Dearest JamesThomas...

by AGuest 68 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

AGuest

May you have peace!
Unfortunately, I believe you err in your assessment of me, but I understand why (and no, I did not state that with "tone," but only with truth).
First, I have absolutely nothing to hide. Ask anyone here. I have posted a good deal of my "private" information on this forum, including my name, address, phone number... and photo. There are many here who know me, not just by my posts, but personally, face to face. There are many who have heard my voice via telephone. There are those I have helped and those who have helped me. You would be shocked to know whom here I call "brother/sister," those who I have affection for and have affection for me.
Second, I did not violate any forum "rule," so far as I know what those rules are (and as they are stated on this forum).
Third, I am not sure I violated James Thomas' "privacy," as much as he may have violated mine: I am used to people asking if they may PM for the frist time, and I them. That was the "custom" when I began coming here, some years ago, and if that "custom" changed, then the error is mine for not keeping up and I apologize. But again, I did ask permission to respond publicly.
Finally, the answer to your question "do you not know the answer is negative until STATED otherwise?" is no, and that, actually, unless something is stated to contradict or otherwise negate the question, silence... is considered an affirmation.
Again, I bid you peace!
A slave of Christ,
SJ
PoppyR

I'm sure some of what Aguest says is interesting, but it's Sunday morning, I have a slight hangover and really why use a thousand words when one will do??
I thought this discussion was going to be good to read, but ended up scrolling down huge pages of Aguests commentary because it's just too WORDY!! You have probably reached very few people because they haven't got the time or energy to wade through all the flowery born again insincere words to get to what is actually being said.
Also this is a classic case of someone who MUST have the last word..lol. Because every time someone has replied Aguest has cut and pasted and justified and will carry on doing it until we are all asleep or dead from boredom and then presume they have won because nobody has anything to say, but in fact we will have merely closed the window and gone back to see if there is anything in active topics!
Poppy
AuldSoul

But again, I did ask permission to respond publicly.

You did not receive an answer. That you felt the need to ask proves without question that you deemed it necessary to do so.
You have no control over what someone else chooses to do in their life. If James Thomas wishes to take a break from the forum for six months, he is not required to inform anyone of that choice.
And you surmise correctly that there is no need to ask permission before PM'ing someone, and while it may have been custom when you first started posting here I can hardly imagine that it was a requirement.
A non-response to a request for permission to do a thing does NOT constitute permission. It is a non-response. Let me put the problem in more severe terms which you might grasp more easily.
May I have your hand in marriage? May I borrow your car indefinitely? May I use your credit card number to purchase a few things? I hope I can trust that even if you don't read this for some days your answer would be no. However, I did ask, so according to your stated understanding of etiquette now I should proceed having assumed you gave permission.
Your pretense that you understand the world to work this way borders on the absurd.
Especially in view of the fact that your post acknowledges the possibility that your action may have violated privacy and that you were thinking through the absence of permission, your most recent explanation of your world view is troubling and smacks of mental challenges that you might need to get professional help in resolving. To refresh your apparently overtaxed brain I offer the following excerpt from the first paragraph on this thread:
I answered your IM with the request to respond publicly to your questions, and in light of the fact that you have neither granted nor denied me that request, I will take your silence as permission (or, at least, a lack of objection) and respond as set forth below. If, by some chance, I offend your sense of privacy, I sincerely apologize, for that is not my intention at all; rather, I feel your questions too important to go unanswered, as well as obscured from the eys of others who might be interested.
I wonder if you counted the cost. Your self-interest in what you considered to be important to reveal might not be worth the loss in the aftermath. In my opinion, you would have been better served by making sure you had no reason to apologize. You obviously knew the potential for offending sense of privacy was present, otherwise you would not have apologized for that potential before it became reality.
Did you know that "the eys of others" might be offended strictly on principle? Your "defense" of yourself is rife with disingenuity and double-talk, in my opinion.
You would be shocked to know whom here I call "brother/sister," those who I have affection for and have affection for me.
Nah. You would be surprised how little surprises me. I came from a cult full of people who called each other "brother/sister," heck, my sisters called me their brother once upon a time in the not too distant past, so that tidbit means less than nothing to me. I seek out friends who are closer than a sibling, friends for when there is distress.
I am pleased that you have an interchange of affection and encouragement among many and diverse people. That is very healthy. I can safely say that until I see something other than what I've seen so far, I won't be part of that interchange. That being the case, I do wish you would knock the dust off your feet and stop wishing me peace. It isn't that I reject peace, it is that you inspire anything but peace in me. The incongruity of a source of discord continually wishing peace on me rankles.
AuldSoul
AGuest

