From: asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti Siivonen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Andreas (was: JWs vs. Christians)
Date: 16 Apr 92 09:45:43 GMT
Organization: University of Joensuu

daveb@pogo.wv.tek.com (Dave Butler) writes:

>There comes a point every so often, when Andreas posts sufficient inanity for
>me to feel compelled to respond.  The latest has mostly to do with his
>statements about the the JW committee which has judged blood transfusion to be
>unclean and dangerous.  On several occasions Andreas has been asked to provide
>the names and qualifications of the people on this JW committee and has not
>done so.  He insists that we give credence to this committee, but instead of
>presenting their qualifications, he simply tells people to simply read that JW
>council's conclusions, and see how "effective" a job they are doing.  Since
>Andreas excuses his laziness by stating that he doesn't have time to go and
>research the names and qualifications of that committee, this strongly implies
>to me that Andreas himself has no real knowledge of who these men are, or what
>their qualifications are; if he did, he'd be at least partially able to answer
>the question. 

	In fact that would require a trip to the HQ, which is not economically
	possible for me. Ask American brothers instead. 

>Now we have Andreas, who admits that he has no knowledge of hematology, or
>even had knowledge that such a science existed, proclaiming to us that this
>anonymous committee, which does no actual research of any kind, is a better
>judge on the subject of hematology than the doctors who spend their lives both
>doing research in hematology, and reading about everyone elses' research.  He
>makes this declaration despite the fact that he has not even displayed
>personal knowledge on the qualifications of this committee itself.  Thus we
>have Andreas, who knows nothing about hematology, hematologist, or the
>qualifications of the committee, still insisting that we accept his judgement,
>grant that committee more credibility than hematologists, and agree that this
>faceless committee is the most qualified group to judge the scientific issues
>of blood.  I find that incredibly self-righteous.  Andreas, I see no reason to
>trust you or your judgement. 

	The truth is that I'm unable to discuss about hematology in English, 
	which is not my mother tongue. Instead, I refer to the leaflet about
	blood transfusions, which can provide better information than I do. 
	That booklet is available in every Kingdom Hall. 

>On a slightly different subject Andreas, after several requests, you claimed
>that you were too busy to bother presenting the names and qualifications of the
>members of this committee.  You made that excuse in spite of the fact that you
>spend time every day reading and writing articles on the net.  Further
>Andreas, you are quite condemnatory when others cannot immediately produce
>documentation at your request (eg: Walter Smith, Jay Windley).  You call such
>people "liars" and agents of the "anti-Christ".  You have made it quite clear
>that if there is any research to be done, regardless of who presents an
>assertion, it is not worth your time to research, and it is always our
>responsibility to do research to your satisfaction.  This is an implicit
>declaration that your time and effort, even the time and effort you merely
>spend reading and writing net articles, is much more valuable than our time
>and effort.  What hubris you display.  I find you to be a lazy, arrogant,
>sanctimonious, hypocrite, who judges himself and his contributions to be
>innately more valuable and less in need of documentation to be credible.  How
>dare you demand documentation, or revile those who do not produce it, when you
>are too self-righteous and lazy to research your own!?!

	No, the reason why I attacked Walter was that he made false quotes. 
	Call it "laziness", when I can't go to New York. 

>And finally Andreas, you have threatened litigation and imprisonment to those
>you believes have libeled your faith.  Well Andreas, you have now libeled the
>faith of others as allowing lying, stealing etc:

>>>>>>>>	Simply the religions there lying, stealing etc. is allowed. 
>>>>>>> ... you are not answering the question.  ...
>>>>>>	The religions of the Great Babylon, The False Religion. 
>>> So name some of them.  Name ten or so, if you don't want to bother naming
>>> thousands.
>> 
>> 	The Lutheran Church, the E. Orthodox Church, the RCC, Jews, Muslims,
>> 	Hindus, Buddhists, the Anglican Church, Calvinists etc. etc. 

	They insisted that themselves. 

>Andreas, if the law against libel in your country are strong enough to have
>Walter Smith jailed for libeling JWs, then your own libelous accusation is
>definitely strong enough to have you imprisoned.  And by the standards you
>yourself have sought to impose on others, you will have deserved it.  So we
>shall see if the the Finlandic Police actually imprison you for spreading
>slanderous lies about other religions, or we shall see that your accusation
>that Walter Smith was doing something deserving of imprisonment, was just
>another of your ridiculous lies.  Of course if you are thrown in jail for
>libel, you will then **BE** the example of something you said did not exist: a
>non-Disfellowshipped JW deservedly in prison (or do you think the JWs would
>disfellowship you for making such a libel). 

	No, it's not criminal to tell truth. 

>To put this article in perspective to other JWs, no I don't hold you
>responsible for the inanity that Andreas produces (the other JWs I have known
>were nothing like Andreas).  And Walter Smith has definitely got ahold of a
>good thing as far as he's concerned.  When criticizing a group it is always
>wonderful to be able and provoke the attention of a recognized zealot and
>idiot, to act as defender of the faith.  For instance, if my aim were show
>fundamentalists to be mindless dolts, I would much rather debate some
>offensive idiot like Brother Jed than someone perceptive like Jonathan
>Edwards.  I admit though, it is very difficult at times to separate Andreas'
>raving from the the beliefs of JW's in general, because of the way Andreas
>wraps himself in the flag of "Jehovahs Witness Defender".  If Andreas does not
>represent JWs in general, you would be best served by making sure that the net
>is aware of this and voice your concerns, just as the more mainstream
>Christians on the net disavowed any connection with Joe Applegate (another
>person who excelled in self-righteous condemnation).  Also, if Andreas is truly
>deserving of public rebuke (eg: libeling all other religions as allowing
>"lying, stealing etc."), then rebuke him so that we do not think that all JWs
>feel that way.  If I had someone who both claimed to represented me and also
>freely insulted others, I would most definitely rebuke him.  

	Thank you. Have a nice day. 
-- 

		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint