Randall Watters exposed

by StiLLinTruth 115 Replies latest jw friends

  • teejay
    teejay

    Englishman,

    to stiLLintruth you said of his reference to 2John 10:

    >>This teaching referred to was the teaching about
    >>Jesus, it does not give the WTBTS carte blanche
    >>power to disfellowship those who disagree with
    >>its own private interpretations.

    of course it does. when a person decides of their own free
    will to join the JW club, they must adhere to the rules of the
    club or suffer the consequences for going against them. it has
    nothing to do with whether or not the gb has the correct
    interpretation or if you agree with them -- that's not even the
    point. the REAL point is that they are the leaders of the
    movement and have the right to make and enforce the rules
    and by saying "yes" TWICE at baptism, candidates pledge
    their loyalty and agreement with the gb in all spiritual matters
    from hence forth.

  • teejay
    teejay

    I will play the devil's advocate. I'll begin by saying that this place is funny.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but according to the heading of this forum's home
    page, it's stated purpose it to provide an online experience for Jehovah's
    Witnesses
    . StiLLinTruth, a much beleaguered advocate of the group for
    whom this forum is meant, visits a site deemed by his group as one opposed
    to his group -- an "apostate" site. He summed up his less than enthusiastic
    verdict of Randy's site by saying: "Bad try Randall. Hope you don't mind
    me saying this, but you are quite sad. I would recommend "What Happened
    at Bethel in 1980" to any Witness suffering from depression or the
    occasional weakened faith."

    Now, let's not get sidetracked. Freeminds was one of the tools that was
    very instrumental in my personal quest to round out my knowledge of the
    Society and its history, but MY opinion isn't what matters. right or wrong,
    agree with it or not, Still's opinion is concurrent with the views of his
    group, the same group, mind you, for whom this forum is meant. All of us
    are welcome to declare our strong disagreement, but is there really any
    cause to address the man as "still in the dark", "Stillazombie", or
    "StiLLinTurd" as some did? Does doing that somehow strengthen our
    arguments or mean that we're "right" all of a sudden?

    His opinion, right or wrong, was disparaged even further by such quips as:

    Still is yet another nut case, seeing himself destined for glory by
    personally taking on the world of exwitnesses"

    I really should not respond because much like me dear ol' mom you still
    have your blinders on it won't do you any good
    .

    Perhaps one day you will have truth within yourself… but until then you
    have my pity
    .

    SIT is really a hardheaded old "coot", who thinks far more with his
    emotions than with his brain… or SIT is really a newby, who thinks far
    more with his emotions than with his brain, angry at the world, and mentally
    ill
    . Of course, (s)it could be just a troll trying to have a little fun.

    I can't think of a more classically duped person than you

    What is everyone so upset about, my goodness!!? Who died and left the posters
    of this forum in charge as the arbiters of Divine light and truth. Still has an opinion
    and nearly everyone makes personal attacks and call him mentally ill
    and angry. I'm confused. Perhaps joelbear provides a clue:

    He is having fun. He is having fun because he knows he is irritating us…
    There will always be those who have fun at the expense of others feelings.
    Some of them happen to be Jehovah's Witnesses.

    So Still is the one having fun at others' expense! oh, really? Based on
    the number of responses that do nothing more than poke fun at Still for his
    beliefs (those that we also shared once), there is a valid case to be made that
    shows just the opposite. It seems that hurt feelings abound on this board,
    and the remedy is to lash out at those who still believe or state opinions that
    we don't agree with. Call people silly names. hmmm.... Very JW, imho.

    Peace
    todd
    __________________________________________
    "Blame someone else and get on with your life."
    __________-- Alan Woods

  • outnfree
    outnfree

    Bravo, Todd/teejay for your devil's advocate post!

    But I hope that your remarks to Englishman were tongue-in-cheek?

    I am SO tired of hearing people say that when you "join up" you've ceded all independence to the WTBTS! "You knew the consequences when you got baptized."

    Excuse me? But, NO!

    Nobody told ME during my YEARS of Bible study and my Questions for Baptism review that if I ever had a thought in my head that what the Governing Body taught might not be correct, just, or Scriptural that I could be disfellowshipped for apostate THINKING, even if I had not shared my thoughts with any other member of the rank & file!!! And thus would be booted out and SHUNNED!

    Now, getting DF'd for a scriptural offense -- fornication, excessive greed, abuse of drugs or alcohol -- THAT I knew about when I "signed on." But my baptismal question (#2) asked if I knew I would now be recognized as a member of Jehovah's spirit-begotten organization? NODBODY talked about the harsh consequences that would ensue if I dared to question! No, no, no! All was light and smarmy love back then!

    Oh, dear..... running on again.... Sorry!

    outnfree

  • bajarama
    bajarama

    Teejay are you and still in the truth sleeping together? I don't have a problem with it if you don't.

    I wonder how you can defend the watchtower postion on d'fing people. I was baptized when I was 13 years old. My family pressured me to do so. It was not of my own free choice. I was told by my father if you don't get baptized and the end comes you will die.

    bajarama

  • d0rkyd00d
    d0rkyd00d

    Teejay,

    You get a standing ovation from me. Amen to that, guy. Your post was so right, it's not funny. Unfortunately, most of the people on this earth can't help but retaliate to a difference in opinion by using insults. I really don't care how bad ur experience was being a witness. How you were mistreated. How it's changed ur life for the worst. NONE of these facts justifies namecalling or personal attacks/insults to stillintruth. This is a discussion board, not a third grade classroom. i'm 16, and to see adults acting like this...it saddens me.

    Teejay, now i guess you should be expecting the namecalling and insults, as shall i. But to everybody who's "dishing it out", put your balls back in ur pants (figurative, applying to women also) and have a civilized conversation/debate with stillintruth.

    many of you left because of the "lack of love" in the jehovah's witness religion. i'm confused...what exactly is being shown by many of you on this discussion board? if it's love, then i never want to be in love.

    Feel free to mock me or insult me, seeing as how i really don't care. But please don't do it to people u are trying to help. or who believe they are trying to help you. as teejay said, convincing them of ur point doesn't involve insults of any kind. Plz don't remind me of why i left the jw's by acting exactly as they do, insulting whatever they don't agree with.

    "No cool quote yet. but i'll think of one soon."

  • bajarama
    bajarama

    Dorkydood,

    If you read S.I.T. first post on this thread you see he starts out with insults. He insults Randall Watters and then the whole board with holier than thou attitude.

    bajarama

  • Had Enough
    Had Enough

    teejay and dorkydood:

    I too respect your right to a different opinion. and I will not dump all kinds of insults and name-calling on your heads....But please don't berate us for the reaction he got. Please carefully read on...

    I hate sarcasm and insults and namecalling too BUT you seem to think ALL who attacked Still did so because they were mistreated by the org. or had a bad experience in the org.

    NONE of these facts justifies namecalling or personal attacks/insults to stillintruth.

    The above reasons were not why Still got the angry responses he did. Some who did experience those things DID try to point out some facts to him in a non-angry way but what was his response? Was it concern for our misjudgements of scriptures and org. teachings? No! there was certainly no care for lost sheep there at all. Just more sneering and insults from HIM.

    PLEASE dorkydood!!! I'm not going to call you names or insult you but please go back and read carefully his post from the beginning. HE started out with sarcasm, insults, attacks, holier-than-thou finger pointing,and name-calling just to mention a few.

    Some of us even tried to reason with him on some of his errors, but he came back with more sarcasm and insults. He had NO intention of coming here to help ANY of us. You don't have to be a mind reader to see that.

    Sorry, but that kind of behaviour, in the name of following Jesus' example is simply disgusting.

    It's not JUST a matter of having a different opinion than mine or someone elses. It's the WAY it is pushed down our throats, like a bully in school strutting around looking for someone to kick. THAT's not Christlike! That's not helping a lost sheep back to the org. So that's what those who jumped all over him reacted to. Right or wrong, he does deserve to be corrected because of his attitude.

    Even some humbly admitted (like myself) to having been snug and smug in the truth ourselves at one time. But NEVER did I or as others said too, go up to an apostate and sneer, push him around like a bully, or name-call or act like a bully throwing stones just because they thought differently that I did.

    PLUS...this is not the first time he has come here with the same attitude. In addition..do you condone a sarcastic remark being made by him to Essie when she so humbly shared with us her affliction with the MS disease. I cannot stand by and let someone crow about being so well versed in the Bible and let them stick a knife into anyone's open wound. Can you justify that? I hope not. I would like to think more highly of you than that.

    Now I've really...
    Had Enough

  • teejay
    teejay

    Outnfree,

    >>I hope that your remarks to Englishman were tongue-in-cheek?
    >>Nobody told ME during my YEARS of Bible study and my
    >>Questions for Baptism review that if I ever had a thought in my
    >>head that what the Governing Body taught might not be correct,
    >>just, or Scriptural that I could be disfellowshipped for apostate
    >>THINKING, even if I had not shared my thoughts with any other
    >>member of the rank & file!!! And thus would be booted out and
    >>SHUNNED! … NODBODY talked about the harsh consequences
    >>that would ensue if I dared to question…

    Actually I was quite serious in my note to Englishman. You make a very
    good point, however, for which I have no rebuttal.

    My main thought, however, is that even knowing what you knew and not
    knowing what you didn't, you still had to know that your future
    "understandings" would hinge totally on what the GB said and printed. I
    was mainly speaking to Englishman's remark that they don't have the
    freedom (carte blanche power) to disfellowship those that disagree
    with their own arcane theology. If they didn't have (and stand ready to
    exercise) this method to protect group "unity," the org. would have fallen
    apart a long time ago. It's like any other club (golf, social, secret, or
    otherwise) -- the founders set the rules, those seeking membership are duly
    bound to follow or risk expulsion.

    You make a good point though. A bit more truthfulness up front would save
    countless people much agony.
    ------------------------------------------------------------

    bajarama

    >>Teejay are you and still in the truth sleeping together?
    >>I don't have a problem with it if you don't.

    You funny. I mean, you must be out of your freaking mind.

    Imagine the very tippy tip of my little finger. Even that littlest part of me
    prefers the feminine form. Those that know me need no further explanation,
    believe me. I like the way women walk, smile, laugh, the way they enter a
    room… don't get me started or this could go on for days. By far the
    majority of my friends are female. If I hadn't been brought up so well to
    respect women, I'd be a playa BIGTIME.

    Homosexuality has LONNNGG been one of those things about human
    nature that has mystified me completely ("Not that there's anything wrong
    with it." Seinfeld). I can understand most of the frailties of humans:
    fornication, alcoholism, adultery, speeding, bank robbery. Hell… even
    murder in some cases. But boys diggin' on boys? … when I can have a nice,
    curvy, sweet, vivacious …. er, uh… were was I….

    You said:
    >>I wonder how you can defend the watchtower postion on d'fing people.
    I wasn't. I was merely making the point that the governing body had the
    right to disfellowship. I didn't say disfellowshipping was right or that their
    position was either. [I have experienced being df'd, btw, and had one of the
    elders on my committee to tell me later that my case had been mishandled.
    Still, I think it's something that every JW should experience.] Personally, I
    think that the practice, as it's done now, is evil and has no basis in
    Scripture. Period.

    >>I was baptized when I was 13 years old.
    I was 16. In 1974 -- just in time for 1975! Whew, I barely made it!!

    >>My family pressured me to do so.
    Same here.

    >>It was not of my own free choice.
    Me neither.

    >>I was told by my father if you don't get baptized and the end comes you will die.
    My mom didn't say it like that in so many words, but she might as well had.
    It was one of those unbending "truths" that I understood growing up. Like I
    understood if I jumped off a high building I'd probably hurt myself or if I
    put my hand in a fire I probably wouldn't like the result… in the same vein:
    "The end comes and you're not baptized? Well, you shoulda been baptized.
    Sorry. See ya."

    Peace,
    Toddski
    _________________________________________________________
    "Women who seek to be equal with men lack ambition."
    -- Timothy Leary

  • d0rkyd00d
    d0rkyd00d
    If you read S.I.T. first post on this thread you see he starts out with insults. He insults Randall Watters and then the whole board with holier than thou attitude.

    Yes, i agree with all your points. and i wasn't attacking all of the people on this board, although i did come off that way. but i'm just saying, just because he does it first, just because he throws the insults first, does not justify anybody to do the same. plz don't defend ur own actions with,"Oh, well, he did it first." well, ur not him. u don't have to be like him, either.

    I do believe he is trying to help, and if u don't think so, then i guess you've never been a witness. he's obviously trying to convert back of us to being witnesses using valid arguments. even if insults are thrown in. you can ignore them if u choose to. if not, then you're no better than what you once were, in most of our cases. anyways, sorry if i offended anybody. just saying, the world would be more pleasant without insults, and a whole topic full of them is much worse than one person who throws them.

    "No cool quote yet. But i'll think of one soon."

  • bajarama
    bajarama

    Teejay,

    I agree that people like S.I.T. have a right to be on this db too. I think it makes things interesting. You have to admit S.I.T. came in with both guns blazing, and you can't critize any apostate for firing back. When I read your post it seemed as though you were defending his right to be a out of control jackass. You were not critical of him insulting others. Maybe I wrong you seem like a nice guy.

    (friendofthedevil)

    bajarama

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit