Preacher Jimmy Swaggart and JW Lawyers

by waiting 99 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • RedhorseWoman
    RedhorseWoman

    Funny, I don't remember the finger-pointing having ANYTHING to do with individuals, but rather the Catholic Church as a whole.

    And don't try to say that no individuals benefit from the Society's wealth, because, whether it is directly or indirectly, they do. Free housing, limousines, first-class airline travel, 5-star hotels.....etc.

    As far as standards are concerned.....well, that seems to fit perfectly well. The Society didn't meet the standards laid out, so they cried "foul".
    Then the modus operandi was changed....sort of....to fit within the standard, although in actuality, nothing changed....just the semantics.

    There hasn't been as much criticism of other religions lately (since the WTBTS has gotten richer and more like the religions it once berated), but I remember the scathing attacks well. The Catholic Church wasn't the only entity attacked, but was the most popular one.

    It's the pot calling the kettle black, and I find it to be ludicrous.

  • Seven
    Seven

    Rhw, You've got mail. You may find it interesting.

  • Friend
    Friend

    RedhorseWoman

    I have no concern about your personal views. If you are happy then I am glad for you. But if you for one minute think you have addressed each of the many relevant questions I have asked of you on this thread then you have deluded yourself. One after the other you have ignored critical questions that can only be resolved with conclusions other than what you have decided.

    If you want to go back and respond to each of those questions asked then I can pursue this discussion. Otherwise I cannot continue offering alternate considerations for you. I just don’t have the time for that.

    Your
    Friend

  • RedhorseWoman
    RedhorseWoman

    Dear Friend,

    I have noticed that whenever I have asked for specific responses from you, you have then turned around and asked questions of me rather than responding to what I have posted.

    And, in fact, I have acknowledged your questions. However, your questions seem to me to tend toward the nitpicking aspects of the discussion where only a "yes" or "no" is the appropriate answer rather than examining the whole situation.

    As Frenchy said, "JW's have a unique slant on words". I agree with this statement, and might I say, Friend, you employ this strategy very well.

    I am not surprised, I've gotten used to the shifting of subject matter.....goes with the territory, I guess.

  • Seven
    Seven

    Friend, Please do not take offense in what I am about to say. I can only imagine how irritating it
    is for you to have to deal with this off topic post. I have had the pleasure of many a debate during my life with a Friendclone-my Father. Out of frustration I would interrupt him in mid-sentence and exclaim, "Daddy, enough! Please talk tome, not downto me! I can benefit more from your wisdom without all the condesending remarks." The similarities between the two of you are startling. When you stated that: "I just don't have the time for that," it was like being in the same room with my Dad-the Zen Master of put down. He could have had such a positive effect on the lives of those he came in contact with if he had only toned it down some. Naaaaaa. I think he derived too much pleasure from pissing people off. My point: Don't be like my Dad-use your skills to make a difference in someone's life.

    7

  • Friend
    Friend

    SevenofNine

    I appreciate you sharing your impression of me. I do not take offense to it and will consider your advice in the future. I wish others were just as candid. However, please be aware that neither you nor I can measure another person’s impression in settings such as this unless they express themselves accordingly, as you have here. One here has decided that they were offended by me and chose to denounce me and proclaim that they will not respond to any of my future posts. That is fine, except that had they taken the time to say, “Hey, what do you mean by that?(!)” then I think an explanation would have sufficed them. As it is, they decided based upon an impression that I could not see being developed. On forums such as this there is a need to speak clearly and frankly for purposes of understanding. There is also the need to ask questions if you are not sure. Presuming intent to hurt feelings, condescend or be rude is just that—presumption. In your case you have expressed your impression to me and I value that. Thanks.

    As for my responses seeming to be condescending, I apologize for that. That is certainly not my intention.

