Know what makes me terribly sad about some on these forums?

by Derrick 90 Replies latest jw friends

  • Robdar
    Robdar

    If that's not defending him, I don't know what is.

    Then you don't think very far past the obvious, do you ded? Just because you think it is a stupid question, does not make it so. Derrick has a right to ask questions. It has nothing to do with defending him. It has everything to do with being fair minded. Also, other than the drive by statement, none of my comments were directed to you. And yet you took insult. You seem very easy to annoy lately.

    Not expecting meaningful answers to any of this. I mean, I very carefully explained why I disagreed with you, but none of that's worth addressing, evidently

    Can you please allow somebody to live a life outside of this board? I had forgotten all about your posts. Wow, I know that it seems impossible that somebody wouldn't wait with baited breath to hear your clever responses, but I didn't. You are obviously itching for a fight. You are right, you falsely accused Derrick and now he has responded to you so, there is no need to address it.

    Robyn

  • dedalus
    dedalus
    Just because you think it is a stupid question, does not make it so.

    You're right. That's why I spent a lot of time, like other posters in this thread, explaining why I disagreed with him. I presented evidence from the Watchtower's own publications. I have detailed examples of the sorts of things I've seen, and I addressed specific parts of Derrick's posts. I never said it was a stupid question and just left it at that, and it's dishonest for you to insinuate that I have.

    Derrick has a right to ask questions.

    Did I say he didn't? If not, what's your point?

    And yet you took insult.

    No, I disagreed. There's a difference. What, are we all supposed to hold hands and gape with respect anytime one of us offers up an opinion? Warm fuzzies for everybody? I still say that discussion boards are for discussion. What's your problem with that?

    Can you please allow somebody to live a life outside of this board?

    In what way am I preventing people from living a life outside of this board? Are you usually this melodramatic? If you are referring to the way I accused Derrick of a "hit and run," I apologized for that. I meant it, too. Why are you still bringing it up? Why are you still "taking insult"?

    I had forgotten all about your posts. Wow, I know that it seems impossible that somebody wouldn't wait with baited breath to hear your clever responses, but I didn't.

    I had forgotten your posts, too. I never complained about you not posting to this topic again. Frankly, I was glad you didn't -- you obviously have little of substance to contribute to the topic of this thread -- which currently has to do with Derrick's claim about a major Watchtower doctrine, not some petty remark I made and, once again, apologized for already.

    You are obviously itching for a fight.

    No. This is an interesting and important discussion to me. I assumed it was for Derrick, too. As for you -- am I supposed to apologize to you for saying that you defended Derrick? Was that such a terrible thing to have done?

    But it's a good old Watchtower trick you're trying to pull -- instead of addressing anything I've said about the topic, malign my motives so people will have an excuse to ignore me.

    You are right, you falsely accused Derrick and now he has responded to you so,

    That "false accusation," which I apologized for nearly a week ago now, is not the point of this thread. The point of this thread has to do with Derrick's claim that the Watchtower does NOT teach that all non-Witnesses will die at Armageddon. I happen to disagree with Derrick. I gave reasons why, just like I gave reasons for disagreeing with your post, when you said Derrick was saying something that he didn't say. You know, I took your post to heart and reread Derrick's original post carefully. And I just don't see what you were talking about. I already explained why. Why not respond to that?

    Derrick has yet to respond to the evidence I presented in this discussion. You have yet to do anything except complain about my attitude.

    there is no need to address it.

    Then what was the point of your post?

    Dedalus

  • JT
    JT
    No, but so far as I can see, the Watchtower's own words make it so. "Only Jehovah's Witnesses ...", "only God's organization," "More than 99.9 percent ..." And "innocents" can't just include those remote indigenous tribes of wherever that no one reaches -- innocents also must refer to children, right? But "unbelieving schoolmates" will be "annihilated," too, according to a recent KM. A lot of people have a big problem with that, Derrick.

    I wonder how you explain all this, Derrick. I'm not speculating about secret torture chambers in the back corridors of the GB's offices. I'm quoting just exactly what they said, what's on public record, so please don't make me out to be some rabid hatemonger. Really, all I want to know is how do you explain what seem to me to be a very explicit teaching, a doctrine, and not any sort of subtle "manipulation of words to keep the rank and file in line."

    Looking forward to your response, whenever it's convenient for you ...

    Dedalus

    Only a JW could read these direct quotes from thier own organization, realize how stupid they sound and proceed to try to excuse them or explain them away-

    this poster stated the Official teachings don't say ONLY FOLKS CONNECTED TO WT WILL BE SAVE

    and once again a wonderful poster has taken the wonderful track record of the paper trail of the wt and shown just how wrong this person is, the saddest part about watching jw post here is how over and over they reveal how little they know about what thier religion's position is on matters

    how sad

  • JT
    JT
    But I digress. Derrick, if you're still reading this, you don't have to settle with anecdotal evidence. I've provided quotes directly from the literature of the organization. I still want to know what you think of it. If I've misunderstood, please explain how.

    great point - we all look forward to watching him try and get out of this web that his organization has put him in

    some of you may recall years ago in the early days Russell would debate other preachers and wipe thier A$$ many times, but as the years went by and they kept on writing stuff they too fell into the same trap as many other faiths- BUILDING A TRACK RECORD not to be proud of- flipping dogmas, changing teaching, trying their hand at being prophet, getting prophecies wrong, etc

    and for that reason that is why the wt does not attempt to do interviews

    think about this no one likes to talk as much as JW they will not leave your house once they get in, yet WE HAVE NOT SEEN OR HEARD ONE LIVE INTERVEIW from anyone at bethel

    instead they send some PRE-CANNED VIDEO,

    Think about this, each time we saw Saddamm - what was the format, NEVER WAS IT LIVE, each time it was some Flunky video tape, and the same with WT you would think for a group of folks who love to talk as much as they do they would have sat down with CBS, NBC, to tell their story

    I REALLY DON;T THINK they ever will cause they can't control the setting- that is why they send tapes

    even Bob Jones, Oral Roberts, the guy from the Mormons, the Catholic church----- they all sat down to address issues with the media, but not wt-

    the only live interviews have been of Local Elders running to their car to get away - smile

  • Robdar
    Robdar
    I had forgotten your posts, too. I never complained about you not posting to this topic again

    Oh, so what is this comment?:

    Not expecting meaningful answers to any of this. I mean, I very carefully explained why I disagreed with you, but none of that's worth addressing, evidently.
    Warm fuzzies for everybody? I still say that discussion boards are for discussion. What's your problem with that?

    No, I do not expect warm fuzzies, nor do I expect somebody to jump the gun and call his questions dumb or accuse him of a drive by. What is wrong with a civil reply? I think that if you were standing face to face with Derrick, you would be more polite--unless you are as big a bad ass as you like to come across on this board. Using this board to make up for deficiencies in real life, ded?

    This is an interesting and important discussion to me. I assumed it was for Derrick, too. As for you -- am I supposed to apologize to you for saying that you defended Derrick? Was that such a terrible thing to have done?

    That is one of your problems, ded, you assume. I wouldn't accept your apology if you were to offer it. So, no, I am not looking for an apology from you of all people. Perhaps, when your opinion means something to me, I will.

    But it's a good old Watchtower trick you're trying to pull -- instead of addressing anything I've said about the topic, malign my motives so people will have an excuse to ignore me.

    Your paranoia speaks volumes. And it is so loud, I am going to have to turn my speakers down. I find it funny that YOU have to malign my motives. Does that mean that you are pulling a Watchtower trick?

    You have yet to do anything except complain about my attitude

    And nothing that you have said is a complaint? You hypocricy is astonishing. Of all the posters on this thread, only you took insult to my comments. That says a bundle about you. And how is your vitriolic responses to me accomplishing anything? Oh, that's right, they aren't. Just another medium for you to blow hard.

    Robyn

  • dedalus
    dedalus
    I had forgotten your posts, too. I never complained about you not posting to this topic again

    Oh, so what is this comment?:
    Not expecting meaningful answers to any of this. I mean, I very carefully explained why I disagreed with you, but none of that's worth addressing, evidently.
    Warm fuzzies for everybody? I still say that discussion boards are for discussion. What's your problem with that?

