JUST finished The Gentile Times Reconsidered!

by FaceTheFacts 46 Replies latest jw friends

  • FaceTheFacts
    FaceTheFacts
    I'm curious as to what it was about this publication that makes it one of your favourites from that era? I've not read the book, but I've listened to a recording of Rutherford's "Face The Facts" talk at the Royal Albert Hall. In it he sounds pompous and arrogant, and his talk is strewn with political opinion. I find it difficult to imagine anyone being a fan of Rutherford or his writings in the modern age unless they are completely oblivious to any objective historical information about his character.

    Cedars....that's an unfair assumption. It is one of my favorite "Rutherfordian" publications because it presents an interesting and dramatic demonstrance of how many people (namely, the Bible Students) reacted to the turbulent political climate of the time and it is also set just a few years after the Great Depression. You don't necessarily have to agree with someone's viewpoint or opine positively about their character...to enjoy and learn from their writings. Many people also enjoy reading about/listening to Hitler's "pompous" and "arrogant" "political opinion" though they are not "completely oblivious to any objective historical information about his character." Why? Because it's interesting to see such a charismatic and manipulative speaker in action and to see direct evidenceof the manipulative methodology employed during these time periods.

    Here are some statements that I (personally) love from the "Face the Facts" brochure:

    "Facts fully stated are never open to successful contradiction, and therefore they stand admitted."

    "Because the full statement of the facts tends to shock the susceptibilities of some persons furnishes no excuse or justification to withhold from the public any part thereof.."

    "When presented to the people, those hearing the facts should face the facts with calmness and sobriety and then sincerely take the course that is for their best interest."

    "All nations of the earth face the same condition. No one, therefore, should be moved by prejudice or partiality against another because of race, nationality, or color." (considering the 58% unemployment rate of African-Americans and considerable deportation of immigrants to provide more jobs for White men during the Depression, this is very interesting)

    "What is that hideous monstrosity? It is the totalitarian government or ruling power, which makes the State supreme, regiments all the people, rules them by arbitrary dictators, compels all to render complete obedience thereto,.." (very reminisicent of George Orwell's, 1984)

    Sorry for the long response....but I just wanted to show that my reasons are not as ludicrous as perhaps originally perceived. This is history in context! I love this stuff.

    EDIT: Cedars....I can't help but feel somewhat alarmed and offended at your condescending tone and the numerous assumptions you've asserted about my character repeatedly and without justification.

    It sound more than a bit confrontational, and pre-supposes that you have facts we need to "face."

    Assumption #1

    I find it difficult to imagine anyone being a fan of Rutherford or his writings in the modern age unless they are completely oblivious to any objective historical information about his character.

    Assumption #2

    Notice the insulting assumption that I am somehow oblivious and ignorant of the historical character of Rutherford when a): I am well aware and well studied in this era of history b): a person's character is of complete irrelevance to an individual's ability to learn, enjoy, or benefit in any form from said person's writings

    Hence the complete hypocrisy in the following statement:

    I still find it hard to understand why anyone would genuinely enjoy reading an entire book of this rubbish. But, each to his own. The world is such a wonderful place because we are all different.

    This is a paradox if I've ever seen one. Because you can't separate an author's character from the historical/moral import of his writings it is somehow "hard to understand why anyone would genuinely enjoy reading an entire book" of this "rubbish (your opinion) and therefore anyone who does enjoy such reading is judged accordingly. Then, you attempt to deflate your own hasty generalization by stating "the world is such a wonderful place because we are all different" and yet previously you declared the book "rubbish" and "pompous" and "arrogant" since they are the "bigoted rantings of a psychopathic maniac."

    I am appalled by this reasoning, quite honestly.

  • cedars
    cedars

    FaceTheFacts

    You don't necessarily have to agree with someone's viewpoint or opine positively about their character...to enjoy and learn from their writings.

    I actually think with this sort of material that whether I agree or not with the writer has rather a large bearing on whether I "enjoy" reading his words or not. Whether you learn from it is something else entirely.

    Many people also enjoy reading about/listening to Hitler's "pompous" and "arrogant" "political opinion"; why?

    Again, "enjoying" something and learning from it are two different things. I have never read Mein Kampf, although I am given to understand it is an interesting read. This doesn't necessarily mean I would "enjoy" absorbing the bigoted rantings of a psychopathic maniac, even if I find them intriguing from a sociological perspective.

    I am grateful to you for reproducing those Rutherford quotes, but not because I "enjoy" reading them. They are simply amusing because they are either ridiculous, hypocritical or plain pig headed. I still find it hard to understand why anyone would genuinely enjoy reading an entire book of this rubbish. But, each to his own. The world is such a wonderful place because we are all different.

    Cedars

  • Most Noble
    Most Noble

    cedars - You are so fond of condemning others. What is the problem with you?, Please Mr Man, Live and let others live.

  • ScenicViewer
    ScenicViewer

    FaceTheFacts,

    Face The Facts is one of my fav Rutherford-era publications as well. Hope that clears that up for ya.

    Londo111

    From page 46: "Would it be Scripturally proper f or them [the Great Crowd] to now marry a nd begin to rear children? No, is the answer, which is supported by the Scriptures."

    Londo111, thanks for the download link.

    I read some of the booklet under the topic of marrying and having children. Jonadabs (other sheep) were encouraged to wait to marry and have children. Why? Because armageddon was only a few years away!