    You will find that I ask a lot of questions to get people thinking and I prefer to deal with those details that resolve issues. As long as the other party can follow the discussion I can go to whatever depths the details take it. But I will not expend time into details when it becomes clear to me that the other party is not following. Then I will retreat to more questions, illustrations or something else to help them get there. If that doesn’t work then I cannot spend more time on it with them. That is not meant to condescend but rather let them know that I cannot proceed on the subject with them. At that point I will express what I see as the status of our discussion up to that point. At least the other person then has the luxury of knowing why I do not continue the discussion—which, to me, is polite. That also gives them the opportunity to address what may be a misunderstanding on my part. If that is correct and they can overcome that misunderstanding on my part then we can both proceed. Otherwise, we both call it quits until another day. To me that is just normal conversation.

    You said:

    I can benefit more from your wisdom without all the condescending remarks.

    Again, I apologize for leaving that impression; that is not my intent. Please forgive me.

    As for helping to benefit others, that is the principal reason I chose to participate on this forum. Hopefully I can provide some perspective or information on some issues that will help some; at least that is my fondest hope.

    Friend

  • Friend
    Friend

    RedhorseWoman

    I have noticed that whenever I have asked for specific responses from you, you have then turned around and asked questions of me rather than responding to what I have posted.

    Each of my questions on this thread are for purposes of highlighting a critical point that appears to be ill-considered in someone’s conclusion or else is a request for clarification. When direct facts had already been likewise ill-considered then I proceeded to another mode to stir thinking about a detail that, to me, is/was critical to resolution. If there is something specific you have in mind let me know. I will be glad to redress it.

    And, in fact, I have acknowledged your questions. However, your questions seem to me to tend toward the nitpicking aspects of the discussion where only a "yes" or "no" is the appropriate answer rather than examining the whole situation.

    Usually resolutions lay in the details. Nitpicking is when irrelevant details are introduced, which nitpicking is also called introducing a red herring. If you feel I have done this then most likely either you have not realized the significance of a certain detail or I have misunderstood a certain question of relevance. If you have some specific example of this then, again, I will offer to redress it.

    As far as acknowledging questions, that is not really my concern. Of greater concern to me is realizing (or not) how the resolution of a particular question affects a conclusion or deduction. That is where we apparently differ in addressing a question presented.

    As Frenchy said, "JW's have a unique slant on words". I agree with this statement, and might I say, Friend, you employ this strategy very well.

    Yes, I agree with Frenchy on the observation. Nevertheless, the resolution of that problem is the same as normal word usage; you demonstrate the “slant” (meaning) and then apply it accordingly.

    As for me, I think you have had difficulty following certain details pertinent to this thread. If that is true then quite naturally some things I say may appear to you as having an unusual slant. In that case I suggest that you request clarification rather than offering a response based upon assumption. Several of my questions to you requested clarifications. Without those I was left unable to understand some of your deductions. How am I supposed to respond to that?

    Friend

  • waiting
    waiting

    Dear Friend,

    Each and every (qualifed statement) time that I read your posts, I am amazed at how high your standards are and that you have given of yourself to correct our thoughts and discussions to adjust our thinking to your standards.

    Have you answered my questions? They are relative. What is your background that you take condescending key strokes to us? We consider ourselves to be equals here, except you, Lars & his friends.

    Speaking for myself, I'm not looking for an enlighten teacher. Discussion - yes; viewpoints - yes. To be readjusted to your thoughts - no.
    Is that closed minded - perhaps. But if I wanted my thinking readjusted back to the WTBTS, I would just read my Watchtowers - I come here for breathing space.

    It does seem, in my opinion, that your posts antagonize almost everyone responded to. It does seem, in my opinion, that is your intention. Do you, perhaps, not wish a small group of people to speak openly about doubting the WTBTS?

    I've read posts of your on Witnet - same name - same tone. However, you've gone a step further with the educated, polite, insults when posting to us. If we don't fit your agenda, would your time, perhaps, be better spent at a forum of strong witnesses like yourself?

  • Friend
    Friend

    waiting

    Have you answered my questions? They are relative. What is your background that you take condescending key strokes to us? We consider ourselves to be equals here, except you, Lars & his friends.

