Unfortunately I have no scanner. But I thought y'all might like a glance into the latest mind of "mother".
I won't type out the whole thing, but just select pertinent parts to quote:
"To all Bodies of Elders
"Re: Christian Parents permitting unbelieving relatives to live in fornication in their homes
"[Usual blather about 'works of flesh']...If Christian parents were to allow their unbelieving son or daughter to practice fornication in their home, they would thus be giving tacit approval to immoral conduct. This would also be true of Christians who allow a son or daughter or other relative to commit fornication while visiting their home. Such parents would surely not be exemplary Christians...
"When congregatoin elders come to know of such a situation, they sould patiently provide scriptural counsel. [Blather about the good effects if such counsel is applied]
"Perhaps the parents are genuinely concerned that what they hve been allowing may be a cause for stumbling. For certain reasons, however, they may feel they have no recourse at the present time. For example, elderly Witness parents may need the assistance of an unbelieving son or daughter. Under such circumstances, no judicial action would be taken, but the qualification of the parent to serve in an exemplary position would be reviewed by the body of elders.
"Suppose the parents, upon being approached by the elders, manifest a brazen attitude, not really caring if others are stumbled. Even though these parents do not encourage others to do what they themselves are doing, the elders may decide to arrange for a talk to be given that serves as a warning to the congregation [references to 'marking' from 7/15/99 WT]. On the other hand, if the baptized parents actively promote the practice of allowing individuals who are living in fornication to move into a Christian home, then the matter could be handled judicially on the grounds of condoning fornication, causing divisions, and, in effect, speaking against 'the teaching of the Christ."
[Standard conclusion].
Observations:
1) Must be a growing problem if it elicits a Body Of Elders letter with such explicit examples and directions
2) Note the last sentence quoted above:
(a) "condoning fornication" is not a Disfellowshipping offense in the elder manual - they seem to be establishing a new precedent here.
(b) "Causing divisions" is a catchall reason, along with "loose conduct", for Disfellowshipping someone you don't like, but you don't have any valid grounds.
(c) "the teaching of the Christ", as contained in the gospels, mentions absolutely nothing about parents whose children are "living in fornication". But there's plenty of information in Watchtowers, Body of Elders letters, and other literature. Thus, the subtle connection is made - Watchtower literature is really "the teachings of Christ"
There's really nothing particularly surprising here, but it is interesting to note that the micromanagement and desire to control all aspects of members' loves continues unabated.
64 comments:
Why do we care?
#Thedude If you do not care why did you read or post a reply?
Interestingly, there are exceptions made for those who are being supported by their 'immoral' children. Since when do financial concerns trump spiritual concerns?
Will god not provide for the one being supported if they leave a 'sinful' situation? Is it not even more stumbling and divisive when one of their own members puts security over spirituality?
Or, is this, perhaps, a rule of man, not found in the bible?
Since when is this a spiritual concern?
Why must everything be done by the Bible?
This is 2009, things have been updated since the Bible days.
Fornication should be done in private and others would not know that it is being done.
Nothing surprising here as they are supporting elevated Bible principles.
I love how financial support trumps biblical concerns. It's bad if your kids are living in sin, but we'll turn our heads to it if they're paying for your donations to the WTBTS. Love it!
Hey, thedude, I was just speaking "Witness-speak." I used to be very fluent, but I can still pull it off.
If god exists, he hasn't cared about the life on this planet since it started evolving a couple billion years ago, or so.
Reader, Got a better idea?
What gives you the right to publish this confidential information in a letter which was not addressed to you, without the permission of the writer?
thedude asked "Reader, Got a better idea?"
I don't know for sure if it is a better idea, but I certainly prefer facts over fantasy.
Hey Jake
How do you know he is not an elder?
Ringwielder said...
Hey Jake
How do you know he is not an elder?
I find it interesting that you focus on a detail rather on the rather more serious matter of stealing confidential information and putting it on the internet.
It makes no difference whether he is an elder or not. Letters are addressed to bodies of elders, not to individual elders. If he disagrees with the Governing Body then he is an imposter on the body of elders and has no right to even read the letters, much less to put them on the internet.
To be an elder, he would have to present himself to the congregation and the other elders as being in agreement with and living in harmony with the teachings and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses. To pretend otherwise would surely be the height of hypocrisy and deceit.
