Posts by Amazing

20

Where I've been - and what I've been doing

by Amazing in

jw
friends

i have not posted since last may, and prior to that, about a year before.

in july 08 i returned to my engineering career, and now work at a nuclear power station.

life here in wisconsin is very good ... the culture is generaly laid back, but it's colder than hell.

Amazing

Hi All,

I have not posted since last May, and prior to that, about a year before. In July 08 I returned to my engineering career, and now work at a nuclear power station. Life here in Wisconsin is very good ... the culture is generaly laid back, but it's colder than hell. I thought I would check in and see how JWD was humming along ... which it seems to be fine ... and say a quick hello. Things have really changed in the last few years ... and my ex-JW life has taken on some interesting twists and turns. I'll be around for a while and see if I can get into some good discussions.

Jim W.

60

Notice the major u-turn in the March study WT???

by Amha·aret in

i still get copies of all the kms and mags - just for a giggle really.

oh and to look out for noo light of course!.

i was browsing thru the march 15 2009 yesterday and came across something that was noo to me.

Amazing

Slim,

In the Society published book "Prophecy" by J.F. Rutherford, 1929, p. 65, the Society still proclaimed Jesus 2nd Presence (Coming) in 1874. It was not until the 1930s that the date was changed to 1914.

Jim W.

19

Can genesis be reconciled with science?

by inkling in

jw
friends

ok, so a recent thread about the latest wt antiscience content (found here: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/159423/1.ashx).

has got me thinking.... it does seem really hard to hold active trust in the bible as the word of.

god without being leery of science.

Amazing

Genesis can be in good harmony with science ... including evolution. I embrace evolution and I am not threatened by it. If you look at the Hebrew words "made" and "formed" with respect to the creation of Adam, you will note that they are very distinct from the word for "create." Evolution is a process by which God formed the human species from the earth, and made man and women. When he breathed a "spirit" into them, they became living souls. I find evolution a good way to help understand Genesis. Also, the Bible is not a book of science, and so a good portion of it will be allegory or legend, but still useful.

Jim W.

21

Catholic ex-JW's? Interpretation Questions for You.

by bavman in

in view of the much publicized conversion of tom cabeen on this website i thought i would ask a couple of questions.. do all catholics interpret the scriptures literally or do they allow for metaphorical interpretation?

such as the miracles of jesus or the trinity understanding itself.

i seem to see a difference between some believers and especially between certain traditions within the church itself.

Amazing

Hi Bavman,

Some scriptures are metaphorical in Catholicism, and open to a variety of individual beliefs. For example, I do not take the Flood of Noah literally, but allegorically, or based on a smaller real event.

Evolution is open to interpretation. As a person of science, I accept the fact of evolution, and embrace it as God's tool to create the human species. Once the species developed to its full potential, then I believe that God gave Adam and Eve immortal souls. This vies can also embrace the events with Adam over 4,000 years ago. If you look at Genesis, note that God "formed" man or "made" man from the dust of the ground, suggesting a possible process or formation.

I defer the other issues to a second response, as I have to run soon.

Jim W.

83

A kind response to Jim Penton & Ros of Channel C

by Amazing in

the following are transports of postings on http://www.channelc.org/ made by jim penton and ros regarding myself and james caputo respectively.

the reason that i did not post directly on channel c is that ros and many of her board participants do not like to see anything that resembles catholic discussion, even if the responses are done respectfully and in a spirit of clarifying a false claim or misunderstanding.

i too do not like "catholic" discussions on channel c, and have not posted there for 9 months until i recently posted an announcement about tom cabeen's interviews on ewtn and with randy watters.

Amazing

Justitia,

Amazing, if it is so awful at Channel C, you should be glad to be gone. Who would want to waste his or her time as a site such as you described. Perhaps a more emotionally balanced response is to "quietly" leave Channel C, without looking for another forum in which to air your anger towards them. ... Recommendation: move on, get over it.

Your point, like Fjtoth, is irrelevant and untruthful. I never stated it was so aweful at CC. I did state that I agreed with and respected the forum policy, and that is why I posted here. Evidently, it would help you to read and understand a thread. And I am not smearing CC as falsely suggested by Fjtoth. I rather liked it at CC and I care about the people on CC. I left because the Catholic dicusssions were unproductive and very negative as acknowledged by Jim Penton. The purpose of this post on JWD was made clear at the outset ... there is nothing to move on to ... there is nothing to get over. Public claims were falsely made about James Caputo and myself by two people, not an entire discussion board. Both James and I respectfully addressed those claims. Ros read our responses, and did not challenge them here, or on her forum, but she did acknowledge them. Therefore, as far as I am concerned this thread did its job ... the subject is closed. It is immature cry-babies who have nothing better to do than then to attempt to chide and bate me into an arguement that I will not engage.

Adios, Jim W.

-------------------------------

A Christian,

Thanks for your comments above. Your concise paragraph captured the point wuite well. And at times I will continue to post on CC. I will simply respect that board's policy and refrain from discussions of Catholic teaching and doctrine. It is refreshing to read your fair comments that demonstrate rational thinking ability. - Jim W.

