Danny, et al, I never claimed to have the answers

by Derrick 24 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  deddaisy

  deddaisy wrote:Get real, if most of the posters here admired the work of the WTS, they wouldn't be on an apostate site now would they?

  This is the exact problem. Looking at it from the standpoint of a JW who has just purchased a web television device from one of the competing manufacturers of these devices, hooked it up, activated it, and found this site or intuitively typed www.jehovahs-witness.com or similar in the URL field, this JW will first assume at the very least the site is a debate site comprised of both faithful partyline JWs and "opposers"! As they start to read the posts it starts to occur to them its the exact opposite of its domain name. (IOW, they might be puzzled that a site such as this has 'jehovahs-witness.com' and not 'ex-jehovahs-witness.com' as its domain name.) -------Derrick

  Derrick, I am having a serious problem with your rationale. How is the reality of most posters here not being admirers of the WTS, the "exact problem?" I did not say that none of the posters here admired the WTS's work, I said most do not. . Do you agree ? (And please don't be patronizing Derrick because you know as well as I do that the majority of JWs that happened across this site, even if by accident, would not stick around.) I don't really think you'd be advising posters that you'll pray for God to reclaim their lives," the people on the internet that "glamorize spiritual death" and are "no part of God's Kingdom" if you thought there were a significant amount of Dubs posting. And why don't you think there are a significant amount of Dubs posting here Derrick? Could it be because it is considered an apostate board by Dubs. Don't insult the intelligence of posters here Derrick with your drivel. The point being Derrick, when a topic which consists of the WTS's blood policy not necessarily being a bad thing is posted on a forum in which most of the posters are not admirers of the WTS's blood policy, some of which have lost loved ones due to the WTS's blood policy, what kind of responses do you think this thread is going to generate Derrick? Therefore, Derrick, to post a "look how inspiring the WTS's stand on blood is " topic on this forum and then whine about how "bias" the posters here are, how spiritually dead the posters here are, how everybody can't be as UNBIASED and SPIRITUALLY PERFECT and KINGDOM MATERIAL and a "thinker" like you are Derrick, is pure stupidity and bullshit on your part. (hey I know, I'm going to go post an article on the Dub board regarding some of the good BB has done with SilentLambs, see even apostates do some good. Yea, three cheers for BB !) And if I don't get a round of applause I'm going to start thread after thread about the bias on the Dub board.)

  They might get hooked on the concept of witnessing on this site just as someone with a territory mostly comprised of diehard Born Again Christians might dig in their heels and decide to work that territory repeatedly to help bring as many souls "into the truth" as possible. ---------Derrick

  I didn't ask you, or anyone else, why they were here Derrick. If I recall, I said I could care less if you were a JW, an ex-JW, or considering being one of the above. Save it for the elders babe.

  So your very premise that the composition of JWs versus ex-JWs as a determining factor on whether true JWs post on this site is fatally flawed. As a matter of fact, to test your premise one must ask if ANY poster is a true JW.---------Derrick

  Where in the hell did this come from? That the "composition of JWs versus ex-JWs is a determining factor on whether true JWs post on this board!" Let me get this straight, this is my premise? I don't recall mentioning "true" opposed to "false" JWs Derrick. My premise, Derrick, once again, was that you, being fully aware that most of the posters here, most, not all, of the posters do not support the WTS's blood doctrine, posted the award topic, and had the audacity to be not only offended when posters disagreed with the article, but began whining and self-righteously lumping posters together as the wicked and spiritually dead. That was my point Derrick. And as for "testing" my premise Derrick, why don't you ask all members of a KH how many would visit a site after realizing the majority of posters were ex-JWs? Being a "true" witness has nothing to do with it. Most, not all, but most, not wanting to upset the WTS, would be more than apprehensive regarding visiting such a site.

