What We Thought

[nPeace]

I never said she did. Here is what I said about Deeje (regarding a JW who became an "evolutionist"): "Dejee said they would be treated like a "rotten piece of fruit" who was "spreading poison""

Here is what she said about such a person: "why would we receive 'defectors' back into our ranks only to have them spread their poison... Like a ripe piece of fruit, they can't go back to being 'green'....they just go rotten".

I won't speculate on possible reasons for your error, but it's obvious that I accurately represented Deeje's words.

I won't speculate on the context of the quote you made, nor will I encourage breaking RF's rules.
You are on your own there.

Jehovah's Witnesses, disfellowshipping and shunning, including family members (jwfacts.com)

"A disfellowshipped person is to be shunned by family and friends. Unless they are reinstated, this punishment is for the remainder of their life, causing tremendous emotional suffering."​

I won't speculate on the possible reasons for your error, but it's obvious that Jehovah's Witnesses' own material describes shunning as a punishment that causes emotional suffering.

jwfacts.com? Lol. Ladidadi. You need a better source. Try jw.org. There you will find relevant and updated information that JWs use... including Deeje.

As demonstrated above, I accurately represented Deeje's words and my description of disfellowshipping and shunning is in line with the Jehovah's Witnesses' description.

No, you did not. I'm not shouting.

I won't speculate on the possible reasons for your errors.

No errors on my part.
You are making those, by repeatedly breaking forum rules. Go ahead, do it again.

You did not speak the truth. Despite your false accusations, I accurately represented Deeje's words and my description of disfellowshipping and shunning is in line with the Jehovah's Witnesses' description.

I do not know the context of Deeje's words, but I do know she never said JWs subject people to emotional and social punishment.
So, for the last time. No. JWs do not subject people to emotional and social punishment.

Any emotional suffering the wrongdoer experiences is from his / her own sin.
Their social life continues. No one deprives an individual of that.
Such thinking is warped - twisted.

You're not making sense.

...and to you, I won't.

That's the great thing about message boards....it's very easy to check back and see who said what. And in this case, the record is extremely clear; you are very, very wrong.

Searching back for earlier quotes yes, it truly is great. Breaking the board's rules, no, it definitely is not a great thing. Nope.

That leaves only two questions: 1) why you made such basic errors, and 2) if you are honest enough to admit your mistakes and apologize for making false accusations.

I made no errors. If I did, I would admit them.
I always admit my errors. You can check back on the boards to see that.

How about you answer those question?
Why do you repeat your mistake, rather than apologize for breaking RF's rules?
If Deeje did give you permission to quote her there, I would be willing to acknowledge making the mistake of accusing you of doing something wrong.
I am humble enough to admit my mistakes. You?

I won't speculate on #1 here, and your next post will answer #2.

I hope so.

 

[Jose Fly]

I won't speculate on the context of the quote you made, nor will I encourage breaking RF's rules.
You are on your own there.


jwfacts.com? Lol. Ladidadi. You need a better source. Try jw.org. There you will find relevant and updated information that JWs use... including Deeje.


No, you did not. I'm not shouting.


No errors on my part.
You are making those, by repeatedly breaking forum rules. Go ahead, do it again.


I do not know the context of Deeje's words, but I do know she never said JWs subject people to emotional and social punishment.
So, for the last time. No. JWs do not subject people to emotional and social punishment.

Any emotional suffering the wrongdoer experiences is from his / her own sin.
Their social life continues. No one deprives an individual of that.
Such thinking is warped - twisted.


...and to you, I won't.


Searching back for earlier quotes yes, it truly is great. Breaking the board's rules, no, it definitely is not a great thing. Nope.


I made no errors. If I did, I would admit them.
I always admit my errors. You can check back on the boards to see that.

How about you answer those question?
Why do you repeat your mistake, rather than apologize for breaking RF's rules?
If Deeje did give you permission to quote her there, I would be willing to acknowledge making the mistake of accusing you of doing something wrong.
I am humble enough to admit my mistakes. You?


I hope so.

So to summarize....

When Deeje likened a Jehovah's Witness who became an "evolutionist" to someone "spreading poison", you think it's twisting her words to say "Deeje said a Jehovah's Witness who became an 'evolutionist' would be like someone spreading poison."

When Deeje likened a Jehovah's Witness wo became an "evolutionist" to a "piece of fruit" that "just goes rotten", you think it's twisting her words to say "Deeje said a Jehovah's Witness who became an 'evolutionist' would be like a rotten piece of fruit".

When the Jehovah's Witnesses kick someone out of the church and mandate that no Witnesses are allowed to speak to them or have anything to do with them, you think that has no negative emotional or social consequences and is not a punishment.

I find all of that extremely odd, but you obviously think otherwise. Okay then. Until next time.....

 

[nPeace]

So to summarize....

When Deeje likened a Jehovah's Witness who became an "evolutionist" to someone "spreading poison", you think it's twisting her words to say "Deeje said a Jehovah's Witness who became an 'evolutionist' would be like someone spreading poison."

When Deeje likened a Jehovah's Witness wo became an "evolutionist" to a "piece of fruit" that "just goes rotten", you think it's twisting her words to say "Deeje said a Jehovah's Witness who became an 'evolutionist' would be like a rotten piece of fruit".

When the Jehovah's Witnesses kick someone out of the church and mandate that no Witnesses are allowed to speak to them or have anything to do with them, you think that has no negative emotional or social consequences and is not a punishment.

I find all of that extremely odd, but you obviously think otherwise. Okay then. Until next time.....

Are you not twisting my words here too? I rest my case.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Are you not twisting my words here too? I rest my case.

No, he is not.

 

[Jose Fly]

No, he is not.

Some of the fault probably lies with me. The original discussion wasn't going well for him, so in typical fashion he made some weird accusations, hoping to divert it to a different direction. It worked.

I gotta try and do better at sticking to the topic next time.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Some of the fault probably lies with me. The original discussion wasn't going well for him, so in typical fashion he made some weird accusations, hoping to divert it to a different direction. It worked.

I gotta try and do better at sticking to the topic next time.

I hear ya, I'm guilty of the same myself.
But I don't see you twisting anything at all and the accusations of such are completely unwarranted. You couldn't have been more clear and precise, imo.

 

[Jose Fly]

I hear ya, I'm guilty of the same myself.
But I don't see you twisting anything at all and the accusations of such are completely unwarranted. You couldn't have been more clear and precise, imo.

Thanks!

Years ago I read an article about fundamentalists and some of their common behaviors. One of the main things it talked about was how they tend to have lines in the sand that they will not cross under any circumstances, and once a discussion starts to inch towards that line, they'll do all sorts of things to shut it down.

I think in this case I started talking about the Jehovah's Witnesses and their practices of disfellowshipping and shunning, which in hindsight was clearly a line in the sand for nPeace. I touched a nerve, he didn't want to go there, and we ended up spiraling downward.

I've never understood Witnesses' reluctance to discuss their own religion and church, but....it is what it is, as my wife would say.

 

[nPeace]

Thanks!

Years ago I read an article about fundamentalists and some of their common behaviors. One of the main things it talked about was how they tend to have lines in the sand that they will not cross under any circumstances, and once a discussion starts to inch towards that line, they'll do all sorts of things to shut it down.

I think in this case I started talking about the Jehovah's Witnesses and their practices of disfellowshipping and shunning, which in hindsight was clearly a line in the sand for nPeace. I touched a nerve, he didn't want to go there, and we ended up spiraling downward.

I've never understood Witnesses' reluctance to discuss their own religion and church, but....it is what it is, as my wife would say.

You are just doing what you have been doing for years on these forums. Your propaganda against this group is noticed.
I highlighted this years ago, so we all know your agenda.
You even got reported for breaking that rule, but that never stops, you does it. Breaking the rules don't bother you, apparently.
I made the mistake of giving you the time of day, to engage in that campaign. It won't happen again. Why?
You are now on ignore... this time for good... and I won't say you are lying, lest I break the rules.

 

[Jose Fly]

You are just doing what you have been doing for years on these forums. Your propaganda against this group is noticed.

All I do is post the truth (that becoming an "evolutionist" puts a Witness at risk of excommunication and shunning), which some Jehovah's Witnesses have confirmed.

I see that as a factor when trying to discuss evolution with Jehovah's Witnesses, whether it be in person or online.

I made the mistake of giving you the time of day, to engage in that campaign. It won't happen again. Why?

That's what I find so fascinating....how Jehovah's Witnesses want to pretend the threat of excommunication and shunning plays no role at all in how they approach certain subjects.

You are now on ignore... this time for good... and I won't say you are lying, lest I break the rules.

Strategically, that's a bad move. You're just giving me free reign to say whatever I want to your posts, while you have no ability to respond.

Fine by me!

And to sum up what I think is the root issue here, IMO it's about a few basic facts. nPeace, you are a Jehovah's Witnesses. And if you're like other Witnesses I've known, it's not just something you do once a week. For many, it's a very significant part of their lives...their primary social group, peer group, and sometimes their literal family (to be clear, all totally fine IMO).

Also, as some Witnesses here have confirmed, if a Witness were to become an "evolutionist", they could potentially be brought before a council, questioned/confronted, and if they didn't recant, they could face excommunication (kicked out of the church) and shunning (other Witnesses can't speak to, or socialize with them unless absolutely necessary).

In light of all that, when it comes to debates about evolution, the Witnesses here I've encountered have all expected me to pretend as if none of it influences how they approach the subject. That is simply absurd on it's face.

In fact, it's so absurd that someone trying to get me to go along with it is an insult to my intelligence. It's a level of denial that....well, I'll just stop there.

 

[YoursTrue]

So then, thinking about things (once again...) a woman needs to get pregnant to give birth to a child. That child needs help to continue living and keeps growing. It does not stay an infant. So what came first, according to the theory of evolution-- A child? A pregnant woman? A man and a woman?

 

[metis]

So then, thinking about things (once again...) a woman needs to get pregnant to give birth to a child. That child needs help to continue living and keeps growing. It does not stay an infant. So what came first, according to the theory of evolution-- A child? A pregnant woman? A man and a woman?

It's a continuous process dating back hundreds of millions of years ago with life forms that needed to mate in order for offspring to be produced.

 

[YoursTrue]

It's a continuous process dating back hundreds of millions of years ago with life forms that needed to mate in order for offspring to be produced.

Is there something other than opinion to back that up?
In order for a person to come about, I know test tube babies have been formed, but (1) someone had to begin the process, and (2) so far no adult has been formed in these scientific endeavors, have they?

 

[YoursTrue]

It's a continuous process dating back hundreds of millions of years ago with life forms that needed to mate in order for offspring to be produced.

Life forms that "needed to mate"? Can you explain more about that with evidence, please?

 

[YoursTrue]

All I do is post the truth (that becoming an "evolutionist" puts a Witness at risk of excommunication and shunning), which some Jehovah's Witnesses have confirmed.

I see that as a factor when trying to discuss evolution with Jehovah's Witnesses, whether it be in person or online.


That's what I find so fascinating....how Jehovah's Witnesses want to pretend the threat of excommunication and shunning plays no role at all in how they approach certain subjects.


Strategically, that's a bad move. You're just giving me free reign to say whatever I want to your posts, while you have no ability to respond.

Fine by me!

And to sum up what I think is the root issue here, IMO it's about a few basic facts. nPeace, you are a Jehovah's Witnesses. And if you're like other Witnesses I've known, it's not just something you do once a week. For many, it's a very significant part of their lives...their primary social group, peer group, and sometimes their literal family (to be clear, all totally fine IMO).

Also, as some Witnesses here have confirmed, if a Witness were to become an "evolutionist", they could potentially be brought before a council, questioned/confronted, and if they didn't recant, they could face excommunication (kicked out of the church) and shunning (other Witnesses can't speak to, or socialize with them unless absolutely necessary).

In light of all that, when it comes to debates about evolution, the Witnesses here I've encountered have all expected me to pretend as if none of it influences how they approach the subject. That is simply absurd on it's face.

In fact, it's so absurd that someone trying to get me to go along with it is an insult to my intelligence. It's a level of denial that....well, I'll just stop there.