    Except for your questions about my credentials I am not sure what questions you speak of above. My background is probably similar to most if not all on this forum. I have an extensive history with Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Society. In most cases those to go hand in hand, but not always.

    I am not sure where the impression comes from that I feel somehow superior, though others on this forum besides you have expressed similar sentiments. For that I feel sad. Sad because I am here to help not to tear down or further chaff what may already be rubbed raw by the Society. All of you are my equal.

    I have no idea who Lars is or his friends.

    Speaking for myself, I'm not looking for an enlighten teacher. Discussion - yes; viewpoints - yes. To be readjusted to your thoughts - no.

    In discussions I prefer to stick to what is known and what can be demonstrated. If that teaches I cannot help it. Otherwise, like you, I enjoy exploring various perspectives. Such sharing is a learning experience for us all.

    But if I wanted my thinking readjusted back to the WTBTS, I would just read my Watchtowers - I come here for breathing space.

    I appreciate your sentiment about breathing space and agree with it. As for the other, I think you have me pegged wrong, dead wrong. I am not participating here to readjust anyone to the Society’s view. When issues arise I address them with as much consideration as I can or they deserve in my opinion. Those subjects I have participated on in this forum happen to be ones that are notoriously misunderstood by many—to the detriment of the Society. So, addressing them may make it appear that I am somehow defending or promoting the Society when actually I am doing neither. All I am doing is addressing issues with facts and, hopefully, reason.

    As for my views of the Society, I have some major divergent views. So far the only one I have really hinted at has to do with the blood issue. Please remember that I do not want to thrust aside anyone’s faith. Since I am new to this particular forum then I have treaded lightly when it comes to sensitive issues. As I get a better grasp of views here then I can accordingly raise the bar, so to speak.

    It does seem, in my opinion, that your posts antagonize almost everyone responded to. It does seem, in my opinion, that is your intention. Do you, perhaps, not wish a small group of people to speak openly about doubting the WTBTS?

    I regret that you have that view; perhaps as things move along it will change. Some of the best advice ever attributed to Jesus is to let our works speak for us. Perhaps my future works here in the way of participation will change your view. We will see.

    As for speaking out openly about doubts associated with the Society, hey, I am all for expressing yourself. I say, “Get on with it.” As for the Society, I hold no particular aversion to discussing doubts about it. Frankly, I think they are deadly wrong about several things. On the other hand, I think those associated with the Society are for the most part good people with good intentions. To a large degree those persons are similar to those who earliest on were called Christian. I also believe others besides JWs reflect the same.

    I've read posts of your on Witnet - same name - same tone. However, you've gone a step further with the educated, polite, insults when posting to us.

    Here is the difference. My experience with Witnet is that most there are very offended with any hint of divergence from the Society. My impression here was that more tolerance existed. To an extent the greater the tolerance of expression the greater the faculty of reason. Therefore I felt I could leave off some of the milder kiddy talk and express myself with greater clarity, which usually includes greater frankness. Other forums require an even sharper and more frank exchange. Perhaps here I need to rethink my participation.

    Not much will offend me on a forum such as this. Why should it? Perhaps I expect that too much of others when really we all have various levels of sensitivities depending upon the subject. I think I have overreached some sensitivities on this forum, which is not my intent.

    Friend

  • Pathofthorns
    Pathofthorns

    Sometimes we can be so correct, logical, that we forget that many times emotion and feeling don't always have their basis in fact and logic. It is that which makes us human, and it is for this reason God created woman to compliment man.

    Such compassion and feeling Christ displayed balanced perfectly his logic and reason and wisdom. It is perhaps these qualities that attracted such a large following of women, who were drawn to a person who stood out in a culture where men lacked such feeling.

    It appears that people today have the same needs. Not to be judged right or wrong, but to be listened to and be comforted.

    In the end, it won't be so much what is in our minds as it will be what is in our hearts. Knowledge and wisdom are very important and will get us far in life. Faith and feeling will carry us the rest of the way.

    Just my thoughts.

    Pathofthorns

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit