Friend

Joined

• started 9 topics
• posted 218 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Friend

• 
  44

  "Apostolic succession"?

  by Jokemyster in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  since the wt organization claims "apostolic succession" who was it that passed the torch of gods spirit to c.t.russel when he founded the.

  organization?

  what denomination or faith?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Friend

  RedhorseWoman

  "Doublespeak." That is easy enough to say, isn’t it? It is far more difficult to answer my questions raised and then argue such a conclusion.

  Friend
• 
  100

  Preacher Jimmy Swaggart and JW Lawyers

  by waiting in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  in the supreme court of the united states, october tenth, 1988, case no.

  88-1374, filed on june 22, 1988, clerk joseph f. spanol, jr.. on that date and file number, the attoreny james m. mccabe,and donald t. ridley, 25 colombia heights, brooklyn, ny 11251 (718)606-4993, attorneys for amicus curiae, watchtower bible and tract society of new york, inc. filed a "friends of the court" brief on the behalf of the famous preacher, jimmy swaggart and his ministries.. why would the watchtower society, direct channel for jehovah's holy spirt, which also godly hates babylon the great, which also christiandom is the largest part, go into the supreme court of the united states and file a legal brief to help jimmy swaggart's ministries in his trial which was case no.

  88-1374: jimmy swaggart ministries, appelant vs. board of equalization of california, appeller?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Friend

  RedhorseWoman

  Believe me, I understand EXACTLY where you are going with your arguments. I have had NO trouble comprehending them.

  I do not believe you on that point, but that is really beside the point anyway.

  You are here, instead, to help us "see" the important things. Have I stated this correctly?

  No.

  I interpret the above quote to mean that whereas others' opinions are of no import to you, your opinions must be of import to us.

  Your interpretation is quite wrong and quite presumptuous. In fact, this next assertion of yours epitomizes that you have not and do not properly comprehend or interpret what I have said. You said:

  This thread has revolved around the Society's filing a brief in support of Jimmy Swaggart's Ministry in order to support their own tax-exempt status.

  Your questions have, for the most part, revolved around whether or not we feel it was illegal or improper for them to do so. Of course it wasn't illegal, and it was also a very smart move on their part to safeguard their income.

  You just do not get it, do you? No matter what the facts speak you insist that the Society’s amicus curiae filing was "IN SUPPORT OF" Jimmy Swaggart Ministries. If that is not bad enough, you use that false premise to argue some reprehensibility on the part of the Society. I hardly have words to describe how frustrating it is to read something like that.

  As for my questions, they have not been pointedly about legalities but rather whether those legalities were corollary to any reprehensible connection between the Society and JSM. The facts say that no such corollary exists or existed. Again, you have totally missed the point.

  I definitely agree with all your points, Friend. They are all true. However, that doesn't change the fact that I dislike what has been done, and I consider it sleazy.

  Your latter expression I respect—I just don’t see how you draw it from the JSM issue; facts speak otherwise. The first part is a contradictive expression.

  Your
  Friend

  Edited by - Friend on 7 June 2000 23:31:4
• 
  77

  Writing private letters to the Society.

  by spectromize in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  for anyone who's ever written something of a private nature or asked clarification on certain beliefs have you ever had the unfortunate experience of the elders calling you in the back room or a sheperding call ?.

  the reason i bring this out is that newer brothers or sisters don't know that everytime you write the society the society sends a copy of your letter to your local cong.

  elders.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Friend

  RedhorseWoman

  I am not sure where you are taking this discussion. Perhaps it will assist that I recap my reason for participation on this thread and questions about certain of your premises.

  My participation here was to counter the idea that "every time [we] write the society the society sends a copy of [our] letter to [our] local cong. elders." That assertion was made by spectromize and is yet to be validated—though several seem eager ready to jump on that band wagon. Contrarily, considering the Society’s general policy to respond in writing to personal letters, your own prowess of mathematical probability demonstrated that the reverse is probably true.

  One of your bases for complaint on this issue has to do with your assertion that some right is being infringed upon. I have asked that you evidence this right yet you have not. I will ask you again, what explicit or implicit right do you have in mind? Where is that right expressed? It cannot be one of confidentiality because you have already expressed that "…no one should be foolish enough to presume that only one person would be privy to the matter…." After I specifically addressed the issue of confidentiality you said, "…your logic is correct…." Therefore, by your own admission your claimed "right" is not one having to do with confidentiality. What else can I conclude?

