# **************For Friend

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

Posted by Friend [Friend] on November 25, 1999 at 06:57:58 {yaNwUlwC5chxaL3hj3H2OgnjR4Br/g}:

In Reply to: *************For Friend posted by AF on November 25, 1999 at 00:27:11:

AF

> No, Friend, it is not simply my opinion that things are as I've described. It is my observation of actual behavior by JWs at various levels that is the heart of my description.

A flaw in that reasoning is that your conclusions heavily consider the actual experiences of JWs who have had adverse reaction to their suggestions for change to the detriment of contrary actual experiences. Both provide insight into the actual behavior of JWs at various levels. Your actions are those of a scientist that simply dismisses evidence conflicting with his theory. That is a perfect characterization of your explanations on this thread.

> My comments are not about people who merely offer the Society "suggestions for change", but about those who explicitly tell the Society or elders that the Society is wrong about something.

Which is exactly what I have been talking about, and you know it. Tell me, just how does anyone suggest a doctrine should be revised without saying that doctrine (or something about that doctrine) is wrong? Can you please explain that one for me?

And, yes, in direct terms I have expressed to the Society that our blood policy is wrong. Of course, you already knew that though you pretended you did not.

> It is an observed fact that JWs who explicitly state that the Society is wrong about something are at high risk of being disfellowshiped for apostasy.

That comment represents more of your assumptions. It assumes that all—or at least the majority—of JWs who have offered suggestions for change have been accused of apostasy or apostate leanings. That is not the case. In fact the Society regularly receives just such letters without reacting as you claim. You have no idea what you are talking about here except your own experience and those who agree with you. What you fail to consider is the views of those with contrary experiences, which is why your reasoning is flawed. Accurate understanding of circumstances requires knowing, considering and accommodating each experience or outcome. Again, that is why your conclusions are flawed.

> Your comment about "special pleading" is a copout; you did not deal with the substance of my challenge.

No, what you said was no more than what I called it, special pleading. You have continued it with that comment.

Friend

Follow Ups:

- ***************For Friend U R the Best... 09:19:17 11/25/99 (0)

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject: ***************For Friend

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

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