Trolling Apologist vs. Informed Apostate - WHO IS MORE LIKELY TO CHANGE?

by BizzyBee 122 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Frank75

  Rosalee -

  Actually, Frank, I happen to be one.

  The last thing I'd do is post names on any site.

  You talk big .. post your real name :)

  Rosalee: The last thing you would do is post names? How convenient for you! You realize that undermines your position substantially. Actually I did leave the options wide open to substantiate your claim. If you know another way, then by all means.....!

  So seriously, quit playing around and tell us your name and where you are from. Or if you are stuck on your anonymity you could tell us which Watchtower magazine your life story is going to be featured in because for the WT this is a scoop of the century, "Apostate convinced of the error of her ways returns to Jehobah's Witless Org"!

  Kinda catchy!

  And what harm would there be in posting the names of "these others"? Since you are anonymous here, no one would know it was you. Oh yeah right I forgot, you are the one Witless in 6,000,000 who is principled not to do that, The same principles that are disregarded to come to our apostate website! Yeah right!

  So you were DF'd for being an apostate and then after being out for some time went back to the elders, repented and were reinstated? And what exactly was your apostasy?

  Hello Rosalee, I don't believe you are a returned apostate, you are a JW troll.

  Just being Frank!.

  My name is Rob Hameny. That wasn't hard was it?

  PM me and I will give you my email address. That way you can give my email to "them" and surely one of "them" would love to help straighten me out and get me on the path again like they are. No?

  I was a WitLess for 40 years "sista", and in that time I saw every type of person paraded across the platform to create the impression that only JW's had the teachings that could turn people around. Drug addicts, Prostitutes, Lesbians, Atheists, Agnostics, evolutionists, actors, musicians, Homosexuals, mafioso, boxers, soldiers, Wicca, and a hells angel (who was actually raised a witness when I questioned him after he gave his "experience") but I have never seen or heard of an experience of a wayward apostate who had recovered and come back to the fold.

  Likewise, searching as you may through 65 years of watchtower misinformation on the Watchtower Library CD there is not one experience of such contrition that I can find.

  If you had "come back" or anyone else had for that matter they would be paraded around in front of every circuit to thwart any would-be apostates.

  You know it and so do the rest of us. YOU ARE NOT BEING AT ALL TRUTHFUL!

  The door of enlightenment goes only one way - OUT! (even for a troll)

  Frank75
• 

  Frank75

  jgnat:

  you are not an apostate. from what I've read you were never a dedicated, baptized Witness of Jehovah.

  Rosalee:

  You show here that you do not even know what your own religion's rules are on the matter.

  jgnat would actually still be considered an apostate by definition and the congregation told to avoid her. Your talking to her may not be a cause for DF'ing, but at least a good scolding in the back room. Just because she is not baptised would only mean she can't be formally df'd. However the Watchtower has devised lots of ways to vilify their enemies.

  Apostasy includesaction taken against true worship of Jehovah or his established order among his dedicated people KS pg 94

  But how could you know, that section is found only in the secret elders KS book. You would be surprised what is found in there. I know you can read, so i am not condescending here, you would have to get/have a copy though. Want one? I am selling mine on eBay in the not too distant future!

  On the other hand, talking to me, jgnat and most everyone else on this site makes you an apostate too. Your associating with us makes you a "sharer in our wicked works". No?

  John counsels against speaking to or associating with a disfellowshipped or disassociated person so as not to be "a sharer in his wicked works." (2 John 11 ) Scriptural and historical guidelines on how to view disfellowshipped and disassociated persons are found in The Watchtower, September 15, 1981, pages 20-31.

