Posts by Friend

You two are so precious. One thing I like about anonymous participation is the greater freedom to express and subsequently hear perceptions and ideas. We all need a mirror like that to see ourselves as others do. It pays dividends to have someone construct such a mirror. Thanks for providing yet another one here and for looking at and sharing your impressions of me, both of you.

As for me, I will argue with those who want to argue, if I have the time, the inclination and the subject is important enough to me. I also like swapping views, whether those views are conclusive or not. Sometimes dumb ideas breed brilliant ideas. On arguing, I do get frustrated when persons do not comprehend a fallacious approach, but then at some point in time that was true of us all. Therefore, in the end, my arguing intends to determine validity (or not) of various views. Even the Bible advises that we test utterances, and arguing is one good way of doing that. If our testing helps others, well, that is fine, regardless, each person owes it to themselves to resolve important issues facing them and then choose an according course of action.

Friend

Edited by - Friend on 25 July 2000 10:55:14

69

True, or FAlse?

by Andyman in

jw
friends

i am sure most of you have seen the following quote form the wbts's pr site:.

"do you shun former members?.

those who simply cease to be involved in the faith are not shunned.

Friend

Zep

how do you really see your society and its major docrines like 1914 and the whole revelation bit,

The gentile times chronology is idiotic and untenable. Whether we live in a so-called time of the end is another discussion. On that question I think that it is possible that Jesus was referring to an end time beyond the 1st century destruction of Jerusalem. If it is true that Jesus did have a more futuristic application in mind then the question becomes, have we seen any unique fulfillment of his answer for a sign in our day. I think the answer to that question is, perhaps. Here is [url= http://www.hourglass2.org/wwwboard/messages/184722.html]a link[/url] to a start to that discussion, if you want to have it.

Regarding revelation, I do not know just what you have in mind. If you have in mind the Society’s notion that they are uniquely bestowed with understanding of the Bible, I do not agree with the Society’s contention on that point. I do not think they are any more or less inspired than any other person who might want to live right as a Christian according to the Bible.

and DFing, its history etc,

The idea of shunning is scriptural. As for the Society’s shunning practices, I do not agree with them all. Particularly do I disagree with the certain features of the congregational judicial process. For one thing, anyone invited to a judicial hearing should be able to have along with them someone to listen in, someone of their choosing. That one step alone would negate many potential abuses.

what makes you stick with them?

They have a very strong drive to reach people with the Bible. I like that, and I enjoy having company that sticks with me as I too continue to reach as many people with the Bible as possible.

are they the Truth or what in your eye?.

“The Truth” as in the only way to gain salvation? No. “The truth” in terms of being the only source of understanding scripture? No. “The truth” in terms of complete accuracy? Most certainly, No.

How do you see opposers of the WT, who have them labelled a high control "cult" ???????????

Many of them are genuine and I respect and encourage them according to the correctness of their grievances. Some of them are quacks and I do not waste my time with them.

SolidSender

Friend: you want an example – yea sure not a problem.

We will see if it is a problem or not, won’t we?

To begin, if you don’t mind, I want to make sure that the following details are correct and that we are both dealing with exactly the same example.
Could please inform me if I have any misunderstanding in view of the following:

You said you could produce evidence of your accusation at will. Do you now need my help?

Re: Your Question 1: Yes, you got that one right.

Re: Your Question 2: I have not accused Kismet of extremism, anecdotal or otherwise.

It is one thing to say someone used an incident of extremism and quite another thing to accuse them of anecdotal extremism. Need I spell that difference out for you? I can always retrieve a crayon and draw a picture, if you need it. If you pursue an assertion that I have somehow accused Kismet of extremism then you will be arguing a straw man.

Re: Your Question 3: Yes, those words of mine represent a more tenable scenario based upon the norm. So what?

Okay, I’ve helped you out by answering your questions. Now, where is the example of my postulating and/or projecting highly subjective opinion as absolute objective fact?

We are waiting… but, take your time. We all realize, considering the super abundance of examples at your disposal, that it will surely be difficult to pick just the right one.

