Hello flipper.
Thanks for sharing your heart-warming story. Credit to you.
There’s so much of your comment that I would like to critique but it would be at the risk of being deemed contentious I'm sure.
However, I need to address these few points.
You say:-
“… I feel it’s important to get my point across here.”
It’s imperative to note that I have acknowledged your points in my previous posts. It’s the reason why I answered your question so candidly. I wanted to assure you that I see your point of view, and I even suspended my own perspective to accommodate your line of reasoning, which is why my answer was in keeping with what your question was alluding to. I could only answer in that manner if I understood your perspective.
You also say:-
“In one of your earlier posts you asked me if I practice what I preach regarding homeless people.”
It wasn’t me who quizzed you over that matter.
You are confusing me with Drearyweather, who asked you that question on page 4 of this thread. Easy mistake to make.
You make the following protest:-
“Also, you asked me 5 questions to answer. My friend, I’m not your pupil attending a class in school where I have to answer your hypothetical questions. Jeez. Are you a teacher or something ?”
That’s a bit of a double standard considering in your previous post you say:-
“Let me ask you THIS question…”
… and then go on to question me about the Jehovah’s Witnesses in that photograph. Why can you ask me questions and I can’t do likewise?
It’s interesting to note that I was more than happy to answer your “hypothetical” question. It’s disappointing you couldn’t return the compliment.
I’ll finish with this comment of yours:-
“… Take the blinders off of our eyes and see the circumstances of people with REALITY.”
I suppose this is all that I am suggesting to you regarding the JWs in that photo. There is a high probability that your presupposition is correct. However, neither of us know the REALITY… only the JWs themselves and the homeless person. We are not in a position to see what the reality is with ‘our eyes’.
This means that any firm judgement would be made with our ‘blinders’ of bias over our eyes.
It’s much more prudent to ‘err on the side of caution’, similar to secular judicial systems. When requesting a verdict, a judge will ask the jury if the accused is either GUILTY or NOT GUILTY. Juries are not asked to determine INNOCENCE… and for good reason.
Just because someone is found ‘not guilty’, it doesn’t mean that they are innocent. It just means that there is not sufficient evidence to bring about a conviction… that the burden of proof has not been met. This means that only people that are KNOWN to be guilty receive judgement. It awards people the “benefit of the doubt”, innocent until PROVEN guilty.
Contrast secular judicial systems with the judicial hearings of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Many times they will base their verdict on what they feel, as well as arbitrary evidence. They also pass verdicts based on presuppositions, especially when it comes to cases of apostasy, where people are considered guilty until proved innocent. As a former elder, you will be all too aware of this. There have been many cases where they will disfellowship someone on evidence that is ‘more probable than not’ and don’t allow people (to quote you) “way too much the benefit of the doubt”. As a result injustice is rife.
Out of the two judicial systems, the former is a much more ethical way to adjudicate. It would be reprehensible to pass judgement using the Watchtower’s judicial methods… particularly if we ex-JWs are judging individual Jehovah’s Witnesses (like those in this photograph). To do so would be hypocritical.
You take care Mr flipper.