Posts by Friend

77

Writing private letters to the Society.

by spectromize in

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.

Friend

RedhorseWoman

And, Friend, the basis for my opinion is simply my feeling of what is considerate and appropriate.

Thanks for that answer to my question.

I have also wondered why you choose to debate everything, and yet you have never once stated what YOU feel or believe.

Debating is part of our growth. The day we stop debating is the day it is all over. I think that is the very reason that many find themselves today in awkward circumstances. If they had debated issues—even in their own mind—they would be standing on firmer ground as a result. Lack of debate breeds insecurity. Debating reinforces and creates new depths to our convictions and person.

As for talking about my beliefs, I have no problem doing that. I find it odd that you mention that because you have never once asked outright for my view of this whole affair as if that mattered to you. One reason that I have lately participated on this forum is because after reading some of the distortions and fallacious reasoning I just could not help but ask you all to justify some of your opinions. I see that that was a bad idea. I see so many here satisfied with their opinions regardless of facts that I have lately reconsidered my participation. I am not sure who is loosing out, you or me; I think probably both of us. Me because I enjoy observing how people think.

You have made statements, and when someone offers a counter argument, you simply reply with "that's not what I believe".

No, that is not what I do. You have only experienced me saying "that’s not what I believe" because of your misrepresentations of me. My argument you have either completely misunderstood or ignored—that assumes that you recognize an argument when you see one.

For the record, I appreciate all of your views. I have also enjoyed watching how you respond. For me everything is a learning experience. If that reminds anyone of their father or someone else about whom they hold some king of critical view, just remember, I am a person too. Like you, I am entitled to personality, disposition and opinions of my own. I am also entitled to speak accordingly. Those who are critical of that are being critical of themselves.

To those who find me offensive, I challenge that you ask yourself why that is. It does not matter to me, but it should matter a great deal to you. Usually insecurity comes from within rather than being instilled.

Please be assured that you have in no way offended me. For any offense I have cause you, I apologize. That was not my intent.

Like it or not, your
Friend

Edited by - Friend on 8 June 2000 22:43:37

77

Writing private letters to the Society.

by spectromize in

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.

Friend

RedhorseWoman

Alas, here we go again….

You said:

What clarification are you seeking? What proof? What explanation? My opinion is my opinion.

You based your opinion on what you referred to as a right. That was your description, not mine. But regardless of the word usage, all I asked was that you clarify that basis by asking, "I will ask you again, what explicit or implicit right do you have in mind? Where is that right expressed? I see now that just asking you for clarification of one of your own representations gets you all wound up. There is probably a reason for that.

Get it? Opinion = formed conclusion based upon something

The something is what I was looking for. Your most recent posts have pretty much answered the question of whether you have bases for your opinions.

I said:
However, for some reason you seem to think that it is perfectly all right for the Society to deal with the matter HOWEVER it sees fit without informing the questioner. Fine, that's your opinion. I disagree with it. [Emphasis added]
There you go again. Please show everyone where I ever have represented such a ridiculous notion.
You replied:
Did you notice my use of the word "seem"? I never stated that this was "in fact" your opinion....merely that it "seemed" to be your opinion.

Did you notice my use of the word "notion." I never requested anything explicit, only for the mere notion. If you are right that what you said "seem[ed" to be my opinion then the notion must exist somewhere in my responses to you. So, where is it? Can you or will you show me and everyone else the notion that I think "it is perfectly all right for the Society to deal with the matter HOWEVER it sees fit without informing the questioner. Mind you, all I want you to demonstrate is the mere notion of that idea.

You have definitely convinced me that you have an opinion on this matter. That has been clear from the beginning. What I have sought after is the bases or basis for that opinion. If you had one by now it would be evident. I have not seen it and you have consistently refused to offer anything resembling such even in the face of direct request for it.

Believe it or not, like it or not, prattle is the correct characterization of what you been doing so far. If you would read what others are actually writing and also read what you are actually writing then perhaps you could communicate and make some sense for those of us interested enough in your views to seek an understanding of them and their bases.

Friend.

Edited by - Friend on 8 June 2000 19:9:23

77

Writing private letters to the Society.

by spectromize in

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.

Friend

RedhorseWoman

You said:

The issue is that I have stated my opinion on the handling of this correspondence, and you choose to ignore anything I have said on the matter while you repeatedly "strain gnats".

That is one of the galldarndest things yet asserted on this thread! Would you please go back and READ(!) my post of Jun 7, 2000 11:04:23 PM. Therein I thoroughly presented exactly the problem with your opinion and my reasons for disputing its validity, even asking for your clarification. Did you reply to it AT ALL? No, you did not. Yet you did take the time to further accuse that I ignore anything you have said on the subject. WOW! Since then all you have done is distort my words with false assertions!

As for “straining gnats”, it is amusing how often such a term in invoked when details begin contradicting some opinionated view. If my request for your clarification is such a gnat then it should be easy enough for you to answer.

It is also quite amusing how you characterize your misrepresentation me as “gnat” in significance. You then also characterize my requests for a logical explanation of specific and pertinent details as “straining gnats”. It looks like anything you don’t like to deal with is rubbed off as an insignificant “gnat.” Isn’t that type behavior at the heart of your complaints against the Society?

However, for some reason you seem to think that it is perfectly all right for the Society to deal with the matter HOWEVER it sees fit without informing the questioner. Fine, that's your opinion. I disagree with it. [Emphasis added]

There you go again. Please show everyone where I ever have represented such a ridiculous notion.

What I don’t understand is why I bother replying to such prattle.

Friend

77

Writing private letters to the Society.

by spectromize in

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.

Friend

RedhorseWoman

You said of me:

I took issue with your statement that it would be "preposterous" for the Society to send a copy to the local elders because they had so much mail that they could only take the time to send personal replies.

Thanks for illustrating that you have not understood the simplest of my expressions. Please show everyone where I ever have represented that assertion of yours above.

Friend

67

PROOF from the WT

by Scorpion in

jw
friends

that the organization means salvation

Friend

SC

Your presentation on this thread appears to be a response to conclusions I have argued on the thread titled Apostolic Succession. However, a response is not counter argument. I see nothing on this thread so far from anyone that presents counter-argument to that presented on the other thread. For instance, I laid out several logical questions that a successful counter-argument needs to resolve. Presentations here have so far left those questions unresolved, indeed they have been ignored entirely. Besides that I also addressed the possible relationships between two different ideas and how those possible relationships help us resolve the sum of what it actually being taught.

Besides that, you have also misrepresented me on this thread on a number of points. It appears that is inadvertent, stemming from not fully following what was said earlier. An example is where you say, “Friend also said JWs uniquely practice the Christianity of the Bible.” What I actually said is that that is what Jehovah’s Witnesses teach. I have not expressed that as a personal conviction, which is what your sentence portrays.

Do Jehovah’s Witnesses teach that they have the only true religion? Yes, that is what they teach.

Do Jehovah’s Witnesses teach that ultimately Jehovah decides who is right and who is wrong and who gains salvation and who does not? Yes, they teach that as well.

Some people see conflict in those teaches when that is not in fact the case. It is true that those teachings are non-supportive toward one another but it is not true that they oppose one another either, and that is the flaw in your deductions. Since there are other options then your apparent “this or that” deduction is no less than a black and white fallacy, which is called a bifurcation. Another option, which fits perfectly, is that the two teachings accommodate one another without contradiction. Since my comments on the Apostolic Succession thread already addressed this in some detail I will let readers go back and consider those comments there. If anyone wants to discuss those fundamental points toward resolving the conflicting conclusions about what we teach on the subject of salvation then I am willing to participate. But I see no need in participating when critical details or fundamental issues are not being addressed.

Please do not misunderstand me, SC. The investment of time manifested in your presentation represents seriousness about the subject. My comments here are not intended as any sort of personal affront to you or anyone else. I just see where critical resolutions are being left undone making corresponding conclusions suspect at best.

Friend

44

"Apostolic succession"?

by Jokemyster in

jw
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?

Friend

Pathofthorns

I agree with much of what you said. Some of your issues raised are among the strongest of my disagreements with the Society. How we cope with those disagreements and the Society is important to the quality of many people’s lives. In some cases that coping can be as simple as, “I’m gone.” In other cases things are not that simple—which I’m sure you are aware.

Friend

44

"Apostolic succession"?

by Jokemyster in

jw
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?

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

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?.

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

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.

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

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?.

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