  And what is so irritating, is that you are so biased and judgmental while alluding to belonging to God's Kingdom. And don't bother attempting to point fingers Derrick, I never claimed to be unbiased or nonjudgmental. I never claimed to be anything at all. And that is as far as I got in your post Derrick, and that is all the farther I plan to go.
• 

  Derrick

  Whether you're mistaken that baptized JWs in good standing will leave this board shortly after their arrival, as opposed to working it like a difficult territory, is a moot point. However, it seems we have reached a classic impasse or stalemate, deddaisy, in trying to reason this thing out. It's sad these discussions about real JW issues tend to crash and burn on the runway before the topic even gets any air speed.

  Derrick
• 

  NeonMadman

  Whether you're mistaken that baptized JWs in good standing will leave this board shortly after their arrival, as opposed to working it like a difficult territory, is a moot point.

  I don't think it's a moot point at all, given that you were the one who complained earlier that this site is the 'exact opposite of its name'.

  This is an open forum. Anyone can post here, whether JW, apostate, or unaffiliated. Simon makes no doctrinal distinctions in allowing people to post. JW's, however, are taught that they are not to go to sites where they can converse with apostates. They are forbidden by the organization to participate here. Those who do so anyway, like you, are themselves apostates, they simply haven't been caught and disfellowshipped yet. Your analogy of "working a difficult territory" is completely inappropriate. No Witness would set foot in a territory made up almost exclusively of apostates.

  In that atmosphere, it is inevitable that any open site, which has not been restricted exclusively to faithful JW's, will become primarily an apostate site. Faithful JW's who stumble upon it will adjust their mental blinders and run away quickly. Therefore, only the apostates are left to dominate the place. Those, like you, who have disagreements with the Society, are essentially apostates anyway, they may just not have realized it yet. Certainly if the congregation became aware of your disagreements, they would not treat you kindly.

  Understand, I'm not condemning you or calling you a hypocrite - I think you're doing exactly the right thing by being here and addressing your issues with the Watchtower. The JW's who run away are really the hypocrites, since they claim to have the one and only truth, but hide their heads when anybody questions what they believe. But if it seems incongruous at all that a board named jehovahs-witness.com should be inhabited primarily by apostates, there's a good reason. And it's not that we chased them away - it's that they ran on their own, because their masters told them to.
• 

  Farkel

  Derrick,

  : It is safe to state that you have made assessments on many positions that I have taken, and that all those assessments were against my stated positions.

  Well, duh! This is a discussion board, and when people discuss, they argue from different points-of-view.

  : A more fair question for you to ask me is: "Of the 'assessments of the position' you've 'taken' that I have made, did you consider them all 'unfair' or are there any 'assessments' that I have made resulting in your reassessment of your position?" (In other words, do I disagree with everything you posted in rebuttal to my position, or did anything you've posted cause me to take another look at my beliefs?)

  : If you asked that question then the answer would be "yes"! In roughly about a quarter to a third of your rebuttals to my posts where I state my position or belief, I have given my original belief a second look. In about 10% of those instances I realized that I was wrong. And in half of the instances where I realized that I was wrong I responded by stating that you were right.

  LOL! So you're saying that after taking a look at my rebuttals, you gave 25% of them a "second thought. Then, in 10% of that 25%, you realized you were wrong. So, out of every 100 posts of mine where you've disagreed, in 12 of them you "realized" you were wrong, but only in 6 of them you apologized for being wrong. If those numbers are true, it means you ADMIT when you're wrong only HALF the time.

  You did a nice summary of proving my very point:

  : What "unfair assessments of the position" you've "taken" have I made? Please be specific. I don't tolerate bullshit easily. Spell it out for me point-by-point and if I was wrong, I'll admit it and if I (it meant "it") was right, you'll hear it from me.

  THAT'S one of many places where you and I are different, Derrick. When I'm convinced I'm wrong, I admit it every time. By your very own words, you only do it half the time.

  Farkel, who DARES Derrick to admit he shot himself in the foot. Again.

  Edited by - Farkel on 9 December 2002 23:6:39
• 

  ScoobySnax

  LOOK CAN I HAVE MY POM-POMS OR NOT?