slimboyfat

Joined

• started 536 topics
• posted 17,573 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by slimboyfat

• 
  47

  Was I Disrespectful to Dr Singelenberg?

  by slimboyfat in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  as some may know, richard singelenberg is a dutch anthropologist who studies jehovah's witnesses.

  he has produced academic articles and reviews on issues ranging from the 1975 disappointment and child custody cases to jehovah's witnesses in nazi germany and the history of the blood doctrine.

  sometimes he sides with apostates and sometimes he sides with the witnesses on controversial issues (though i personally suspect the former impulse is greater than the latter).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  You can't get sued for disagreeing with someone in public... otherwise O'Reilly would be sued every night!
• 
  47

  Was I Disrespectful to Dr Singelenberg?

  by slimboyfat in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  as some may know, richard singelenberg is a dutch anthropologist who studies jehovah's witnesses.

  he has produced academic articles and reviews on issues ranging from the 1975 disappointment and child custody cases to jehovah's witnesses in nazi germany and the history of the blood doctrine.

  sometimes he sides with apostates and sometimes he sides with the witnesses on controversial issues (though i personally suspect the former impulse is greater than the latter).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  Singelenberg apparently scans this site quite regularly, so I suspect he may see this thread. Maybe he will choose to join in, but it seems he prefers to observe.
• 
  47

  Was I Disrespectful to Dr Singelenberg?

  by slimboyfat in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  as some may know, richard singelenberg is a dutch anthropologist who studies jehovah's witnesses.

  he has produced academic articles and reviews on issues ranging from the 1975 disappointment and child custody cases to jehovah's witnesses in nazi germany and the history of the blood doctrine.

  sometimes he sides with apostates and sometimes he sides with the witnesses on controversial issues (though i personally suspect the former impulse is greater than the latter).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  SNG,

  I think one of the things that shows most clearly that the Witness leaders are less sure of themselves nowadays is the manner in which they deal with outside criticism in their literature. Rutherford would actually make public responses to his critics by name in the Watchtower. In the 1950s too, just after the release of the NWT, Franz would reference critical remarks about his translation and then counter them. As late as 1978 even Walter Martin (the prominent 'counter-cultist' in the US) got a scathing mention in the Watchtower. But after the 1980s upheaval with Ray Franz, Penton and the Gentile Times issue, the Witnesses stopped mentioning their critics by name. They continued to counter accusations made by the likes of Bergman, Penton, Franz, Bowman, White and so on, but they stopped being specific about the source of the material they were responding too, allowing readers to draw their own inferences (or not, as the case may be). This, to me, is indicative of a loss of confidence among Witness writers. I do digress.

  I agree with you that there may be various ways to view Rutherford's behaviour. Although he made some bumbling mistakes due to his rashness, even admitting that he made 'an ass' of himself over 1925, he certainly must have been a pretty shrewd operator also to have maintained the devotion of many, despite his flaws.

  There is no big deal about the 1944/45 thing. I just mentioned in passing that I thought Singelenberg may have got wrong the starting point for the prohibition in his article because I thought it might interest him to have some new information. I was a bit taken aback by his accusation of exegetic gymnastics and it seemed to escalate. I also suggested that he made the mistake because he was relying on secondary sources for his presentation, which would not have pleased him I am sure. We have been arguing about various issues relating to the blood issue for a while, this was just the latest. But I get the feeling that I am up against a brick wall since, from my perspective, he is not willing to budge on even the most self-evident criticisms I have made.

  Scully may have a point about the Witness focus upon 'nit-picking'. I must admit that I am guilty of this, and it has been a major complaint from Singelenberg too. However, I feel inhibited from making more fundamental criticisms of judgement or methodology in Singelenberg's work for the simple fact that the more abstract the debate becomes, the more difficult it becomes to prove your point of view. At the end of the day, when I do reveal criticisms on a more fundamental theorectical level than simple facts and data, then he is understandably able to blow me out of the water with ease. I know my limitations.
• 
  47

  Was I Disrespectful to Dr Singelenberg?

  by slimboyfat in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  as some may know, richard singelenberg is a dutch anthropologist who studies jehovah's witnesses.

  he has produced academic articles and reviews on issues ranging from the 1975 disappointment and child custody cases to jehovah's witnesses in nazi germany and the history of the blood doctrine.

  sometimes he sides with apostates and sometimes he sides with the witnesses on controversial issues (though i personally suspect the former impulse is greater than the latter).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  Thanks everyone.

  Thanks Seattleniceguy, your comments are very helpful. I see I should drop words like "ridicule", but I honestly felt that was what he was doing when he previously said: "you may try some semantic or exegetic gymnastics to prove your point but..."

