Post by Ray Franz (page 5)

blondie

I think Amazing suggested anyone interested can contact him through Commentary Press.

Ray is not likely to register to register on any public forum, and if you wish you may write to him at: Commentrary Press and ask for yourself. - Jim Whitney

That is what I did.

Commentary Press

PO Box 43532

Atlanta GA 30336-0532

There's a phone number, fax number, e-mail address, and website.

You will not get him directly but they are very good about relaying the information and I got a nice response within a few days.

http://www.commentarypress.com/

Simon

Exactly TH - but I don't think many people believe what dungbeetle says.

Ray is under no obligation to post himself and if I were him, I doubt very much I would come here.

So, let's say 30 people reading this want to probe Ray further in seeking satisfactory answers for themselves in re: to what he STATES HERE PUBLICALLY, thru a messenger. Do we ALL call him today with our replies? Overload his mailbox with letters with 30 letters?

Or is this Ray's 'final answer' and we are to just accept it?

Sure, I could call him, but we'd be on the phone for hours. What if I still am not satisfied?

sKally, always question the answers thoroughly, klass

BeelzeDub

Overload his mailbox with letters with 30 letters?

How do you know there will be 30 letters? There could be only one letter. An open invitation was made to those who wish to use this communication method.

Commentary Press

PO Box 43532

Atlanta GA 30336-0532

Edited by - beelzeDub on 24 October 2002 16:56:5

Edited by - beelzeDub on 24 October 2002 16:57:23

Amazing

Hi Skally: You can write to him, or I will be sedning the comments to this post to him and he can choose to answer by posting again through me, or by writing back to those who personally mail him ... eitherway is fine.

nita6368

Francois and outoftheorg I agree with both of you!

When I was reading that reply by Mr. Franz I got that same old feeling that I got when I used to read the Watchtower. I understand he is a very talented and eloquent writer but to me it was saying you are not that intelligent if you do not see things my way. Reference to blind faith, independent thinking..more of those little "go words" that have you wondering if someone is trying to talk over your head. With all respect to Mr. Franz he says he only wrote things that had been truly inspired by Holy Spirit. Well in my humble opinion...the Watchtower Society is a cult, has been a cult and will always be a cult. Their reasoning book, aid book, insight book is not inspired by God. It is cult material.The two witness rule taken literally, shunning taken literally....maybe none of it was meant to be taken literally but it has been and it has destroyed lives.When you are a faithful witness, you support those rules. I did, I am not proud of shunning anyone but I did it. I can't say now that I am out, well I never believed that was literal... I did it. My mind wascontrolled by the borg just like Ray, just like Bill and everyone else.As I said in a previous post, they are men doing the best that they can, neither is infallible,neither is perfect. Mr Franz helped many break free from the Watchtower, Bill Bowen has helped many break free from the silence imposed by the Watchtower. Bravo to the both of them.

kelsey007

I am mused by some of the responses in this thread. Why does ray do this or not do that and or how can you believe everything you read. Ok OK I get it- if silent lambs says it it has got to be believed- if anyone else says it it should be questioned- as I enjoy a good laugh at the irony of this board-

Dutchie

Kelsey, I am amused because I believe that if you saw things in reverse, i.e., where Ray Franz was being overwhelming believed and Bill Bowen was being summarily discredited you would be applauding.

In any case, glad you are having such a good time.

sf

Beezledub, I said:

"So, let's say 30 people..."

HYPOTHETICALLY speaking, he very well could receive that many letters.

I am going to call him. I want to tell him a few things too.

sKally...hit edit on accident...nothing was edited here

Edited by - sf on 24 October 2002 17:21:19

Francois

Amazing, I'm sorry, but I think it's you who have misunderstood Ray. Because if you re-read what he said it indicates clearly that such publicity as you mention does not mean " that the situation" was the same earlier. He is clearly referring to abuse, not publicity about it.

Read the quote again: " It is quite nave [sic] of persons to assume that the intense publicity on this issue in recent times necessarily means that the situation was similar in earlier periods." He is clearly saying that we should not assume the SITUATION was the same earlier, as in when he did his writing. I'm saying it certainly was the same - and even worse by several orders of magnitude. The sensitivity of society toward this issue has changed a great deal in the last twenty years or so.

Paranthetically, what was contained in the original has nothing to do with what is printed on the screen currently, that we can actually SEE NOW. Thus [sic] is entirely appropriate.

francois

Post by Ray Franz

Share this