IslandWoman,
Very enlightening. Thanks.
fjtoth
Ray Franz And Things That Are Too Hard To Handle.
by Englishman 107 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Trauma_Hound
Ya, so what your saying IW, is you defend the abuse policy, I'm not sure what you disagree with, and Bill was banned?
-
researcher
With all due respect, I think B.B. has went beyond having a rightful grievance and actually fits the description mentioned at Matt 24:48,49, he sounds very vindictive and bitter. Sorry, I can sympathize but don't like meanies.
P.S. Anybody out there have an electronic form of COC? Surely someone must have scanned it?
-
sf
Here is 'what' IW is referring to:
Posted by CCAdmin on Sun - Nov 17 - 11:53pm:
In Reply to: Ray Franz posted by silentlambs on Sun - Nov 17 - 03:22am:
Well, well, Bill ... you just had to bring your radical baloney to Channel C out of the blue. I forgot you were even registered here. Well, that has been corrected as of Now. The only reason I don't obliterate this whole thread is because of the good responses below by other credible Channel C participants.===========================
Yet further below he states that he "hope he considers in the future...". So I am not sure the status of his posting there, now.
sKally, glad to be of help klass
-
waiting
I forgot you were even registered here. Well, that has been corrected as of Now.
Yeah, I read that too. I don't go to Channel C - but I got the impression that Bowen doesn't post there regularily, lol.
I took the "Now" to mean that the moderator/administrator had corrected the problem of Bowen's posting there by deleting him.
Tough Christian Crowd, eh? lol - I'll go with the "inmates" here.
waiting
-
Trauma_Hound
That board, strikes me as a bunch of ex-jw's that still want to be JW's.
-
teejay
Good grief - why does it have to be either/or? Either Franz or Bowen? And, btw, is either man above speaking about? -- Waiting
My Friend Waiting,
I agree. Personally, I don't "follow" either man. I do listen to what each says, though, and go from there.
If we must not speak negatively about Franz because of his age.........then By God, lay off the all the old Governing Body members. Again, age has nothing to do with it.
I don't know if you were directing this comment at me but I will assume you were so will post accordingly.The only reason I mentioned his age is for the simple fact that even valiant, war-weary soldiers eventually get to retire. They are not expected to answer the call to battle FOREVER. They are allowed to live a little before they pass away. Raymond more than deserves this.
As time moves on, more Watchtower dirt is sure to be uncovered. When that happens and Ray is still alive, will someone from the ex-JW camp, or the media camp, or the bowen camp then be dispatched to Ray's front door -- with microphone in hand, shoved up to Ray's mouth -- to ask him about THAT scandal / cover-up and -- off to the side -- wonder why he never wrote about it? I mean, good grief! The man was a cog in a humongous wheel.
I mean... the man ain't god. Never was. He didn't know it ALL, doesn't have the answer for it ALL, and shouldn't be expected to fall in line with every one else's agenda, no matter how right that agenda is. He's eighty. If I was him, I'd tell everybody who was in an uproar about WHAT I NEVER SAID to go fuck yourselves. Eighty year olds can get away with shit like that. I guaran-damn-teeya teejay'd do it if *he* was 80. No friggin doubt! Hell, teejay does that NOW. But then... I ain't Ray Franz.
If we must not speak - or question - what Franz writes about in his books....then why can Dr. Bergman's writings be dissected, reviewed, argued, etc? Why could Dr. Penton's viewpoints be challenged? Since when is any book - including the Bible - above being discussed?
When have you ever seen Crisis of Conscience or In Search of Christian Freedom "discussed, dissected, reviewed or argued"? Is that what we're talking about? Being able to critique what he wrote? I don't think so.Since I read them both almost ten years ago, I have not once seen either of Raymond's works reasonably challenged, even in the slightest. What I HAVE seen is what I saw Bowen do. Rather than dissect or argue or discuss what Raymond SAID, Bowen's issue with Ray was about what Ray DIDN'T say -- even WON'T say, only because of what Ray personally believes. That's wrong. Argue about Crisis and ISoCF all you want, but don't besmirch a man because of what he DIDN'T write and doesn't personally believe. To do that is ridiculous.
Raymond wrote what he wrote about what he wanted to write. He knew nothing about pedophilia in the ranks of the JW community and today does not believe that it is any more prevalent than in other religions. (There is some data to support that belief.) Is it his right to hold that view? I think it is, just as I think it's his right to be a Christian, to think he's anointed and will one day rule with Christ in heaven... all of it. Raymond Franz can believe whatever he wants. Just don't vilify him for something he's never said. Seems fair to me. It's all I want for me and all I hope to do for everybody else. To do otherwise would not be right.
lol........and I would be willing to bet Franz IS a lot "more comfortable" writing about the UN. It's clean, decisive, no laws were broken, no nastiness to discuss, all black and white. And most non-jw's (and regular jw's) wouldn't even know what the problem was....just a lot of talk about a non-issue. It is his right to write about the UN. I would assume from his post here, it would fit nicely with his personality.
