Posts by RedhorseWoman

47

WHY does God fail to...

by Martini in

jw
friends

...attain unanimous support from his creation of free moral agents?

from the majority at least.. apparently according to the wt interpretation of god's own book...a prominent spirit creature who made himself satan became unsatisfied and left god.later untold numbers would join the devil.. now the only solution for the future of these 'rebels' would be for god to destroy them.. then the very first human creatures apparently also felt unsatisfied and withdrew from god.they got destroyed.. later god had to confuse the language of all humans because they were unanimously opposed to god.

those people too are history.. then god had an ark built because all flesh had left god's way except for a handful of people.. evidently god was not expecting any great number to actually join noah, otherwise god would have had noah build several arks!

RedhorseWoman

Martini,

I guess that, unfortunately, we will just have to let things settle. People's motives will become clear.

67

PROOF from the WT

by Scorpion in

jw
friends

that the organization means salvation

RedhorseWoman

Arguing? Arguing? Who's arguing? I just tried to express an opinion and offer some support....really, really I did. HELP ME!! ARRGGHHHHHHH!!! Thank God I'm not married to the man!!!

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.

RedhorseWoman

Waiting,

Thank you. You have expressed my frustration in this admirably.

Never did I suspect that having an opinion on an issue would generate such a belligerent response.

(sigh) I guess I shouldn't express the opinion that I think French Vanilla tastes better than plain coffee.

And, Friend, the basis for my opinion is simply my feeling of what is considerate and appropriate. I would NEVER just show up at anyone's house even if they wrote and asked me a question. I would ALWAYS let them know when I was coming. I simply appreciate the same consideration from others....whether it is individuals or corporations. I think I've expressed this several times before. If this explanation is insufficient for you....well....that's what it is.

I am truly sorry at this point that I EVER attempted to hash this out with you. I am NOT sorry that I added my support to those who feel as I do and who were bothered by an unannounced visit from the local elders.

I did not, nor do I now, consider this a matter for debate, and yet you persist in trying to push me into one.

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

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

That's fine, but it's frustrating for those with whom you are presumably conversing.

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.

RedhorseWoman

Friend,

Let me simplify for you.

People have stated their experiences in corresponding with Bethel.

In reading those experiences, I formed an opinion about Bethel's handling of the correspondence.

My opinion is that the letter should be acknowledged with a reply informing the questioner of the manner in which it will be handled.

What clarification are you seeking? What proof? What explanation? My opinion is my opinion. Whether or not you agree with it is your decision. My opinion will not change company policy. By stating an opinion and stating that I feel people have a right to know how matters will be handled does not necessitate a lengthy treatise on "rights" or any other matter.

That is why I have not debated you on this. There is nothing to debate. These are simply my feelings, and I STILL do not understand why you repeatedly feel you must insult me and demand "evidence" as to why I have formed my opinion.

I like roses. My opinion is that every yard could be enhanced by having one or more rose bushes. If this is not your opinion, DON'T PLANT ROSES!

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?

This, Friend is misrepresenting me. The "gnats" I have been referring to are embodied in your insistence on picking apart every statement. It is NOT a matter of not wanting to deal with something and rubbing it off as an insignificant gnat. THERE IS NOTHING HERE TO DEAL WITH. I stated an opinion....nothing more. You, on the other hand appear to be intent on analyzing every nuance, every phrase. If I'm wrong in this, forgive me....this is the way it appears to me. (note: I am NOT stating that this is what you intend to do....I am stating that this is the way it "appears" to me.....this is a subjective statement)

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.

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.

Could you possibly EVER respond with "no, that's not my opinion" rather than flinging insults?

Sorry to continue on with the "prattle", but I would definitely like to convince you that all I have done is express an "opinion" on the matter.

Am I allowed to do this?

Edited by - RedhorseWoman on 8 June 2000 17:24:13

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.

RedhorseWoman

Friend,

Understanding your posts is not the issue. 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".

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.

RedhorseWoman

Certainly the Society does on occasion copy local elders of correspondence received from a publisher. I know that for a fact because I have received them myself. I also know that local elders are not always copied. I know that from personal experience and the experience of a multitude of others known to me. You apparently have no idea of the huge volume of this type of correspondence received by the Society. Other then responding personally to such respectful letters they do not have the time to copy local elders each and every time. The notion is preposterous.
Friend

Oh, yes, I should have said in my post that I took issue with your saying that it was preposterous for the Society to copy local elders each and every time.