  You went on about persons being shocked that local elders would know of and be used to respond to them. I do not understand how that effect can be a basis for your complaining here because you already agreed with the logic that the Society’s utilization of elders was correct.

  Now, in the very beginning I expressed that the Society does occasionally respond through the local elders. You are quite correct that some are shocked by this, and I have not disagreed with that. However, those who are shocked react so because of their own expectations not because some expressed right has been infringed upon. Well, expectations vary from person to person. In that case, no matter what the Society’s response someone will probably be shock, that is unless the Society first meticulously determines the exact expectation of each person writing them. Do you think that is realistic?

  You asked:
  

  And why should they be equally shocked to receive a written reply?

  Earlier you based persons shock at getting a face to face response on the premise that they did "not know the procedure" but that they expect it to be similar to the procedures experienced when dealing with other entities". Well, since that was your basis I merely applied it to another conclusion just as logical as your own. Assuming as you did that an individual did not know the procedure and that some large entities respond through local agents who ask to meet with you face to face—which you agreed with—, then the logical question arises, "Should they be equally apt shocked to receive a written reply?" Your only response to that question of logic was one of special pleading, which does not answer the internal contradiction of your own argument.

  Friend

  Edited by - Friend on 7 June 2000 23:48:7
• 
  100

  Preacher Jimmy Swaggart and JW Lawyers

  by waiting in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  in the supreme court of the united states, october tenth, 1988, case no.

  88-1374, filed on june 22, 1988, clerk joseph f. spanol, jr.. on that date and file number, the attoreny james m. mccabe,and donald t. ridley, 25 colombia heights, brooklyn, ny 11251 (718)606-4993, attorneys for amicus curiae, watchtower bible and tract society of new york, inc. filed a "friends of the court" brief on the behalf of the famous preacher, jimmy swaggart and his ministries.. why would the watchtower society, direct channel for jehovah's holy spirt, which also godly hates babylon the great, which also christiandom is the largest part, go into the supreme court of the united states and file a legal brief to help jimmy swaggart's ministries in his trial which was case no.

  88-1374: jimmy swaggart ministries, appelant vs. board of equalization of california, appeller?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Friend

  waiting

  Have you answered my questions? They are relative. What is your background that you take condescending key strokes to us? We consider ourselves to be equals here, except you, Lars & his friends.

  Except for your questions about my credentials I am not sure what questions you speak of above. My background is probably similar to most if not all on this forum. I have an extensive history with Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Society. In most cases those to go hand in hand, but not always.

  I am not sure where the impression comes from that I feel somehow superior, though others on this forum besides you have expressed similar sentiments. For that I feel sad. Sad because I am here to help not to tear down or further chaff what may already be rubbed raw by the Society. All of you are my equal.

  I have no idea who Lars is or his friends.

  Speaking for myself, I'm not looking for an enlighten teacher. Discussion - yes; viewpoints - yes. To be readjusted to your thoughts - no.

  In discussions I prefer to stick to what is known and what can be demonstrated. If that teaches I cannot help it. Otherwise, like you, I enjoy exploring various perspectives. Such sharing is a learning experience for us all.

  But if I wanted my thinking readjusted back to the WTBTS, I would just read my Watchtowers - I come here for breathing space.

  I appreciate your sentiment about breathing space and agree with it. As for the other, I think you have me pegged wrong, dead wrong. I am not participating here to readjust anyone to the Society’s view. When issues arise I address them with as much consideration as I can or they deserve in my opinion. Those subjects I have participated on in this forum happen to be ones that are notoriously misunderstood by many—to the detriment of the Society. So, addressing them may make it appear that I am somehow defending or promoting the Society when actually I am doing neither. All I am doing is addressing issues with facts and, hopefully, reason.

  As for my views of the Society, I have some major divergent views. So far the only one I have really hinted at has to do with the blood issue. Please remember that I do not want to thrust aside anyone’s faith. Since I am new to this particular forum then I have treaded lightly when it comes to sensitive issues. As I get a better grasp of views here then I can accordingly raise the bar, so to speak.

  It does seem, in my opinion, that your posts antagonize almost everyone responded to. It does seem, in my opinion, that is your intention. Do you, perhaps, not wish a small group of people to speak openly about doubting the WTBTS?

  I regret that you have that view; perhaps as things move along it will change. Some of the best advice ever attributed to Jesus is to let our works speak for us. Perhaps my future works here in the way of participation will change your view. We will see.

