Jump to content

User talk:Duffer1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Duffer1 (talk | contribs) at 17:47, 6 January 2006 (→Mediation 2). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Hi Duffer1! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Alai 05:28, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Timestamp in Signatures

To answer your question, you can add a timestamp to your signature by typing four tildes at the end of your message. See Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages for a detailed description of how the tilde signature system works. -- uberpenguin 15:45, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)


New Message re JW Pages

Hello Matthew McGhee. Interesting, my wife is a McGhee from Los Angeles, California. My name is Daniel O'Brien. We are members of the Moorpark Congregation in Ventura county.

At any rate, I appreciate your edits and your comments in reference to all the JW related pages. Tonight during the Service Meeting it occurred to me that we should add a section to the JW main page dealing with Apostates and the Evil Slave class. I looked in the Reasoning book under "Apostasy." There are some good points there that we could incorporate. My thought is this: by adding this to the Opposition to Jehovah's Witnesses section, but wording it as neutrally as possible, it will serve as a touchstone to expose the agenda of some of the editors that are obviously of that group. The more they try to deny it, the more their words and actions would tend to confirm it. We'll be able to explain more about our beliefs and any detractors will only serve to prove our point!

I'll try to make a draft attempt at this in the morning and perhaps I'll post it. I'll let you know! --DannyMuse 08:32, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi Matthew, I noticed you had tried to deal with some apostates like Eyesopen. I contacted an adminstator about the problems we have been have with him and he agreed to help. This administrator, Neigel von Teighen, [[1]] states he wants to, "preserving NPOV and accuracy in Wikipedia." This is what the apostates lack. Neigel von Teighen said he would add the page into his watchlist and keep an eye on him. If you what to contact him direct (or if other witness want to) I thought I let you know about him.

Much of the information Eyesopen edits is dated 30 years ago. I was new in the truth then but I can remember some of the issues Eyesopen is negatively portraying. I have tried to add my input to the site but Eyesopen has always deleted it. Maybe with the administrator's help we can deal with this problem.--Saujad 21:05, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Matthew I read over the discussion you had with Eyesopen and you handled him great. You were actually able to make some changes to his negitive writings. It makes me sick inside to try to reason with someone like him, I feel like I am talking to someone that is disfellowshiped. But the administrator wants me to try again to make some changes as he watches.--Saujad 01:45, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Matthew, I've contacted a WP advocate to try to bring some resolution to this situation with Central. You can read my request and his reply at: User_talk:Sam_Spade#Requesting_an_advocate. Among other things, he said we would need one other user besides myself who has experienced difficulty with this user, and has unsuccessfully asked them to make the needed improvements. He then recommended User:Cobaltbluetony who I have also contacted. But I wondered if you'd be willing to participate. Please read these comments and let's discuss. Thanks. --DannyMuse 04:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison to JWs - kudos

Duffer1 has added an excellent clarification of the differences between Arianism and Jehovah's Witnesses. It is to be hoped that these edits will stand, because they accurately describe why people call the JWs "Arian", and (I assume with equal accuracy), why this label is rejected by the JWs. Thanks, and congratulations: this kind of gap-bridging makes the collaborative process possible. Mkmcconn (Talk) 28 June 2005 19:08 (UTC)

Vote for JW structure

Please vote for or against the adoption of the proposed structure for WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses on the talk page and sign your name with ~~~~. Thanks! --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 01:17, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Jehovah's Witnesses articles

Because of the volatile and tenacious nature of certain editors whose stated or subliminal goal is to detract from Jehovah's Witnesses at any and every opportunity, I am making it my goal to recommend to new and existing editors interested in JW articles to review the Wikipedia's policies:

  • WP:NOR - no original research
  • WP:V - verifiability
  • WP:NPOV - Wikipedia: neutral point of view (this one is critical to JW pages edits especially)
  • WP:CIV - Civility

We do have to keep in mind that Wikipedia is not the proper forum for any form of proselytizing. This is an academic endeavor, and to make it worthwhile for Jehovah's Witnesses to contribute positively, abiding by the rules of the forum and sticking to the facts will help us not only keep these articles and the discussions behind them free from ineffective and off-topic banter, but present a respectable product that addresses all sides, but keeps them in perspective.