I must say that to offer the hope the Bible provides referring to a better world is something I enjoy sharing with people. Also I look forward to everlasting life in happiness with no sickness or sorrow. Revelation 21:1-5 helps to understand this.

 

[YoursTrue]

All I do is post the truth (that becoming an "evolutionist" puts a Witness at risk of excommunication and shunning), which some Jehovah's Witnesses have confirmed.

I see that as a factor when trying to discuss evolution with Jehovah's Witnesses, whether it be in person or online.


That's what I find so fascinating....how Jehovah's Witnesses want to pretend the threat of excommunication and shunning plays no role at all in how they approach certain subjects.


Strategically, that's a bad move. You're just giving me free reign to say whatever I want to your posts, while you have no ability to respond.

Fine by me!

And to sum up what I think is the root issue here, IMO it's about a few basic facts. nPeace, you are a Jehovah's Witnesses. And if you're like other Witnesses I've known, it's not just something you do once a week. For many, it's a very significant part of their lives...their primary social group, peer group, and sometimes their literal family (to be clear, all totally fine IMO).

Also, as some Witnesses here have confirmed, if a Witness were to become an "evolutionist", they could potentially be brought before a council, questioned/confronted, and if they didn't recant, they could face excommunication (kicked out of the church) and shunning (other Witnesses can't speak to, or socialize with them unless absolutely necessary).

In light of all that, when it comes to debates about evolution, the Witnesses here I've encountered have all expected me to pretend as if none of it influences how they approach the subject. That is simply absurd on it's face.

In fact, it's so absurd that someone trying to get me to go along with it is an insult to my intelligence. It's a level of denial that....well, I'll just stop there.

Can you please answer with substantial information as to how a baby is formed per the theory of evolution? In other words, how do scientists figure evolution produced two sexes, male and female, and then the female getting pregnant?

 

[Jose Fly]

Can you please answer with substantial information as to how a baby is formed per the theory of evolution? In other words, how do scientists figure evolution produced two sexes, male and female, and then the female getting pregnant?

Nope, not with you (or any other Jehovah's Witness). If I were to somehow be convincing, it could potentially lead to you losing your faith, your friends, your family, and even a sense of purpose to your life.

Why would I want to do that?

 

[YoursTrue]

Nope, not with you (or any other Jehovah's Witness). If I were to somehow be convincing, it could potentially lead to you losing your faith, your friends, your family, and even a sense of purpose to your life.

Why would I want to do that?

lol, I've asked and examined the teaching as much as I could. I find no substantial basis for the truthfulness of the theory. It does not stand, except in the minds of those wishing it to be true. There is no real-life, real-time basis for it.

 

[YoursTrue]

Nope, not with you (or any other Jehovah's Witness). If I were to somehow be convincing, it could potentially lead to you losing your faith, your friends, your family, and even a sense of purpose to your life.

Why would I want to do that?

I've received one answer from someone here about the two sex theory, absolutely unsubstantiated except by opinion. And then of course, there's the situation of pregnancy. Carrying an embryo. My, my, quite yes a distance from that first cellular structure that just popped up.

 

[metis]

Is there something other than opinion to back that up?
In order for a person to come about, I know test tube babies have been formed, but (1) someone had to begin the process, and (2) so far no adult has been formed in these scientific endeavors, have they?

It's not an opinion as we well know that animals copulated long before humans ever showed up. We do not know when the first organisms copulated as this would have gone back hundreds of millions of years ago or more.

 

[YoursTrue]

It's not an opinion as we well know that animals copulated long before humans ever showed up. We do not know when the first organisms copulated as this would have gone back hundreds of millions of years ago or more.

The Bible does say that humans were the last creation in Genesis. So I can definitely agree with you there about the sequence in that regard,
Again -- the more I think about it, it does not make sense that -- somehow -- animals and whatever else just 'began' to copulate. Like sometimes male and female. No matter how far back a scientist wants to go, metis, in his imagination, it no longer makes sense to me, in part because there is nothing whatsoever beyond man's imagination that this happened as if suddenly a new branch appeared, if you know what I mean.
Anyway, have a nice day.