaR
Bin:
Perhaps you and the other posters here would like to review some posts from a few years ago that I found in the JWD archives:
Channel C Decides to Stay Open!
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/95228/1.ashx
Pax,
Ruth
ps: The "dust up" that this thread talks about was on political issues, not Catholicism. I believe it happened after the "Catholic Wars".
-
Amazing
fjtoth,
Apparently the humor is working since it's found a response. Some agree with it and you yourself have paid attention to it enough to comment on it.
Calling it humor did not make it humor. A response is irrelevant to it working as humor ... but I responded to try and clarify ... which you seem to hold little interest.
No matter how much you deny it, you wittingly brought CC issues here so you could vent your dissatisfaction before many. Though your complaints are admittedly with only "two specific people," you chose to place them before the hundreds and thousands who might visit this thread, many of whom have never heard of CC. That seems quite childish to me.
Your allegations are without merit. Employment of the "deny" label is just that, a label, without providing one scintilla of support for your claim. I have already sufficiently clarified why I opened up a public thread. False statements were made on a public forum which does not tolerate certain topics ... so, I opened up a thread in public and invited the two people addressed to view and/or dialogue out of respect for their policy. I never stated I disagreed with their policy, but rather that I was respecting it. There is nothing childish about putting a problem before hundreds of thousands of readers ... otherwise what you suggest means that JWD and all Internet forums should shut down and go away for fear of being childish ... well, that is not going to happen.
You fool only those who hold to your viewpoint. To say you are being "kind" while accusing your opponents of being "unreasonable" and 'vehemently hateful' is highly insincere, to say the least.
I never used the words you suggest. You demonstrate how weak and pathetic your point is that you have to employ falsehood.
Additionally, your claim that I don't know what's going on fails to take into account that I've paid attention to CC for years and that I nearly prayed for the day when your long, long, long rambling verbiage would come to an end.
Well then, go pay more attention to CC. Again your claim about long, long rambling verbiage is again false and not supported by one single bit of evidence. Further, when those I respond to like Jim Penton employes long long verbiage, then one cannot be faulted for useing a lot of words to respond to a lot of words. So go pray for Jim Penton.
I prefer to be your friend rather than your enemy, but as you yourself have said: "The truth is always kind." Consider the truthfulness of what I'm telling you here a kindness on my part.
No, you do not prefer to be my friend. If you had told truth, I would agree with you ... but you chose unwisely to employ falsehood in an effort to prove your point. I have no use for such tactics, and I have no interest in conversing with you until you change your tactics.
Jim W.
-
GMahler
I must confess that I am more of a "lurker" in this forum than a poster. I do, however, have some knowledge of the events that transpired in this case and I would like to add my two cents. It was when I first began my journey from the Watchtower Society some six years ago that I became acquainted with the Channel C forum. Looking for an alternative to my JW upbringing, I had hoped to find a place where close-minded dogmatism was replaced with open-minded dialogue. At first I thought I had found such a place. Over time, however, it became apparent that Channel C was not the kind of forum I had imagined. I know Jim Caputo personally. He and Tom Cabeen were the first ex-JW's I came into contact with as I began my exit from the WTS. I've known Jim Caputo for six years and during that time have had many conversations with him. At no time during our exchanges did Jim proselytize or attempt to convince me that I would be any lesser of a person if I did not join the Catholic Church. I can say in all honesty that you will never meet a person more open-minded than Jim Caputo. That doesn't mean that he doesn't have an opinion to express. But he always leaves the option open to you as to whether or not to accept it. I will never forget the time Jim said to me, "If you were to call me tomorrow and tell me that you accept the Faithful and Discreet Slave as God's authority, I would still accept you as a friend". I was a witness to many of the exchanges between Jim P. and Jim C. when they first took place. I felt that it amounted to nothing more than a smear campaign by Jim P. I have read many of the posts of Jim P. that do not pertain to the Catholic faith, but to his distaste for the WTS. I have always been amazed at the irony of this. Jim P. has no problem criticizing the WTS for it's close-mindedness and intolerance to divergent beliefs, but has not problem taking the same approach to those who disagree with