It is best to ignore insults and off-topic discussions, addressing only the pertinent points so as to reach a consensus regarding the content of these pages. If you must address them, it's best to simply cite the Wikipedia standards and redirect your focus to content and format. I hope my suggestions help. Happy editing! - CobaltBlueTony 21:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello CBT. I got my internet back up and running. You have posted some good suggestions, things I know I need to work on. Thank you :) Duffer 21:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reference

  • Who will survive Armageddon?

http://www.touchstoneforum.com/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.pl?az=read_count&om=4&forum=DCForumID4

Debating theological points

Matt, it's very easy to get sucked into debating what we believe, but remember that it's not the point of the article to justify or prove anything. This is an academic exercise to attempt to impartially delineate our faith, and issues that are raised by it, to a reasonable extent. If you engage other editors in scriptural debates, it's like arguing with a household in the door-to-door ministry or heck, even trying to shout down an apostate outside a convention. We just don't do that sort of thing. And you know exactly why, so I don't even need to expand that point at all.

What we need to do, to be faithful, productive, and consistent, is to make sure what we believe is properly represented and that counterpoints are indentified as exactly that: opposing views. If someone says the Society/GB is duplicitous in fighting legal battles for the rights of the organization but denies them to us as members, we have to refute that. But if they want to say that 1914 is not supported by scholars, that point is a counterpoint, not pertinent in representing our beliefs. It needs to be separated out in whatever manner those things should be represented on Wikipedia.

Central and Tommstein WANT to debate what you believe and disrupt your faith. You wouldn't do this in person, or on some other format online; don't give them the satisafaction here. By limiting the extent to which we interact with them, we maintain our safeguards, and let them continue to sit outside and 'weep and gnash their teeth.' - Φιλία, CobaltBlueTony 15:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have amazing mind-reading abilities for a member of a fringe religion that preaches isolation from the rest of the world to the extent possible short of going Amish. You should contract those amazing powers out for pay.Tommstein 09:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Check your email, please? - CobaltBlueTony 20:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed guideline for WP:JW

I saw that you dispute the validity of the new guideline, so I moved it to a proposed section, and created a talk page for it here. Please continue the discussion there. Thanks! --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 00:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Will do Duffer 08:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Letter to the Governing Body on controversial points

I thought you might like to see this. It's a letter the Governing Body received in 1980 from the Watch Tower's chairman's committee, before the Governing Body disfellowshipped many senior Witnesses for "apostasy", and the reason was they were discussing these teachings below. I happen to agree with the points that disagree with traditional Watch Tower doctrine. You would also find it interesting reading Raymond Franz's discussion of each of these points in his two books, Crisis of Conscience and In search of Christian Freedom, and after see if you can still refute them using the Bible as your guide. The letter is below: Central 21:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Following are some of the wrong teachings being spread as emanating from Bethel. These have been brought to the attention of the Governing Body from the field from April 14 onward.
1. That Jehovah does not have an organization on earth today and its Governing Body is not being directed by Jehovah.
2. Everyone baptized from Christ's time (C.E. 33) forward to the end should have the heavenly hope. All these should be partaking of the emblems at Memorial time and not just those who claim to be of the anointed remnant.
3. There is no proper arrangement as a "faithful and discreet slave" class made up of the anointed ones and their Governing Body to direct affairs of Jehovah's people. At Matthew 24:45 Jesus used this expression only as an illustration of faithfulness of individuals. Rules are not needed only follow the Bible.
4. There are not two classes today, the heavenly class and those of the earthly class also called "other sheep" at John 10:16
5. That the number 144,000 mentioned in Revelation 7:4 and 14:1 is symbolic and not to be taken as literal. Those of the "great crowd" mentioned at Revelation 7:9 also serve in heaven as indicated in vs. 15 where it is claimed that such crowd serves "day and night" in his temple (naos) or K. int says: "in the divine habitation of him."
6. That we are now living in a special period of "last days" but that the "last days" started 1900 years ago C.E. 33 as indicated by Peter at Acts 2:17 when he quoted from the prophet Joel.
7. That 1914 is not an established date. Christ Jesus was not enthroned then but has been ruling in his kingdom since C.E.33. That Christ's presence (parousia) is not yet but when the "sign of the Son of man will appear in heaven" (Matthew 24:30) in the future.
8. That Abraham, David, and other faithful men of old will also have the heavenly life basing such view on Hebrews 11:16.
(Copy of letter, Page 316, Crisis of Conscience, by Raymond Franz.)

A major tenet of your faith is the degree of which you disagree with Jehovah's Witness theology? This is not an answer to my question. I asked you for a couple of the major tenets of your personal theology. If you don't want to answer, that's fine, no need to spam my talk page with how much you disagree with me. Duffer 09:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are eight points above that I agree on, you have you answer. You presumably wanted some beliefs that differ from your own, so now you have them above. As for "Spam" you asked me to post here on your Talk page with some scriptural points I believe in, remember? And now you have them. 1. God does not use human organizations, 2. All Christians have the heavenly hope. 3. All Christians are the "faithful slave". 4. There are not first and second-class Christians with different rewards. 5. There is no numerical limit on how many faithful go to heaven. 6. Last days began in 33CE, not 1914. 7. Christ started his rule in 33CE, not 1914. (Matthew 28:18) 8. Pre-Christian faithful will also get the heavenly reward, Hebrews 11:13-16. If you are interested in a discussion, please first read Raymond Franz's detailed scriptural points in his two book, to avoid covering old ground. Central 12:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No.. I just wanted some of your major tenets that you believe are the same as what Jesus taught, not what may or may not differ from my own personal views. I do distinctly remember asking you to post here or your page or in e-mail a couple of your beliefs, not post a dubious bullet list concocted by the most vociferous apostate the WTS has ever seen. I'm certainly interested in discussion, but you know very well that I'm not going to read that mans books. Duffer 23:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you read my post again, and this time with your eyes open. You said, "I just wanted some of your major tenets that you believe are the same as what Jesus taught". You have them above, a good selection of eight of them. If you now choose to ignore them, then that says a lot more about your own insecurity of your beliefs. Your next comment gave me a good laugh: "a dubious bullet list concocted by the most vociferous apostate the WTS has ever seen." Well at least we are getting somewhere as you now clearly admit the Governing Body's chairman's committee is made up of "vociferous apostates" because they composed the list! You must also think the Bible is apostate for teachings such things? LOL. You disappoint me with your last comment: "I'm not going to read that mans books". Matthew, do you trust the Bible as God's word? If yes, then why do you insult God's word by showing such a lack of faith in it? See this scripture if you are not sure what I'm referring to: "For I am convinced that neither death nor life nor angels nor governments nor things now here nor things to come nor powers nor height nor depth nor any other creation will be able to separate us from God's love that is in Christ Jesus our Lord."—Romans 8:38, 39
If you have any trust in your own faith in Jesus and God, then reading a book will not affect it one bit, and I can guarantee that your faith in God and Jesus will not remotely be dinted by anything in Franz's books, just the opposite. He is most definitely not an apostate, and you would see that if you opened your eyes to get some accurate knowledge. There are some sample pages next to the books section on the main page, why not give them a look, and you will see they are not remotely "apostate". Remember Matthew, God and Jesus' words have nothing to fear from examination, and if you think they do, then you have less faith than you kid yourself. I can't make you do anything, but if you have so little faith, (especially in your religious organization) and you act like you fear it will collapse like a house of cards with the slightest prod, then you need to do a lot of self questioning. You have the list of eight points I believe in. If you don't want to question your own beliefs in the process that is your prerogative. I just hope one day you will put your emotions away, and look more rationally at why you cling to some of your beliefs, and why you run from looking at any critique of them. Maybe it's because you are young and full of enthusiasm, but I'm sure you also know, someone intensely believing they are right does not make it so. We have all seen the nutty evangelicals on the TV having fits on the floor, and claiming miracles with screaming apparent sincerity, but you know as well as most that it all means nothing when the blinding emotions and theatricals are stripped away and put to the test of the scriptures. Anyway Mathew, only you can admit your reasoning for such fear of a few books. I hope one day you will have enough faith in yourself and your God to not be so close minded and lacking in faith. Regards. Central 01:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
They composed a list of wrong teachings and you know very well it was the 'wrong teachings' that I was refering to. Don't presume to know my amount of faith. I am not afraid of such criticisms from apostates. It is not an issue of trusting my faith (or lack of), it is having faith and conviction enough to do as the bible says and avoid apostates that deliberately try to disuade you from your faith. That said, I have addressed nearly all aspects of my faith with individuals all over the internet. The guys at CARM and the yahoo group 'Evangelicals and JWs' will certainly remember me. Obviously I am not afraid of scrutiny of my beliefs. Duffer 03:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew, honesty is the best policy, so why are you now saying "you know very well it was the 'wrong teachings' that I was referring to"? You clearly said "dubious bullet list concocted by the most vociferous apostate the WTS has ever seen", you were clearly referring to the one "concocting" the list, which was not Raymond Franz, he had nothing whatsoever to do with it, or its formation. Trying to back down is just making you lose all credibility. You said: "I am not afraid of such criticisms from apostates". What proof have you got that Raymond Franz is an apostate as you claim? Can you even define an apostate using your Bible as the guide? Calling someone a name does not make it true just because you wish to use that name as an excuse for not dealing with their pertinent points and discussions. Ray Franz is not remotely apostate by the Bible's definition, and I challenge you to refute that. All you are doing Matthew is parroting what you've been incorrectly indoctrinated with from your religious leaders and other ignorant JWs. Why not do your own research? Do you not trust your own decisions based on informed research, rather than someone else's opinions based on their own fears and prejudices?
You said: "the bible says and avoid apostates that deliberately try to dissuade you from your faith", yes, it does, and I totally agree with that. But Raymond Franz is not even remotely apostate; if you actually took time to get educated on what he writes you would know this already! His entire second book is about building your relationship with God and Jesus, not breaking it down. You are only using such nasty labels like "apostate" as a false reason to avoid dealing with issues you find uncomfortable. You claim you are not "afraid of scrutiny" but you refuse to do just that, hiding behind the skirt of labels like "apostate", as they are a convenient way to not deal with information you would rather not face. I am not going to argue with you more on this point, you know when you are alone why you are avoiding facing up to some issues, and it may be you prefer to argue with "Evangelicals" because they might bring up very weak points that are child's play to knock down and give your ego a buzz. If you have any faith in God, and His words at (Romans 8:38, 39) you would have no fear at all of some old Christian man who wrote two books. If you think one old Christian man like Raymond Franz can kill your God and faith, then you have no faith to begin with Matthew. It's all up to you, if you only choose the weak arguments to take on, then you need to ask yourself why you do this, and how strong is your relationship with God to start with? Regards, Central 11:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've discussed theological doctrine with Rob Bowman on his yahoo group and at Touchestone. I've gotten into a heated debate with Dr. Jerry Bergman (an apostate JW mental health propagandist(bad judgement on my part that won't happen again)), they have the same resources and books available to them. Nearly anyone who lurks discussion forums about Jehovah's Witnesses has read Franz's books, and they talk about them frequently. My previous participation at such discussion forums (with the exception of Touchestone) is regrettable, it's non-stop bickering; so I stopped. I have discussed, literally, every aspect of my faith with dozens of people on the net. Do not presume to know my motives, I have already told you specifically that I will not read Franz's books because he is apostate from my faith (2 Tim. 2: 18; Jude 8; Acts 20: 29,30; 1 John 2: 18, 19; Hebrews 6: 4-9). Regarding such people the bible couldn't be more clear (Romans 16: 17,18; Matthey 7: 15; John 9-11). Only in a hateful mind can conviction to do as one believes in be called "backing down". Duffer 22:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You have still failed to give a Biblical description of an 'apostate'. A word you seem to love to throw about, and yet seem to have little compression of how it relates to the Bible (that's supposed to be God's word by the way). If you claim you are not shy of debate, then why fear reading those two books of Franz's, just for the debate in them, and ignore the writer, as he is irrelevant. It's the points (all from the Bible) that he puts forward that you should be focussing on, not him. You appear to be clearly using Ad hominem as a weak excuse for not facing up to more robust discussions, with some meat in. Why not ignore all the people on those boards, and just look at the points Franz brings up. If you research them and then still feel the same, then you will have lots of ammunition to shoot down all these "apostates" as you call them. If you have some point of scriptures incorrect, you will have private opportunity to humbly correct your own viewpoint. I do not know why you are listing those scriptures, as none of them apply to Ray Franz. Mind you, Matthew 7:15 gave me a laugh, shouldn't you be applying that to the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses?
You should be careful about labelling people apostates, especially when you know so very little about them. If you were concerned with truth, you would get to know who Raymond Franz is, and you would see he is a very mild and gentle spoken Christian, and has a very strong faith in God. You said: "because he is apostate from my faith", can you tell me what your faith is in? Christianity as depicted in the New Testament, or the Watch Tower publishing organization as depicted in their own literature? You seem a little confused, as the scriptures are only speaking about abandoning the teachings of Jesus, not those of a modern day book publishing minor religion, which changes its doctrines like most people change their underwear. Here are some quotes about examining your own religion; these are all from the Watch Tower Society. If you had an accurate knowledge of Raymond Franz, you would be in a better position to be informed, rather than parrot false information about him that you've been fed from other Witnesses or the organization. Why not read his introduction to his first book? Don't worry, there is nothing bashing the Watch Tower, just his aim for writing the book, Crisis of Conscience, just seeing what kind of writer he is might give you some more insight, rather then imaging the worst based on false rumours and misinformation. You can find it here. PS. Did you read Romans 8:38–39? Central 16:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Raymond Franz is apostate from my faith. You did not ask for a biblical description of an apostate, you stated that I had incorrectly labelled Franz. I replied with several scriptures that clearly indicate characteristics of an apostate. He has deviated from the truth (2 Tim 2: 18); from among us such men will come forth and teach contrary doctrine (Acts 20: 29-30); if he was of us he would have remaind with us (1 John 2:19); therefore we are obligated to avoid, disfellowship, and shun such a person (Romans 16: 17; 2 Thess. 3: 6, 14; Titus 3:10; 2 John 10). The scriptures posited are self evident, biblically, he is apostate from my faith. Just as a Catholic who goes about one day teaching things contrary to Catholic doctrine, that man has become apostate from the Catholic point of view, since they believe they have the truth, they would be hypocrites to not label such a man: "apostate".
Who are "all these apostates" that you refer to? I have only mentioned two: "Raymond Franz," and "Dr. Jerry Bergman." Both who technically are apostate from my faith (belief system). My belief is in the Christian doctrine of the entirety of the bible as explicated by the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society. My faith is my own, though you really didn't ask the question to recieve an answer, you were just interested in providing yourself oppurtinity to trash the WTB&TS and me. I examine my belief system, faith, and personal relationship with Jesus and his Father, in the light of the bible. The bible can be the only ultimate basis for such examination so don't give me that "examine your religion" horse-pucky, if I am to not even say a greeting to such a man (per the Bible), why on earth would I read his words? I'm not worried about WT bashing, I'm worried about becoming a sharer in his sin. My viewpoint on this matter is biblically sound whether you agree with it or not, so stop insinuative nonsense like "i'm afraid" or "spiritually weak" or accusing me of ad hom. You said I only debate weak arguments for an "ego buzz", I say I've discussed my faith with two of the most publicized protagonists against the WTB&TS (one has a Masters in Biblical Studies and Theology, the other has two doctorates, though neither in the field of religious study).
I'd be more than happy to oblige a discussion with you, however, your caricatures of my position need to stop, and you must respect my point of view regarding apostacy. Duffer 08:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You said: "Raymond Franz is apostate from my faith." Well at least we are getting somewhere now, as that indicates your faith is in the Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society, and not exclusive loyalty to God, Jesus and the Bible. You said: "I replied with several scriptures that clearly indicate characteristics of an apostate." Um nope, you will find the scriptures are talking about Christianity as Jesus' defines, not the Watch Tower Society's doctrines from some fallible men in New York. You will find if you could be bothered to get some accurate information, that Ray Franz is not described in any of those scriptures. You appear to be getting confused between the Bible (from God) and the publications and flip-flopping unique doctrines and teachings of a New York publishing organization.
You said: "if he was of us he would have remained with us (1 John 2:19)" Franz did remain as a Christian, what you are confused with is the unique doctrines of the modern publishing organization, the Watch Tower Society, which as you know didn't exist until well after 1900 years after John's words. Resisting the doctrines of men that have been found out to have no scriptural foundation is not apostate as far as Jesus' defined the action. You would do well to learn this fact. You would find it extremely hard to find anything that Franz believes that is not found in the scriptures, and seeing as you think you are such an expert, I would like you to give, say, one or two examples from the Bible where Franz's beliefs contradict them. I'm sure you also know that slandering people is a serious scriptural offence, especially slandering other Christians. How would you react to being labelled a child molester or drug dealer by someone who knows nothing about you, but just repeated false rumours they heard from someone else who was equally ignorant? If you don't know someone's beliefs, and the reason for them, then how can you possibly go around judging them as worthless apostates? Remember Matthew; the judgments you give out (especially in ignorance) will be put back on you the same way.
You said: "Just as a Catholic who goes about one day teaching things contrary to Catholic doctrine, that man has become apostate from the Catholic point of view." Actually, you are incorrect. Read the first introduction to Franz's book, and he gives an exact example of that scenario involving Roman Catholic priest Hans Küng. Besides even if he were teachings contrary to Catholic doctrines, that would not make him an apostate in Biblical terms, as you know there are plenty of doctrines of the Catholic church that are not Biblical, and that's the point! Avoiding "apostates" should only be those contradicting Jesus' teachings, not those disagreeing with men's fallible interpretations, unless of course you think the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses are gods?
You said: "My belief is. . . as explicated by the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society. My faith is my own." You have contradicted yourself. How can it be "explicated by the Watch Tower", and your own? If it were your own, none of it would come from fallible men in New York. You said: "I examine my belief system. . . in the light of the bible." Then why bother with men's constantly vacillating opinions from New York? Did not Christ say he would send a helper to teach and guide you—that being the Holy Spirit? (Luke 12:12; John 14:26)
You said: "The bible can be the only ultimate basis for such examination." I agree, but where does the Bible say Ray Franz's beliefs are non-scriptural and antichrist? You have admitted you don't know his books, so therefore you don't know his beliefs, so how can you say the highly judgemental things you do? How will you feel if you are wrong, and are slandering another genuine Christian? Don't you think it better to check your facts before you sin against God in this way? How can we "make sure of all things" if we refuse to get our facts first? You said: "I'm not worried about WT bashing, I'm worried about becoming a sharer in his sin." Can you tell me the Biblical (not Watch Tower) sin he is supposed to be committing? (Facts please) You said: "you must respect my point of view regarding apostasy." It would have respect if it were based on accurate knowledge, and the Bible, but at present it clearly appears to come from false accusations and the malevolent opinions of some fallible old men in New York. I'm sure you will agree God's standards should be the only measuring sick, not the fickle and unsound standards of imperfect men. Central 00:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Loyalty. You are again misrepresenting what I directly said: "My belief is in the Christian doctrine of the entirety of the bible as explicated by the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society." that is in no way talking about loyalty. Duffer 09:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apostacy. Other then saying I'm wrong you provided no evidence to the contrary. Lets be clear on this point; I believe what the WTB&TS teaches is the correct interpretations of Jesus's, and the apostle's, words. As a result, anyone who knows these things yet turns away and persists in teaching what is contrary, IS apostate. That's biblical. For us to believe that Franz is not an apostate, we would have to believe that the WTB&TS's interpretations are not correct. I bring up Catholocism as an example, I don't know if they excommunicate or not, you're missing my point, or refusing to address it. It is not a judgement of him (nor is it slander), it is a label of his actions. I get called "apostate" more than you'd think just for merely being un-orthodox. It doesn't phase me at all, and it likely doesn't phase Franz at all to know we refer to him as an apostate. He's doing what he believes is right, one day we will all know if he was or not; until then, I do as the bible tells me. Your entire argument hinges on the supposition that what the WTB&TS teaches is not what Jesus taught, if it is what Jesus taught, then he is apostate, I believe it is the correct interpretation of what Jesus taught, therefore, he is apostate and must be shunned. Duffer 09:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Christianity and Apostacy. "Franz did remain as a Christian". From your perspective, maybe he did; from my perspective he apostatized. You have no biblical argument, only your perspective. Contrary to that, I have provided you sound biblical principle that supports my point of view; scripture that you may even agree with as your above reply vaguely indicates you do believe in apostacy from truth as taught by Jesus. Would you not shun a person of your faith whom you believe has apostatized (like the bible specifically tells you to do)? Duffer 09:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conviction Enough to Shun. It is not my place to tear down his faith, it is my duty to defend my own. Besides, for me to have a discussion about Mr. Franz's specific viewpoints I would have to aquire one of his books, and read it. That will not happen. Why can you not accept that, and why do you criticize me for doing what the bible tells me to do? Duffer 09:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apostacy Continued. Your interpretation of Apostacy is not accurate according to the bible. Remember please that Jesus had absolutely no say on the matter of uncircumcision (Acts 15)(which in itself was accused of being an apostacy (Acts 21:21)). The doctrinal decision layed down not only by the apostles (literally the interpretation of "imperfect men"), but also "the older men of the congregations" was binding enough to constitute a disciplinary action for those who would not accept the change (Acts 15:1; Titus 1:9,10, 13; Proverbs 6:23) which very likely included excommunication and subsequent shunning of