I was going to call it traiterous, but it really isn't even significant enough for that description. The way Jehovah's Witnesses' elders handle cases like this is an internal matter of no concern to anyone outside the congregation. No-one except bitter ex-Witnesses could even care less about how these situations are handled. There is no compelling public interest in leaking the information, nothing but sheer spite and bloody-mindedness. It's a childish attitude: "Look what I've done, you can't stop me."
You should really be ashamed of yourself and stop and think: have I really sunk this low?
Reader, what are your facts for a better future?
Jake... get over it man.
"Reader, what are your facts for a better future?"
thedude, even if the history of the planet showed a worsening trend (it does not), that would be no excuse for indulging in fantasy. You declare, without explanation, that the Bible's principles are 'elevated', but this just reveals your lack of thinking ability.
Let's take a look at some of god's "wisdom":
Leviticus 8:23: “After that Moses slaughtered it and took some of its blood and put it upon the lobe of Aaron’s right ear and upon the thumb of his right hand and upon the big toe of his right foot.”
Verses 8:14-32 detail how Moses first kills an animal, then wipes the blood on Aaron’s ears, thumbs and big toes, and then, just for good measure, sprinkles some blood around, and waves the guts around before Jehovah. Finally, he burns everything, noting that God finds the smell pleasant. It would be rather amusing if the bible were not being bandied around as the high watermark of moral achievement, and the work of the Universe’s creator, no less.
(I anticipate the objection that the Mosaic law is no longer applicable. I will come to this shortly since it is not actually true; however my intention is only to set the scene, and to show what caught my eye as I was reading. Suffice it say, these Leviticus scriptures are the tip of the iceberg, and in the context of the bible as a whole, they are unremarkable. In fact they are quite tame.)
Genesis 7:21-23: “So all flesh that was moving upon the earth expired, among the flying creatures and among the domestic animals and among the wild beasts and among all the swarms that were swarming upon the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything in which the breath of the force of life was active in its nostrils, namely, all that were on the dry ground, died. 23 Thus he wiped out every existing thing that was on the surface of the ground, from man to beast, to moving animal and to flying creature of the heavens, and they were wiped off the earth; and only Noah and those who were with him in the ark kept on surviving. 24 And the waters continued overwhelming the earth a hundred and fifty days.”
It shouldn’t be necessary to point out how cruel it is to drown every man, woman and child as well as every animal that breathes, presumably for rejecting this same God. In the highly improbable case that every single person alive was evil (and I suggest that the biblical account is simply untrue), it is still a profound injustice to drown them all. Drowning is, I imagine, a deeply unpleasant way to die. I have to wonder how loving a God is that watches as a mother raises her toddler above the rising waters, knowing she would die before he or she did (I am intentionally referencing an image here painted for the benefit of the youngest Witness children in My Book of Bible Stories). Fortunately I do not believe it happened at all.
Numbers 15:32-36: “While the sons of Israel were continuing in the wilderness, they once found a man collecting pieces of wood on the sabbath day. 33 Then those who found him collecting pieces of wood brought him up to Moses and Aaron and the whole assembly. 34 So they committed him into custody, because it had not been distinctly stated what should be done to him.
35 In time Jehovah said to Moses: “Without fail the man should be put to death, the whole assembly pelting him with stones outside the camp.” 36 Accordingly the whole assembly brought him forth outside the camp and pelted him with stones so that he died, just as Jehovah had commanded Moses.”
Again no good person could be anything but repulsed when reading this passage. In the modern age (an age which the Witnesses claim is worse than any in history), only the most backward, least democratic societies practice stoning – the modern state of Iran is the primary example here. We all find it repulsive that a person should have large rocks thrown at their head because of some crime. There are quick ways to die and this is not one of them. Why would the all wise, all loving Jehovah select a hideous method of death because a man picked up some sticks? Did the man have a wife and family? Note that “the whole assembly” is the ancient equivalent of the congregation – and yet they were required to pelt Brother Jones until his (no doubt shaking) hands stopped moving. All because God finds “work” offensive for one day of the week. Disgusting, and one would think that this could not be held up as part of a “holy” book.
2 Kings 2:23-24: “And he proceeded to go up from there to Beth´el. As he was going up on the way, there were small boys that came out from the city and began to jeer him and that kept saying to him: “Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!” 24 Finally he turned behind him and saw them and called down evil upon them in the name of Jehovah. Then two she-bears came out from the woods and went tearing to pieces forty-two children of their number.”
