Who Was The Biggest Jackass Circuit Overseer You Ever Met?

by Sea Breeze 88 Replies latest watchtower scandals

• 

  LongHairGal

  THOMAS MORE:

  Yeah, it’s really sickening about their attitudes towards people who work (especially women).

  That was good of you to say what you did to that ignorant CO.. Witnesses like him who never worked yet make insulting remarks about people who do - deserve to find out what it’s like before they die.. I have no use for them.

  I know some might think their remarks stem from ignorance about the real world. This is also true, but I believe there’s another reason at least towards women who work: these men hate independent women and want to ‘abase’ them in some way.. Don’t know how else to put it.

  The JW idiots who criticized me years ago could not care less what happened to me.. My fate was in my own hands but at least I had the sense to realize it. Thank God.
• 

  Foolednomore

  Seems like uber jwdub make the biggest assholes.
• 

  hoser

  Wayne Johnson. My parents worshipped the ground that he stood on. I think he’s dead now.

  Ken Little. I think he might have been a CO back in the day. I’ve never met the man but my parents talk about him as he’s some god. In fact most of these people in the upper echelons of the Jay dub org don’t give a rats ass about the rank and file, unless you have money to donate.

  Kevin Maloney. A rich kid born of privilege. His dad owns a chain of jewelry stores and was a non jw or a marginal jw.

  I grew up with Kevin as a teenager and he had all the bmw and other fancy cars while the rest of us were trying to keep our old Chevy running.

  He encouraged more than one middle aged couple to sell everything prematurely and cash in their retirements to go where the need is greater. I witnessed this entitled silver spoon CO tell people of modest means to totally screw up their old age finances.

  Not everyone has a rich Daddy like you do Kevin!
• 

  vienne

  I was with mom when she met K. Little. So my opinion is based on a childhood memory. But I liked him then. Neither mom nor I were ever Witnesses though, and had we been my opinion might be different.

  My Austrian-born Great Grandmother was a Witness. She died before I was born. I have aunts who are Witnesses, and two of my sisters are. Uncles by marriage and my one living grand uncle are Witnesses, most of them elders. There's a wide mix of personalities and sensibleness. One of my uncles by marriage is ... 'off.' He makes me uncomfortable, and I can't imagine anyone asking him for Scriptural counsel. A distant cousin -first cousin twice removed is the technical term - is at Warwick Bethel. I'd never ask him for 'scriptural help' either. This is the long path around my point: Personalities and a sense of entitlement differ among Witnesses in general and among Watchtower Elders. Some are 'gems,' and some are incurable fools..
• 

  Sea Breeze

  This is the long path around my point: Personalities and a sense of entitlement differ among Witnesses in general and among Watchtower Elders. Some are 'gems,' and some are incurable fools.

  But they all have one thing in common, they either reject the new covenant "for the forgiveness of sins" that Jesus offered in Mt. 26: 27-28; or they teach others to do so.
  
  And, according to Gal. 1: 8-9; they are damned for it.
  
  
• 

  vienne

  They don't reject it. They see it differently than you do. The difference is not a rejection. Instead, they focus on a narrow definition of the parties to the covenant. Historically this traces from a narrow set of 18th and 19th Century Anglican Clergy and German Evangelicals.

  They teach that all Christians benefit from the Covenant.

  Are they right? Sigh. Many think not. Does it disqualify them as Christians? Christianity has been very diverse since Paul's day. God will determine who and what he accepts. That's not up to us. We are responsible, however, for what we believe and teach.

  Presuming that Witness definition of the New Covenant is not what Paul taught is insufficient. If we're going to argue it out with Witnesses we must present proof, not merely citing Galatians. They, of course, could cite those verses and apply them to you.
• 

  Sea Breeze

  @vienne

  They don't reject it. They see it differently than you do.... Does it disqualify them as Christians? Christianity has been very diverse since Paul's day. God will determine who and what he accepts. That's not up to us.

  You sound like this is some sort of Russian Roulette game. God's word tells us exactly all we need to know. Without the NC we are all "condemned already". Mt. 26: 27-28 is perfectly clear that it is "for the forgiveness of sins".
  
  This is what Christians are looking for. To say otherwise is an impossibility, like a Muslim who worships Buddah, or a Christian who worships Satan, it can't logically exist. There is no such thing as a Christian outside of the NC "for the forgiveness of sins". That is what Jesus came to delive to man as our kinsman redeemer.
• 

  vienne

  Nonsense. If you're saying Witnesses do not believe that the New Covenant is for forgiveness of sins, you're wrong. And you miss the point of my post. Simply condemning Witness theology without refutation is a waste of time and a false path. That will not change a Witness' belief, especially if she is moderately informed. Within their explanations of New Covenant doctrine is I John 2:1-3, which says according to their Bible: "My little children, I am writing you these things that you may not commit a sin. And yet, if anyone does commit a sin, we have a helper with the Father, Jesus Christ, a righteous one. And he is a propitiatory sacrifice for our sins, yet not for ours only but also for the whole world’s. And by this we have the knowledge that we have come to know him, namely, if we continue observing his commandments."

  They emphasize "our sins" in contrast to "the whole world's." Their belief is that the "our" addresses anointed Christians, and 'the whole world" everyone else, making or marking two groups. Good theology? Simply shrugging this off as wrong-headed theology is insufficient. Refute scripturally, or anything said in rejection is meaningless

  In their favor here is the difference between a propitiatory sacrifice and a covenant. A propitiatory sacrifice is "peace making." A covenant is an agreement between carefully defined parties. An example is the Law Covenant made between the descendants of Jacob and God. Others benefited from it - the strangers in the land for instance - but were not parties to the covenant.

  The issue here is: Is the New Covenant between a closely defined group within Christianity or does it encompass all Christians? Even if we thoroughly disagree with Witness doctrine here, we cannot say they limit forgiveness of sins only to the anointed. Clearly they do not.

  There are other issues, of course. Sanctification, justification, new birth. But when considering between whom the New Covenant was made, those are a bit irrelevant. We fail if we limit our message to ranting condemnation and do not scripturally refute. Just saying, "Bad, bad, bad" is insufficient.
• 

  BluesBrother

  Ukpimo said :

  “ Mike Seidler (absolutely beautiful human being, a true Christian unlike many other COs of his time, however Dodie his wife was an absolute dragon, most sisters dreaded working woth her on the ministry. The personalities of both didn't match, poor chap. Heard he died recently)”………….

  I would not go so far as to say that, I never liked him much , very businesslike and the changes he made ruined our cong. … I would agree with your assessment of his wife , Dodie. The sisters used to call her ‘ The Terminator’ because so many studies were stopped after taking her along.
• 

  DesirousOfChange

  The sisters used to call her ‘ The Terminator’ because so many studies were stopped after taking her along.

  Sounds like she did a favor for a lot of innocent people.