Jump to content
The World News Media

IICSA: survivors speak of influence of religion


Recommended Posts

  • Member
48 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

I believe, you were insinuating, you were a road scholar full of information and insight

Then you would be wrong. I'm not a scholar.

48 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

But, I guess, your intelligence by your comment is limited after all.

Very limited. But evidently still correct, in this case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Views 6.2k
  • Replies 363
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

... apparently not, as it IS up to God ...

Parents are the ones who give consent to anyone, whether it be an Elder, a ministerial servant or a publisher to study the Bible with their child and/or go in service.  It is a private arrangement and agreement between the parent and the relevant person. Everyone is educated at the meetings, including the children who should sit with their parents. If someone else is "teaching their children" or if children are sitting with someone else besides their parents, then that is by the parents own arra

Noted, and probably deserved. It is good for me to be rebuked on this from time to time, for I might be far worse without it. On the other hand: Actually, arguing doesn’t play a role in “scriptural arguments.” You know the verses as well as I: debates about words, leave blind guides be, answering a fool, even spreading pearls before swine. At least if I spread stuff before “swine,” it is not pearls. I can think of a way of solving that problem. In addition to blasting away at

Posted Images

  • Member
51 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

JWI getting upset enough to call for banning people.

I don't like it when people are banned.

I especially don't like that they lose the continuity of the good points and arguments that they have been making. When a person loses their temper or says something that sounds threatening, they aren't really hurting anyone, in my opinion. I think it's appropriate to publicly criticize and even remove certain types of abusive content like spamming, porn, gore, bullying against specific groups/individuals, overt racism, and deliberately threatening or inflammatory content -- but not to completely ban individuals who merely lose their temper or use harsh words. We should be adults here. We can expect some harsh words here and there. There are very few "child-safe" places on the Internet.

And on a religiously charged forum, we should also realize that "attacks" on our views are not usually meant personally. If Allen Smith attacked my views, he might have appeared to be attacking me, but I present myself almost anonymously here. So what does it really mean to attack me personally? I certainly don't feel it that way. I'm sure the intent is to attack the views themselves, and usually with the full backing of the Watchtower's current views. This is easily understood. I also see it as a means of him trying to warn others who might be influenced by evidence that goes against the Watchtower's current views on certain specific topics. This means that he may very well be a Witness, but just very frustrated at the difficulty in mounting counter-evidence. Different people will handle that situation in their own way. Frustration for some means cursing and threatening, name-calling and judging. For others it will present as child-like tantrums. For some it will be grasping at straws or non-sensible counter-arguments. And for some, they will very seriously study the issue and find real counter-arguments.

So, the various types of responses can actually say something about the strength of the original arguments and evidence, and even the cursing and the tantrums and the name-calling will often inadvertently speak to the validity of the original evidence. In these cases, especially, it's much better to keep all those uncomfortable words and exchanges on the forum. Along with negative responses to them. The same effort it takes for an admin/moderator to evaluate someone's words as supposedly worthy of banning, is about the same amount of work it takes to merely flag the questionable comment and write up a quick explanation of why the forum owners/admins/moderators don't like the comment.

Banning removes the entire continuation of argument/evidence and counter-argument/counter-evidence. I still don't like banning anyone. I haven't seen anyone here whose posts rose to that level. For my own comfort level, there have been a few curse-words I would have "asterisked" (mostly from another Alan) but that can be usually be set automatically in software.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Member
1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

Then you would be wrong. I'm not a scholar.

I didn't say you are. You only think it. That was my mistake, I thought you had better knowledge of, scripture, the Watchtower and the Bible Students. Apparently, you don't. You've made that pretty clear. 

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

Very limited. But evidently still correct, in this case.

In being limited, in this case, I agree

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

This means that he may very well be a Witness, but just very frustrated at the difficulty in mounting counter-evidence. Different people will handle that situation in their own way. Frustration for some means cursing and threatening, name-calling and judging.

In this respect, it's agreeable. I believe, even myself have apologized for thinking people here have the kind of Bible knowledge I have. Even though I try very hard to bring it down to a 3-year-olds level, it just isn't enough. I guess, half a century of Bible Dedication, and going, is something no one here will ever have. I'm used to debating the Bible with scholars. At least, they understand, context, intent, word meaning, letters, etc.

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

Banning removes the entire continuation of argument/evidence and counter-argument/counter-evidence. I still don't like banning anyone. I haven't seen anyone here whose posts rose to that level. For my own comfort level, there have been a few curse-words I would have "asterisked" (mostly from another Alan) but that can be usually be set automatically in software.

Here, I will agree with you. As "insulting" as James Thomas Rook was and AlanF is, they didn't get banned, but Allen Smith did. Some other extreme ex-witnesses were kept on. It seems, the librarian prefers to have ex-witnesses post rather than have a witness challenge their opposition by their rules of conduct. That's been the problem.

I made that perfectly clear, I do not knuckle down to anyone. I could count on one to be a genuine witness and that was "Aruana" until she decided to test my nerve. I don't play favorites. She gave a "fake" apology, that's why it wasn't accepted. But, she is a far better witness, than Anna, and Eloin Joyce, that's for sure.

So, with that premise, I don't accept your logic with that indefensible outlook for Allen Smith. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Member
On 3/23/2021 at 4:17 AM, César Chávez said:

How so, John. Explain, how the Watchtower doesn't baptize? Are you suggesting, in order to be baptized, like the Catholics, the father has to literally say, you are baptized, in the name of the father, the son, and the Holy Spirit?

How about Srecko, chime in since you agree with John.

Matthew 28 : 18 & 19. 

 Jesus approached and spoke to them, saying: “All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth. 19  Go, therefore, and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, 

It was a straightforward command from Jesus himself.

Link to post
Share on other sites




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.