When I was struggling to get past Leviticus, I opened the bible so that I got a random page, and this was the first scripture I read. Jehovah clearly takes a dim view of children. I’ve observed worse behaviour from children in the Kingdom Hall, seriously, but to tear them apart using two bears is vicious, and unjust. I also thought about this – two bears cannot kill 42 children unless they were immobilised somehow. It seems that God froze the children in time so that the bears could so their thing. Also, God yet again chooses a method of death that you wouldn’t wish on anyone, although presumably the kids didn’t feel anything because of the time-suspension field. Absurd, and utterly repellent even in its own time, I would have thought.
And so on. I'm barely scratching the surface here of your wonderful book; neither have I mentioned the simple biological facts such as the existence of well-adapted kiling machines and opportunistic parasites which show that the existence of the christian god is absurd. Since you mention it's 2009 with the thought that we should be more sophisticated, here's a similar thought: it's 2009, wake up.
I don't disagree with what Mr. Lockhart pointed out. There is so much absurdity in the bible.
Future? Who knows. It is unknowable, unlike the past. Live your life. Try to do good.
For god's sake don't put your life on hold waiting for Armageddon. It will never come, and you will just be on your deathbed with a whole ton of missed opportunities.
Jake442, it seems you are finely attuned to hypocrisy outside the organization, yet purposely blind to in inside the organization.
I showed how their official position on this is contrary to their biblical position of secular authorities. Yet you glossed over that entirely.
Good job. Shows that your JW blinders are working perfectly.
Interestingly, there are exceptions made for those who are being supported by their 'immoral' children. Since when do financial concerns trump spiritual concerns?
You haven't read the letter properly. It says nothing of exceptions. Regardless of the reasons for allowing fornication in the house, "such parents would not be exemplary Christians." The way the elders deal with it is not determined by the circumstances (e.g. need for material assistance). That is simply mentioned to explain a possible reason why someone might be in that situation without really wanting to. The determining factor is clearly the attitude.
The letter does not say that if the parents are 'concerned' about the feelings of the congregation, then an exception is made. Rather, the body of elders reviews their qualifications to serve in responsible positions. If they manifest a brazen attitude, not caring if others are stumbled, they will be marked. If they actively promote the practice, judicial action is taken.
I don't think that's at all hypocritical. It is advising the elders to treat each case on its merits, actually the very opposite of the 'micromanaging' that the original poster posits.
Will god not provide for the one being supported if they leave a 'sinful' situation? Is it not even more stumbling and divisive when one of their own members puts security over spirituality?
Now if that statement was published in a Watch Tower publication, you'd be the first to criticize it, and you know it. Talk about hypocrisy!
Jake442, you are wrong. It clearly states that if there was support coming from the wayward person then the following applies:
"Under such circumstances, no judicial action would be taken, but the qualification of the parent to serve in an exemplary position would be reviewed by the body of elders."
So that means they get a pass, where they might not otherwise get one, simply because of dependency. They would still remain members of the congregation where someone else would be under a judicial committee hearing.
Good to keep those blinders on. God forbid that you see some actual truth, and the the tripe you eat at the KH.
Christians are generally blind, (except for those who have not actually read the Tale of Murder otherwise known as their "holy" book - they are simply ignorant).
In the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, such as the fact that our genome contains parts of retroviruses, they will continue to apologize and apologize and apologize for their strange beliefs as they get older and grayer, until finally they die, having accomplished little.
The most unfortunate thing is that it would take ten minutes or less to learn the basic facts about biology, and/or perhaps to read some scriptures that would give any good person goose-bumps. Ten minutes, and in exchange that person gets their life back, instead of wasting it telling people lies, such as how the human race gets deteriorates with time.
I picture this scenario: We're struggling with a situation (financial reversal, health problem etc.) and it seems like the best solution is to have one of our willing children move back home. Ah, but first, we must go to the elders and get their approval. Perhaps the elders will meet with my child (who may or may not be a JW) and see if he or she has documents to verify their marital status and describe what they will do sexually while in my home. Then they can make a ruling if the situation qualifies and if this is the best solution. Seems a little bit like 'getting up in my business'!
Here's an idea.
How about everyone just mind their own business.
"Here's an idea.
How about everyone just mind their own business."
Of course! Let's do that. It's not for society to be concerned when people's lives are ruined because of the interference of a bunch of 97 year old dudes who don't even need to shop for their own food.