    All of this is in reference to a post you had already made, a post in which you had ignored my confusion about your gross misinterpretation of Derrick's original post. You still haven't addressed those comments. I have a feeling you never will.

    No, I do not expect warm fuzzies, nor do I expect somebody to jump the gun and call his questions dumb or accuse him of a drive by.

    For the umpteenth time, that's not all I did. And I apologized for the "drive by" thing, a remark directed at him, not you. What else am I supposed to do about that now? Why do you keep bringing it up?

    What is wrong with a civil reply? I think that if you were standing face to face with Derrick, you would be more polite--unless you are as big a bad ass as you like to come across on this board. Using this board to make up for deficiencies in real life, ded?

    Interesting. You criticize me for not being civil in a matter for which I apologized, then proceed to accuse me of deficiencies in my "real life." Hmmmm.

    That is one of your problems, ded, you assume. I wouldn't accept your apology if you were to offer it. So, no, I am not looking for an apology from you of all people. Perhaps, when your opinion means something to me, I will.

    I don't owe you an apology for anything. My opinion obviously means something to you, or you wouldn't still be on this thread harping on these same tired points. And vice versa. But you, big person that you are, are beyond accepting (or, it seems, giving) apologies. Hats off to you, then.

    Your paranoia speaks volumes. And it is so loud, I am going to have to turn my speakers down. I find it funny that YOU have to malign my motives. Does that mean that you are pulling a Watchtower trick?

    More of the same. You really don't want to have an on-topic discussion, do you? Now I'm paranoid, and all the more reason not to respond to anything that actually matters in this thread.

    And nothing that you have said is a complaint? You hypocricy is astonishing. Of all the posters on this thread, only you took insult to my comments. That says a bundle about you. And how is your vitriolic responses to me accomplishing anything? Oh, that's right, they aren't. Just another medium for you to blow hard.

    You could have explained to me how I misunderstood the wonderful questions Derrick asked in his thread. Instead, you've characterized me as a "blow hard" who is a "hypocrite" with too much "vitriolic prose," who tries to be too "clever" and is trying to get attention ... did I miss anything? Oh, yeah, I'm paranoid and looking to pick a fight.

    What did I say to you that came anywhere close to that?

    Warm fuzzies to you,

    Dedalus

  • Derrick
    Derrick

    Hi Robyn,

    I appreciate your kindness and insight. Although it's probably otherwise pointless, I can justify a reply by considering yourself as an unbiased and reasoning audience to any further attempts to explain my beliefs on the Watchtower's Armageddon doctrine.

    First, I think the current administration in the Watchtower and past administrations have used the fear of Armageddon in a misguided belief that instilling "Godly fear" in the rank and file will pummel them into uncompromising obedience to God's organization. I believe they really believe that Jehovah appointed them and therefore they reason obedience to God's organization is required to obey God himself.

    Obviously the more enlightened JW who truly read their Bible daily and sought the truth out of love for truth (not out of fear of what they imagine will happen to them for not finding it) knows that the Watchtower Society is probably not Jehovah's visible organization on Earth but rather an imperfect instrument for broadcasting the good news worldwide. Obviously this implies that God is using them warts and all without their really understanding the nature of how God is using them.

    In other words, Robyn, while they are motivated by their own manufactured and self-aggrandizing belief that God appointed them as the "faithful slave," God is in fact using them like all the other do-good organizations worldwide that provide a wide array of spiritual, social, medical and food delivery services to humanity. While the Red Cross engages in physical relief for example, organizations like the Watchtower, Mormons and other religious faiths engage in broadcasting the hope that God will save mankind from death. True, it's a sore subject by many including myself that the Watchtower doesn't attempt like Jesus did in his ministry to provide physical as well as spiritual nourishment to the poor, and this probably is a sore point with Christ, but they have built a billion-dollar infrastructure that is highly efficient in disseminating Bibles, less than accurate but nonetheless Bible-based literature that focuses on a positive future for mankind under the Kingdom, and hope. I believe that God figures that good people will take what they need from the message of JWs and discard the rest. While the Watchtower is loathe to this concept it is nonetheless being used by Jehovah. The proverbial steak might think it's all good but the one consuming it might cut off the fat and only consume the lean mass, to use a rather silly but I think pertinent metaphor. (I'm typing on a "stream of thought" basis because I'm sipping a latte in a Starbucks with a limited timeframe to respond; and because I type fast you're going to get unedited voluminous data out of me.)

