by Amazing 131 Replies latest jw friends
Thank you for posting that Amazing. Ray continues to be strong and reasonable voice in helping many people see the errors of the Watchtower.
As to people suing Ray, legally it is very unlikely. At the time he wrote what he wrote, he was an employee of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. The Society is responsible for it published, not Ray.
Deddaisy,
I have great admiration for the steps that both Mr. Bowen and Mr. Franz took in their lives in order to live by convictions that the WTS failed to possess. What each gave up by taking those steps says a great deal about each as a person. But I said "steps," I personally know neither man and cannot say I would stand behind either in every circumstance. I could not honestly say that I would stand behind my husband no matter what decisions he made. Following another unconditionally is dangerous. Its most likely why so many are in situations in which independent thinking is prohibited.
Great post!
Andee
I feel compelled to comment on what Ray has written when he said, " It is quite nave [sic] of persons to assume that the intense publicity on this issue in recent times necessarily means that the situation was similar in earlier periods.
I'm sorry, Ray. I can't agree with that. I don't think you've thought that one through sufficiently. Child sexual abuse, and in fact child abuse of any kind, has always been done in secret and kept secret. The same is true with spousal abuse. It was regarded as an issue between the husband and wife and never discussed. To even bring up the bruises on a wife's face was considered gauche and out of line for centuries, Ray.
Likewise, child abuse has been for centuries regarded as either of no consequence to anyone, or as in more recent times, as it has been referred to as "The Silent Crime" not discussed, and never reported.
So, Ray, it is in no way naive to assume "...that the situation was similiar in earlier periods." It was likely much worse in earlier periods for, as we see, society has evolved to its present estate wherein child abuse of any kind is regarded as criminal. Assuming the situation was not the same earlier is the naive view, unless of course, you assume it was much worse than at present. And that is my position - that child sex abuse in times past was very much worse than it is today.
Sorry to disagree with you old friend, but facts are facts.
Frank Tyrrell
Francois: If you read Ray's statement again that you quote, you will see that he is only talking about recent publicity, and that it is naive to assume that the 'publicity' was similar in earlier periord. He was not making a comparable statement regarding the abuse itself. Your comments about it being a more silent crime in earlier periods actually supports what Ray Franz stated. (Side note: The word 'naive posted' as 'nave' because in the original text, the 'i' has a double dot, and it did not translate to the post.)
Why is Ray Franz using a spokesman and secretary..does he think he's still GB?
Thank you both Ray and Amazing .
There are many fine and intelligent responses to Rays post here. Most of which I agree with.
The only thing I want to add, is that it is obvious that Ray is still loyal to the Bible and the beliefs and instruction within it. And I think still some what loyal to some but not all of the wbts teachings.
I as an individual would not apply the two or three witness requirement to any situation with out considering the evidence. Many crimes occur that are proveable with out any eye witness. This is especially true today with our technical advances. To hold to an ancient requirement that would work to some extent in the past is short sighted to say the least.
This in no way is to put any blame or cast a shadow of any kind on Ray Franz. It is obvious to me that he lives and operates with a dedication to doing the right thing.
It is the rigid adherance to ancient rules with out using good judgement that has caused the application of these rules to be harmful to so many today.
If we want to be loyal to the bible and its teachings, I believe we need to also use judgement and apply the rules in the bible in ways that fit the individual situation and use the essence of the rule not the literal application.
For myself I, not like Ray, do not have that much faith in the bible that I would take anything in a fully literal sense . Again this is not to degrade Ray in any sense of the word. He is obviously a good honorable man that was caught up in the same trap we all shared.
Outoftheorg
Englishman:
Man, that was a very profound and telling point you made!
Bad willie:
Could Ray not choose to use a computer in this way?
BadWillie: I am not a spokesman for Ray Franz. The above post by Ray Franz was written by him, and I simply posted it on his behalf since he is not registered to post here. The two earlier threads where I commented about what Ray Franz stated to me, was done so because I called Ray, sought out his response, and asked permission to post the elements of our converstaion on this and a couple of other boards. The final post coming from Ray was done through me as a natural consequence of events. Ray is not likely to register on any public forum, and if you wish you may write to him at: Commentrary Press and ask for yourself. - Jim Whitney
Amazing,
How are WE to relate to Ray and question the answers here he has provided YOU to bring to US, THE PUBLIC? Phone, letter, 'messenger service'?
Are you prepared to bring our replies to him and then post his answers and /or comments to the open forum? Or, shall we all bombard him with our replies to this letter you bring?
If we DO reply via above stated methods, it will overwhelm him, no? Surely, not all accept this letter and want to further probe it's contents...WITH IT'S AUTHOR.
Sincerely, sKally
"It's not about answering the questions. It's about questioning EVERYTHING about the answers!"
I'm just amazed you all believe what you read, without any proof of it.
