How could have Rutherford been a 'drunk'?

by wholewheat 99 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Mary

  Wholewheat, you obviously are not open-minded enough to consider any evidence at all that shows Rutherford to be an alcoholic. Anyone who worked with him at the Bethel and who came forth to talk about the booze, you label as an "apostate". Just like the crap that comes out in the Watchtower study articles, anyone who questions the "Slave Class" is immediately labelled an "apostate", even though they're always real careful not to specify what doctrine is being questioned.

  Perhaps if the rank and file Witness had been able to hear Raymond Franz' discoveries 25 years ago, regarding 607BCE and other "established" doctrines, then it would have been obvious to anyone able to think for themselves that it was the rest of the Governing Body members who were the apostates: purposely lying about bible doctrines so that no one would find out about their hypocracy and deceitfulness.

  Here's something for you to ponder over: Please show me from THE BIBLE - not the Society's publications, where apostasy means not agreeing wholeheartedly with the Governing Body members on doctrines that they know perfectly well, are false. Or where it means speaking out against an organization that protects pedophiles? No? Can't find one? That's because it's not there. The one scripture that comes close to describing "apostasy" is in 1John 2:22 that says: Who is the liar if it is not the one that denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one that denies the Father and the Son" - not a dozen men in Brooklyn............bit of a difference there, eh?
• 

  wholewheat

  Farkel,

  If you noticed I said that apostates 'give the impression' that Rutherford was a lunatic drunk who was in the 5th stage of alcoholism. The web pages portray him as insane drunk. Wouldn't you agree? The definition of an alcoholic is someone who 'is powerless over alcohol'. Do you feel that Rutherford was powerless over alcohol? Every human alive has something in their past that they would be ashamed of, heck, you guys even find fault with God! You apostates spend billions of hours digging up dirt on Watchtower leaders, getting into their sex lives and such. I just don't get it. I feel that if Rutherford was such a bad alcoholic as you all describe him to be, there would be a ton of evidence against him in support of your theory. It would be common knowledge in the witness community, and I sincerely doubt that Rutherford could have run the Society as a 'dictator' if he was a 'chronic' alcoholic. Where do apostates say on their web pages that he was a very mild, in control, alcoholic? The claims that are made is that he was a mad drunk.
• 

  144001

  No drunk could have ruled the Society like a dictator.

  Tell that to Boris Yeltsin.
• 

  Farkel

  wholewheat,

  You must be a dub, because you certainly think like one and you form the same kinds of specious and strawmen arguments that dubs do, and that I used to do as a dub. Let me illustrate:

  : you noticed I said that apostates 'give the impression' that Rutherford was a lunatic drunk who was in the 5th stage of alcoholism. The web pages portray him as insane drunk. Wouldn't you agree?

  "Wouldn't you agree" is typical Watchtower-Speak. My challenge to you was simple and you avoided it entirely. I asked you for evidence that "apostates" have said that JFR was a "5th stage alcoholic" and you provided none. NONE. I never said anything about him being an "insane" drunk. I asked you to produce evidence and all you could come up with was "wouldn't you agree?" My answer is "no." Where's your evidence for your assertion? Stick with my challenge to your assertion. I'm not so stupid as to let you slip and slide around the issues like your masters in Brooklyn do.

  : The definition of an alcoholic is someone who 'is powerless over alcohol'.

  Agreed.

  : Do you feel that Rutherford was powerless over alcohol?

  Yes. Fred Franz himself said so. Buy and read the references I gave you, unless you are as lazy as I suspect you are.

  : Every human alive has something in their past that they would be ashamed of, heck, you guys even find fault with God!

  Red Herring. If you don't know what a "red herring" is, I'll tell you. A red herring is a logical fallacy that involves dragging a stinky old dead fish over the argument with the hopes that the stench of that fish will make people forget the original argument. The issues is not whether Rutherford was a flawed human being (we are ALL flawed humans with tons of stuff to be ashamed about) but whether he was an alcoholic or not. Capiche'?

  : You apostates spend billions of hours digging up dirt on Watchtower leaders, getting into their sex lives and such.

  I've said this at least seven hundred millions times to people like you, "Do NOT exaggerate stuff!"

  : I just don't get it.

  That's a start.

  :I feel that if Rutherford was such a bad alcoholic as you all describe him to be, there would be a ton of evidence against him in support of your theory.

  Flawed thinking. Was there a ton of PUBLIC knowledge that Rock Hudson was gay or, at the time, that the Kennedy brothers Jack and Bobby were boinking every female they could get their hands on? Once again, I gave you two of many excellent reference books. You only need read them to see how well documented they are and then you will know. You haven't chosen to do that. Lazy dubs are like that. They want everyone else to do the work for them. That's why you have the the WTS. You're likely a lazy dub.

  : It would be common knowledge in the witness community,

  Horse pucky. It wasn't common knowledge in the "witness community" that GB members Leo Greenless and Ewart Chitty were homosexuals and it STILL isn't common knowledge in the witness community. It IS "common knowledge" in the witness community that Ray Franz made a fortune off his two books, he's a homosexual and he started his own religion. All of which are lies. The "witness community" is a sewer of gossip and clueless rumor-mongering and the last place one should look for facts.

  : and I sincerely doubt that Rutherford could have run the Society as a 'dictator' if he was a 'chronic' alcoholic.

  As has already been pointed out, Winston Churchill was an alcoholic and he magnificently guided Great Britain through the most devasting war in history. Running a petty religion of several hundred thousand members is nothing compared to what Churchill did.

  : Where do apostates say on their web pages that he was a very mild, in control, alcoholic?

  Once again, you make up shit. YOU said apostates said he was a "5th stage alcoholic." I asked for evidence. You produced zero evidence and now try the old strawman trick: make the original argument into something you think you can refute. I don't know of any apostates who said what you claimed you think I said they said.

  : The claims that are made is that he was a mad drunk.

  Yes. That is true. He was a mad drunk. Have you read all of the books he wrote in his "Rainbow Series" from 1921 to 1941? I have. ALL of them. He was a mad drunk. Unless you've read those and his insane ramblings in the Watchtowers over Walter Salter and Olin Moyle, you don't know what you are talking about.

  Are you willing to do the hard work that I've done, or are you just going to speculate like all lazy dubs do and wait for someone to spoon-feed you the answers you don't care to hear in the first place?

  Farkel

  Edited by - Farkel on 28 June 2002 21:30:26
• 

  DINKY

  Farkel,

  You are wasting your time. You might as well be reasoning to a brick wall.

  Dinky
• 

  Farkel

  Dinky,

  : You are wasting your time. You might as well be reasoning to a brick wall.

  One never knows. There are several "brick walls" that I've met over the years that are not only out of WatchtowerWorld, but their entire family is out, too.

  Hope springs eternal.

  Farkel
• 

  DINKY

  Oh, I get it. Can I give you the name of the elder I still have a crush on? My sexual fantasies are running thin.

  Namaste,

  Dinky
• 

  Francois

  Personally, I think the bottom line here is that wholewheat has posed a question the answer to which he had already decided aforehand he was not going to accept - no matter its provenance.

  No man can be convinced against his will, no matter how impeccable the evidence, no matter how unimpeachable its source.

  There is ample evidence for a fair-minded individual to arrive at the conclusion that Rutherford was a functional alcoholic at the very least; "fair minded" being the key. Somewhere on the Internet is a copy of Rutherford's original holographic autopsy results. It is the place where I discovered that Rutherford died of cancer of the rectum. I believe, though I don't recall exactly, that his liver was described as being in the condition which would expect in a drunk.

  I think, again personally, that we've wasted far too much time on Mr. Wheat. If he's honestly in search of an answer, I say let him go research it for himself. Surely he won't reject the evidence of his own eyes. But then with an active JW you never know.

  Francois
• 

  Farkel

  Francois,

  : If he's honestly in search of an answer, I say let him go research it for himself. Surely he won't reject the evidence of his own eyes. But then with an active JW you never know.

  That's about what I said, except I think I said, "lazy dub." More succinct!

  Farkel
• 

  larc

  Wholewheat, My thoughts are similiar to Farkel's. Perhaps, with some repetition you will get the idea. First of all, you write like the literature you read, the Watchtower and Awake! The are two of the worst examples of so called research I have ever seen. Your remark, "apostates say" is just like the Wt. Which apostates, who, how many, where did they say it? Defend your position with references. Certainly, no one on this thread has said what you assert. You say if Rutherford drank heavily, that it would be common knowledge among the Witnesses. You know as well as we do that the JWs know almost nothing about their history. To most of the rank and file, if it wasn't written in the last ten years, it is not worth reading. Wholewheat try this for an experiment. Ask any Witness under the age of 50, the following questions, that I have put in order of difficulty. 1. What was Beth Sarim and Beth Shan? 2. What does the Proclaimers book say as to the purpose of Beth Sarim? 3. What was the religious belief regarding the purpose of Beth Sarim? Try this with at least ten people and report back as to your results. Please don't falsify those results. Before you start you survey, you might tell us your answers to these questions. One other point: the thoughts, expectations, and teachings that occured before the failed prophecy before 1975 are well docuemented, yet most witnesses today have do idea of the impact of the pre-1975 beliefs. As I said, anything older than ten years is not common knowledge to most witnesses.