Blueblades,

Good to see you too. My heart is doing very well. I had another close call in August of 2006, but my heart over all is doing well. Thanks, - Jim W.

83

A kind response to Jim Penton & Ros of Channel C

by Amazing in

the following are transports of postings on http://www.channelc.org/ made by jim penton and ros regarding myself and james caputo respectively.

the reason that i did not post directly on channel c is that ros and many of her board participants do not like to see anything that resembles catholic discussion, even if the responses are done respectfully and in a spirit of clarifying a false claim or misunderstanding.

i too do not like "catholic" discussions on channel c, and have not posted there for 9 months until i recently posted an announcement about tom cabeen's interviews on ewtn and with randy watters.

Amazing

fjtoth,

Apparently the humor is working since it's found a response. Some agree with it and you yourself have paid attention to it enough to comment on it.

Calling it humor did not make it humor. A response is irrelevant to it working as humor ... but I responded to try and clarify ... which you seem to hold little interest.

No matter how much you deny it, you wittingly brought CC issues here so you could vent your dissatisfaction before many. Though your complaints are admittedly with only "two specific people," you chose to place them before the hundreds and thousands who might visit this thread, many of whom have never heard of CC. That seems quite childish to me.

Your allegations are without merit. Employment of the "deny" label is just that, a label, without providing one scintilla of support for your claim. I have already sufficiently clarified why I opened up a public thread. False statements were made on a public forum which does not tolerate certain topics ... so, I opened up a thread in public and invited the two people addressed to view and/or dialogue out of respect for their policy. I never stated I disagreed with their policy, but rather that I was respecting it. There is nothing childish about putting a problem before hundreds of thousands of readers ... otherwise what you suggest means that JWD and all Internet forums should shut down and go away for fear of being childish ... well, that is not going to happen.

You fool only those who hold to your viewpoint. To say you are being "kind" while accusing your opponents of being "unreasonable" and 'vehemently hateful' is highly insincere, to say the least.

I never used the words you suggest. You demonstrate how weak and pathetic your point is that you have to employ falsehood.

Additionally, your claim that I don't know what's going on fails to take into account that I've paid attention to CC for years and that I nearly prayed for the day when your long, long, long rambling verbiage would come to an end.

Well then, go pay more attention to CC. Again your claim about long, long rambling verbiage is again false and not supported by one single bit of evidence. Further, when those I respond to like Jim Penton employes long long verbiage, then one cannot be faulted for useing a lot of words to respond to a lot of words. So go pray for Jim Penton.

I prefer to be your friend rather than your enemy, but as you yourself have said: "The truth is always kind." Consider the truthfulness of what I'm telling you here a kindness on my part.

No, you do not prefer to be my friend. If you had told truth, I would agree with you ... but you chose unwisely to employ falsehood in an effort to prove your point. I have no use for such tactics, and I have no interest in conversing with you until you change your tactics.

Jim W.

83

A kind response to Jim Penton & Ros of Channel C

by Amazing in

the following are transports of postings on http://www.channelc.org/ made by jim penton and ros regarding myself and james caputo respectively.

the reason that i did not post directly on channel c is that ros and many of her board participants do not like to see anything that resembles catholic discussion, even if the responses are done respectfully and in a spirit of clarifying a false claim or misunderstanding.

i too do not like "catholic" discussions on channel c, and have not posted there for 9 months until i recently posted an announcement about tom cabeen's interviews on ewtn and with randy watters.

Amazing

fjtoth, besty, and JeanV,

Humor only works if there is a grain of truth in it ... there is no truth in your attempt at humor. This thread is not intended to bring CC issues here ... it is to two specific people who do not want any discussion on that forum that vehemently hate the use of the word "Catholic" or Catholic thoughts. Yet they both chose to invoke my name and James Caputo's name while he is banned and cannot defend himself on that board. They did so in public. Since they are members of this board, then it is fair game to ask them to step off of their board and talk on this one so as to avoid the problem rules.

fjtoth:

It is deceptive to claim that the thread is "a kind response." What is so "kind" about making the biased claim that Channel C won't listen to anything that is "respectful" and "balanced"? What is "kind" in claiming that contributors to that forum are intellectually dishonest, sarcastic, unkind, unfair and unreasonable, that they "offer little more than pent up frustrations and attacks," that they employ "a double standard," etc., etc.???

The truth is always kind ... and I expressed it respectfully. Your claims of deception exhibit a poor understanding of the dynamics of what is going on, and an obvious bias on your part. Jim Penton himself admitted intellectual dishonesty on the part of those who attack Catholicism. The real problem is not the sarcasm, or unreasonable remarks, it is the fact that I am respecting their board policy by not discussing anything Catholic. I have not choice to find another avenue to deal with the issue.

If you do not like it, then stay off of this thread. I see countless topics on JWD that hold no interest for me ... so I simply move on. I don't visit those threads and whine and cry and belly-ache about how I don't like those threads. So move on, and go read and comment on something that is better suited to your needs.

Jim W.

83

A kind response to Jim Penton & Ros of Channel C

by Amazing in

the following are transports of postings on http://www.channelc.org/ made by jim penton and ros regarding myself and james caputo respectively.

the reason that i did not post directly on channel c is that ros and many of her board participants do not like to see anything that resembles catholic discussion, even if the responses are done respectfully and in a spirit of clarifying a false claim or misunderstanding.

i too do not like "catholic" discussions on channel c, and have not posted there for 9 months until i recently posted an announcement about tom cabeen's interviews on ewtn and with randy watters.

Amazing

Hi Junction Guy,

So is this group made up of religiously diverse people? Is it mainly a born again group? Or is it a JW knockoff? Sorry, just a few more questions.

The group is somewhat diverse ... Free Bible Students, a few traditional Protestant denominations, some loner Christians, and perhaps an agnostic or two. I am still registered as is Tom Cabeen, and we are Catholic as is Kid Zero, but we are the exception. Kid posts more than we do. Jim Penton, a former JW and history professor (ret.) from the University of Toronto, and book author of Apocalypse Delayed, and JWs and the Third Reich is there along with a few other academic types. Carol Olaf Jonnson, author of The Gentile Times Reconsidered is also there on ocassion, as well as some other lesser known ex-JW authors. There is a strong contingent of anti-Catholic types who as Jim Penton admitted, push false propaganda that is unfair and hurtful. But, even the regular types like Penton have little use for discussions of Catholicism. Toreador, I was there when James Caputo was publishing his discussions on CC. He was not proselytizing as charged. He is simply a skilled and strong debator who frustrated those with lesser skills and weak arguments. James is to the Catholic debate as is my good friend Alan Feuerbacher is to the evolution-science-athiest debate. They are formidable to anyone who locks horns with them ... and those who were not about to handle the debates went crying foul. I stepped in to defend James and after a series of go arounds in public and private, my account was deleted. It was restored later after Ros and I talked at BRCI. A point in your favor is that at times, James would have better served his arguments by quoting salient points, and citing the source or link so one could read the full context if time permitted ... or perhaps he could have used bold font or yellow highlight to allow readers to quickly get to the specific sentences supporting his points ... however, in his favor, he both had the historical support on his side, and he at least provided the material ... and he is academically honest. My defense of James came before I started considering the notion of studying early Church history again, or entertaining the possibility of reconciling with the Catholic Church. So, of anyone, I was not bias in favor of Catholicism, and I feel I was in a fair position to be fair. Those who recall otherwise have yet to produce even one single example of how James Caputo was proselytizing or preaching or being disruptive. I have asked for evidence a number of times, and was given a lot of jibber-jabber ... but not one shred of evidence to support the charges against James. So until such is produced, I abide by the principle of innocent until proven guilty. And knowning James as I do, I stand by him now as a dear friend. Jim W.

83

A kind response to Jim Penton & Ros of Channel C

by Amazing in

the following are transports of postings on http://www.channelc.org/ made by jim penton and ros regarding myself and james caputo respectively.

the reason that i did not post directly on channel c is that ros and many of her board participants do not like to see anything that resembles catholic discussion, even if the responses are done respectfully and in a spirit of clarifying a false claim or misunderstanding.

i too do not like "catholic" discussions on channel c, and have not posted there for 9 months until i recently posted an announcement about tom cabeen's interviews on ewtn and with randy watters.

Amazing

Besty,

I might suggest a new thread in the appropriate category and we can all chip in. Otherwise email or blog would be a good solution?

Well, I have been on the JWD forum for years ... and a moderator for a couple of years untl about a year ago or so ... I just cannot think of any particular category for this one outside of the "Friends" which I used. You all can "chip in" any time and any category you wish. I need not start a new thread. Email will not do as the comments started in public and deserve to be responded in public. I do not have any blog ... and the solution I chose is the best.

Thanks though for your thoughts,

Jim W.

Junction Guy: Channel C was started by Ros for "scholarly" discussions of Christian issues among JWs and former JWs. Unlike the open registration of JWD, Ros invites people she knows and trusts to participate on her forum. It has worked fairl well ... until tension grew over discussions that involved Catholicism. While some scholarly individuals are there, some have gone, and some are not careful academics ... but it still functions somewhat in line with its original mission.

Jim W.

83

A kind response to Jim Penton & Ros of Channel C

by Amazing in

the following are transports of postings on http://www.channelc.org/ made by jim penton and ros regarding myself and james caputo respectively.

the reason that i did not post directly on channel c is that ros and many of her board participants do not like to see anything that resembles catholic discussion, even if the responses are done respectfully and in a spirit of clarifying a false claim or misunderstanding.

i too do not like "catholic" discussions on channel c, and have not posted there for 9 months until i recently posted an announcement about tom cabeen's interviews on ewtn and with randy watters.

Amazing

Besty,

Ros is a member of JWD, as I believe Jim Penton is, along with James Caputo ... so since CC will not permit a reply which may involve any mention of Catholicism, and James is banned therefrom, then JWD is a fair and reasonable compromise. It is JWD board members commenting and replying between one another ... so I fail to see any issue.

Jim W.