From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: [This is what Corey says] This is what the Jehovah's Witnesses do.
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 09:20:54 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.184137.12369@e2big.mko.dec.com> news@illusn.enet.dec.com (Mark Sornson) writes:
>In article <1992Jul22.001419.12399@sdf.lonestar.org>, corey@sdf.lonestar.org (Corey Carroll) writes...

>    in your congregation the anguish of having to disfellowship you,
                              ^^^^^^^
>    assuming, that is, that you really *want* to be disfellowshipped].

How bizarre and organization anguishing over having to remove one of
its members when they speak the truth...

>        The dictionary I have handy defines apostacy as:
>
>                "renunciation of one's religion, principles,
>                political party, etc."
>
>    Regardless of the fact that Andreas as labelled you as an apostate, I'd
>    say, after having read a few of your postings, that you've made it
>    pretty clear that you've done precisely what an apostate does, namely
>    you've renounced your religion, and have done so publicly, at least
>    as far as the net is concerned.

If believing in evolution can be consider apostacy then the JW's are
in bad shape indeed. It is one thing to base religious beliefs on that
which cannot be tested, it is another matter altogether to make denial
of a testable (and tested) truth the foundation of your religion. If
evolution being false is a pillar of your religion, then your religion
will do what any building would do if a pillar was suddenly removed.

>        Whether you (or anyone else) is considered an apostate by us has
>    nothing to do with whether we can or cannot rebutt your arguments; it
>    has to do with your own attitude and publicly evident actions and
>    words.  If you, by your own words, make it clear that you renounce and
>    now decry the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses, you can hardly expect
>    anyone who IS a Witness to want to hear what you have to say from now
>    on, can you? 

Wanting to hear it and trying to shut someone up by threats are two
seperate matters. If this is a pillar of your religion certainly you
can argue for it by reason alone, if you cannot and must defend it with
threats it is like trying to keep a collapsing building from falling by
wrapping duct tape around rapidly crumbling pillars.

>>	I got the impression that you are an apostate. You know, how we will
>>	treat apostates, so it's needless for you to try to talk with us, 
>>	everything you say will be ignored. I've told this to the other 
>>	friends, too. 

This is the kind of stuff you expect to find in old James Bond movies
when the Russian spy tells the party that they are having second thoughts
about communism.

Andreas was trying to change Corey's beliefs by threat rather than reason,
this is a blantant admission that Corey is right since Andreas has nothing
left but to resort to threats. 
While posting e-mail is not kosher threatening people is much less
kosher. I have to say I believe Corey made the right decision when posting
this, threats can only be countered by publisizing them. Making a threat
public turns it back on the author. If your going to make threats you
had better expect to see them published for all to see.

Just because Corey isn't threatened with physical harm doesn't remove
the fact that this is blackmail.

>        No, Corey ... that sums up Andreas alone; or perhaps only provides
>    the basis which *you* consider valid for summing up all Witnesses.  
>    Andreas is reminding you of a truth which you are already aware of,
>    that we don't waste our time arguing with people who apostasize from
>    our faith; but you clearly are ignoring (perhaps because it's
>    convenient) the fact that we'd MUCH rather see you remain our spiritual
>    brother, so that you live forever in God's 'new system' as a fellow
>    servant of Jehovah.  We'd MUCH rather that you make yourself our
>    spiritual friend, rather than declare yourself our spiritual enemy.

Translation- We won't talk to you any more since we are afraid we
 might begin to question as well. But you had better come back other
 wise you will go to hell.

>        Perhaps instead you should consider the evidence pertaining to
>    yourself that YOU are providing Witnesses on the net and at your home
>    for summing YOU up.

Again you try to intimidate Corey into silence by telling him that
everything he says will be used against him.

>        You say that you've made your decision about Jehovah's Witnesses on
>    the basis of what you've read in talk.origins, but tell me this: did
>    you independently analyze the quotes and their context *ON YOUR OWN* to
>    see if the critical analysis was *really* accurate; or did you just
>    accept what the critics said because you have been looking for a reason
>    to quit being a Witness anyway? 

But have you thought about what your religion says *ON YOUR OWN*? 

>    The reason I ask is that over the
>    years I've researched on my own -- to the best of my ability -- 
>    many claims of alleged falsification by the Watchtower Society, and
>    every critical claim that I've been able to check out has proved false
>    (in my estimation).  

But have you ever researched into evolution? Have you tried out the
algorithms in scientific american that use natural selection to
solve problems? 

>>                                                                  I find
>>it interesting that they make such a big deal about being open-minded in
>>the field service, (that is, the people they preach to must be open-minded).
>
>        If you were truly so open-minded yourself, you'd have taken the
>    time to investigate whether the critical arguments could be countered
>    with reasonable and truthful explanations.  

How do you know he didn't? 

>    Have you done so, or do you
>    believe, as apparently many others do, that accepting a one-sided
>    critical case is the most open-minded way to judge Jehovah's Witnesses?
>    Why are you so willing to believe that Jehovah's Witnesses are lying to
>    you, but don't even entertain the thought that it *could* be the
>    critics who are lying [or are at least misinformed or misguided]?

Corey always answered the questions posed by other JW's on talk.origins,
if you can't back up your beliefs how can you expect someone who does
not believe as strongly to back them up? Your asking Corey to answer
questions that you have not been able to supply answers to.

-- 
>>Unix/C Contract worker available 5 years C/unix work experience<<  ______
Available for Telecommuting/Travel and contracts on the T Line       \    /
in the Boston MA area. Send me e-mail for a copy of my Resume.        \  /
       -- VWIS 508-793-9568 (2400 baud), Linux support BBS.--          \/
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc