IslandWoman, I hope you don't take this topic as a personal attack because none such was intended. In the topic Why is Bill Bowen Attacking Us? the topic's author asks about Bill Bowen, "why is he attacking Ray Franz, Hillary_Step and from what I've heard on this board also Reinhard Lengtat?"
Bill Bowen is carrying much of the weight of uncovering one of the potentially greatest religious scandals in modern-day Christendom. Even the Catholics are not accusing the Pope and other high officials in the Vatican of molesting children. In sharp contast Bill's efforts brought forth a woman and perhaps many others who are accusing the "faithful and discreet slave" whom JWs, a mainstream religion of over 6 million baptized members, believe Christ himself appointed over his "domestics" and earthly belongings!
Many can sit in their comfy armchairs safe in their secured homes under democratic freedom and level accusations against any gaffes and misconceptions about those in the public eye. Many good people like Bill and his wife place themselves in the public eye to expose the truth. The result is they face public "stoning" by hypercritical but otherwise good people who hone in on their human flaws and misconceptions about them, from their oftimes misunderstood words.
IslandWoman wrote on Oct 9, 2002 17:42:To claim Bill Bowen is deeply involved with the silentlambs issues is not enough explanation.
IMO, that should be adequate explanation.
My sister lost a son to the blood issue, my niece was molested by her JW father, my family has run the gamut of JW abuse and problems. Yet, we do not do what BB has done, we do not attack our friends. I do not understand this man.
I have lost close family members and friends over the years to tragedies, and feel intense emotional pain and a longing to see them again in the new world. Still, I have yet to outwardly express these pent up feelings through tears, and I have not resorted to alcohol or prescription pain medication in a vain attempt to numb the pain. However, others equally close to them have shown outward emotions such as breaking down in tears, and have expressed hopelessness and dispair in the possibility of never seeing them again, through the use of alcohol and prescription pain medication. Is it right to psychoanalyze the dispairity between my reaction and theirs?
Some of those who try too hard to analyze the reasons for differing reactions to these tragedies seem to have drawn conclusions similar to these:
Psychoanalysis 1
- They do not cry for those who are gone, simply because they do not care about their loss as much as those who do shed tears.
- They are delusional to think we will all be reunited in a resurrection, when the likelihood is the dead cease to exist forever.
- Maybe they are even hiding behind the guise of believing we will be reunited in a resurrection, in order to justify not crying, and mask their true insensitivities and lack of love for those who have died in these tragedies.
- When they finally do cry, maybe it is to put on a show for others.
Psychoanalysis 2
- They cry for those who are gone because they deeply love and miss them.
- They have the strength to face the most likely probability that there is no resurrection, and the courage not to rely on a concept of God as a mental crutch.
Psychoanalysis 3
- The people described in the first two psychoanalyses above likely have equal love for, and deeply miss the loss of, their deceased loved ones.
- Each human being responds to stress, tragedy, adversity or loss differently and often exactly opposite to others.
Lastly, who says that Bill meant to "attack" his friends or anyone? Who can know Bill's heart except God?
You do not understand this man? That is a true statement, because nobody can honestly claim to understand anybody else.
Derrick