  We need to be especially cautious about contact with disfellowshipped persons who have apostatized and those who continue in their immoral conduct. (Titus 3: 10, 11; 1. John 2:19)

  These can contaminate the congregation like gangrene. (2. Tim 2:16-18)

  Normally, a close relative would not be disfellowshipped for associating with a disfellowshipped person unless there is spiritual association or an effort made to justify or excuse the wrongful course. KS pg 103

  So basically you are no different than any of us. I disagree with 607 and 1914, the great crowd teaching, not partaking emblems, judicial tribunals, shunning, blood components policy (etc etc) and you disagree with the rules about associating with apostates.

  You are so toasted if you get caught here.

  Good luck (oops forgot you're not allowed to do that are you? Oh well who will know!)

  Frank75
• 

  Frank75

  For what it's worth, I agree with jgnat. You do not have to reveal anything about yourself and to do so would most likely cause you great harm. I think it takes a lot of guts to be willing to post here.

  Big Tex and jgnat:

  The whole "expose yourself" routine is not meant to be taken seriously by Rosalee and especially you two. She is a brainwashed JW troll, not an idiot. She knows full well what will happen if she reveals herself.

  That was never the point of what I wrote. Nor was it the point when AlanF shot the same challenge at me over 10 years ago.

  To do so would require a lack of fear and some honesty, which she is not showing so no need to be riding in on white chargers for her.

  Frank75
• 

  Frank75
• 

  BizzyBee

  Bizzy Bee:

  They say persistance pays! Sometimes you may have to ask me things several times :)

  Me, too!

  The Beth Sarim history isn't the big deal you would like to project. I don't have to ask my PO or CO or anyone else. I am able to read and digest actual words and sentences.

  Okay, what is your take on Beth Sarim? Because I can assure you it was a very big deal at the time. My mother lived through it. I only asked it that way because:

  1. You seem new to the WTS.
  2. The history of Beth Sarim has been basically expunged - if you don't know it from personal experience, you only know the 'sanitized' version. Wondering about your knowledge of either version.......?

  Now maybe you'd like to throw in the UN debacle? DA and DF policies? Shunning?

  Nope. We can stick to the one topic for the time being.

  Please do not trivialize my comments or try to condecend to me again. Thank you :)

  Sorry if it seemed I was condescending to you - as I said above, you seem relatively new, so I thought you might not be up to speed on the true history of Beth Sarim, since the WTS has changed all printed versions of this embarassing part of their history for about the last 50 years, give or take. No offense. My point is that, as God's mouthpiece, they should answer to all claims they have made, past and present.

  Bottom line, Rosalee: What do you make of it? BTW: Third request.
• 

  Arthur

  When they see the response of an active JW shoot down the false teachings seen here, they are reassured that they have the truth and leave this site.

  The only doctrine that I have seen a JW adequately debate is the trinity doctrine. But in terms of the consequential Watchtower teachings (on which the organizational authority rests), JW arguments have been seriously wanting.

  Just one example is the doctrine of the Faithful and Discreet Slave Class. I have seen this doctrine thoroughly debunked on this forum time and time again. This core doctrine on which the power of the Governing Body ultimately rests has been shown to be nothing more than a pipe dream. A Faithful Slave "Class" has never existed, but was merely used as the cloak under which a president and board of directors (now, governing body) controlled it's membership without overtly calling attention to themselves.
• 

  slimboyfat

  I am not a trolling apologist, and I resent the implication.

  Slim
• 

  jgnat

  Frank75, I firmly disagree with you on several points. First of all, a poster has no obligation to reveal their real identity on the boards. It is plain enough to reply to rosalee that there is no way to back up her claims with hard evidence. We know that.

  jgnat would actually still be considered an apostate by definition and the congregation told to avoid her. Your talking to her may not be a cause for DF'ing, but at least a good scolding in the back room. Just because she is not baptised would only mean she can't be formally df'd. However the Watchtower has devised lots of ways to vilify their enemies.

  No I wouldn't because I am not even a study.
• 

  Frank75

  Frank75, I firmly disagree with you on several points. First of all, a poster has no obligation to reveal their real identity on the boards. It is plain enough to reply to rosalee that there is no way to back up her claims with hard evidence. We know that.

