A kind response to Jim Penton & Ros of Channel C

by Amazing 83 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  vinoverita

  Hi Tor,

  >>ChannelC seems to be an exclusive forum for a group of people with similar mindsets<<

  I'm not sure what you mean by "similar mindsets" given that the participants therein can't seem to agree on much of anything.

  >>and was never intended, from what I gather from the array of regular forum participants, to be open to everyone who pops in off the street such as JWD is. Hell, JWD even let me apply and receive membership.<<

  That's true. Membership was by invitation only. I was an invited guest.

  >>I seem to remember when the board was almost shut down and in all fairness to the ChannelC forum administrator, you (there were others, but you seemed to be the ringleader and seemed to have 24 hrs a day to devote to promoting Catholicism)<<

  Fairness has to be extended to all, not only the administrator, Tor. I respectfully responded to questions put to me and engaged others in discussion on the early Church. The hysteria to shut down the forum was unilateral and something not shared by most of the discussants.

  >>literally took the board over, posting veritable reams of material in each post, quoting extensively from the church fathers and Catholic literature, and this with multiple posts a day, everyday.<<

  The beauty of that kind of forum is that one cannot take the board over given the thread format found therein. If a topic is broached that is of little interest to the members, the topic ends there. (see, for example, Ros' latest installment entitled "A Christian History Lesson") For a discussion to take the board over would require the interest and contribution of other members.

  >>So much so, that nothing else was even discussed.<<

  That's an exageration.

  >>From what I remember, you were given ample time to make your point and kindly asked to refrain from insisting everyone acqueisce to your way of thinking.<<

  I don't expect that anyone acqueisce to my thinking, Tor. I simply asked for the right to present my views so long as there was interest in them - which there clearly was.

  >>In other words, you insisted on it being your way or the highway. You were asked several times to tone down the diatribes and you simply put up a blind eye to the repeated requests,<<

  Mine were not "diatribes" by any stretch of the imagination (unless you consider discussions on Christian epistemology a diatribe). Others on the site freely condemn the Churches of Christendom as blood-stained, whore-like entities. Still others express their views of Evangelicalism as fundamentalism, as steeped in patriotism and benighted. I, however, did no such thing. I focused on historic Christianity, the tradition of the Church from which we derive the New Testament canon and Christian epistemology - that is, how Christians know what they know about the faith. Do a search under "Apostolic Succession" and you can see the nature and spirit of my posts.

  >>even poking fun at the admins attempts to quell the runaway Catholicism freight train<<

  I poked fun at the admins pathetic rigging of the site so that certain Catholic words appeared more in line with her own theology. For example, if one typed in "priest" the word - after submitting the post - would appear as elder. Heck, she made it so that even the mention of my faith (i.e. Catholicism) would read as "denominationalism." So, the only one who wished to control the views of others was the admin who would simply not brook dissent to the point of actually tampering with people's words. This is hardly ethical, much less respectful of another's faith.

  >>You seemed to be like a JW elder on a roll in a judicial committee meeting, so cocksure of himself that the party under interrogation was guilty, and that by God you were going to beat it out of them till they folded.<<

  Did you and I ever share thoughts while I was a participant on Channel C?

  >>At least that was my impression from reading "some'"of your material. (Noone could have possibly read it all) ;-)<<

  That's the point, Tor. You need not have read any of it, much less all of it. That's the beauty of a forum.

  >>Of course that was some time ago and I have slept since then. I bet you never took no for an answer at the door back in your JW field service days either.<<

  I was only a Jehovah's Witness for all of a year and a half - during which time I traveled with my work. Hence, I have virtually no door-to-door experience.

  James
• 

  vinoverita

  Hi Tor,

  >>ChannelC seems to be an exclusive forum for a group of people with similar mindsets<<

  I'm not sure what you mean by "similar mindsets" given that the participants therein can't seem to agree on much of anything.

  >>and was never intended, from what I gather from the array of regular forum participants, to be open to everyone who pops in off the street such as JWD is. Hell, JWD even let me apply and receive membership.<<

  That's true. Membership was by invitation only. I was an invited guest.

  >>I seem to remember when the board was almost shut down and in all fairness to the ChannelC forum administrator, you (there were others, but you seemed to be the ringleader and seemed to have 24 hrs a day to devote to promoting Catholicism)<<

  Fairness has to be extended to all, not only the administrator, Tor. I respectfully responded to questions put to me and engaged others in discussion on the early Church. The hysteria to shut down the forum was unilateral and something not shared by most of the discussants.

