# **LoyalorHypocrite?: Friend

[ HOURGLASS2 OUTPOST ] [ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Friend [Friend] on October 31, 1999 at 17:02:12 {MDPAlM8llYhxaL3hj3H2OgnjR4Br/g}:

In Reply to: *LoyalorHypocrite?: Friend posted by Gedanken on October 30, 1999 at 10:39:14:

Gedanken

> All of us, at one time or other, have exiled to the dungeons of our minds the many little contradictions that we knew existed. Were we too cowardly and hypocritical to deal with them at the time?

Please, share the topic you intimate that I have exiled. Please, share the areas that I have cowardly and hypocritically not dealt with.

You read far too much into our disagreements. Sometimes people just disagree. Must you your friends always read some kind of mental dishonestly, lack of perception or doublethink into the equation? Are you married? I pity you if you are that analytical about your disagreements with your spouse. It is true that sometimes disagreements are just that, disagreements.

> All of us who were JWs have engaged in what you call "hair splitting" in our attempts to preserve our core belief that "the Society speaks for God."

Show us where I have expressed that "the Society speaks for God."

> All that differentiates us from Friend is the length of time over which we did it.

I have said often that experiences (and experience) is what often separates our views. Otherwise you comment directly accuses that I split hairs about the Society speaking for God. Do you consider the following comments a split hair?: The Society does not uniquely speak for God. The Society does not speak for God at all except where they articulate that found in the Bible as the word of God. For the record those have been my representations to you and others here and elsewhere for decades. So, please explain yourself.

> I have spent many hours trying to figure out what to say to Friend to make him see something that seems as plain as day both to me and any other literate person who happened not to be a JW.

Again you read far too much into our disagreements. For a fact people often see theological issues very differently. Often that results from different experience and experiences, no less. For you to conclude that I cannot see into your frustration is just plain foolish. Often I understand your perspective but I just don’t agree that it is the right perspective. That subject about the "Serious Mistake" is such an occasion. In my opinion you and those agreeing with you ripped the comment out of context. If my applied context is right (and I certainly think it is) then my conclusion is correct and your incorrect. If your applied context is right then your conclusion is correct and mine incorrect. Some issues are clearer than others. Certainly the subject of context in relation to "Serious Mistake" is much clearer than weighing perceived faithfulness to God and His word or some teachings which are based upon perceived blessings.

> I agree that because Friend enters into the fray by participating on this board that he has to take his lumps…

Which should be true of us all. It is part of participating in life.

> Other than that I would come down on the side of him have very high standards in this regard, even if his understanding of english seems off the wall sometimes.

Usually that happens parallel with application of your favored doublethink concept. Particularly in those instances do both of us appear off-the-wall to one another. When you don’t like something that is plain as the day is long you just apply the magic potion (doublethink) and make it mean what you want instead of what it says. On the other hand I often explain how two statements are not necessarily contradictory but rather complimentary, compatible or irrelevant to one another. Of course because those explanations appear complex to you they are thusly deemed somehow wrong, also by you. On other issues we usually agree and then, lo’ and behold, Friend is not blind after all! Imagine that. It is often of much amusement that you and those agreeing with you can so easily dismiss or accept my views as blind versus perceptive or clear versus obfuscating depending upon whether I agree with your original view or not. There are terms describing that phenomenon.

> However, as I have said to him, that he can see the Society's errors clearly in some areas does not imply that he is able to identify all of its errors.

That except came from a quite interesting paragraph. I will add that because you feel able to see errors does not make them errors. Especially is that the case when you are so prone to applying your absurd theory of unique brain training.

Otherwise I would like to know just what areas you consider that I do not see "the Society's errors." Please, list them with your own brief perception of my own view. Let’s just see how close you get to the real views of Friend. Let’s just see how well that perceptive brain of yours is working. Please, do not confuse my beliefs and views with defenses against unwarranted accusations (like that of "Serious Mistake").

> Perhaps a new topic for discussion might be Friend's thoughts on how his realization that the Society is "pretty much like any other [Christian] religion" will affect the milieu of Jehovah's Witnesses if and when this idea gradually seeps into the organization. (Bold by Friend)

Friend’s official response: It will broaden the environment of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It will give them new perspective on "widening out". It will give them an entirely new perspective to teach toward the same audience they have tried to reach for decades. It will greatly increase their preaching and teaching potentials.

Your
Friend

Follow Ups:

- ***LoyalorHypocrite?: Friend Gedanken 15:04:23 11/01/99 (1)
  - ****LoyalorHypocrite?: Friend Friend 19:17:00 11/01/99 (0)

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject: ***LoyalorHypocrite?: Friend

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ HOURGLASS2 OUTPOST ] [ FAQ ]