Problems with child abuse? Don't bother calling the police, just go to the elders, who despite their complete lack of training as therapists are a shelter from the windstorm hey, and they will tell you that there were not enough witnesses to the crime, since paedophilia is after all a solitary activity.
You know what "thedude", when people's lives are being affected, you're damned straight it's everyone's concern. Perhaps if you read the bible in detail like I suggested in my past two comments, you'd be cured of your ancient superstitions, and then you might be more concerned with genuinely helping others, rather than apologizing for this backward religion.
No one's lives are ruined by the actions of others.
And who is 97 years old?
And concerning child abuse, if you want to stop the problem, then stop the problem. What cha blaming the religion for.
You know what my concern is? The fact that you are an idiot to just be blaming a religion because you don't know jack about it.
You guys are missing the point, this is typical policy the Elders can invoke if they dont like someone or if an Elder on the Body has enemies.. in itself, the policy has no teeth but could be implemented to have some...There are more Elders out there serving with immoral kids than publishers. If they are groping for a reason to remove a Brother this is perfect fodder to use
Policy, smolicy,
Just mind your own business.
I do that and they don't mind me
@ thedude
You have no place calling me an idiot. You are the one who follows the sayings of a "faithful and discrete slave" because they interpreted the slave parable for you. You are also the one who believes that a god-being created a planet covered with creatures which snap other creatures' necks for a living, and other creatures burrow out of your leg or your eyeball for a living. If anyone is an idiot, it is you, not me. Fortunately I did not have to resort to calling you an idiot - but keep reading for idiot-calling fun.
You are thoroughly naive if you actually believe that a person's actions cannot ruin the lives of another person's. I really don't know how you engage in such blatent self-deceit. Your desire to hold onto this security blanket must be strong. Promises of paradise will do that I guess. It is also likely that believing in intelligent design in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary has a damaging effect on a person's reasoning ability.
Strike three - you are also presumptuous. I in fact do know "jack" about religion, through being raised a witness, and through years of study and thought. You really ought to think before you type, although clearly you don't, because the best argument you seem to be able to muster nowadays is "mind your own business". You must have ran out of ammunition.
By the way, the 97 year olds are the so-called faithful slave, who presume to tell others how to live their lives based on a dodgy interpretation of an illustrative parable told by a narccisistic man in a violent and absurd book. And if they are not 97, they will be soon.
I'll say again, think carefully before you call anyone an idiot. Since I know biology well, things look very different from my viewpoint, when I observe the fused 13th gene in humans, vestigial features, bad "design" in general, artifacts from retroviruses and horizontal transfer, etc. Can you imagine how creationists, for example, must appear to me? This is to say nothing about christian fundamentalists. Keep your ad hominiem attacks to yourself.
P.S On the subject of idiotic behaviour, and since you began this curious attack mode, I will offer my attack of the person just to even the score. Here it is: you are a JW, reading an apostate website, posting on an apostate site, telling people about their "crimes" whilst simultaneously committing the most heinous crime possible for a witness. It beggars belief. As a faithful JW, I would never have dreamed of doing what you are doing. Only possible conclusion: you are a profound idiot. Shame it had to come to this, but you deserve it.
don't let the haters slow down this blog...i miss the updates.
keep up the good work.
W Lockhart,
You don't know anything about me.
You say "You are the one who follows the sayings of a "faithful and discrete slave" because they interpreted the slave parable for you."
Nope. Not even close. You assume that but that is not the case.
You also are wrong in that you say "As a faithful JW, I would never have dreamed of doing what you are doing."
What am I doing? Pointing out how these attackers of JWs are totally off base. That is not "the most heinous crime possible for a witness." That is a mission from God, his blessing.
I check for updates and enjoy the different perspectives. It's hard to leave the 'organization' and it's natural to be angry for awhile. Most of us have been through a lot and need to take the time to heal and recover from the sense of betrayal we feel.
Stay true to your values (even when no one is looking!)
Be authentic!
What is there to leave?
You go to meetings and preach...because Jesus said so. No reason to be angry over him.
He did not betray and no need to heal.
So be a Witness of Jehovah and do what is right.
@ thedude
"You don't know anything about me."
That's not strictly true - you are simply attempting a school playground-style psychological trick. It's more accurate to say I don't know much about you. However, I can tell some things about you, for example, poor reasoning ability, and shocking ignorance. Read my previous posts, and this one, to see why I think that.