  Your disagreement is your business. The validity of your statements is another. I have nothing to fear by revealing my name and I do not claim to be part of "gods spirit directed loving organization". If all that challenge does is make Rosalee realize what I did so many years ago, the point is well served and does not have to be lamented by you and Big Tex.

  So tell me what fear should Rosalee have. At the very least she could tell who these recovered apostates are. I am keen to know how exactly you would argue that revealing their names would be harmful to her first of all or them second of all.

  If you would put the effort into reading what i wrote with comprehension you would see that all that was said was stated in hyperbole as i do not expect her to reveal herself any more than you do and mostly I do not expect her to reveal the names of these others, because the "others" DO NOT EXIST for the reasons I point out. If apostates came back to the Watchtower then the WT would have a hay day with it! This is a fantasy Rosalee has made up to help her with her dissociative mental state.

  jgnat would actually still be considered an apostate by definition and the congregation told to avoid her. Your talking to her may not be a cause for DF'ing, but at least a good scolding in the back room. Just because she is not baptised would only mean she can't be formally df'd. However the Watchtower has devised lots of ways to vilify their enemies.

  No I wouldn't because I am not even a study

  I like your style, claiming to not be baptised and now not even studying, but you presume to counsel me on how you are considered by a religion I was a part of for 40 years.

  My response again to you is, Yes you would be considered an apostate and a threat, study or not. Did you even read what the KS book says?

  I have not spent a lot of time reading your posts. Generally i think you are quite negative about the Watchtower (what rational person could be otherwise?). Regardless of any of that your presence on the site as an active participant makes you as guilty of apostasy as any who are here. It is simply how it works in the Watchtower world.

  Same with Rosalee. Her being here and so called "defending" the dubs is still considered disobedient, even rebellious. She would be DF'd for being here not because she has done anything wrong per se, but merely because she is now considered a first a "sharer" in our apostasy and secondly a threat.

  I know a couple who were df'd for the husband simply asking about the UN membership of the Watchtower. The wife had nothing to do with it. Later when another witness in the same hall demanded to know why the first couple was df'd, he was summoned, questioned and df'd as well. The WT is paranoid about anything that exposes them.

  I know another man who DA's himself. and the elders asked the wife what she was going to do. She said she wanted to "stay in the truth". After an extended illness soon after she got a phone call (message on the answering machine) stating that the elders had not seen her at the meetings for a while so they were assuming she had taken a stand with her husband and so were DA'ing if she did not call them back and assure them she was still loyal!. With good sense the woman told them to f off!

  You can delude yourselves into thinking whatever you want. Elders are simply unprepared and not interested in helping people who do not follow the rules, let alone fraternise with apostates.

  Getting rid of you and Rosalee is no more difficult for them than swatting a fly.

  You are still an apostate (in JW terms which is what I was talking about) baptized or not.

  Sweetie! Try not to be so melodramatic about what I posted.

  Frank75
• 

  Big Tex

  To do so would require a lack of fear and some honesty, which she is not showing so no need to be riding in on white chargers for her.

  There are many ex-Witness who post on this board who chose not to reveal any personal information because of the potential repercussions from that sect.

  I refuse to sit in judgment on someone just because they don't want to post personal information on the Internet. If you do, so be it; no skin off my nose.

  I've never agreed with getting up in someone's face in order to "help" them. If Alan helped you, then I'm glad. Great. But that approach doesn't work for everyone. Frankly I think using reasoned, logical responses in threads exposes their mindset for what it is and anyone lurking can read and see. Now what they do with it, I can't control. But at least I'm treating that Witness the way I'd want to be talked to if I had the guts to post here (which as an active Witness I doubt I would have posted here).

  But I'm sorry taunting someone for not posting their name is just not right. So go ahead and have a go at me now. I'm sure it'll make you feel better.

  Chris