  >>literally took the board over, posting veritable reams of material in each post, quoting extensively from the church fathers and Catholic literature, and this with multiple posts a day, everyday.<<

  The beauty of that kind of forum is that one cannot take the board over given the thread format found therein. If a topic is broached that is of little interest to the members, the topic ends there. (see, for example, Ros' latest installment entitled "A Christian History Lesson") For a discussion to take the board over would require the interest and contribution of other members.

  >>So much so, that nothing else was even discussed.<<

  That's an exageration.

  >>From what I remember, you were given ample time to make your point and kindly asked to refrain from insisting everyone acqueisce to your way of thinking.<<

  I don't expect that anyone acqueisce to my thinking, Tor. I simply asked for the right to present my views so long as there was interest in them - which there clearly was.

  >>In other words, you insisted on it being your way or the highway. You were asked several times to tone down the diatribes and you simply put up a blind eye to the repeated requests,<<

  Mine were not "diatribes" by any stretch of the imagination (unless you consider discussions on Christian epistemology a diatribe). Others on the site freely condemn the Churches of Christendom as blood-stained, whore-like entities. Still others express their views of Evangelicalism as fundamentalism, as steeped in patriotism and benighted. I, however, did no such thing. I focused on historic Christianity, the tradition of the Church from which we derive the New Testament canon and Christian epistemology - that is, how Christians know what they know about the faith. Do a search under "Apostolic Succession" and you can see the nature and spirit of my posts.

  >>even poking fun at the admins attempts to quell the runaway Catholicism freight train<<

  I poked fun at the admins pathetic rigging of the site so that certain Catholic words appeared more in line with her own theology. For example, if one typed in "priest" the word - after submitting the post - would appear as elder. Heck, she made it so that even the mention of my faith (i.e. Catholicism) would read as "denominationalism." So, the only one who wished to control the views of others was the admin who would simply not brook dissent to the point of actually tampering with people's words. This is hardly ethical, much less respectful of another's faith.

  >>You seemed to be like a JW elder on a roll in a judicial committee meeting, so cocksure of himself that the party under interrogation was guilty, and that by God you were going to beat it out of them till they folded.<<

  Did you and I ever share thoughts while I was a participant on Channel C?

  >>At least that was my impression from reading "some'"of your material. (Noone could have possibly read it all) ;-)<<

  That's the point, Tor. You need not have read any of it, much less all of it. That's the beauty of a forum.

  >>Of course that was some time ago and I have slept since then. I bet you never took no for an answer at the door back in your JW field service days either.<<

  I was only a Jehovah's Witness for all of a year and a half - during which time I traveled with my work. Hence, I have virtually no door-to-door experience.

  James
• 

  vinoverita

  Hi Tor,

  >>ChannelC seems to be an exclusive forum for a group of people with similar mindsets<<

  I'm not sure what you mean by "similar mindsets" given that the participants therein can't seem to agree on much of anything.

  >>and was never intended, from what I gather from the array of regular forum participants, to be open to everyone who pops in off the street such as JWD is. Hell, JWD even let me apply and receive membership.<<

  That's true. Membership was by invitation only. I was an invited guest.

  >>I seem to remember when the board was almost shut down and in all fairness to the ChannelC forum administrator, you (there were others, but you seemed to be the ringleader and seemed to have 24 hrs a day to devote to promoting Catholicism)<<

  Fairness has to be extended to all, not only the administrator, Tor. I respectfully responded to questions put to me and engaged others in discussion on the early Church. The hysteria to shut down the forum was unilateral and something not shared by most of the discussants.

  >>literally took the board over, posting veritable reams of material in each post, quoting extensively from the church fathers and Catholic literature, and this with multiple posts a day, everyday.<<

  The beauty of that kind of forum is that one cannot take the board over given the thread format found therein. If a topic is broached that is of little interest to the members, the topic ends there. (see, for example, Ros' latest installment entitled "A Christian History Lesson") For a discussion to take the board over would require the interest and contribution of other members.

  >>So much so, that nothing else was even discussed.<<

  That's an exageration.

  >>From what I remember, you were given ample time to make your point and kindly asked to refrain from insisting everyone acqueisce to your way of thinking.<<

  I don't expect that anyone acqueisce to my thinking, Tor. I simply asked for the right to present my views so long as there was interest in them - which there clearly was.