him, especially when it comes to matters of doctrine. While I respect the education Jim P. has received in Church History, he has displayed by his comments that he has some bias, or even ignorance, when it comes to certain features of this field. Even if after all his research and education he has come to have a different view that Jim C., he should at least allow him the courtesy of having an opinion. I saw on Channel C how while any diatribes against Catholicism were not only tolerated, but encouraged. On the other hand, any defense against such criticisms were automatically labeled as "proselytizing". Even an attempt to correct simple misunderstandings of the Catholic faith were met with the most severe condemnation. The truth is, there are many on Channel C who have sincere questions and who are not looking for debate. Perhaps they will join the Catholic faith, perhaps they will not. Whatever decision they make, it must be a balanced and informed decision. It is for this reason that they should here both sides, not simply restricted to hearing only what those against the Catholic faith have to say. I am not an apologist for the Catholic faith. At this point in my life I do not affiliate myself with any religious faith. I am, however, opposed to intolerance, which I believe the Channel C forum is guilty of. To those who are not familiar with it, it may seem like a place for those who have questions about their faith to find open-minded dialogue. Many who come to such forums are a different places in their life. Some have begun their exit from the WTS. Others are just considering it. Or perhaps they have no desire to exit, but just want to have an outlet for their doubts. It is important, therefore, that in whatever forum they find themselves, they are able to find others who will be tolerant of their beliefs. When I left the WTS I wanted to escape intolerance, not simply find another environment conducive to intolerance. And this is what I feel Channel C has created. It feels like they've created their own online version of the WTS. It is for this reason that I no longer have any interest with Channel C.
-
fjtoth
GMahler:
No one is claiming that mistakes were made on only one side at CC. Neither is anyone here condemning the Catholic Church. What I find offensive is Jim W's obvious attempt to smear another forum simply because he hasn't been able to get control of it to promote his own personal agenda.
Frank
-
quietlyleaving
James
>>I remember visiting channel C on a number of occasions and to be fair I remember Roz saying that the trinty doctirne (for example) had been debated to death and that she did not want any more discussions about it. I think she made a fair point. In no way does that even remotely sound like the sort of tactics the WTS uses even if she did lock persistant evangelizers off of the board.>>
This is fuzzy and inconsistent thinking, Quietly leaving. Why does one's discussing the Trinity (or defending it for that matter) constitute him a "persistent evangelizer" whereas one embracing a unitarian view of the nature of God (and freely expressing as much) doesn't? You don't see a double standard in that?
may I suggest that it is "fuzzy and inconsistent thinking" to you because you are taking it out of context.
-
mouthy
GOD the "kids" are at it again
-
Justitia Themis
Amazing, if it is so awful at Channel C, you should be glad to be gone. Who would want to waste his or her time as a site such as you described. Perhaps a more emotionally balanced response is to "quietly" leave Channel C, without looking for another forum in which to air your anger towards them.
Recommendation: move on, get over it.
-
fjtoth
Justitia Themis:
Recommendation: move on, get over it.
You hit the nail on the head. Jim's problem is that he just doesn't seem able to "get over it."
Frank
-
a Christian
As I recall, Jim W started this thread in order to respond publicly to criticism which had been publicly leveled against him and others of like mind on the Channel C discussion board.
As I understand it, Jim W did so here only because he was not allowed to do so there. (Jim W is not allowed to defend his Catholic beliefs on that discussion board and Jim C is not allowed to post anything there at all.) But those who are still allowed to post at Channel C, along with the owner of that board herself, are perfectly free to there criticize Catholic beliefs and to even there criticize individual Catholics who are no longer allowed to post there, like Jim C. (And, judging from the conduct of that board's owner, they are even free to post the contents of private E mails while they criticize people who are not allowed to there publicly respond to their criticism.) With these things in mind (and kowing that many Channel C readers read the posts on this board and that many JWD readers read the posts on Channel C) it seems perfectly reasonable to me that Jim W, Jim C, and others who are not allowed to publicly defend themselves on Channel C against personal attacks that are there publicly posted, would choose to utilize this board in order to publicly respond to such attacks.