Yes, that's right folks. It is time for another peek inside the Quotes mail bag. Unlike most, this person actually responded to my initial reply. In fact, he got quite anxious. Read on...
Here is a letter a received last week
Dear Sirs,
I have seen your site, you have gone to great lenghts to destroy the WT societie's reputation. I assume that when you set out to do this you had a good alternative available, may I enquire as to the nature of this alternative, so I can benefit as well.Have a nice day,
[name removed for privacy]
I wasn't sure how to "take" this. Was it a sincere question? Or was this the work of a wise-ass? I responded thusly:
Dear [name removed for privacy],
Thank you for writing. It is always good to receive email from visitors to our web site.
Now, to respond to the particulars of your email. First, we humbly disagree with your assumption that we "have gone to great lengths to destroy" the Watch Tower Society. Rather, we have gone to great lengths to *preserve* the writings and teachings of the Watch Tower Society. We have collected and cataloged Watch Tower Society quotes on many and various topics and made them available, without charge, to all interested parties. Apparently, you have concluded that a collection of past and present Watch Tower Society beliefs 'destroys' the Watch Tower Society's reputation. If that is your conclusion, so be it; however our carefully prepared and accurately cited collection merely reports facts.
As for an "alternative", we are somewhat confused by the question. Are you asking about an alternative corporation to the Watch Tower Society, which could be used by Jehovah's Witnesses? Or are you asking about an alternative religion to Jehovah's Witnesses? Either way our response is the same: we would never presume to suggest a religious course to others. Although some people, upon finding
problems with their religion, have become "apostates" and created their own faith (for example, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Mary Baker Eddy, Joseph Smith, Charles Taze Russell) we have neither the hubris nor the conceit to suggest our beliefs are better than any others. Religious beliefs are a very personal matter, and each person must come to their own conclusions.
Best Regards,
~Quotes
I was surprised to receive this rambling response from Lex::
Dear All,
Just call me Lex, [name removed for privacy] sounds so pompous as an opening.
First of all let me say that I appreciate your honesty in quoting the WT soc. Publications, I myself am severely critical of JW’s earthly organization, to the point of repeatedly almost having been thrown out of that organization. Because of my approach to the WT soc. literature and the Holy writings nobody has succeeded in doing so up to now, this either indicates I am very smart or that I have divine approval.
I greatly appreciate your humility in recognizing that one human her beliefs are not better than her next of kin his beliefs. All religion pursuing worship of a personal creator should by its very nature be a form of xenopsychology. Since all Christian religions at least claim to venerate the same god, there is room for the following conclusions, please feel free to add to the list if I have left out some possible options, the idea beeing to create an all-encompassing list;
1. There exists no personal creator.
2. This creator suffers from MPS. (This is a xenopsychiatric diagnosis. The sheer notion of which I find ludicrous.)
3. Only one religion worships the creator acceptably.
4. No religion worships the creator acceptably.
5. The creator has ceased to exist.
6. The creator does not care about his creation.
The existence of Jesus the Nazarene is irrefutable, sources outside the bible speak of him, and even our Gregorian calendar is based on his existence, even though it is slightly offset with regards of the d.o.b. of the fore mentioned historical person. If we dare doubt that Jesus, the son of Joseph, has walked the earth, we should also doubt the existence of Julius Caesar and arguably the holocaust of 1933-1945.
If we take this as a starting point we could begin to test the first hypothesis, I feel that finding arguments to prove or disprove all of the foregoing suppositions goes well beyond the scope of this mail and that this should be a group exercise so as to have many great minds join forces in order to arrive at the scientific truth.
Preserving the written word is best left to professional librarians, there are several well indexed, publicly accessible and comprehensive collections of Charles Taze Russell’s early writings and the publications of the later WT soc.. You would have to agree with me that a web server is not the best medium for preservation of the written word.
Communication occurs not only by express statement. Every married man and speech and language therapist will agree that even silence, can be very communicative. To me the parts you highlight from the Wt soc. her publications, convey at least discontent with the direction of this body, be it not a wish to destruct same.
Al the persons you name, have not just indicated discontent with the handling of religious matters in the organization of their choosing, but have endeavored to offer a way of worship more acceptable to our supposed creator. I feel that one only realizes the right to be critical, be it by express statement or otherwise, of direction of any kind if one is part of the structure being governed and one tries to improve that organization or if one genuinely believes to be able to offer a better alternative.