  As for speaking out openly about doubts associated with the Society, hey, I am all for expressing yourself. I say, “Get on with it.” As for the Society, I hold no particular aversion to discussing doubts about it. Frankly, I think they are deadly wrong about several things. On the other hand, I think those associated with the Society are for the most part good people with good intentions. To a large degree those persons are similar to those who earliest on were called Christian. I also believe others besides JWs reflect the same.

  I've read posts of your on Witnet - same name - same tone. However, you've gone a step further with the educated, polite, insults when posting to us.

  Here is the difference. My experience with Witnet is that most there are very offended with any hint of divergence from the Society. My impression here was that more tolerance existed. To an extent the greater the tolerance of expression the greater the faculty of reason. Therefore I felt I could leave off some of the milder kiddy talk and express myself with greater clarity, which usually includes greater frankness. Other forums require an even sharper and more frank exchange. Perhaps here I need to rethink my participation.

  Not much will offend me on a forum such as this. Why should it? Perhaps I expect that too much of others when really we all have various levels of sensitivities depending upon the subject. I think I have overreached some sensitivities on this forum, which is not my intent.

  Friend
• 
  44

  "Apostolic succession"?

  by Jokemyster in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  since the wt organization claims "apostolic succession" who was it that passed the torch of gods spirit to c.t.russel when he founded the.

  organization?

  what denomination or faith?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Friend

  waiting

  You have presented a false analogy. Let me explain.

  Premise 1: John decides if apples are sold as good.

  Premise 2: Betty believes her apples are good enough to be sold and she tells people that.

  (Alternate) Premise 2: Betty believes her apples are the only ones good enough to be sold and she tells people that.

  Premise 3: Betty acknowledges that John decides if apples are sold.

  Conclusion: Betty tells people that her apples will be sold but she yields that eventuality up to John.

  Switch a few nouns and that simple analogy pretty accurately portrays what we are preaching as Jehovah’s Witnesses about ultimate salvation and ourselves.

  While it is true that JWs admit that some within their ranks will most likely be judged adversely by God, it is also true that they do not presumptuously attempt to thwart God’s role as judge by saying that everyone not a JW will be judged adversely. Sure, us sharing a conviction to that end certainly leaves that impression, but that is tempered in that we acknowledge that Jehovah will ultimately decide who gains salvation, not us.

  Answering the following questions demonstrates the point:

  1. Do JWs believe that Jehovah will ultimately judge each of us or do JWs believe they will do that?

  2. Has Jehovah provided Jehovah’s Witnesses a preview of his judgments for each individual?

  If the answer to one (1) is, “Jehovah” and the answer to two (2) is, “No” then Jehovah’s Witnesses can make all the noise they want about their beliefs yet are still yielding—as did Betty in our illustration—that, regardless of beliefs, they have no say whatsoever in who gains salvation. How would you answer questions one and two?

  As the JWs in the 20th Century brochure indicates, we teach we are the right religion but we also teach that in the end God decides who make it.

  Also, neither you nor anyone else on this board has offended me. If anything it has, unfortunately, been the other way around.

  Friend

  Edited by - Friend on 7 June 2000 23:39:0
• 
  100

  Preacher Jimmy Swaggart and JW Lawyers

  by waiting in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  in the supreme court of the united states, october tenth, 1988, case no.

  88-1374, filed on june 22, 1988, clerk joseph f. spanol, jr.. on that date and file number, the attoreny james m. mccabe,and donald t. ridley, 25 colombia heights, brooklyn, ny 11251 (718)606-4993, attorneys for amicus curiae, watchtower bible and tract society of new york, inc. filed a "friends of the court" brief on the behalf of the famous preacher, jimmy swaggart and his ministries.. why would the watchtower society, direct channel for jehovah's holy spirt, which also godly hates babylon the great, which also christiandom is the largest part, go into the supreme court of the united states and file a legal brief to help jimmy swaggart's ministries in his trial which was case no.

  88-1374: jimmy swaggart ministries, appelant vs. board of equalization of california, appeller?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Friend

  RedhorseWoman

  I have noticed that whenever I have asked for specific responses from you, you have then turned around and asked questions of me rather than responding to what I have posted.

  Each of my questions on this thread are for purposes of highlighting a critical point that appears to be ill-considered in someone’s conclusion or else is a request for clarification. When direct facts had already been likewise ill-considered then I proceeded to another mode to stir thinking about a detail that, to me, is/was critical to resolution. If there is something specific you have in mind let me know. I will be glad to redress it.

  And, in fact, I have acknowledged your questions. However, your questions seem to me to tend toward the nitpicking aspects of the discussion where only a "yes" or "no" is the appropriate answer rather than examining the whole situation.

  Usually resolutions lay in the details. Nitpicking is when irrelevant details are introduced, which nitpicking is also called introducing a red herring. If you feel I have done this then most likely either you have not realized the significance of a certain detail or I have misunderstood a certain question of relevance. If you have some specific example of this then, again, I will offer to redress it.

  As far as acknowledging questions, that is not really my concern. Of greater concern to me is realizing (or not) how the resolution of a particular question affects a conclusion or deduction. That is where we apparently differ in addressing a question presented.

  As Frenchy said, "JW's have a unique slant on words". I agree with this statement, and might I say, Friend, you employ this strategy very well.

  Yes, I agree with Frenchy on the observation. Nevertheless, the resolution of that problem is the same as normal word usage; you demonstrate the “slant” (meaning) and then apply it accordingly.

  As for me, I think you have had difficulty following certain details pertinent to this thread. If that is true then quite naturally some things I say may appear to you as having an unusual slant. In that case I suggest that you request clarification rather than offering a response based upon assumption. Several of my questions to you requested clarifications. Without those I was left unable to understand some of your deductions. How am I supposed to respond to that?

  Friend
• 
  100

  Preacher Jimmy Swaggart and JW Lawyers

  by waiting in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  in the supreme court of the united states, october tenth, 1988, case no.

  88-1374, filed on june 22, 1988, clerk joseph f. spanol, jr.. on that date and file number, the attoreny james m. mccabe,and donald t. ridley, 25 colombia heights, brooklyn, ny 11251 (718)606-4993, attorneys for amicus curiae, watchtower bible and tract society of new york, inc. filed a "friends of the court" brief on the behalf of the famous preacher, jimmy swaggart and his ministries.. why would the watchtower society, direct channel for jehovah's holy spirt, which also godly hates babylon the great, which also christiandom is the largest part, go into the supreme court of the united states and file a legal brief to help jimmy swaggart's ministries in his trial which was case no.

  88-1374: jimmy swaggart ministries, appelant vs. board of equalization of california, appeller?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Friend

  SevenofNine

  I appreciate you sharing your impression of me. I do not take offense to it and will consider your advice in the future. I wish others were just as candid. However, please be aware that neither you nor I can measure another person’s impression in settings such as this unless they express themselves accordingly, as you have here. One here has decided that they were offended by me and chose to denounce me and proclaim that they will not respond to any of my future posts. That is fine, except that had they taken the time to say, “Hey, what do you mean by that?(!)” then I think an explanation would have sufficed them. As it is, they decided based upon an impression that I could not see being developed. On forums such as this there is a need to speak clearly and frankly for purposes of understanding. There is also the need to ask questions if you are not sure. Presuming intent to hurt feelings, condescend or be rude is just that—presumption. In your case you have expressed your impression to me and I value that. Thanks.

  As for my responses seeming to be condescending, I apologize for that. That is certainly not my intention.

  You will find that I ask a lot of questions to get people thinking and I prefer to deal with those details that resolve issues. As long as the other party can follow the discussion I can go to whatever depths the details take it. But I will not expend time into details when it becomes clear to me that the other party is not following. Then I will retreat to more questions, illustrations or something else to help them get there. If that doesn’t work then I cannot spend more time on it with them. That is not meant to condescend but rather let them know that I cannot proceed on the subject with them. At that point I will express what I see as the status of our discussion up to that point. At least the other person then has the luxury of knowing why I do not continue the discussion—which, to me, is polite. That also gives them the opportunity to address what may be a misunderstanding on my part. If that is correct and they can overcome that misunderstanding on my part then we can both proceed. Otherwise, we both call it quits until another day. To me that is just normal conversation.

  You said:
  

  I can benefit more from your wisdom without all the condescending remarks.

  Again, I apologize for leaving that impression; that is not my intent. Please forgive me.

  As for helping to benefit others, that is the principal reason I chose to participate on this forum. Hopefully I can provide some perspective or information on some issues that will help some; at least that is my fondest hope.

  Friend
• 
  77

  Writing private letters to the Society.

  by spectromize in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  for anyone who's ever written something of a private nature or asked clarification on certain beliefs have you ever had the unfortunate experience of the elders calling you in the back room or a sheperding call ?.

  the reason i bring this out is that newer brothers or sisters don't know that everytime you write the society the society sends a copy of your letter to your local cong.

  elders.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Friend

  RedhorseWoman

  If one does not know the procedure, and one expects it to be similar to the procedures experienced when dealing with other entities, one cannot be castigated for being shocked at what they consider to be a gross disregard of their rights.