May you have peace!
You ask:
if it was revealed to [me] as Truth, would [I] cut [my] babies arms off or drown them in a bathtub?
Sigh! As a mother of two whom I dearly love, I will answer your question first, in the manner, you intend it and say, of course not.
I will answer it, secondly, however, with TRUTH... and say that such could never happen. My Lord would never make such a request (to cut off the limbs of or drown a child), for there is no purpose to it, no benefit. God is love, dear sf, and cutting off babies arms or drowning them is NOT from love. And those who do such heinous acts and then say God "told" them to do so are either murderous liars... or have turned themselves over to the Adversary to do his works.
I have never even raised my voice at my children, ages 28 and 24. I have never had to. My Lord taught me love, peace and mildness when dealing with them, which the case down to this day. And they both speak to me in the same way (well, the girl gets a little "froggy" from time to time, but she knows better than to "leap" - LOL!)
Don't let the darkness of this world play such games with you, dear sf.
Now, to answer what some others might ask, along the same vein:
If God asked me to sacrifice one or both of my children on His behalf, would I do it? Yes, I would attempt it. Indeed, I once did so, although perhaps not in the way you might think. I will tell you how:
When I was in the "organization," my son took very ill. To the point where the night after his CT scan results came back, his doctor visited me in the room, personally... at 11pm... to tell me to start preparing funeral arrangements. Seriously. The diagnosis? An abdomen full of cancer. I quote, "full of cancer." Apparently, he had a mass 8 inches by 4 inches by an inch thick. Needless to say, "they" wanted to do surgery to remove as much of it right away… and, of course, they wanted to administer blood while doing so ("Cancer is very bloody surgery, Mrs. Johnson!).
Now, personally, I had no problem with my son having blood: I did not want him to die and my Lord had already revealed to me that since no man has greater love than to give his life on behalf of his friends… and the life is in the blood… who can say they love a friend and yet withhold their own blood from that person? So, I knew then that the WTBS was in error on that one (as they had been with vaccinations, transplants, etc. Indeed, because of ths, I have checked the "organ donor" box for my driver's license. How can I say I "love" my neighbor, but won't give him a kidney? I "love" my enemy, but won't leave him my cornea's which I can't use anymore?)
HOWEVER, I also knew that by allowing my son to have blood, I could seriously STUMBLE those who were watching (oh, yes, folks were at the hospital 'round the clock; for support, yet, AND to make sure he wasn't given blood… that we didn't ALLOW them to give it to him). What to do? Stumble several congregations of people? Or let my son die?
Truly, the decision wasn't that hard: I would give my son. Why? Because I would give my life… and he was my life. I could give him up so that those other people would not be stumbled. So, I took the matter to my Father and said, "I entrust his flesh… and his spirit… to You." I told my son, and rather than freak out, he agreed with me. He said that even if I had said yes to blood, he wouldn't have been able to take it, because he wouldn't have been able to look the "friends" in the face afterward. He was 10 years old.
So, what happened? I got a call from my "someone" in my insurance company who said that "someone" had called them… and that a court order was being sought to take my son into custody so that the hospital could operate and administer blood. I was told not to worry, that everything would be "fine." Did I worry? Of course, I worried! I didn't know who... or what... or when!
Some hours later (about 5 hours later, with my son wasting away every minute), I heard a ruckus outside the hospital room: when I looked out the door, a doctor was coming down the hall with a court order in his hand. When I looked the other way, however, I saw two air nurses wheeling a gurney toward me and calling out my son's name. When they reached me (at the same time as the doctor!), they said they had been sent by the insurance company, who had located a doctor over 600 miles away who would do the surgery without blood. I had NO knowledge that any of this was going on. I was ready to let my baby go.
The doctor did not want to discharge him to these nurses, however, and was quite angry and adamant about enforcing the court order; praise JAH, another doctor reasoned with him, and in a matter of minutes my son and I were in an ambulance on the way to the airport where a little tiny airplane was waiting to fly us away.
When we arrived at the second hospital, my son was too weak for surgery, so they let him rest; the next day, however, his fever shot to 106.1and he went into convulsions and cardiac arrest. Tthe ICU nurses were sending out "code blues," and such all over the place! It was truly weird. Truly. Seeing ICU nurses get scared and lose it...
To make a long story short, they rushed my son into surgery... BUT... he did not have blood… and did not have cancer. And no one was "stumbled." He did not die, and he is just now starting to get colds again, having not been sick since he was 10 years old. As I said, he is 24.
So, sf, if God asked me, would I sacrifice my child? Yes, I would. Without hesitation. Perhaps even for you, dear one, depending on the circumstances. People "sacrifice" their children all the time by sending them to war, even if they don't believe in the particular cause. Why would I not do so if I believed in the cause? I would do so, because I don't fear losing my child forever, but only temporarily. Why? Because I know that this life is not all there is, that we are NOT only carnal, flesh… but SPIRIT. And why the flesh will die, must die… the spirit does not.
I hope that answered your question, dear sf (and Auld, here is a little bit more personal and private information).
Oh, and yes, I know Aaron. He is my brother in Christ.
I bid you the greatest of peace!
Your servant and a slave of Christ,
SJ
AGuest

and right now, those who were offended are far outnumbered by those who were not. May you have peace!
True, those who were offended responded publicly, so it may appear that they are more. The truth is, there are many folks here who do more observing than posting. But they let me know they're there, which is why I usually address my posts to them (the Household of God). Not as many are offended by my service as you would like to presume.
Dear Auld, I would like to make suggestion to you... and others for whom this might apply... and I do so with the greatest love and wish for peace between us:
I do not obscure my posts. I do not water down my message(s). I will not lie to you, or state things to tickle your ears. And I do not "run with the herd." Most often, I post what my Lord directs me to, for the benefit of his Household. I disclose that from the beginning by stating who my posts are to... and who the message is from. Most times. On occasions, I go off on my own tangent, which, from time to time, gets me in trouble.
This particular matter started because I made a post to a particular group of people, whom I addressed directly. Indeed, I named them: "The Household of God that Israel and all who go with." Now, some, who do not profess to be of that group, took it upon themselves to read... and respond...to the post. Yet, I did not say, "Hey, this wasn't for you, I wasn't addressing you, etc." but instead responded to what was next addressed to me. Publicly, personally and/or privately.
The suggestion I would like to make, then, to you... and such others for whom this might apply... is that if you don't like what I post, don't like how I post, don't like what I say, don't like how I say it... it seems to ME that the WISE thing to do would to NOT OPEN MY POSTS. I mean, don't even bother to look at them. That way... you won't get offended over something that may not have been intended for you in the first place. For if someone posted "to the Household of Krishna..." I can choose to read the post, or choose not to. If I do, however, I don't think I am justified in becoming angry, offended, or what have you because they believe something different than I do. I chose to go down that road; I was not invited.
I do not hide my posts, so you all should know it's me. If, then, you know it's me... know what subject(s) I will most probably post on... know my "style" of posting... know my greeting and my closing... and know that I am going to give the glory to God and Christ... why then do you still open them... and then complain once you do? I don't guide your fingers; I don't control your mouse. I don't stick toothpicks in your eyelids and force you to read what you do not wish to.
Indeed, I am not the one who's on the "ego" trips, here; I am merely a servant. Rather, it is those whose egos believe I exclude them by the contents of my posts - but who don't like being excluded - and yet, do not want to be included. What do they want? Truly, even they don't know.
My peace remains, and I remain...
A slave of Christ,
SJ
AuldSoul

Indeed, because of ths, I have checked the "organ donor" box for my driver's license. How can I say I "love" my neighbor, but won't give him a kidney? I "love" my enemy, but won't leave him my cornea's which I can't use anymore?)

Shelby, on this our reasoning is identical. I'm not big on flowery speech, the "showiness" is off-putting in my opinion, but I think at the root of it all we agree on an awful lot of things.
I don't believe deep respect for those with whom you differ is one of the things we share in common. You say the right words, but something about your methods tells a different story.
I think you wanted to show everyone your answers to James Thomas' questions, and the only way you could do so with readers knowing you were answering James Thomas' questions was with a prologue giving a flowery little speech about your specious reasoning that ultimately only justified your desire to answer his questions publicly—on the corner of the square, in the marketplaces, etc. You even said you wanted to answer before the eyes of others. You could have answered the exact same questions the exact same way by Private Message. The only difference—which you felt a need to justify and preemptively apologize for—was that you wanted to answer publicly.
You put yourself and your own desires ahead of James Thomas, you didn't accord James Thomas respect in this matter. In my opinion, you defend that lack of respect with rather flimsy arguments.
That is what I have taken from the exchange. If that isn't the impression you wished to communicate, perhaps a reexamination is in order.
AuldSoul
AuldSoul

This particular matter started because I made a post to a particular group of people, whom I addressed directly. Indeed, I named them: "The Household of God that Israel and all who go with." Now, some, who do not profess to be of that group, took it upon themselves to read... and respond...to the post. Yet, I did not say, "Hey, this wasn't for you, I wasn't addressing you, etc." but instead responded to what was next addressed to me. Publicly, personally and/or privately.

Shelby,
You continue to reveal misunderstandings of the nature of this place. This is a discussion forum, not a pulpit. Whatever you say in public here will be challenged, questioned, dissected, appreciated, booed, stomped on, tossed aside, hugged and cherished, polished up, and spat upon. It doesn't matter who you address a post to, any registered member may respond within the guidelines for posting.
If you had specific people you needed to address that is what Private/Personal Messages and email addresses are for.
If someone responds privately to something you post publicly, then they obviously intend their private communication to be private. That basic concept of propriety seems to completely elude you. You may have felt otherwise, but this insufficiency comes from some other source than Holy Spirit.
AuldSoul
AGuest

Shelby, You continue to reveal misunderstandings of the nature of this place.
Ummm... dear Auld, I think it is you who misunderstand its "nature."
This is a discussion forum, not a pulpit. Whatever you say in public here will be challenged, questioned, dissected, appreciated, booed, stomped on, tossed aside, hugged and cherished, polished up, and spat upon.
Indeed!
It doesn't matter who you address a post to, any registered member may respond within the guidelines for posting.
My point had nothing to do with who "may" respond, dear Auld...
If you had specific people you needed to address that is what Private/Personal Messages and email addresses are for.
Again, I think you missed my point. I have NO problem with anyone responding to my posts. I just find it... ummmmm... "interesting"... that people KNOW what the contents and style most likely are... yet, do not have to "subject" themselves to it... but do... and then cry "Foul!" There are people who go places on this forum that I just can't go... or don't want to. So... I don't. I am free-willed of majority age.
If someone responds privately to something you post publicly, then they obviously intend their private communication to be private.
Indeed. And so, if one wants to make it public, one should ask. I asked:
"I would like to ask why you posed your questions here, and ask if you would mind if I responded publicly? I have nothing to be ashamed of, nothing to hide; however, I do not want to disrespect your privacy. Let me know? Thanks!"
And I recevied no response. Now, you can fault me for moving fast (which I often do; life's too short!), but that's pretty much it, at least with regard to this matter.
That basic concept of propriety seems to completely elude you.
No, it does not. You... and others... just didn't have the whole truth about the matter. I don't know James Thomas, but I do know that he has responded on several occasions to my posts... and he had enough time to post more than 10 questions that he wanted responses to (or wanted me to believe he did). I
And please know that I did not post my responses publicly because I wanted people to see the answers... those who know me KNOW what I would answer. I thought it was the questions that were important, actually, just as I stated: "I feel your questions too important to go unanswered, as well as obscured from the eys of others who might be interested."
You may have felt otherwise, but this insufficiency comes from some other source than Holy Spirit.
First, I wish t commend you for believing that there even IS [a] Holy Spirit. It is that Spirit that guides me, dear Auld, and speaks to me. Does that mean I am beyond error? No, it does not. I have never made such a claim. However, HERE...I think you and some folks are making all kinds of assumptions, from the "nature" of this forum, to the "nature" of Shelby... to the "nature" of God... that are inaccurate. I am sorry if that is hard to receive; however, if because I tell you the truth I am no longer your friend... then it will have to be as it was with the WT folks: a choice you are making. I will always love and accept you, even if I don't agree with you. My love will never fail.
However, just as it was with them, I cannot let your.... ummmm... "disappointment" in me... that I don't believe as you do or see things as you do... preclude me from speaking the truth... as I know it to be... whether you hear... or refrain.
Again, I bid you the greatest of love and peace, and I am...
Your servant and a slave of Christ, to time indefinite.
trevor

Its Sunday and I have returned from a great Saturday night out and just checked the board. I enjoyed the sensible points made by PoppyR & OldSoul
But - I see AGuest is still droning on in an exercise of self justification. Pages of noisy drivel and self congratulatory hand clapping. Ego driven and self opinionated, special chosen and on a mission, while hiding under the guise of a modest slave!
Amongst the noise and discord remains the dignified silence of James Thomas, broken occasionally by words of kindness, without malice. Still attempting to emphasise the beauty of silence and contemplation.
AGuest - Shelby - you could learn so much from a man like that.
AuldSoul

Indeed. And so, if one wants to make it public, one should ask.

Then, really, your only error was assuming you were entitled to a response to your request.
One should not simply ask, one should wait for an answer. To do otherwise is to risk violating privacy, which you acknowledged as a possibility and whic I perceived your presumptuous action as whether James Thoms perceived it that way or not.
Now, you can fault me for moving fast (which I often do; life's too short!), but that's pretty much it, at least with regard to this matter.
Thank you for your unrequested and unneeded permission to do so. I already have faulted your for moving too fast. You denied you were at fault for moving too fast. You moved so fast that you disregarded propriety and revealed the contents of a personal and private message without permission. That is what I have been faulting you for from the beginning of this discussion. You presumed the answer was yes and acted without permission. Silence is NOT an affirmative answer.
You assumed there was no objection without any grounds for your assumption whatsoever. Unwarranted assumption is called presumption.
And please know that did not post my responses publicly because I wanted people to see the answers... those who know me KNOW what I would answer.
Oh, I didn't think you posted your answers for those who know you. Of course they would know your answers. But you posted his private questions and your answers PUBLICLY for somebody to see. You wanted it aired before the eyes of those who might be interested. Surely you weren't planning to bore those who know you with your predictable responses.
So who did you want to see your answers? Wouldn't that be for those who don't know what you would answer? If not, then why did you feel compelled to (1) answer at all or (2) reveal and uncover the private matter of your fellowman in the answering?
You ask me to "please know" that you did not post your responses publicly because you wanted people to see the answers?
Shelby, dear, that's just it. I don't know you. You are creating brand new first impressions with me. I can only go by what you show, and I see absolutely no reason for you having publicly posted your responses to the contents of a private message other than to (1) shine a spotlight on yourself through your answers, (2) diminish the light of James Thomas in relative comparison to your own light, or (3) a mix of the two.
I leaned toward the third option in my initial assessment (which I took time developing), and none of your denials and justifications has swayed that first impression yet.
I'll happily share a scenario in which I would not have formed that conclusion. Every one of the points you made could have been worded in such a way that they answered James Thomas' questions without posting one sentence from his Private Message to you. It could have just been a post, without the counterpoint of question you were asked in private and without naming James Thomas as a target of the post.
Obviously, if you had answered his questions by PM you wouldn't have affected my impression of you positively or negatively.
You say you are a servant, but you talk like an awfully exalted servant. You even call yourself my servant, but you give the lie to it in deed. You aren't my servant. Due to your generally pious and patronizing wording, I have a very difficult time believing you consider me (or James Thomas or anyone else besides God) to be superior to you.
For instance, a servant never presumes they have permission when they ask it from whom they serve. The idea is laughable. If they get no answer, they might at most ask again. Yet, you assert it is your custom to presume permission after you have asked for it. If you betray traits of a master, how will you convince people of your stature as a humble servant?
Do you see why these different faces are troubling to me? You have nothing to hide, and yet you claim the visage of a humble servant at a whim and cast it aside just as quickly to assume the imperious form of the Lady of the Manor. The truth is, you are neither and both masks sit uncomfortably on you. The truth is, you want to be as you profess to be. You are greater than the masks, but you don't believe you wear them so I can't reasonably expect you to shed them.
AuldSoul

Dearest JamesThomas...

Share this