persistent individuals (1 Tim. 3: 6, 11). Duffer 09:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My Faith is My Own. How is that a contradiction to: My belief is. . . as explicated by the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society?" Is your faith not your own regardless of who taught you? This is the kind of thing I believe CBT was refering to when he asked you: "Are you trying to wear Witnesses down?" Duffer 09:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Raymond Franz Revisited. He disagrees so much with the interpretations of the Bible as set forth by the WTB&TS that he not only left, he wrote (two?) books detailing his disagreements. That alone is enough for me to know I should not pay attention to anything he says, lest I myself become a sharer in his sin (1 Tim. 3:6, 11; 2 John 11). Just from the above we can gather several indicators of apostacy: If he was of us, he would have remained with us; He is teaching contrary doctrine; He is profiting off of a stumbling block to the faith of those he once called: "brothers." Duffer 09:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will use your headings as replies:
  • Loyalty. Go and look up the word "explicate". You faith is in the explanations and interpretations of men, not your own deductions based solely on the Bible and God's Holy Spirit. Therefore, you are loyal to men, not God and not even yourself.
  • Apostasy. You said: "I believe what the WTB&TS teaches. . . As a result, anyone who knows these things yet turns away and persists in teaching what is contrary, IS apostate." Except you have failed to even look at the evidence that 1. Is the Watch Tower truthful and accurate in its teachings, and 2. What exactly does Franz believe in? You are mixing two usages. The Watch Tower sees any disagreement with them as "apostate", but that is not the same as the Bible's usage. Please learn the differences! You said: "it is a label of his actions." Which actions? Leaving a book publishing company, or rather being expelled due to eating a meal with your employer is not remotely hinted at in scripture. So, can you please tell me what his specific sins are, and please lose the red herring of "leaving the New York book publishers"?
  • You go on: "until then, I do as the bible tells me. . . if it is what Jesus taught, then he is apostate, I believe it is the correct interpretation of what Jesus taught." And what is that? You have failed to give any specifics at all, except to make unfounded accusations. The Bible tell you to "keep making sure", to "test all things", "to come to spiritual maturity" not dependent on others to teach you and feed you like a baby. How can you know if something is 'good or bad' if you know nothing about it? None of your claims are scriptural or based in objective facts.
  • Christianity and Apostasy. You said: "from my perspective he apostatized. You have no biblical argument, only your perspective." What "Perspective"? You have admitted you know nothing about what Franz thinks, so how can you have the faintest idea what he believes? Leaving a book publishing company is not biblical reason for the label of antichrist (apostate). How can you make an informed decision on him if you have admitted you are totally ignorant of him and his beliefs? You need to get some accurate knowledge, and sort out your own perspective. Ignorance on your part is not an excuse.
  • You said: "I have provided you sound biblical principle that supports my point of view". No Matthew, you have misapplied scripture, as Franz's situation is not mentioned in scripture. If you are ignorant of someone's beliefs, how can you put them in any category, and where doe the Bible teach you to make false accusations based on zero objective information? Again, leaving a book publishing company is not a biblical ground for being labelled antichrist, and that's the scriptural meaning of apostate.
  • You go on: "Would you not shun a person of your faith whom you believe has apostatized (like the bible specifically tells you to do)." What do you mean by "your faith"? I am not like you; I have no faith in fallible men. I would never put my life and soul on the line for men and their power games and self-delusions. If you were referring to faith in Jesus & God, then I would get accurate and informed knowledge before I chose to avoid someone. How could I know anything about what person X believed if I have never read or spoken to them and heard their own words and side of the story? The scriptures make it blatantly clear that getting information will not, and cannot ever ruin your faith or relationship with God/Jesus. (Romans 8:38-39). How can you know someone's specific beliefs and reason for them and then call them "apostate" if you refuse to get any facts in the first place? Your position is totally unscriptural and untenable.
  • Conviction Enough to Shun. You said: "it is my duty to defend my own". All you have defended is the man made Watch Tower and your loyalty to it, not the Bible or Jesus' instructions. Again, without accurate knowledge you are incapable of making a fair and rational biblical distinction between a Christian and an antichrist rebel (apostate).