Thank you for the correctness of your quotations of the WT soc. publications, in my opinion your way of reference and emphasis leads people of a certain moral fortitude to the WT soc.. I do have to note that in your work, you are breaking copyright law, as you are acutely aware, indicated by your stand on publication of the “KS” book.
It would be to my ignominy, if I would criticize your work and not offer an, in my view, better option. Why don’t you create a forum for scientific discussion concerning the validity of Christian religion. A good starting point would be the first few paragraphs of this mail. The first step would be to challenge the scientific community to add to my proposed list so that a comprehensive set of hypothesis will be compiled, it would be wise to set a time limit for this and then begin testing each conjecture. I will be more than happy to actively participate in such a discussion and if it is embraced by the correct community, I will endeavor to publish its findings.
Let the games begin!!!
Best regards,
Lex [removed for privacy]
I put off answering, because I am busy, and because I was starting to think he is a bit of a psycho. Well, I guess "Lex" couldn't wait, so today her sends me this:
Hello,
I have not received a reply, I have been critical of your work and have offered an alternative.
Next to my interest in serving our creator, I am being kept quite busy, serving as the main administrator of an aviation organization does not help finding time for all things I wish to pursue.
As you might have gathered, I am one of the very few born again worshippers of Jehovah and therefore a member of the faithful and discreet slave class. I do not fancy seeing my writings published on the internet with highlights of your choosing. Therefore at a time convenient to me I will use the law to the fullest extend to trouble you as much as I possibly can and I will certainly try to make some money in the process.
Have a nice day,
Lex
[he then included his previous email, with certains parts highlighted so I wouldn't miss them]
Well, it was obviously time to give this squeaky (and psychotic) wheel some grease. Here is my response, I hope you enjoy it as much as I enjoyed composing it! The red highlighting was his work, not mine.
Lex,
I have not yet had a chance to offer a reply. I felt it was best to offer a well thought out response, rather than a quick, "knee-jerk" response. However, since it appears you prefer alacrity over depth, I respond as follows:
No, I had *NOT* gathered that you are a "born again worshipper of Jehovah".
You refer below to "my [i.e. your] writings". The only writings I have from you are your previous two emails. Rest assured, I will NOT be posting them on my Watch Tower Quotes web site -- however, if I chose to do so, it would be entirely within my rights and allowable by all laws.
Regarding your threat to "trouble me as much as possible" -- what on earth are you talking about? And how do you propose to make money from your process of troubling me? Your threat is both mildly disturbing and also nonsensical.Preserving the written word is best left to professional librarians, there are several well indexed, publicly accessible and comprehensive collections of Charles Taze Russell’s early writings and the publications of the later WT soc.. You would have to agree with me that a web server is not the best medium for preservation of the written word.Really? Please, name more than three (i.e. several). Not counting the Watch Tower's internal library, which is not publicly accessible. The Watch Tower's own "Library CD" only goes back to 1950, so that doesn't help either. As for preserving the written word, it would appear that, for example, Google disagrees with you ( http://www.google.com/press/pressrel/print_library.html ) and are in the process of scanning huge quantities of texts, to aid the flow of information. Even if, for the sake of argument, I agree with you and say the web is not the best medium, your claim is pointless: my Quotes web site does not interfere with "professional librarians" or anyone else that wants to preserve publications, using any medium they choose. Finally, I thought that the "delightful, correct words of truth" published by the Watch Tower Society *MUST* be spread, no matter what the cost. If that is true, then my work should be lauded, not condemned.
To me the parts you highlight from the Wt soc. her publications, convey at least discontent with the direction of this body, be it not a wish to destruct same.No, the parts I highlight draw attention to the relevant material for the topic or subject discussed. You see, I am in a bit of a "Catch-22": if I only included the relevant words, some (like yourself) would claim I have taken the quote "out of context". So, I include the relevant context. But then the page gets quite lengthy and cumbersome to read, so I highlight the relevant portions, but now you criticize me for my highlighting. And again, I note: if you feel the words highlighted in my web site "convey discontent", then you should not be complaining to me: I didn't write them.
Al the persons you name, have not just indicated discontent with the handling of religious matters in the organization of their choosing, but have endeavored to offer a way of worship more acceptable to our supposed creator. I feel that one only realizes the right to be critical , be it by express statement or otherwise, of direction of any kind if one is part of the structure being governed and one tries to improve that organization or if one genuinely believes to be able to offer a better alternative.Interesting: I guess, following your logic here, you should dismiss over 100 years of Watch Tower publications which were critical of every other religion (especially Catholics and Jews) since the critic (the Watch Tower) was not a member of the structure (religion) being criticized and was only offering condemnation. Of course, I don't think you would. But then, having two standards is likely convenient for you, even if it is condemned in the bible. By the way, it is interesting to note that, by definition, the Bible Students/Jehovah's Witnesses religion was founded by an apostate: Charles Taze Russell.