    (Face The Facts p50 par1)
    “Those Jonadabs who now contemplate marriage, it would seem, would do better if they wait a few years, until the fiery storm of Armageddon is gone, and to then, enter the marital relationship and enjoy the blessings of participating in filling the earth with righteousness and perfect children.”

    FaceTheFacts, that booklet is now one of my favorites too, if you get my meaning. Armageddon was always just around the corner and peoples lives were seriously impacted by the false hope.

    Frankly though, there isn't much difference between any of the Rutherford era books and booklets that I can see.

    I'm wondering, why would you adopt the name of a booklet that promoted such embarrassing false teachings? What exactly makes it your favorite?

  • WinstonSmith
    WinstonSmith

    Hey Recovery/StillRecovery/OlinMoyle/Ethos/FaceTheFacts,

    Within a few posts you have revealed yourself. The name changes, but the modus operandi remains constant.

    Let's get the thread back on topic. History tells us that your previous incarnations have difficulty with that. As I said earlier, I haven't read the book, so please enlighten us with your 'notes, observations, and comprehensive review' of The Gentile Times Reconsidered. We are already on page two of the thread and I see nary a mention of the subject of your opening post.

  • FaceTheFacts
    FaceTheFacts

    Excuse me for defending myself....and explaining why I enjoy historical literature reflective of turbulent political climate.

    Excuse me for pointing out obvious biased assumptions about the nature of my character and my lack of historical information about Rutherford.

    Recovery/Ethos/whoever's modus operandi must be quite "normal"...as I don't see anything particularly "revealing" about defending one's self.

    Seriously....the obsession with terming anyone who signs up here who is not flagrantly opposed to JW's a previous poster, is quite unfair and ridiculous to say the least.

    ScenicViewer....see post 24, at the very top of this page where I explained in detail my reasons.

  • WinstonSmith
    WinstonSmith

    If you think people are trolling you, just don't reply to them. Instead of responding, carry on with the thread topic. At this rate you'll be needing to email the mods again to increase your post limit.

    Third time: I haven't read the book, so, per your opening post, please fill in us in on your notes and observations.

  • cedars
    cedars

    FaceTheFacts

    From now on, you have zero credibility in my book, and I won't be replying to any of your posts. You say you are "appalled" at my reasoning. Well, I am appalled at how you flip-flop from being conciliatory regarding your name to going on the offensive in order to defend it.

    Here is what I said in my original post regarding your name...

    To be honest, I'm a little put off by the name "FaceTheFacts." It sound more than a bit confrontational, and pre-supposes that you have facts we need to "face."

    You replied...

    I did not intend my name to be construed as such. For me, its a simple reminder, everytime I log in...to never let cognitive dissonance, bias, delusion or anything else to deter from facing the facts. Face The Facts is one of my fav Rutherford-era publications as well. Hope that clears that up for ya.

    I replied...

    Thanks for the explanation of your name, and how you don't intend it to be construed as presumptuous. (I then went on to discuss Rutherford)

    Then you replied with your argument about Rutherford, but went BACK and edited your response to pick up on the issue of your name again, saying...

    Cedars....I can't help but feel somewhat alarmed and offended at your condescending tone and the numerous assumptions you've asserted about my character repeatedly and without justification.

    It sound more than a bit confrontational, and pre-supposes that you have facts we need to "face."

    Ever heard the expression "let sleeping dogs lie?" The above is a clear example of how you are a trouble-maker who is evidently gunning for me and trying to stir up an argument. We sorted out the issue of your name, and I accepted your explanation that you didn't intend it to be construed negatively, but you immediately went back on the offensive in your last post.

    I have better things to do with my time than waste it on someone who is simply spoiling for a fight. Go find someone else to lock horns with. That seems to have been your intention all along.

    Cedars

  • cedars
    cedars

    Most Noble

    cedars - You are so fond of condemning others. What is the problem with you?, Please Mr Man, Live and let others live.

    I'm not sure where you get this idea from that I am "fond of condemning others." I have many flaws and issues, as do we all, but I'm not sure this is one of them. Believe it or not, confrontation is not something I enjoy at all. Many is the time I have walked away from a thread wanting to say something to someone, but knowing that if I did, trouble would ensue.

    If you're looking for evidence to support my condemnatory attitude in this particular thread, you may struggle.

    My last words to FaceTheFacts before he did a U-turn and went back on the offensive were...

    I still find it hard to understand why anyone would genuinely enjoy reading an entire book of this rubbish. But, each to his own.The world is such a wonderful place because we are all different.

    I struggle to see how those sentiments are condemnatory. I suggest you read posts fully before making sweeping generalizations.

    Cedars

  • FaceTheFacts
    FaceTheFacts

    Cedars....you're kidding right? I went back and re-edited my post after I had seen your third condescending response to me. Your feeble attempt to smooth things over at the end of yet another post insulting my viewpoint and a very insulting insinuation aboug my intelligience (or lack thereof) does not somehow excuse your behavior. I have read other threads you've been involved in cedars...and people have pointed out similar things to you, not out of spite, but because your statements are patently disrespectful.

    We are not in third grade are we? Lets not try to play the reverse psychology game. This is not an issue of me trolling and being desperate for an argument. The issues here are: a) your judgemental tone b): your assumptions and hasty generalizations c): your lack of acknowledgement of both d): your inability to handle any type of criticism.

    As a grown man...these things need to be dealt with.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit