I like you Reborn,
Okay logan, you wanna play, let's play.I do not think he is akin to Hitler (Hitler!) though. Don't change the subject from the JWs to the Nazis.Forgive me if I am wrong, but it was YOU who brought up Hitler in your initial post. I was simply responding to the comments you made. Hitler was evil, but he did things for the benefit of the German economy. Does this qualify him as redeemable?
My original post included a reference to Hitler which was meant as a contrast to the JWs. Although there are certain similarities I would not equate the two as being equivalently evil. Not by a long shot.
Do you believe they do this because they just want them to die? Or do they actually believe they are doing the will of God by having such a policy? Think.Do they want them to die? In all fairness, I would hope not. However as Lady Lee stated these people are collateral damage because the preservation of the image of the organization takes priority at all costs. Does that make them bloodguilty? You betcha. It is well established fact that Jehovah's Witnesses and the Watchtower Society have doctines such as organ transplants and blood transfusions which kill people every year. Do they actually believe they are doing the will of God by having such a policy? Possibly, but it makes them no less bloodguilty. Jim Jones, David Koresh, and Osama Bin Laden think they are doing God's will also. Does this make their actions forgivable or in need of someone to rationalize for them? Think Bradley.
There is a qualitative difference between Jim Jones, Koresh and Bin Laden with the WTS. I don't think I need to expound on this point since it is self-evident to anyone reasonable.
I originally said:Then who are you to allege and present that they necessarily believe what they preach?to which you replied:
Who are you to say they don't.You initially made the assertion, therefore the burden of proof lies upon you to prove your statement. Alas, you or I cannot. Therefore they remain opinion. We can only look to which opinion makes more sense. Yours does not.
You totally ignored my reference to Ray Franz. That's my source and I'm sticking to it. What's your source?
You quoted me as saying:Faith healers travel from town to town setting up tents conducting circus acts touching people while claiming to cure them of cancer and any other ailment. Do they necessarily believe what they are doing? Of course not, they know they are fake. But to the public, they present themselves as legitimate. Why? In the name of the almighty dollar.I see you conveniently made a sweeping generalization of my comment as merely "emotionalized rubbish." I notice you did not attempt to refute what I said as an analogy as incorrect. How convenient. Insult something, but provide no legitimate foundation for your comments. Your credibility here is dwindling.
Forgive me, I edited the "emotionalized rubbish" part. That was wrong and "emotional rubbish" on my part . I also added that the analogy is incorrect, in my opinion. You cannot honestly compare a well established corporation with some fly-by-night preacher. Both might be wrong (and I believe they are) but the comparison is not a strong one.
The Watchtower Society is one of the most lucrative religious companies in the world. According to Newsday magazine in the September 23rd, 2002 issue, in the year 2001 the Watchtower Society posted $951,000,000 in revenue, that year alone.
This is quite something and I would love to get some further comment on this. I'm bad with fiscal matters, but is this 951 million before or after operating expenses? You mean that's all profit? Help me out on this one, kay?
Rank-and-file members are deceived and abused, and continually encouraged to continue peddling magazines. Publishers are asked to donate for the literature received, then householders are asked to donate for literature placed in the field ministry. 951 million dollars a year with Bethelites performing free slave labor, yet you claim it is not about the money? Again I say, get real.
Calling Bethelites "slaves" is a little over the top, imho. Anyway, I'm not saying they are not abusive - THEY ARE. But, I do feel that this board does not present the most unbiased and balanced view of the JWs. I stand by this. Your comments are appreciated, though. I do admit that part of this is for me is playing the part of "Devil's advocate." I feel that is a good thing, though. Bradley