This was wrong of me. I apologize. Gnat dead.

Edited by - RedhorseWoman on 8 June 2000 16:9:7

22

Rules and Regulations

by Simon in

jw
friends

ok, it seems like we need to start setting up some rules and regulations as 'common sense' doesn;t seem to work for everyone.. rule 1. no personal attacks / insults.

feel free to submit any rules (or guidelines) that you think would help.

RedhorseWoman

Xandit,

It's tough to ignore the "coat draggers", which is exactly why they post as they do. Provoking useless arguments is their idea of fun. Unfortunately, it's impossible to have any sort of discussion with them. They just bait and run.

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?

RedhorseWoman

Sounds good to me. Can we get coordinating shoes and purses to go with the belts? :)

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.

RedhorseWoman

Friend,

I have never said that I knew whether or not a copy was sent to the local elders EVERY time a letter was received by the Society. It could be true....I don't know.

You have said that in your experience, it wasn't always the case. Fine, I accept that. I have no experience either way.

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.

From a totally logical standpoint, I pointed out that the time needed to send off a copy would be much less than that needed to personally reply. Also, several of the people involved mentioned that they had NEVER received a reply from Bethel, but rather a visit from a local elder.

My point was that in my opinion, the Society should have the consideration to inform the questioner about how their correspondence is being handled.

Most of this argument has involved my attempting to clarify to you exactly WHAT I have very plainly stated. Unfortunately, you go off on tangents that, while very interesting to read and very valid in many ways, have nothing to do with what I had stated.

Very simply, I believe that procedures should be changed. Before a local elder is sent out, the Society should inform the questioner of the manner in which their query will be handled.

As a matter of fact, I DID understand that your initial participation was to add input as to whether or not "all" letters were forwarded. I have never questioned your veracity on that point.

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.

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?.

RedhorseWoman

Friend,

Why do you insist on arguing semantics when the issue is something else entirely?

I don't really CARE if the case was "in support of" Jimmy Swaggart's Ministry (although I do think the issues were definitely linked...why else would the Society bother to get involved?). I'm sorry if the wording was improper.

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.

Perhaps you haven't read my posts, in which case I urge you to do so. I have NEVER said there was any "reprehensible connection between the Society and JSM". They simply found themselves in the same boat....tax payable on profits collected from the selling of literature, and other items.

My point was, and still is, that the Society has always criticized other religious organizations for building up "material treasures" on earth.

They have decried the ostentatious churches, the bingo halls, the contribution plates, the rummage sales.....whatever a church has used to raise money.

They have always stated that the sales price of the literature (and it was always a sales price) was simply to cover printing costs and to allow the Society to print additional literature. (I have since checked further on other sites, and found that they have ALWAYS pulled a hefty profit from the sale of literature).

They have always claimed that the Organization would gladly pay "Caesar's things to Caesar" without batting an eyelash. They have always said that the Organization was more interested in storing up treasures in Heaven than material riches on earth.

So.....along comes a new tax regulation that says that literature that is sold is taxable. According to what has always been spouted, the Society should have acknowledged that although it was unfortunate, the tax was indeed due to Caesar, and they should have paid it. According to their previous rhetoric, that is.

Not so. They immediately join in and object to the tax (which should be of NO import to an Organization not of this world, with no interest in material riches, and with an eye only on Jehovah's Kingdom).

Consequently, the rules are changed just enough to squirm out of the tax. Money is still asked for the literature, but in a roundabout way so that it is now classified as a donation. Profits are assured, tax is avoided. Loophole is fully utilized.

And in my opinion, it is hypocritical. I wouldn't even object at all if the Society had not for years criticized EVERY OTHER RELIGIOUS GROUP for the VERY SAME THING.

This is my issue in this thread, this has always been my issue in this thread, and you have NEVER addressed this issue.

As far as I'm concerned, JSM just happened to be the catalyst for this situation. The Society's actions towards the tax are their own, and seeing how important cash is to an organization that preached no need of such things....rather just what is sufficient to "further the Kingdom work"....disappoints me no end.

Reprehensible, no. Greedy and intent on building up "material treasures on earth", you betcha!!

Edited by - RedhorseWoman on 8 June 2000 11:24:12