  • Apostasy Continued. You said: "Jesus had absolutely no say on the matter of uncircumcision" Incorrect again, Jesus was guiding them according to scripture along with the Holy Spirit. And Paul in that scripture in Acts 21:21 was clearly under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, as were others (Acts 15:28), and Paul also experienced a miraculous conversion from Jesus directly. You also ignore the fact that no one was excommunicated for having a disagreement; it was debated, unlike you who would probably just excommunicate, label antichrist, shun, and slander anyone without even trying to find the facts out. As Titus 1:9 says, "so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict." This is what you oppose. You have shown your unscriptural position is: "You must not even get your facts, just excommunicate them all, even if you are clueless as to any alleged transgressions, just expel and shun regardless. Don't talk to them, don't find the facts out, don't refute, just label, excommunicate and shun, don't worry about those silly things called facts." Your position Matthew is not remotely scriptural, reasonable or Christian, looking at your posts. None of those people in scripture ran and hid like cowards when an issue arose, they instead took it head on, got the facts, spoke to all involved and discussed it fully, something you refuse to do, or are terrified to do.
  • My Faith is My Own. How can it be your own, when it is entirely dependent on the current interpretations of some old men in New York who keep changing their minds even though they claim it's all from God and directly guided by the Holy Spirit? Where is Jesus in all that? Oh sorry, I forgot, Jesus is not your mediator, the Governing Body have that privilege instead, regardless of what the Bible actually teaches.
  • Raymond Franz Revisited. You said: "as set forth by the WTB&TS" Can you hear yourself? You said up the page: "I'm not worried about WT bashing", and now you are contradicting yourself, as you are demonstrating that your faith is in men's interpretations, not your own, or the Bible's.
  • You go on: "that he not only left." He did not "leave"; he was kicked out for eating a meal with his boss.
  • You say: "he wrote (two?) books detailing his disagreements. That alone is enough for me to know I should not pay attention to anything he says, lest I myself become a sharer in his sin." So, let me get this correct. Say a Catholic leaves his church because he feels its teachings are non-scriptural (remember he's not leaving because he's lost his faith in God, but is leaving on a pure conscience basis). According to you, that means he is a scriptural "antichrist apostate of Jesus and God". And what has writing books got to do with anything? You haven't even read them, so why would that mean anything? If Franz is antichrist, as you demand he must be for writing two books (which you haven't read) then what in those books specifically opposes Jesus or the Bible? If you cannot answer, then you are proving your own bigotry and unscriptural arrogance at labelling someone who you know nothing of, except "they wrote two books"!
  • Everything you have said has demonstrated to me you know little of the Bible, and even less about scriptural precedence in regard to false teachings, yes teachings you are ignorant or oppose as you refuse to get facts before you speak your slanderous labels, and call people antichrist rebels, as that is what an apostate is in scripture. You have spent a long time justifying your own unscriptural prejudices, which is very sad. Your faith must be weaker than a newborn kitten if you are so intimidated you refuse to get any scriptural facts to back up your endless apostate labelling. I get the definite impression your constant compulsion to label someone like Franz with any pejorative false name, is only their to cocoon yourself from having to face up to the fact that you cannot answer any of his scriptural arguments in his books. I don't expect you to admit to that here, but when you go to bed at night, you know what I'm saying is true, no matter how uncomfortable you feel, and no matter how many feeble excuses you choose to cling to hide from the reality that is waiting for you. Please read these articles about making sure of your faith. PS. The word is apostasy, not apostacy.Central 00:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Please do reply if you feel so inclined, however, beyond one more reply I think we should take this to e-mail. Duffer 23:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation Page

Hi Duffer, I wondered if I could encourage you to support the rewrite I proposed so that a new subject could be addressed. What I submitted covers the points you are requesting to be covered in a matter of fact fashion. Which is exactly what we are aiming for, no? The other reason is that the opposing camp seems to be ok with it. This way we can bring the current 'argument' to an end. George 20:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I already have (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AMediation_Cabal%2FCases%2F27_12_2005_Jehovah%27s_Witnesses&diff=33214731&oldid=33202495) I like it, but would like to see the implicit made more explicit by adding something like: "however, they do not discount the possibility". What do you think? Duffer 07:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Duffer, On the Mediation Cabal page, you posted the following, Central's post "will look bad, you must keep in mind that the large majority of quotes is "good or bad" or "us-or-them" type language, such quotes are not refering to "not-us, but still good". Please clarify this, I am not sure that I understand it. Thanks, SteveMc 00:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation 2

Hi, your request has been accepted. Thanks :) - FrancisTyers 17:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, that was fast, I havn't even had a chance to post about it on the NWT page hehe. Duffer 17:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Duffer1&oldid=34132849"