"You say "You are the one who follows the sayings of a "faithful and discrete slave" because they interpreted the slave parable for you. Nope. Not even close. You assume that but that is not the case."
Is that the best you can do? Think again about what you told me. It's basically this: "you are wrong, so there!" Care to explain why you believe that the interpretation was not done for you?
It is not good enough to simply state that I am wrong. I am in fact correct, and I have good reasons to be confident about this. I'll try stating them again. Your belief in the WT leaders being the "faithful slave" hinges on a circular argument. Can you see why?
If you can't, let me try to phrase this absurd reasoning. You have a scripture which seems a little strange, and yet this group of men claims to be able to explain it. You did not create the explanation yourself (as you claim) - they did. They "explain" that the faithful slave is referring to themselves. In circular fashion, they say that we should believe this explanation because - guess? - they are the faithful slave! Circular, and absurd.
I actually believe that you are struggling to understand what a circular argument is. Your reasoning ability is virtually absent, either through years of indoctrination, or by default. This is why you still believe in a personal god despite basic biological facts which I have pointed out which refute the very notion. You simply do not understand, or you did not listen.
"What am I doing? Pointing out how these attackers of JWs are totally off base. That is not "the most heinous crime possible for a witness." That is a mission from God, his blessing."
Like everything else you say, this is patently ridiculous. Why don't you approach your elders about your online apostate reading, and see if they agree that you have god's blessing? You are either a hypocrite, or just plain stupid. It is amazing that you accused me of being an idiot earlier considering the sheer nonesense you generate as output.
Doing what is right? Is proclaiming a false message to people 'right?' Is delivering false hope to people a good thing?
Jesus didn't command anything of the sort. He is a figment of imaginations. More myth than man.
And Lockhart, I think you meant the fused 2nd gene, if I remember correctly.
Yes, you're absolutely right Reader, I stand corrected. Has to be one of the most important proofs of evolution that. Of course, creationists are either unaware of it, or claim that god arranged for it to look like we have a common evolutionary ancestor just to test our faith. Which, of course, is ridiculous.
Creationism: Here's our conclusion (god exists). Let's search for some facts which seem to support this conclusion.
Science: Here are the facts (our observations). Let's now see what conclusions we may draw.
Pseudoscientific thinking is typically like this: (literally) backwards. Irrational people literally think the wrong way round. By seeking to validate pre-conceived ideas, they let loose the potential for infinite speculation, since we no longer need to make observations before we accept an idea. It also means that creationists miss some very strong facts, such as that we discussed, which actually demonstrate evolution. This happens because they do not value the need for making thorough observations before reaching conclusions, so this rigour is lost.
Hahahaha!
They are loosing it completely!!
Nice
How creationists tell time:
A creationist is at work, and looks down at his watch. He is hungry, and so thought it was near lunch time, but his watch says it is only 10:30 AM. So he checks the time on his computer. It says 11:59. Then he hears the lunch bell go to let everyone at work know that it is lunch time. He looks out his window and sees the guys streaming out of another factory across the street, all carrying lunch pails. He can also see the large sign for his factory, and the digital time on it says 12:00. He flips open his cell phone. It says 11:58. Then his boss phones him and invites him to lunch, but he is leaving now. He declines because it is not lunch time. His watch says it is only 10:30.
Creationists miss the free lunch.
Yup, that is why Jehovah's Witnesses are not Creationists.
Voice of reason doesn't show much reason.
I'm guessing you capitalized the word "creationist" because you've formed some special distinction between the witness view and all other old-earth creationists. I make no such distinction, because there is none.
I was a JW for a long time, take my word for it, they are creationists. Unless they've adopted the Darwinian evolutionary concept recently, and neglected to tell us all. Trust me on this one - the witnesses believe that creatures such as the tiger were discretely created, via fairydust, and as vegetarians. They even paint nice pictures of young children cuddling these well adapted killing machines.
Methinks "Voice of Reason" is nothing of the sort.
@Reader
Exactly, and by overlooking in-their-face evidence, they not only miss the free lunch, but the train, ferry and plane too. I've guickly realised that no amount of spelling it out (e.g. god-did-not-create-predators or god-did-not-cause-causality) ever works. They are blind and, somehow, proud of it.
Voice of Unreason. Do you believe that god created the earth? Then you are a creationist. Sorry buddy.
Lockhart, you are quite correct in your appraisal. It is too bad, though.