  Your comment is circular to your intended inference. Who says the individual ever knew the “procedure” was otherwise? If they “don’t know” then they don’t know what to expect anyway—just as you expressed. In that case, persons are equally apt to be shocked if they receive a written reply rather than a personal one? Certainly you continue leaning on your weak notion that other entities would not assign a local agent to handle your needs when that is not at all the case. Some may do that and some may not. That latter point is yet another of your conclusions that has completely ignored critical questions regarding it that I have raised. As I pointed out, large corporations have local agents respond in their behalf on a regular basis. Examples include the FBI, Insurance companies, etc….

  BTW, you keep speaking of a “right” yet you have yet to demonstrate that such a “right” as you conclude even exists; that despite being asked for such evidence. Just another in a long list of questions left unresolved for your conclusions.

  I'm sure that those who have received this treatment will never write again to the Society. Their point in this whole discussion was to warn others of what they would be likely to experience.

  Warn them of what? That the Society responded to their letters? In the past I have made some requests of the Society that I wished they had sent a local representative to discuss with me. They chose to respond in their own way because that what I asked of them. I asked for their response. Again, on this issue you have ignored critical questions to your conclusions.

  I'm not saying that a mother shouldn't respond in person. I'm simply saying that a considerate mother would call first before dropping in.

  When you call your mother and leave a message on her recorder that you need her help, do you consider it an act of inconsiderateness for her to rush over in person as soon as possible? I mean, whose calling who here?(!) Let’s not distort this thing into “The Society just dropped in on me!” when you are the one that called them with a request. Do you want their answer or not? That is the only question to be answered.

  Friend

  Edited by - Friend on 7 June 2000 15:34:38
• 
  100

  Preacher Jimmy Swaggart and JW Lawyers

  by waiting in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  in the supreme court of the united states, october tenth, 1988, case no.

  88-1374, filed on june 22, 1988, clerk joseph f. spanol, jr.. on that date and file number, the attoreny james m. mccabe,and donald t. ridley, 25 colombia heights, brooklyn, ny 11251 (718)606-4993, attorneys for amicus curiae, watchtower bible and tract society of new york, inc. filed a "friends of the court" brief on the behalf of the famous preacher, jimmy swaggart and his ministries.. why would the watchtower society, direct channel for jehovah's holy spirt, which also godly hates babylon the great, which also christiandom is the largest part, go into the supreme court of the united states and file a legal brief to help jimmy swaggart's ministries in his trial which was case no.

  88-1374: jimmy swaggart ministries, appelant vs. board of equalization of california, appeller?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Friend

  RedhorseWoman

  I have no concern about your personal views. If you are happy then I am glad for you. But if you for one minute think you have addressed each of the many relevant questions I have asked of you on this thread then you have deluded yourself. One after the other you have ignored critical questions that can only be resolved with conclusions other than what you have decided.

  If you want to go back and respond to each of those questions asked then I can pursue this discussion. Otherwise I cannot continue offering alternate considerations for you. I just don’t have the time for that.

  Your
  Friend
• 
  77

  Writing private letters to the Society.

  by spectromize in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  for anyone who's ever written something of a private nature or asked clarification on certain beliefs have you ever had the unfortunate experience of the elders calling you in the back room or a sheperding call ?.

  the reason i bring this out is that newer brothers or sisters don't know that everytime you write the society the society sends a copy of your letter to your local cong.

  elders.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Friend

  RedhorseWoman

  You said:
  

  The Society does not inform anyone, it just assumes that it has the right to deal with the matter as it sees fit without feeling the necessity to inform anyone.

  Then this question should sum it up: If you didn’t want the Society deal with things as it saw fit then why would you relay your concerns to it in the first place?

  You said:
  

  I can see that your feelings are simply that this is the way they do it....get used to it.

  No, that is not my feelings, though it may be a truism.

  My feeling is that nothing is wrong with the Society’s exercising its discretion in how to handle our requests. If we did not want them to do that then we would not make request to them in the first place. Also, I see nothing negative about receiving a personal visit informing us of the Society’s discretion versus receiving it in writing.

  My point is that as a "Mother" they should show a little more consideration for their children.

  Then you apparently feel that a “mother” choosing to respond in person is less motherly than one responding from a distance. Is that what you are saying?

  Friend