Knowing what I know about the man, I would tend to agree with you, except for that last comment about it "fitting nicely with his personality." That was a bit much, but then... I don't know him as well as you do. I've never met him or even talked to him on the phone. I only read his books.One thing I do know about Ray: Most men from the "old school" that Ray is from are "comfortable" about certain things... not about others. Raymond is from a different era when people had views that aren't so common today. I cannot fault him for that and I WILL NOT fault him for that. Again... if he feels "comfortable" writing about the UN fiasco and not about a matter that he personally doesn't feel is a big deal (pedophilia), that's his right. I got no problem with it and refuse to see how anybody else should, either.
One more thing, while I'm thinking about it: Raymond doesn't have children.
That might not seem like much, but as much as I always had a special fondness for kids, I realized that what I thought I felt was nothing compared to the love I have for my own daughter. Once she came, my understanding of many child-related issues totally changed. For a small example, I've become way more political (interested in candidates, issues, voting, etc.) simply because the decisions those jokers make will impact my daughter's life. I NEVER thought about that stuff before, even after leaving the org.
All I'm saying is that since Raymond has no offspring might play a role in his thinking. Not making excuses, since none need to be made.
I agree all of that. Perhaps we'd all be better taking a similar stance?
No need for that, Waiting. Raymond is an old man. With old ways. Some good, some not so good. Same for the rest of us. He is not the leader. He never wanted to be the leader, never tried to be the leader, even when all he had to do was stand up and say, "I want to be the leader." Even now, he'd have no problem getting his own movement going. It's not what the man is about.Point is: we don't have to be like Ray, as beautiful as he is. Just because *he's* silent doesn't mean anyone else or everyone else has to be.
I know you know that. And I also know that this is a personal issue to you and I TOTALLY understand.
My best.
Always.
-
LoneWolf
I must agree with teejay almost completely. Let's make it 99 44/100% percent anyway. The only change I would make is to make a suggestion instead of using this phrasing:
If he feels "comfortable" writing about the UN fiasco and not about a matter that he personally doesn't feel is a big deal (pedophilia), that's his right.
The suggestion being: The use of the term "comfortable" is accurate, although not in the sense that he is too closely associated with some real or imagined guilt associated with the pedophile problem. That is bull pucky drempt up by over active imaginations.
I also feel that it is a gross misrepresentation to suggest that he would feel that it is not a "big deal".
Rather, a far better explanation would be that he is familiar with the UN situation and feels that he knows enough about it to comment authoritively, without much risk of being proved wrong.
On the other hand, both culturally and spiritually, this pedophilia problem has caught most of the higher ups unexpectedly. As in most forms of government, the Organization is compartmentalized, with certain types of problems being handled by ones who specialize in those types of problems, and these are not necessarily shared with other departments. Also, it has come to the fore since his time. Speaking for myself, I would need some time to study the issue before commenting, for the simple reason that I would want my words to be trustworthy and accurate.
In some instances, I would not wish to comment at all, knowing full well that I don't know enough, and that others can do a better job. Given this scenario, it is not only a person's right to decide this for himself, it is his responsibility.
Jaracz and his henchmen are apparently using the same techniques that I have seen so many times in business organizations, that of allowing people to know only enough to accomplish whatever job they have been assigned. In this manner, good people with fine hearts can be induced to do horrible things to innocent people by the simple expedient of filling them full of spurious stories about what these people supposedly "did".
A few words may be worth repeating here: I called an aquaintance a few weeks ago with some information that he requested. This individual is in good standing and is of very high rank. I mentioned that I would like to run a few things by him to see if he could corroborate them for me. His answer was enlightening: "Tom, how can I? You know far more about what's going on than I do."
TraumaHound --- I think that you are very earnest and have a good heart. I just wish that you would take a few minutes reviewing what you think someone said betore you jump to conclusions. Nine-tenths of what you write would be unnecessary if you would try a little harder to understand the things people are trying to tell you.
As to the other three --- New Eyes, SLOAN, and WhyNow2000 --- it's not pretty to have to witness someone opening their mouth while letting their brains ooze out all over the floor.
LoneWolf
Edited by - LoneWolf on 20 November 2002 5:30:8