  >>In other words, you insisted on it being your way or the highway. You were asked several times to tone down the diatribes and you simply put up a blind eye to the repeated requests,<<

  Mine were not "diatribes" by any stretch of the imagination (unless you consider discussions on Christian epistemology a diatribe). Others on the site freely condemn the Churches of Christendom as blood-stained, whore-like entities. Still others express their views of Evangelicalism as fundamentalism, as steeped in patriotism and benighted. I, however, did no such thing. I focused on historic Christianity, the tradition of the Church from which we derive the New Testament canon and Christian epistemology - that is, how Christians know what they know about the faith. Do a search under "Apostolic Succession" and you can see the nature and spirit of my posts.

  >>even poking fun at the admins attempts to quell the runaway Catholicism freight train<<

  I poked fun at the admins pathetic rigging of the site so that certain Catholic words appeared more in line with her own theology. For example, if one typed in "priest" the word - after submitting the post - would appear as elder. Heck, she made it so that even the mention of my faith (i.e. Catholicism) would read as "denominationalism." So, the only one who wished to control the views of others was the admin who would simply not brook dissent to the point of actually tampering with people's words. This is hardly ethical, much less respectful of another's faith.

  >>You seemed to be like a JW elder on a roll in a judicial committee meeting, so cocksure of himself that the party under interrogation was guilty, and that by God you were going to beat it out of them till they folded.<<

  Did you and I ever share thoughts while I was a participant on Channel C?

  >>At least that was my impression from reading "some'"of your material. (Noone could have possibly read it all) ;-)<<

  That's the point, Tor. You need not have read any of it, much less all of it. That's the beauty of a forum.

  >>Of course that was some time ago and I have slept since then. I bet you never took no for an answer at the door back in your JW field service days either.<<

  I was only a Jehovah's Witness for all of a year and a half - during which time I traveled with my work. Hence, I have virtually no door-to-door experience.

  James
• 

  vinoverita

  Hi Tor,

  >>ChannelC seems to be an exclusive forum for a group of people with similar mindsets<<

  I'm not sure what you mean by "similar mindsets" given that the participants therein can't seem to agree on much of anything.

  >>and was never intended, from what I gather from the array of regular forum participants, to be open to everyone who pops in off the street such as JWD is. Hell, JWD even let me apply and receive membership.<<

  That's true. Membership was by invitation only. I was an invited guest.

  >>I seem to remember when the board was almost shut down and in all fairness to the ChannelC forum administrator, you (there were others, but you seemed to be the ringleader and seemed to have 24 hrs a day to devote to promoting Catholicism)<<

  Fairness has to be extended to all, not only the administrator, Tor. I respectfully responded to questions put to me and engaged others in discussion on the early Church. The hysteria to shut down the forum was unilateral and something not shared by most of the discussants.

  >>literally took the board over, posting veritable reams of material in each post, quoting extensively from the church fathers and Catholic literature, and this with multiple posts a day, everyday.<<

  The beauty of that kind of forum is that one cannot take the board over given the thread format found therein. If a topic is broached that is of little interest to the members, the topic ends there. (see, for example, Ros' latest installment entitled "A Christian History Lesson") For a discussion to take the board over would require the interest and contribution of other members.

  >>So much so, that nothing else was even discussed.<<

  That's an exageration.

  >>From what I remember, you were given ample time to make your point and kindly asked to refrain from insisting everyone acqueisce to your way of thinking.<<

  I don't expect that anyone acqueisce to my thinking, Tor. I simply asked for the right to present my views so long as there was interest in them - which there clearly was.

  >>In other words, you insisted on it being your way or the highway. You were asked several times to tone down the diatribes and you simply put up a blind eye to the repeated requests,<<

  Mine were not "diatribes" by any stretch of the imagination (unless you consider discussions on Christian epistemology a diatribe). Others on the site freely condemn the Churches of Christendom as blood-stained, whore-like entities. Still others express their views of Evangelicalism as fundamentalism, as steeped in patriotism and benighted. I, however, did no such thing. I focused on historic Christianity, the tradition of the Church from which we derive the New Testament canon and Christian epistemology - that is, how Christians know what they know about the faith. Do a search under "Apostolic Succession" and you can see the nature and spirit of my posts.

  >>even poking fun at the admins attempts to quell the runaway Catholicism freight train<<

  I poked fun at the admins pathetic rigging of the site so that certain Catholic words appeared more in line with her own theology. For example, if one typed in "priest" the word - after submitting the post - would appear as elder. Heck, she made it so that even the mention of my faith (i.e. Catholicism) would read as "denominationalism." So, the only one who wished to control the views of others was the admin who would simply not brook dissent to the point of actually tampering with people's words. This is hardly ethical, much less respectful of another's faith.

