Was I Disrespectful to Dr Singelenberg? (page 2)

slimboyfat

Singelenberg apparently scans this site quite regularly, so I suspect he may see this thread. Maybe he will choose to join in, but it seems he prefers to observe.

seattleniceguy

SBF,

Just wanted to say I appreciated your thoughtful response.

SNG

hillary_step

SlimFatBoy,

I think one of the things that shows most clearly that the Witness leaders are less sure of themselves nowadays is the manner in which they deal with outside criticism in their literature. Rutherford would actually make public responses to his critics by name in the Watchtower. In the 1950s too, just after the release of the NWT, Franz would reference critical remarks about his translation and then counter them. As late as 1978 even Walter Martin (the prominent 'counter-cultist' in the US) got a scathing mention in the Watchtower. But after the 1980s upheaval with Ray Franz, Penton and the Gentile Times issue, the Witnesses stopped mentioning their critics by name. They continued to counter accusations made by the likes of Bergman, Penton, Franz, Bowman, White and so on, but they stopped being specific about the source of the material they were responding too, allowing readers to draw their own inferences (or not, as the case may be). This, to me, is indicative of a loss of confidence among Witness writers. I do digress.

I think this is probably due more to an increasing danger of being sued than an increasing loss of confidence of anybody in Writing.

HS

slimboyfat

You can't get sued for disagreeing with someone in public... otherwise O'Reilly would be sued every night!

you sound like a dick and here's why"

"Of course, you may try some semantic or exegetic gymnastics to prove your point but the bottom line is that it doesn't say that the brs & srs should abstain from blood transfusions. Period."

so absolute and so certain - kind of like a, well, jw

seesthesky

my bad - it is he who sounds like a dick - lol

hillary_step

SlimFatBoy,

It depends *how* you disagree with them.

If the WTS publicly misrepresented the work of any of the persons mentioned in your comment, as they would need to to discuss any matter associated with them theologically, named them in their work, and this impacted their private or business life in *any* way, they can and would be sued. In fact attempts have been made to sue the WTS even when they have *not* used a persons name but have made it clear in context whom they were discussing negatively.

Check the law.

Rutherford was succesfully sued by Olin Moyle for exactly this kind of issue. The WTS are far more cunning than many of their critics, or their apologists might imagine.

HS

seesthesky

hillary wrote: "If the WTS publicly misrepresented the work of any of the persons mentioned in your comment, as they would need to to discuss any matter associated with them theologically, named them in their work, and this impacted their private or business life in *any* way, they can and would be sued. In fact attempts have been made to sue the WTS even when they have *not* used a persons name but have made it clear in context whom they were discussing negatively.

Check the law."

r u a lawyer or barrister? - if not, can anyone where u live practice law without a license? where i live it's a crime - seriously

Dustin

Everybody is so sue happy these days. It amazes me how people sue for the stupidist little things and win. Anyways, as to the original topic I didn't think you were very disrespectful. If he can't handle a little constructive questioning it's obvious he's as full of himself as the Witnesses.

Was I Disrespectful to Dr Singelenberg?

Share this