  You understood my obscure sentence correctly. I am a bit defensive about Jehovah's Witnesses, it is true... it was not so long ago that I was one myself. I think people in general are far too cynical in evaluating the actions of others who act upon the basis of beliefs that they do not share. This is especially the case with those interacting with controversial issues relating to Jehovah's Witnesses, many approaching the subject with strong opinions of their own. I have made this point before with Singelenberg in relation to his assertion that the Witness leaders' view of higher education evinces 'paranoia'.

  I did not mean to try to 'shame' Singelenberg into abandoning his cynicism as such (I think). My argument was that it is historically inaccurate to assert that Witnesses in the 1940s 'warmed the faithful up' for new pronouncements. Such a strategy on the part of the Witness leadership is, in my view, a more recent development, and is symptomatic of the fact that current Witness leaders are somewhat less sure of themselves than in the heady days of the 1940s. I also happen to think that it is quite depressing and unhelpful always to approach the actions of Witness leaders (or anyone) with such cynicism.

  You are right that you do no know the full context, and there seems to have been offending remarks that Singelenberg took exception to in my previous emails that are not displayed above. But I honestly do not think that anything I said previously was any worse than what I wrote here.

  Maybe you apostate are not so bad after all.

  Thanks again
• 
  13

  Who have you learned the most from on this board?

  by stillajwexelder in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  for me it is blondie, alanf, farkel, seattlenice guy, and dogpatch others have contibuted to me learning but these guys have helped most

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  Blondie and, in the old days, Farkel.
• 
  47

  Was I Disrespectful to Dr Singelenberg?

  by slimboyfat in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  as some may know, richard singelenberg is a dutch anthropologist who studies jehovah's witnesses.

  he has produced academic articles and reviews on issues ranging from the 1975 disappointment and child custody cases to jehovah's witnesses in nazi germany and the history of the blood doctrine.

  sometimes he sides with apostates and sometimes he sides with the witnesses on controversial issues (though i personally suspect the former impulse is greater than the latter).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  As some may know, Richard Singelenberg is a Dutch anthropologist who studies Jehovah's Witnesses. He has produced academic articles and reviews on issues ranging from the 1975 disappointment and child custody cases to Jehovah's Witnesses in Nazi Germany and the history of the blood doctrine.

  Sometimes he sides with apostates and sometimes he sides with the Witnesses on controversial issues (though I personally suspect the former impulse is greater than the latter). But that simplification is especially crude, and it is perfectly clear that Singelenberg is a gifted scholar who has made some very valuable contributions to the social scientific study of Jehovah's Witnesses without regard to partisanship.

  So I was glad when he condescended to respond to my email to him. Since praising him for the many virtues of his work on Jehovah's Witnesses would be tedious, and obsequiousness does not become me, I have concentrated on some modest criticisms of details in his work in my emails.

  Recently I suggested that the prohibition on blood transfusion did not begin in 1945, as he has argued, but in 1944. He now informs me that he will entertain no further correspondence with me, due to the "downgrading evaluative remarks" of my most recent message. I honestly meant no offence by the comments I made in my message. Sometimes I write things that if I were to say in person would be accompanied by a mischievous smile or a wink . I did not mean to be disrespectful. Could others on the forum tell me if they also think my message conveys that I am an incorrigible toe-rag?

  Singelenberg:

  >
  > Ok, I've seen the whole page now and I assume you refer to par 33 since
  > there's nothing else on the page. As I said in my earlier message, this
  > cannot be considered, as you say, "that transfusions were forbidden
  > already
  > in 1944". Of course, you may try some semantic or exegetic gymnastics to
  > prove your point but the bottom line is that it doesn't say that the brs &
  > srs should abstain from blood transfusions. Period.
  >
  > Nevertheless, one may consider the statement, as others in the same
  > period,
  > precursors to the actual prohibition. After all, the flock has to be
  > warmed
  > up for such a drastic teaching.
  >
  > RS
  >
  >

  Me:

  Well the whole article sets out various rules 'alien residents' in Israel
  lived by in order to join God's nation and separate themselves from the
  gentiles. The article then states that 'antitypical' Jonadabs (the great
  crowd in current parlance) need to act similarly to separate themselves
  from the world and ally themselves with God's chosen ones. If mention of
  the injunction against blood were intended merely to refer, in
  application, to the alien residents in Israel and not to modern Jehovah's
  Witnesses, then use of the term 'transfusion' would be redundant. The
  insertion of the modern technique of 'transfusion' into the discussion
  clearly conveyed that the command was in this respect binding upon
  contemporary Jehovah's Witnesses. Call that 'gymnastics' if you like, it
  is perfectly straightforward to me :-)
  
  More to the point, I find it curious that you ridicule the suggestion that
  this reference indicates blood transfusion was 'banned' already in 1944,
  when the article upon the basis of which you claim transfusion was
  prohibited from 1945 onward is even more vague. Far from 'introducing the
  prohibition' (as you state in your 'taboo' article), the July 1st 1945
  Watchtower in its discussion of blood, as I recall, does not even mention
  blood transfusion. Some doctrinal proclamation that! At least my article
  actually mentions 'transfusion'! On this issue, it seems to me, you have
  uncritically followed secondary sources that universally and inexplicably
  promote 1945 as year the 'prohibition' began. Whoever started this false
  notion I do not know, but commentators have apparently been copying each
  other without recourse to the original.
  