  >>You seemed to be like a JW elder on a roll in a judicial committee meeting, so cocksure of himself that the party under interrogation was guilty, and that by God you were going to beat it out of them till they folded.<<

  Did you and I ever share thoughts while I was a participant on Channel C?

  >>At least that was my impression from reading "some'"of your material. (Noone could have possibly read it all) ;-)<<

  That's the point, Tor. You need not have read any of it, much less all of it. That's the beauty of a forum.

  >>Of course that was some time ago and I have slept since then. I bet you never took no for an answer at the door back in your JW field service days either.<<

  I was only a Jehovah's Witness for all of a year and a half - during which time I traveled with my work. Hence, I have virtually no door-to-door experience.

  James
• 

  Amazing

  fjtoth, besty, and JeanV,

  Humor only works if there is a grain of truth in it ... there is no truth in your attempt at humor. This thread is not intended to bring CC issues here ... it is to two specific people who do not want any discussion on that forum that vehemently hate the use of the word "Catholic" or Catholic thoughts. Yet they both chose to invoke my name and James Caputo's name while he is banned and cannot defend himself on that board. They did so in public. Since they are members of this board, then it is fair game to ask them to step off of their board and talk on this one so as to avoid the problem rules.

  fjtoth:

  It is deceptive to claim that the thread is "a kind response." What is so "kind" about making the biased claim that Channel C won't listen to anything that is "respectful" and "balanced"? What is "kind" in claiming that contributors to that forum are intellectually dishonest, sarcastic, unkind, unfair and unreasonable, that they "offer little more than pent up frustrations and attacks," that they employ "a double standard," etc., etc.???

  The truth is always kind ... and I expressed it respectfully. Your claims of deception exhibit a poor understanding of the dynamics of what is going on, and an obvious bias on your part. Jim Penton himself admitted intellectual dishonesty on the part of those who attack Catholicism. The real problem is not the sarcasm, or unreasonable remarks, it is the fact that I am respecting their board policy by not discussing anything Catholic. I have not choice to find another avenue to deal with the issue.

  If you do not like it, then stay off of this thread. I see countless topics on JWD that hold no interest for me ... so I simply move on. I don't visit those threads and whine and cry and belly-ache about how I don't like those threads. So move on, and go read and comment on something that is better suited to your needs.

  Jim W.
• 

  vinoverita

  Hi A Christian,

  >>Ros rules that discussion board like the Governing Body rules Jehovah's Witnesses. With an iron hand and with no consideration for either the opinions or the feelings of anyone else>>

  I have to agree. She did, after all, even go so far as to disfellowship many of us from the site. The double standards in terms of the board's praxis are legion and derive, as I've outlined, from imprecise terms and fuzzy first principles. Hence, I honestly don't think she realizes what she's doing. I can't, therefore, impute bad motives to her.

  >>I have heard from several others that over the years Ros has treated many other people in the same rude manner, often without explanation, deleting the accounts of people with whom she has had either doctrinal or personal disagreements. So often so, in fact, that her board has now turned into a virtual spiritual ghost town with sometimes days passing without a single post being added. Some of the few people she has allowed to remain are now so afraid of offending its "sheriff" that their posts are, for the most part, lacking any interesting ("controversial") content.>>

  Supression of free discourse tends to vitiate intellectual dynamism. We've seen the same take place in the Watchtower Organization. Where freedom of speech and thought are blocked, so is creativity and genuine learning.

  >>Discussions of Catholicism are banned. Defenses of religious doctrines which Ros personally disagrees with, such as the Trinity, are banned. And the list goes on. All I can figure is that Ros is now making up big time for all those years when she, as JW woman, was not allowed to hold any position of "power." >>

  Interesting theory:>)

  James:)
• 

  quietlyleaving

  imo it is better to have no discussion, sometimes if one set of views persistently and powerfully dominating the debate.

  I remember visiting channel C on a number of occasions and to be fair I remember Roz saying that the trinty doctirne (for example) had been debated to death and that she did not want any more discussions about it. I think she made a fair point. In no way does that even remotely sound like the sort of tactics the WTS uses even if she did lock persistant evangelizers off of the board. IMO that is an over the top opinion and seems to denigrate roz unfairly. After all roz is entitled to define what she sees as fit for discussion on her board.

  my 2 cents
• 

  Carlos_Helms

  I agree, Jim. Apparently there is now some disagreement on what is meant by "kind." I would guess that the very mention of "disagreement" is perceived unkind by someone.
  