Friend

Edited by - Friend on 25 July 2000 11:7:49

69

True, or FAlse?

by Andyman in

jw
friends

i am sure most of you have seen the following quote form the wbts's pr site:.

"do you shun former members?.

those who simply cease to be involved in the faith are not shunned.

Friend

SolidSender

[Friend] consistently postulates & projects highly subjective (not to mention deluded, second hand) opinion as absolute objective fact.

We see you have the nerve to hurl such an insult. Now let’s see if you are big enough to show us some evidence of it. Show us just one single example of what you described above. Just one! Remember Hyman Rickover?

We see that argumentum ad nauseam is not in your pocket dictionary. Seriously, was that last diatribe the best you could muster? It seemed like a lot of verbiage to say, "I don’t like Friend because he called me to account for an incredibly stupid display of mine and I also have trouble answering the simplest of his questions, even after saying I will answer."

Keep’um comin! Thars gots t’bee mur entirtanin n dat dar mine u’yorn!

Friend

Edited by - Friend on 25 July 2000 0:6:13

69

True, or FAlse?

by Andyman in

jw
friends

i am sure most of you have seen the following quote form the wbts's pr site:.

"do you shun former members?.

those who simply cease to be involved in the faith are not shunned.

Friend

Kismet

From this thread actually is case in point [of an irrelevant conclusion].

No, it is not. On this thread I asserted my feeling that your representation contained embellishment. I did not argue that because embellishment may have occurred that your story was false, in fact I said such a conclusion was impossible. What I did do was explain that if what is already anecdotal is also embellished that it is significantly weakened, weakened to the point that others can only be more skeptical of it, that is with more skepticism than such evidence already deserves.

To demonstrate the nature of the problem I likewise used anecdotal evidence along with a few established facts. The difference between our use of anecdotal is that you used an incident of extremism as if it is common when it is not. On the other hand I offered a more tenable scenario based upon the norm.

So, the detail I isolated was not a counter-argument to your conclusion, which you apparently believe it to be, but rather only a reason for viewing what was already anecdotal with more skepticism. Creating such skepticism is necessary because so few understand inherent problems with relying on anecdotal evidence. Many do have the tendency that, “If he said it happened, well, it must have happened.” Anecdotal evidence must always be looked at with skepticism.

As for my conclusions of the initial issue, you have expressed no problem with it.

A la prochaine, mon ami.

Perhaps.

Friend

69

True, or FAlse?

by Andyman in

jw
friends

i am sure most of you have seen the following quote form the wbts's pr site:.

"do you shun former members?.

those who simply cease to be involved in the faith are not shunned.

Friend

SolidSender

Do you understand the term argumentum ad nauseam? I ask only because that has been your entire method of responding to my comments, that is except for that one instance where you [url= http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=527&page=2&site=3]embarrassed yourself trying to be analytical.[/url] Are you yet relying on that pocket dictionary or yours?

What a waste.

Kismet

Friend has readily admitted (and Friend, correct me if I am wrong- smirk) that the Society has problems. That it isn't perfect. But when it comes to the minutest detail he will call people to task if it isn't accurate or if in some way might distort facts.

Saying the Society has problems or that it’s less than perfect is an understatement.

When it comes to detail, that’s where true and false are usually resolved. Shrinking from discussing details often results in delusion.

For example, if some said that a hateful message was typed in 11 pt TimesNewRoman. Friend would likely focus on the fact that it wasn't Times New Roman it was Garamond font, therefore how much stock can be placed in the rest of your story when you can't even get that little detail right. The font type is really irrelevant but it was in fact inaccurately stated. How can you argue with that?? This is often the type of minutia that seems to concern Friend at times.

What you have represented here is that I employ the argument of irrelevant conclusion. I would very much like an example my doing so to be pointed out. As for nitpicking some point of insignificance, why don’t you let SolidSender explain the validity (or not) of using learned as past tense for learn. Since he is so analytical I am sure he won’t mind explaining why the point is worthy of criticism.

A good debate can be a valuable exercise and Friend does give one a workout. But I also realize that there are times when it is better to remain silent. Timing, and all that...

There is nothing like debate for deepening or correcting understanding and thinking ability. It is a pity that so few people are willing to learn the merits of good argument.

Friend

69

True, or FAlse?

by Andyman in

jw
friends

i am sure most of you have seen the following quote form the wbts's pr site:.

"do you shun former members?.

those who simply cease to be involved in the faith are not shunned.

Friend

Andyman

The fact that people leave off association with Jehovah’s Witnesses makes the point that people do get disgusted and leave in spite of the difficulties involved with doing so. Your actions are an example. You finally got tired of something so you left. The point is that circumstances can become unbearable at any point in time. If those circumstances are bad enough earlier on—as so many have indicated—then they would have left earlier on. That they did not leave earlier on demonstrates some redeeming feature of continued association. I hardly see how anyone can disagree.

None of this intends to minimize suffering experienced along the way. Also, each experience will not follow the profile above because some people’s circumstances are unusual.

As for suffering at the hands of Christian friends and various forms of shunning, yes, I too have experienced both. I will add, however, that my reading of the Bible does not lead me to think that experience with fellow Christians would be free from suffering at the hands of Christian brothers. I think that far too often people determine the expected makeup of a Christian community based upon their own ideals rather than realities set forth in scripture. Very few of us would have survived the rampant egotistical atmosphere amongst Jesus’ twelve apostles. Thankfully most of them had the right stuff!

Friend

Edited by - Friend on 22 July 2000 14:25:41

69

True, or FAlse?

by Andyman in

jw
friends

i am sure most of you have seen the following quote form the wbts's pr site:.

"do you shun former members?.

those who simply cease to be involved in the faith are not shunned.

Friend

RedhorseWoman

Friend, you speak of "few experiences" of the type that Kismet relates. I wish that were true. Unfortunately, over the years I found that the "few experiences" translated into the majority of experiences with JW's. The experiences that were few were those where JW's acted in a kind, loving, Christian manner.

Experience amounts with every single moment of our lives—in this case with every single moment of association with Jehovah’s Witnesses. I have no doubt that bad encounters are experienced, but I also have no doubt that if those experiences were the norm then persons would not have expended so many years of their life embroiled with them; persons would have left much sooner.

On the other hand, RedhorseWoman, our personal experience is just that, personal. It may or may not be parallel with that of the majority. Also, we cannot necessarily depend upon the experiences of our friends because humans tend to make friends based upon compatibility, which oftentimes means agreement on basic issues. Therefore our friends might substantiate our experiences whereas friends of other persons may defy our experiences. This is why anecdotal evidence is notoriously unreliable.

I certainly do not discount your experiences (or those of anyone else); they are no more or less evidentiary than my own experiences, which is the point.

My own experience is that in every congregation there are plenty of kind and loving people. In fact I contend that, on the whole, the brotherhood of Jehovah’s Witnesses is made up of kind people, people that want to do right and live according to Bible standards. Unfortunately it is the bad experiences that tend to stick in our minds. It is so easy to remember the bad and so easy to forget the good. Whatever the subject, most often we take the good for granted. It’s like bad sound at a large convention. One hour of bad sound and to hear people talk afterward sound amplification was terrible for the entire day. The same generally is true of other bad experiences.

Friend

Edited by - Friend on 21 July 2000 23:18:27

69

True, or FAlse?

by Andyman in

jw
friends

i am sure most of you have seen the following quote form the wbts's pr site:.

"do you shun former members?.

those who simply cease to be involved in the faith are not shunned.

Friend

Kismet

Experiences such as you described with your father are too common. When will everyone learn the lesson of the neighbor? Thanks for the sharing those very personal thoughts.

Dubby

My pseudonym should not be misunderstood for naiveté or milquetoast personality. I am not afraid to speak my mind and I don’t think anyone else should be either. If you take umbrage at what I say then please explain what or how I have misrepresented or somehow needlessly attacked character. If I have somehow misbehaved then I will promptly apologize. You apparently feel that I have somehow acted out of line or without feeling. If so, then please explain yourself. My responses to Kismet were genuine.

You go out of your way to shoot down any adverse behavior about JW's as reported by other JW's and former JW's.

And exactly who is "shooting down" among those sharing adverse experiences? Who is speaking in behalf of the other persons involved? Who is telling their side of the story? Who?

Perhaps you misunderstand a basic point, that of fair play. If someone is willing to share a derogatory or defamatory story away from the other players involved then should everyone else just sit idly by thinking, "Hey, since he made the accusation it must be true"? Is that what you think we should do? Is it? You sound like the juror who during pretrial selection stated, "Well, the defendant must be guilty or else they would not have arrested him."

Andyman

You just can't accept that some JW's aren't very nice people.

Of that I have no doubt. Please show where I have ever indicated otherwise.

I know several sisters in my old congregation who didn't care one thing about who they mouthed off to. Now how would you feel if you were telling an experience and somebody accused YOU of embellishing what you were saying?

Yes, I too have experienced similar things. So what? Should I presume that those few experiences indicate the character of the whole. Have you ever heard of the converse accident?

How would I feel? Why should I necessarily feel anything regarding the question you ask? Should I expect that everyone else will agree with me? Should I expect that other’s experiences are the same or similar to my own? Should I take umbrage because someone is willing to stand and speak their mind? I don’t think so. I don’t think such should bother anyone. Why should it? What should bother people more so is lack of clear thinking and corresponding representations.

Friend

69

True, or FAlse?

by Andyman in

jw
friends

i am sure most of you have seen the following quote form the wbts's pr site:.

"do you shun former members?.

those who simply cease to be involved in the faith are not shunned.

Friend

Kismet

“The Bethel title” aside (which is not what I was eluding too, BTW), the scenario is still difficult considering that publishers are perfectly aware that elders are the only ones disfellowshipped persons can turn to for congregational help. That means that an elder being seen with someone disfellowshipped should only raise flags if it is a very inappropriate setting. Standing beside a disfellowshipped person on the side of a public thoroughfare is hardly an inappropriate setting.

You are also correct in that you were not there Friend, so while you may want to allege I am embellishing to satisfy your comfort level, that doesn't take away from the truth of the story. Do I need to explain to you the assuming problem?

Please tell me where I assumed anything before offering such a lecture. As for anyone’s so-called “comfort level”, whose experience should they trust more, their own or a total stranger’s?

I certainly do not deny that publishers could act as you described, but it would be an exception rather than a rule, at least based upon my experience. Your anecdote intimates that such reactions are the norm rather than the exception. Conclusions drawn from anecdotal evidence should be based upon the prevalent rather than the peculiar—if they are drawn at all. Using a personal experience to illustrate a point is valid in that it introduces a measure of clarity to the point; however such anecdotes don’t make the point as in evidencing it to the point of proof, which was partly my point. A person could render all sorts of claimed experiences, but persons having different experiences will not be convinced based upon that neither should they be, which was also my point. Do I need to further explain this fallacy of argumentation to you?

I am not categorically saying you are relaying an inaccurate depiction. I am saying that your depiction defies my experience and I have offered reasons why other’s experiences are similar to my own.

Or do you disagree with my position in that the ambiguous language used by the Society to cover their collective ass feeds and essentially encourages extremism on the part of Publishers and elders?

Whether I agree or disagree with your position does not evidence your position one way or another as to correctness. People who are given to extremes will most likely act that way regardless of what the Society does or why, at least that is my experience; does yours differ?

As for language used, sometimes ambiguousness is proper for the subject and sometimes it is not, which means that conclusions based strictly on ambiguity or not are ill founded. As for my feelings about the subject of this thread, namely the quote from the Society’s PR site, please read my comment above. If you have questions after that feel free to ask.

The above also proves that Friend was attempting more to discredit the account by waving this straw man of embellishment.

And with those words you assert that I have somehow misrepresented your story or position. Please show everyone where I did such a thing. For one, I would really like to see you try that, but please be careful not to screw up the details.

Friend

Edited by - Friend on 21 July 2000 14:42:7