One day. Maybe.
Nope, I am not a creationist.
I do not believe in creationism.
I believe Jehovah created the heavens and the earth and that did not take 6 days.
Creationists believe that the earth was created in 6 days.
Voice Of Unreason, you are not the brightest bulb in the drawer, are you?
A YOUNG EARTH CREATIONIST (YEC) believes that the earth was created in about 6 days about 6-10 thousand years ago.
A CREATIONIST just believes that the earth was created by a god of some sort at some point in time.
I didn't accuse you of being a YEC, just a creationist, which you are.
But either way you would be wrong.
Why am I surprised. Typical JW spin with words.
And then they try to differentiate themselves unnecessarily. "I am a person who believes in creation, but not a creationist because I believe that a creationist is..."
It's all bullshit.
Voice of Reason,
ANY PROOF whatsoever that Earth was created in more than 6 days?
Give us a break man
I never cease to be amazed at the plain, simple stupidity of those who promote creationism. The JWs hate the label "creationist" so much that they've partitioned off young earth creationism and defined that to be creationism.
According to this absurd reasoning, the JW view of how the world came to be is not creationism, but something else. Evolution perhaps? Oh wait I forgot they don't believe in that.
Utter nonesense. What they JWs believe is creationism, clear and simple. It is creationism whether it is young earth creationism or old earth creationism. Either way, they believe that the sky-fairy created vegetarian tigers and non-parasitic parasites which all underwent what can only be described as super-fast evolution after adam and eve sinned.
It's even more bizarre that, even after someone such as myself repeatedly points out the basic biological facts, people like Voice of "Reason" still blabber on about how they believe in creation. They say "I believe god did it, so there!". That's not "reason", that's faith.
Coupled with a complete lack of humility which causes some religious people to create arrogant usernames for themselves, this results in them looking more and more silly the more they speak.
MTI,
The earth and the heavens were created in the beginning.
That is a time long before the 6 days of creation started.
I think MTI was being saracastic. At least I hope so...
More to the point voice of so-called reason, it is your responsibility to confront the things I said which demonstrate that the earth was not created. The fact that you continually fail to do so shows that you prefer fairytales over facts.
In fact you've been babbling for so long that you've probably forgotten what those facts are. They come under three principle themes, and if pressed I'll take pains to explain them again, but it would be better to go back and read my past comments scattered among the past 44.
VOR,
you are too JW
MTI,
I take that as a compliment.
But I am not too jw, I am just right.
That is like saying "My brain cancer is just right."
Their Creation book had outright lies in it. Look at the amazon reviews here. http://www.amazon.com/LIFE-HOW-DID-GET-HERE-EVOLUTION/product-reviews/B0000EE14G/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1
People who complain that the Creation book has lies are just trying to find fault with the Watchtower Society. People who do that are liars themselves.
pg143: Richard Lewontin is described as supporting design by a supreme being. This is a lie and a misrepresentation of his views.
pg15: quotes Hitching (which is funny in itself) but misrepresents his view by not even including the very next sentence which counters their argument.
There are more examples of lies in this book than just these.
pg18: a quote from Darwin is taken our of context and the wrong impression is given as to its meaning. The correct impression, the one Darwin was conveying, is clearly stated in the next paragraph.
Another lie.
How about on page 95 where they quote from the Encyclopedia Britannica from 1976. They use a publication that is 10 years out of date. WHY? Because the one closest to the publication of the book (1985) stated an opinion different to what they wished to portray.
Deliberate misrepresentation.
Another lie.
"Richard Lewontin is described as supporting design by a supreme being. "
Who is he and who cares what he believes?
"quotes Hitching (which is funny in itself) but misrepresents his view by not even including the very next sentence which counters their argument."
Again, who cares what he has to say?
So you are saying that they misquoted this authors. Those are not lies. Lies would be promoting evolution. Quoting them and then others saying that he did say or mean that is simply arguing journalism.
"a quote from Darwin is taken our of context and the wrong impression is given as to its meaning."
That is not a lie as the truth is not established.
So you are just arguing that the writers did things you didn't like, not that the conclusion was wrong.
"Deliberate misrepresentation.
Another lie. "
Bite me
Yes, Voice of Unreason, printing in a book that somebody supports a view that they do not is a lie. A bald faced lie. It is not arguing journalism. You are being disingenuous.
You don't even know the bullshit that they have printed, asking stupid questions like "Who is this" instead of looking up the references and checking out who this individual is. That shows you are lazy.
You say that evolution is a lie, yet you offer no proof or references. Evolution is as much fact as gravity.
But whether it is or is not is irrelevant to this discussion. If the WT claims that Darwin believed something that he didn't, then that is a flat out lie.
Period.
Why do I care what the Watchtower Society wrote?
I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses, not a Watchtower member.
Voice of whatever...
Again and again and again and again you simply state that your critics are wrong (e.g. people who criticise the creation bok are liars). Your "reason" does not ever go any further than this. You never explain yourself.
Try paying attention to your critics. For example, the creation book makes a long discredited claim (many times) that evolution is a chance process, which it is not. Of course, you would need to know some basic biology to know that. I guess in your case, ignorance is bliss, right?
It was also pointed out to you by Reader the use of Hitchen's quotes throughout the creation book. Hitchen's is a spiritist and douser, check out his publications.
I have a question, and don't ignore me like you ignore everyone else. What thought processes do you have when someone raises one of these serious problems with your belief system? Do you stick your fingers in your ears like a good loyal JW? Because that's what it takes to keep on believing in the JW/creationist absurdity.
On many occasions I have taken pains to point out that the existence of nasty things in nature is not explained by the simplistic and naive creationist view. Do you remember when I spoke about the "evolution on steroids" fall from Eden? Did you even realise what I meant by that?
Do these arguments even register at all with you? How can you possibly accuse others of dishonesty?
Perhaps your reponse to me will be as inane and pathetic as your response to Reader. What was it you said to Reader, "bite me"? Try growing up.
VOR said :"Why do I care what the Watchtower Society wrote?
I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses, not a Watchtower member."
So is that a tacit admission that they lied?
As a JW you must see all the messages from the governing body as though they were sent from god, right? Why is this book any different from the rest?
"As a JW you must see all the messages from the governing body as though they were sent from god, right? Why is this book any different from the rest?"
Nope, you are not right.
"Nope, you are not right."
Another classic response from the person who labels themself a voice of reason. A response absolutely devoid of content. "Reason" is a million miles away when all you can say is "you are wrong, so there!!"
Of course, I long ago pointed out that this is cheap and weak, but as usual I was ignored.
Hey you guys... I would ask you to go back and check the history of this blog.. VOR is Ronde and you will see that the stuff he is writing here is his usual, crass style of argument, devoid of any content, always professing to be a JW and yet rejecting the WT ('Why do I care what the Watchtower wrote') and talking to apostates, two cardinal sins which would get his ass disfellowshipped if his cong elders knew.
He is not a JW, period, and is NOT even worth acknowledging, never mind arguing with, because its like trying to contend with a slippery snake. He can deny whatever he wants, he even argues against his own masters, which he denies he has, although I dont know how he came to believe what the JWs do without reading the JW literature,.... so what is the point?
So Ringworm, you are on the bandwagon to just dismiss what I have to say.
Who is Ronde? Nobody.
You are the one without content.
JWs do not care what the Wathchtower says. It is not relevant.
I am not talking to apostates. Are you an apostate? If so then you are the sinner.
"he even argues against his own masters,"
I never argued against Jesus. He is my only master. Neither the governing body nor the Watchtower board of directors are our masters. 2 Cor 1:24.
"although I dont know how he came to believe what the JWs do without reading the JW literature,"
Hint, read the Bible. One comes to the same conclusion.
Yes, what is the point in arguing with you, a total ignoramous.
"Hint, read the Bible. One comes to the same conclusion.
Yes, what is the point in arguing with you, a total ignoramous."
You have a nerve calling anyone an ignoramus. Suffice it to say, a thinking person comes to amny different conclusions when they follow your advice and read the bible. My conclusion is that such a violent and absurd book which thinks that the heart and bowels are the seat of emotion could not have been and was not inspired by any god.
When you add the double wammy of observing nature, a true thinker often concludes that god doesn't exist. God did not create blood sucking vampire bats, and no, they didn't evolve after the fall from eden, just incase you were tempted to say that.
Have I said any of these things to you before? Many times. Have you ever responded to them? Never. Because there is no response. Instead you choose the easy route, which involves blabbering on about how Jesus is your master.
From my clear vantage point, it is YOU who is the ignoramus, which makes it all the more laughable that you call yourself a voice of reason. Think about that.
Post a Comment