  I have been to sites where everyone agrees with everyone else (some may recall "Al's" board, "Jehovah's Judgment," dedicated entirely to hate-filled attacks by Witness "faithfuls" on members of other boards..and those - needless to say - were never permitted to respond in their own defense). That site was (is?) nothing but a back-slapping, good ol' boy orgy of hate where the circumstances, intentions and motives of others is thrown out the window in favor of an uncivil and mutually-agreed upon hyper-critical (and often obscene) judgment of others. It is a logical extension of unreasonable censorship.
  
  There is a fair amount of "I may not always be right...but I am NEVER wrong" present on all discussion boards; but public response to public criticism is almost always considered fair-play. Not to compare Caputo to Jesus; but as I recall, Jesus was quite disagreeable at times. Some no doubt felt his (rather long) criticisms were "unkind." I've seen nothing in the Caputo posts that even comes close to Jesus' animadversions. To the contrary, I see them as engaging attempts to respond to criticisms of Catholicism in a media with self-imposed limitations. Ya gotta do what ya gotta do!
  
  Peace!
  Carlos
• 

  vinoverita

  Hi Quietly Leaving,

  >>imo it is better to have no discussion, sometimes if one set of views persistently and powerfully dominating the debate>>

  A debate cannot go on endlessly with uninterested parties. The worst that can happen is that both camps will better understand each other and grow intellectually in their understanding of the issue under discussion.

  While Ros may feel that she gave me more than ample opportunity to express myself and how I came to embrace what I hold to be true, I would argue contrarily in light of a post of one of her participants, which reads:

  >>I do wonder what prompted his fanatical conversion. I have never met, spoken to, or had a conversation in any fashion with a person of any denomination who to such an extent fanatically sticks to every papal, Catholic official statement that there is. The guy is a psycholigical enigma to me. Totally.>>

  I would contend that most of the discussants didn't even give the Catholic faith a fair assessment. Nor do they know from whence I speak. Tom Cabeen, Jim Whitney and Jeff Schewhm would say as much.

  Even Ros fallaciously writes:

  >>Incidentally, the 5 years I mentioned was from the date of that email in the mid 90s to when he became a Catholic again, not to the present.>>

  The problem, though, is that I never "became a Catholic again." I was reared as a Jehovah's Witness, baptized at the age of 25, left the organization at the age of 26 1/2, spent half a decade or so in Protestant Churches and home Churches to then become acquainted with Catholicism via historical study and an opportunity to sing in the Church and see her from within.

  Hence, not even Ros knows my story accurately, much less the members of her forum. And most of the presentations of the faith on that forum are a gross perversion. That's a disservice to searching Jehovah's Witnesses and a black eye on the intellectual community found among former Jehovah's Witnesses.

  >>I remember visiting channel C on a number of occasions and to be fair I remember Roz saying that the trinty doctirne (for example) had been debated to death and that she did not want any more discussions about it. I think she made a fair point. In no way does that even remotely sound like the sort of tactics the WTS uses even if she did lock persistant evangelizers off of the board.>>

  This is fuzzy and inconsistent thinking, Quietly leaving. Why does one's discussing the Trinity (or defending it for that matter) constitute him a "persistent evangelizer" whereas one embracing a unitarian view of the nature of God (and freely expressing as much) doesn't? You don't see a double standard in that?

  <<IMO that is an over the top opinion and seems to denigrate roz unfairly. After all roz is entitled to define what she sees as fit for discussion on her board.<<

  Then she should specify what her creed is and prohibit from the forum those who do not hold to it. The imprecison in her charter makes such a creed elusive, though. She very clumsily refers to non-sensical terms such as "popular denominational beliefs" or "alternative religions" without ever defining them. It is from this unreflective starting point that tension arises.

  Furthermore, a group that can't - by their own admission - agree on much of anything (so much so that any kind of a post-JW fellowship is deemed impossible) has no right to ban others for disagreeing with their views. Especially when there is no such concrete thing as "their views."

  Peace to you,

  James:)
• 

  AGuest

  I don't believe Ros is a bigot. That is to say, I'm sure she's quite tolerant of the views of others in everyday life and respects the right of others to believe as they choose.

  While I am not sure I'd use the word "bigot"... I have to say that, unfortunately, I did not find "tolerance" to be Ros' strong suit in my interchanges with her. Downright mean, she was, at times. It was long ago and I've held no grudge, but, as I stated on another thread, people don't change. Some of them just take their "balls" and go "play" [the same games] elsewhere.

  May you all have peace!

  A slave of Christ,

  SA