    This leads to the Armageddon doctrine. Notice they teach that if one is not part of God's true organization on Earth that one is destined for destruction. Aside from being dead wrong in the very foundation of this teaching, and assuming that Armageddon is coming even within a few decades it's physically impossible for every righteous-hearted person to join ANY organization that God approves let alone one headquartered in Brooklyn NY of all places, let's examine the gist of this teaching.

    First and foremost, any body of religious teachings involves exegesis:


    Merrian-Webster's Unabridged Dictionary

    Main Entry:exegesis
    Pronunciation:*eks**j*s*s
    Function:noun
    Inflected Form:plural exegeses \-**s*z\
    Etymology:New Latin, from Greek ex*g*sis, from ex*geisthai to explain, interpret, from ex out of, out + h*geisthai to lead * more at SEEK

    : EXPOSITION, EXPLANATION; especially : critical interpretation of a text or portion of Scripture



    Understanding the "luminaries" behind the Watchtower who live in the ivory towers of Brooklyn and Patterson, I have learned after almost 30 years a Watchtower slave (sorry, couldn't resist the cliche since the majority of visitors to this site would consider me exactly that!), involves solving a complicated puzzle. I won't pretend to have solved it completely but I have come awefully close! Some will immediately recognize that sometimes when we think we're "close" to solving a puzzle, we couldn't be farther away from the solution. Having acknowledged that, I'll continue that we must therefore critically interpret both the Society's references to Armageddon and death that Dedalus quoted to support the claim they teach that only those affiliated with the WT will survive the worldwide destruction by God.

    I assert that they in fact believe they are truly God's ONLY chosen organization for a reason. Right or wrong they believe they are practicing the truth where those outside the organization are not practicing the truth. Furthermore, they hold the outrageous belief that Jehovah's son Jesus Christ is directing the worldwide ministry to the point where any areas "missed" are for a divine reason, i.e., that no honest-hearted ones are in those missed areas.

    Layer after layer of sincere albeit twisted reasoning follows to the point where they're convinced that anyone outside this supposed one and only "God's organization" are outside for a reason. They honestly believe -- and I'll admit this seems insane on the surface until you understand the layers and layers of self-brain-washing they have done to themselves motivated out of a morbid FEAR of death -- that those outside of the organization might appear to be righteous and sincere when God knows they are not. Therefore those in the Watchtower's higher eschelon harbor an admittedly warped view that the majority of mankind are unrighteous people living under the guise of being good people. This is based on the incorrect scriptural view that God will not save people who are willing to live law-abiding ordinary lives but simply don't love Him or don't want to make any sacrifices for Him.

    In summary, the teachings of the Watchtower are that one must be part of God's organization to be saved, that God will miraculously make sure before Armageddon that those "worthy" of life will become connected to that organization, and that the majority of mankind although outwardly appearing to live good lives do not want to embrace God's values and therefore are "unrighteous." Then the Watchtower proceeds to make the case why THEY are the organization, and why THEIR teachings and exegesis of the Bible embrace God's values, therefore leading to syllogisms leading them to false conclusions!

    The Watchtower is in effect saying "unless you can prove we are not God's organization and our interpretations of the Bible are not precisely what God intended when inspiring the Bible, then {Watchtower Society conclusion A, conclusion B, conclusion C, etc. .........}.

    This sheds an entirely different light on the Watchtower Society that many on this forum refuse to consider or accept. Instead of it being an evil "Borg"-like organization run by manipulative religious con-artists its fundamental motives are quite the opposite. Like the mentally and emotionally disturbed child who is willing to do ANYTHING to please the parents, and grossly misinterprets anything the parents say (i.e., the parents say "Johnny, I don't care what you do, but make your younger brother stop crying!" meaning "Johnny, will you try to play with your brother and keep him occupied while we visit with guests in the livingroom?" -- Johnny takes their words to do "anything" to stop the infant from crying. All else failing, Johnny drowns the infant in the bathtub and it ceases to cry.)