Thank you for the correctness of your quotations of the WT soc. publications, in my opinion your way of reference and emphasis leads people of a certain moral fortitude to the WT soc.. I do have to note that in your work, you are breaking copyright law , as you are acutely aware, indicated by your stand on publication of the “KS” book.You are very welcome. My Watch Tower Quotes web site fully complies with national and international copyright law. If you had taken the time to actually read the copyright notice on my site ( http://quotes.watchtower.ca/admin-copyright.htm -- there is a link to this at the bottom of *EVERY* page, so you have no excuse for missing it), you would already know this, and would not have to waste your precious time making vacuous, meaningless threats about "causing trouble" and "making money" in the process. Furthermore, the Watch Tower Society themselves has already attempted to make a (false) claim for copyright protection in order to have my site shut down -- and they failed miserably, since their claim was baseless ( http://quotes.watchtower.ca/admin-news.htm -- see 2005.01.27). It is ironic: Watch Tower Society had gone to court to protect their right to spread their message; they now attempt to use legalism to *STOP* the spread of their message. If you want to learn more about copyright law, so that in the future you will stop making yourself look silly by demonstrating your ignorance of the subject while making copyright threats, read my lawyer's response to the Watch Tower's claim ( http://quotes.watchtower.ca/admin-news.htm -- see 2005.02.11)
Regarding the "KS" book. I don't know what that is, but from the context of your email, I assume you are speaking about the secret elder's manual: "Pay Attention To Yourselves..." Frankly, I don't understand how you could possible conclude that because I do *NOT* publish the entire "Pay Attention..." book, that I therefore *AM* in violation of copyright. There are several other web sites, totally unrelated to me and my Quotes web site, which have this rare volume, complete. However I do not carry it; I don't even have direct links to those sites. Carrying a complete book likely is a violation of copyright law, and I wouldn't be so stupid as to do that. I am fully aware of copyright law and the "fair use" and "fair dealing" provisions. The fact that I do not have the complete "Pay Attention..." book demonstrates my strict *COMPLIANCE* with copyright. Your conclusion is a non sequitor.Why don’t you create a forum for scientific discussion concerning the validity of Christian religion. The first step would be to challenge the scientific community to add to my proposed list so that a comprehensive set of hypothesis will be compiled, it would be wise to set a time limit for this and then begin testing each conjecture. I will be more than happy to actively participate in such a discussion and if it is embraced by the correct community, I will endeavor to publish its findings.I am both flattered and confused by this suggestion. First of all, flattered that you feel that I should lead the 'charge of the light brigade' to try and objectively analyze one of the great religions of the world: Christianity. Many minds greater than mine have already done this, and I am certain that my limited skills would add nothing to the volumes already available. Second, you should know that by definition, a scientific discussion of religion is impossible. Science studies the observable "natural" world, and works only with ideas that are falsifiable, and provable. Religion deals in the "supernatural". By definition, science can't measure or explain the supernatural -- that is why it is called supernatural. If it could measure or explain the thing, then that thing (whatever it is: a miracle, or a god) would cease to be "supernatural" -- it would be "natural". Put another way: a scientific discussion about religion is as illogical as "dancing about architecture" -- it simply doesn't make sense.
Publish the findings? Where? Do you have some special access to a peer reviewed journal? Which one? Should I be impressed with your offer? For all I know, your idea of "publishing" is taping a photocopy to your car windshield. Can you quantify this promise?Let the games begin!!!It is interesting that despite your claimed busy schedule as " the main administrator of an aviation organization " you want to play games with me. Personally, I don't have the time for games, and am disappointed that you want to waste my precious time with games. By the way, from your self-description, does that mean that you are the secretary/receptionist at the place that supplies food services to airlines?
Lastly, I note that you have stricken out the "best regards" from your previous email. Assuming you call yourself Christian, you might want to restudy what your savior, Jesus Christ, had to say about forgiving, turning the other cheek, showing compassion and humility, and loving your enemies as well as your friends. On the other hand, if you more strongly identify yourself with the angry, jealous, vengeful, genocidal god of the Old Testament, then please ignore this paragraph.
Warmest regards,
~Quotes, of the "Student" class
If I get a respone from "Lex", I'll post it in this thread as a follow up.
~Quotes, of the "Postman, but better than Kevin Costner" class