From: Tim.ONeill@english.utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill)
Subject: Re: [This is what Corey says] This is what the Jehovah's Witnesses do.
Organization: University of Tasmania, Australia
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 23:27:52 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.184137.12369@e2big.mko.dec.com>, news@illusn.enet.dec.com (Mark Sornson) writes:

> >I don't care if this breaks all the rules of Internet etiquette.  This
> >must be posted to show what the JW's do when they encounter arguments
> >they cannot rebutt.  According to Andrea, I am an 'apostate', apparently
> >because I had the "truth" and I rejected it.  
> 
>         You are right that what you've done breaks all the rules of net
>     etiquette.  I suppose you feel that the ends justify the means, but
>     posting private mail without permission is still a dishonorable
>     activity, regardless of your reason.

Don't sweat about it for a second Corey, I, for one, was very interested to
read Andreas' comment. Hell hath no fury like a fundamentalist religion scorned.
> 
>         Additionally, I think that you've over-generalized "what the
>     Jehovah's Witnesses do" on the basis of what Andreas wrote to you (and
>     others).
> 
>         I understand why Andreas wrote what he did, and he's probably right
>     that with your current attitude, many, if not all Witnesses on the net
>     probably won't have much, if anything, to say to you; but you have to
>     admit that up to this point there HAVE been at least a few Witnesses
>     who've been willing to talk to you (in public and perhaps in private as
>     well), perhaps because they felt that they might regain you back as a
>     spiritual brother [since by your own admission, you haven't been
>     'kicked out' yet, and you evidently haven't had the nerve to formally
>     submit a written resignation of your own, which would save the elders
>     in your congregation the anguish of having to disfellowship you,
>     assuming, that is, that you really *want* to be disfellowshipped].

If your religion is so bloody fantastic why don't you try to convince him to
come back? Where's all your loving-christian-niceness now? 

>         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.
And many of us applaud you for it Corey. It's called being intellectually
honest and true to your convinctions, and it takes GUTS.

>         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. 

Which is why we're not going to talk to you anymore, or listen to anything
you have to say. Hey, I can see the logic there.

      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? 

Well I don't know about Corey, old son, but the book he mentions happens
to have been the very publication which fell into my hands about ten years
ago. It was my first encounter with creationist propaganda and, since my
field is the humanities, I found many of the anti-evolution arguments in it
pretty convincing. Luckily I went to a library and checked up as many of the
quotes and footnotes in the book as I could and did a bit of reading on 
evolution and anti-evolutionism (this is called looking at both sides of the
story). I found that your sweet little book is a bizarre collection of
out-of-context quotations, misquotations, misleading quotations, non sequiturs,
errrors of fact and just about every other dirty intellectual trick known
to man. (I'll substantiate this statement in long and glorious detail if you 
wish.) I recently had two JW's turn up on my doorstep brandishing this same
book. I invited them in and went went through it page by page. It took
several hours, but in the end they were reduced to silence and admitted that
'perhaps there's a bit more to it than we thought'. They probably went back
to their kingdom hall to be re-brainwashed, but I like to think that perhaps
they went home and thought about what they believe and why. I don't care what
they concluded so long as they THOUGHT ABOUT IT. And if I sound angry that's
because I am.

Chin up Corey, it takes courage to say "I was wrong, what I used to believe
seemed to make sense but now it doesn't and I was wrong". Not very many 
people have that courage, but that's the only way anyone learns anything.
And if your dear sweet JW brothers don't want to listen to you, that's
their loss as far as I'm concerned.
Tim O'Neill
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.abortion