  As for 'warming up the faithful' [:-)] I can see how you can argue this
  was done over the generation, the goats, alternative service, and other
  changes of recent times. But that does not seem how they operated in the
  old days. Watchtower leaders were much more confident (cavalier?) back
  then, and less concerned about the possible downsides of new
  pronouncements. Rutherford almost seemed to delight in surprising his
  devotees with shock doctrinal changes - as with the adoption of the new
  name: 'Jehovah's Witnesses'. In that context I see the blood doctrine as
  the ad hoc product of evolving attitudes and new situations facing the
  leadership, rather than the premeditated result of a cautious doctrinal
  denouement. Far from 'warming up the faithful' for the flag salute
  struggle, for example, Rutherford landed the Witnesses with this battle on
  the spur of the moment by his off-the-cuff answer to a single question
  during a Witness assembly, as you may recall.
  
  I do rather hope that your comment that the 'flock' was 'warmed up' for
  the blood doctrine is merely a light-hearted attempt to shock me (on the
  misguided assumption that I can be shocked). I would not like to believe
  that you persistently inhabit such a cynical attitude with respect to the
  history of Jehovah's Witnesses, while all on your lonesome.
  
  What is an xmission? (sounds saucy)
  
  What 'exegetic gymnastics' deprives 'good luck' of its usual sense in your
  submission to the AJWRB?

  Singelenberg:

  I've had it with you.
  
  I made it clear earlier that I have enough of your downgrading evaluative
  remarks.
  
  This message ends my correspondence with you.
  
  RS

  Thanks for any feedback.
• 
  87

  What's the most thought-provoking novel you've ever read?

  by lucky in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i'd have to say for me that it was ayn rand's the fountainhead.

  even though i don't agree with a lot of her philosophy, it definitely made me stumble around in a thought-induced haze for a few weeks after reading it.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  I haven't read many they did not make me read. I prefer poetry. Of those forced, my favourite was Howard's End, not for the totality of the story, which is rather dull, but for endearing incidental observations along the way.
• 
  59

  Is the Governing Body in Danger at Bethel as More Bethlites read the Net??

  by frankiespeakin in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  do you think the gb should limit contact with bethelites because of possible harm that could come to them right there at headquarters.

  i mean think of how many bethelites have interent access and know the gb are tyrants, but are stuck there at bethel because they have no money and no place to turn because they have been there for many years.. i think many gbs purposely keeps to themselves now a days, they probably should even think seriously of a body guard even while at bethel.. have you notice the wt doesn't give any advance notice when a gb will be speaking at conventions anymore, could it be that they are worried that some father or other family member who lost a child through thier no blood policy, finds out throught the internet that the gb are phoneies and now blames the gb for the loss of life.

  think of how dangerous it would be to give advanced notice when so and so gb member would be giving a convention talk.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  This sort of talk is not appropriate. Come on chaps!

  In 1958 pretty much all Jehovah's Witnesses were together in one place. That never really happened before or since (I think), nor can it ever happen again because there are too many of them now.
• 
  25

  Ray Franz Wife

  by TheListener in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i can't thank ray franz enough for what he wrote and how he has affected people for the better.

  while reading his books and seeing threads about him i have always wondered how his wife reacted when he started telling her about his doubts and trouble with the society.

  how did she react when she had to leave bethel with him?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  Ray Franz is curiously silent about his wife's reaction.

  I remember Heinz Schmidt claiming that Ray Franz' wife pleaded with the society to take her husband back into the organisation, claiming that she had written many such letters to the New York headquarters until recent years.

  Apologetic rhetoric as that may be, one does get the sense from the absence of real discussion of his wife's views that Mrs Franz may not have been as willing a fellow 'conscientious' crusader against the 'Watchtower' as Ray Franz himself.

  Of course I know that many here have actually met the pair, and fully expect to bashed about and told I do not know what the hell I am talking about...
• 
  58

  The Witness Cult

  by kingdoman in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  according to the watchtower bible and tract society, all non- jehovah witnesses will be destroyed at armageddon, a time said to be coming soon.

  the watchtower prints over 14 million copies of its magazines every week, and has over 4 million (in 1992) jehovah's witnesses are spreading their doctrines in 200 countries and it is rapidly increasing.

  since it's origination, the jehovah's witnesses have had many names and boldly claim to be the only organization that god is using to speak his truth for him today.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  Sometimes I defend the Witnesses you know. I think a lot of untruthful things are said about the Witnesses.

  Sometimes I wonder whether apostates may be just as bad as Jehovah's Witnesses!

  But Evangelicals got to be the worst of the lot.