    The Bible can be taken in a similar vein by the over-zealous! Those with the most sincere and good-hearted motives have grossly misinterpreted this book and applied it in damaging ways that God never intended. The problem with the Watchtower is that it is an amalgamation of different people running it with various backgrounds and degrees of sanity! Quite often those whom everyone relates to but in fact are the most unbalanced and less than stable individuals get the most attention and sway a group's course. In this case we are talking about an organized religion and its belief system.

    Well, I've been here in Starbucks for almost 2 hours trying to explain the basis for the JW teaching and why it is widely misunderstood, so it's time to wrap this up (as I haven't had dinner yet and it's after 8:00 PM here on the west coast). My point is that aside from making a case of why Watchtower reformation is so critical in the upper eschelon of the organization, I'm also trying to explain why myself and a great many JWs worldwide have come to the conclusion that no matter what the Society publishes or has published in the past in literal terms, the underlying caveat of the teaching is the assumption that under no circumstances will anyone whom Jehovah loves or who has potential for living peacefully forever will be destroyed. Also, many JWs realize that like any war, the war of Armageddon will involve many casualties including JWs! Those who perish in the worldwide destruction will receive resurrections. Of course the Society has speculated that those divinely executed at Armageddon may not receive a resurrection, but it also acknowledges that there maybe innocent casualties of war who will in fact be resurrected.

    My battery is low, so I must close for now!

    Thanks again, Robyn, for your kind words.

    Derrick

  • Robdar
    Robdar

    Ded,

    I could address all the points that you have made but there is no need too. Why? Because no matter how many comments you make and no matter how much you try to wow me with your rebuttal, I have been concerned with only 2 points. Those points have already been addressed.

    Those points were: 1) Derrick has a right to ask questions. And 2) He may not have been guilty of a drive bye just because you thought that he didn't respond to your post quickly enough. Those are the only two points that I was concerned about. This is why I took the time to respond to this thread. Do you understand the 2 points that I was concerned with?

    By continually trying to engage me in banter, you are trying to distract from the fact that you jumped to conclusions about Derrick and you were wrong. Sure you apologized for it. But, not before I pointed out to you that you should keep an open mind and give Derrick a chance to respond. I guess my pointing out that you should give him a chance pissed you off. Big deal.

    Squak all you want to. Derrick was not doing a drive by. He has shown this. So, you were wrong.

    And guess what? He has a right to ask questions too without being ridiculed.

    Also, I have apologized publicly on forums when I have jumped to conclusions. You, however, will not be receiving an apology.

    If you want to keep barking, go for it. I have addressed my concerns and no longer care about yours.

    Robyn

  • dedalus
    dedalus

    Jesus Fucking Christ already, Robdar.

    About your "points":

    1) Of course Derrick has a right to ask questions. And I have a right to answer them, and disagree with him, and ask him questions about his questions. And you have a right to question my response, and hound me about apologies aleady made, and hate me or my posts or whatever. We all have rights. Where on this thread were any of those rights denied?

    2) Of course Derrick didn't do a drive by, as I realized in hindsight. I apologized because he seemed pretty upset about it, and I then felt I had jumped the gun. However, my apology had nothing to do with you or anything you wrote.

    I don't know why you have such a large stick jammed so far up your ass about me, but whatever -- go write an erotic poem about it, I guess, and post it to the forum in some light and puffy thread better suited to your particular intellectual gifts.

    Dedalus

  • dedalus
    dedalus

    Derrick,

    Don't have time right now for the response you deserve, but know I appreciate the time you took to answer things. I've printed out your latest post, am reading and rereading it, trying to keep an open mind, see things from a different perspective, stand in your shoes, all of that. And hey, do you think you could accept my apology? I really meant it, you know. Or am I so vile that you, like Robdar, wouldn't deign to accept an apology from one such as myself?

    Either way, I'll be posting ASAP.

    Dedalus

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit