Dec 7, 2006
FH Chandler's Favorites
FH Chandler Profile
With Monopoly money, no doubt. (Monday Feb 1 | post #2179)
It's the only one you're focusing onI could only speculate. But given the tendency of online ex/antiJWs to embellish their anecdotal claims, I suspect there's more to you story. But based on your comments to this forum, I see no great value in running you down. As I said in my previous response, you might be misguided, but you're nowhere near as offensive as some other ex/antiJWs I've had the misfortune of encountering, so I'll spare you the proverbial tongue-lashing I'm sort of well-known forYou may or may not have; again, I don't know enough about your situation. That said, "I loved the person" and, "we were getting married in a matter of weeks" is a classic - and weak - excuseSociety man" is a silly aPOState buzz-word/pejorati ve; using it greatly detracts from your credibility and makes you sound like a Randy Watters fanboyPathetic " in that you didn't like that they were indicators of a certain mindset you had, but didn't want to be pegged for havingIf you say soBoth are important to varying degrees, depending on the circumstancesMany " imagine aliens exist, Elvis is alive and 9/11 was an, "inside job". Many are of "average " or lesser intelligence. Many are also selfish and dishonest. Numbers are easily manipulatedRight. I'm what's wrong with your worldAnd that smoke couldn't be a result of dishonest people blowing it, right? (Thursday Jan 28 | post #483)
Sorry, but the narrative of scripture does not support that assertion. I understand that you want to see it as such; I've been there, and I can relate. But one can't simply wish it that way and make it so because "feels". That's why I'm not only no longer a JW, but why I am agnosticAt least until you sell your own property and - GASP! - keep a little bit of the proceeds for yourself. Then he allows his human servants to use his power to murder you in cold bloodThe process of congregation discipline is supposed to include the element of mercy; it sometimes does not because people aren't necessarily good because they're JWs [and no one, not even JWs themselves, have ever suggested otherwiseThere is virtue in failing, particularly the redemptive aspect of trying again. But I just live the disingenuous, out-of-touch-with- reality egalitarianism in your commentsIt has nothing to do with being "perfect ". It's recognition of the fact that there is such a thing as right and wrong. There are shades of grey, of course. The only argument is how big each shade is and where the lines are drawnUgh, the hogwash! Seriously, you might be misguided, but you can't be this stupid; again, you're attempting to equate making "mistakes " and egregious, knowing, unrepentant sin. There is a HUGE difference, and you know itBe brought to" suggests that one has no control over the process; the fact remains that the process happens because the sin is either so terrible - far more than any "sin" on the part of the so-called prodigal son - or because the sinner refuses to acknowledge his sin and/or change his behavior. In fact the person is in the position that they're in because they feel no shame whatsoever! (Thursday Jan 28 | post #482)
Of particular note in the parable you're so fond of is the expressed - whether genuine or not - repentance of the son; as mentioned earlier [and conveniently ignored by you], disfellowshipping is a last resort, the final step in a process that involves multiple attempts to redeem a person who refuses to acknowledge sin or simply does not care that he is sinning. The disfellowshipped person is, in fact, the prodigal son as he's walking out the door. If there is a parallel to draw between congregational discipline and this parable, it is the reinstatement process where a person, realizing that he has sinned and having repentance seeks to be readmitted to the congregation. I'm surprised with all the insight you imagine you have, that thought never occurred to youYou do yourself great discredit in trying to demean persons with differing views by framing them as agents of your boogeymen. My thinking on this subject is as disagreeable to, "the society" as yoursI don't "reduce" it, I merely see it for what it is; it's not my fault you see it as more. Without putting words in your mouth, it seems that you imagine that there are/should not be any sort of rules [or, more accurately where it concerns JWs, expected behaviors], that there is no obligation on the part of individuals to comply with the rules/expected behaviors and that they should face no sanction for failing to comply with the rules/expected behaviors. Beyond that, you attempt to paint people [ex/antiJW aPOState SJWs and, in particular, the dishonest, disingenuous people for whom they pretend to advocate] as "victims " when facing sanction for knowingly engaging in egregious wrongdoing [again, it's called WRONG doing for a reason], implying that in their egregious and unrepentant wrongdoing what they REALLY need is what you call "mercy"; what you call mercy is nothing more than looking the other way as a person engages in wrong conduct because you don't want to hurt their feelingsHorse hockeyIn keeping with the narrative of scripture, it's actually god's fault because he voluntarily disconnected from us do to the actions of two people thousands of years ago, allowing a melodrama of suffering to take place over centuries so that he can stick it to his exBFFShunning is, first and foremost, about removing an unrepentant wrongdoer from the congregation and, second, imposing sanction on - punishing - said unrepentant wrongdoer. But I see what you're doing here; you're now attempting to tie shunning to an act of "earning " favor with "god". Because for people like you, it's all about how you "feel". Whatever. (Thursday Jan 28 | post #481)
It's not just that I said it, it's that you did itNo. Beyond that, I'm not the one attempting to tie that particular parable to a wholly unrelated subjectBy not accepting your flawed argument that the parable of the prodigal son is relevant to the subject of congregational discipline I'm, "missing the message entirely"? I disagreeOkayIn no universe is making a voluntary choice tantamount to slaveryWhat "faulty thinking" are you referring to? So far, the only faulty thinking on display is that coming from youTo borrow a phrase, you're missing the message entirely if you imagine anything I said in my previous response could be summed up in, "it's all about the rulesWith regard to the law [and this is not to suggest that your prior comment has an validity where it concerns my previous post], it exists for a reason. If following it was voluntary, it wouldn't serve much of a purpose. You used the phrase, "wrongdoing " in reference to your own misdeeds. There's a reason it's called WRONG doing. And, with respect, your xtian bible is full of examples of persons suffering horribly for even minor violations of, "the law" [suffering far worse than people refusing to discuss "spiritual " things with them], to say nothing of suffering for violations of no law - and no discernible "wrong" doing - whatsoever [Ananias and SapphiraFor instanceYou're shouting slogans. Slogans by themselves are meaninglessThat's it? That's the sum and total of, "rulesI mentioned the situation involving Ananias and Sapphira earlier - you'll recall, they were murdered [ostensibly by the power of god] because they sold their own property, generously gave the majority of the proceeds to help their so-called brothers, but kept some of the proceeds from their own property for themselves; evidently the apostles who carried out that cold-blooded execution missed this trans-formative aspect of that parable - which is kind of inexcusable, yesno? (Thursday Jan 28 | post #480)
Helping the individual is not the primary objective of disfellowshipping - as you either know, or should knowWhich is how JWs, generally, treat disfellowshipped people; as a rule, they'll engage in civil discourse and maintain courtesy, but will refuse to discuss "spiritual " matters with a disfellowshipped person. The rare extremist JW will have nothing whatsoever to do with a disfellowshipped person, typically a family member. While extreme, this sort of treatment can be understandable if a family member feels betrayed by the disfellowshipped personNo, you should have taken it as testament to the fact that ex/antiJW aPOStates on the Internet are extraordinarily dishonestShould you haveIt sounds like it was you that had the problem, not the people treating you civilly despite being a disfellowshipped personYour "reasoning " is rather twisted. But I suppose that's part of the defense mechanism. It's easier to see others as being controlled/manipul ated by others, especially when they're family and "friends ", than to think that they might actually have exercised a degree of thought or - for shame! - agree with the idea that, as a sinner, you might have deserved it. (Wednesday Jan 27 | post #462)
Indeed; it's 100% irrelevantAnd when families have irreconcilable differences, people end up not speaking to each otherYou're reading more into the parable than is truly there. Taken in and of itself, it's a story about a parent who is happy that their child came home after setting out on their own and making a series of bad decisions; the idea that the child actually learned anything while being out there on his own making bad decisions is implied - but, conveniently, not specifically stated [have you ever wondered why?] - with the idea that he was "humble" when he came home, requesting to be treated as a farmhand as opposed to a member of the family. Personally, I don't see anything especially noble in the son acting contrite and basically asking his father for a job rather than to treat him as his son so that he could have a place to lay his head. But, as loving parents tend to be, the father was just so happy that his wayward child came home that he gave him treatment beyond what he asked for and deserved. If you want/need to take a moral lesson from that story, then the lesson would be that even though people don't necessarily deserve mercy, they sometimes receive it. A lot of context is - again, conveniently - lacking; prior to taking off with his inheritance, was the son otherwise dutiful? Did he have some sort of vision, something he wanted to create with his inheritance that simply failed? Was this the first time he'd attempted to strike out on his own? Was it the last? Was he continually accepted back into the fold, only to turn his back time and time again? Was there even a "sin" behind his separation from the familyBeing a part of an organization is irrelevant. A child attempting to strike out on his own and making bad decisions in doing so, and then being welcomed back into the family by his father despite his bad decisions is a situation that is entirely different from a serious, unrepentant sinner being removed from the congregation either because his/her sin is so egregious and public that no amount of professed repentance can cause it to be overlooked, or because they simply refuse to stop engaging in behavior that they know or should know runs contrary to the rules/expected behaviors they knew and agreed to abide by when they joinedRight. Because one needs to be a, "WT follower" to believe that when one chooses voluntarily to accept certain rules/expected behaviors as a condition for being part of a group, they should actually adhere to those rules/expected behaviors - or that a person should be punished if, despite knowing and agreeing to abide those rules/expected behaviors, they brazenly disregard them. (Wednesday Jan 27 | post #461)
I gave your comment the substantive reply it deserved. (Monday Jan 25 | post #430)
You imagine everyone ties the same importance to what they have to say on the Internet as you. This is because no one [who matters] pays attention to you in real lifeExactly. Translation: Little Mikaela can't deal with the fact that the parable of the prodigal son is irrelevant to the subject of shunning. (Monday Jan 25 | post #425)
Fictional? He's awaiting trial for holding fourteen patrons and numerous employees of an Indiana bank hostage in an effort to get the attention of the FBI because he's butthurt about not being able to post on a Gilligan's Island Facebook page! Go here: http://www.journal gazette.net/news/l ocal/police-fire/E ffort-to-chain-doo r-of-bank-nets-arr est Then go here: https://public.cou rts.in.gov/mycase/ #/vw/Search Click the, "Party" tab, enter "Hennig, Kurt", and you'll see all the details of the criminal charges for yourself. I'm sure it will bring back memories. (Monday Jan 25 | post #2158)
Just because you say so doesn't make it trueThis has been explained to you many times..." So you repeat your own nonsense over and over and over again hoping that repeating nonsense somehow gives it validity. Repeating nonsense over and over and over again does not make it valid. As for, "the problem", the only "problem " on display is that of losers like yourself who haven't been Jehovah's Witnesses for something on the order of forty years and yet still feel compelled to whine about itThere is very little that is "mild" about the way the organized followers of biblejesus handled wrongdoing as chronicled in the bible. In one of the earliest books of the NT they, allegedly using the power of biblegod, murdered two of their fellow believers for the "crime" of selling their own property, giving the majority of the proceeds to help their fellow believers but holding back a small portion of the proceeds for themselvesIs irrelevant to the subject of shunning as practiced either by the biblical followers of christ or the modern sect known as Jehovah's Witnesses. (Monday Jan 25 | post #422)
The only reason anyone other than her immediate circle of acquaintances knows who she is is because of flipping out over completely benign and innocent events. For the record, "she" never responded to my critique of her false claims in that thread as she never replied here again; coward that she is, she only responded on JWN [where I don't particpate], surrounded by talking heads repeating the nonsense about an alleged "threat" started by the ex/antiJW dunce who posts here using the sock-puppet "Bookman ". (Monday Jan 25 | post #184)
QUOTE who="Stingo "]Well that says a lot[/QUOTE] Indeed. (Monday Jan 25 | post #183)
I'm glad you agreeFamous first words of people who imagine they're being clever when, in reality, they're anything butYour friend MFerAlana is incapable of disparaging me as I'm not concerned in the least about anything he [and this goes for you, and your other equally pathetic friends in this thread] has to say about me. Of course it says a great deal about both of you that you seem to be incapable of engaging with people who disagree with your silliness without resorting to just this sort of puerile buffoonery - and that ever more so of late; a few years ago both of you were quite a bit more controlled in your manner of "debating " [to the degree repeating talking points and inflammatory but substance-bereft phrases like, "populist propaganda" et al constitutes a "debate" ]. That said, you missed - and this is particularly inexcusable seeing as how you quoted my comment - or intentionally ignored where used the words, "attempted " and "to" prior to the word, "disparageA claim belied by the fact that not only did you feel the need to respond to a comment of mine that was not directed at you, but you had to resort to puerile "gay" commentsYou give yourself far more credit than you're entitled to in suggesting that I - a person whose real identity you don't even know, and who you know absolutely nothing about other than what they've revealed in a relative handful of comments on something like a half a dozen topics of conversation related to the faith he was formerly a part of - think enough of you to, in your words, "despise " you. I'll chalk that up to a misunderstanding entirely on your part and let you in on a little secret: the length and breadth of my thinking about you, Alana, Mikaela, Matty and the rest of the Topix Trolls doesn't exceed mild amusement over your pathetic attempts at "reasoning ", your repetition of talking points and your attempts to make your anecdotal claims into something more than anecdotal claims. Beyond mild amusement, I also feel bad for you all. I don't feel VERY bad, mind you, but I do feel a LITTLE BIT bad. But seeing as how it's apparently integral to your self-esteem to believe that I think highly enough of you to despise you, feel free to continue to hold me in such high regard in the privacy of your own mind. I'm well aware that I've occupied a spot there rent-free for a whileYou're proving my earlier point about how delusional ex/antiJWs truly are. The JWGB are masters of ignoring/marginali zing/outlasting their critics. As I've often said, the apathy of their adherents is far more dangerous to them than delusional aPOStates. (Friday Jan 22 | post #47)
Q & A with FH Chandler
Republic of Elbonia
Just off of Krem Ln, #666
Trolls to the left of me, griefers to the right...
I Belong To:
A roving gang of Tom Brokaw clones, the 'Burt Rettig' appreciation society and the "NOBODY LOSES TO DOUGLAS CLARK" protection plan.
When I'm Not on Topix:
I'm waiting patiently for the FBI [and their KGB handlers] with hot coffee, donuts, ponchiki and Stolichnaya vodka at the ready.
Read My Forum Posts Because:
Don't worry, I'll beam my posts into your brain.
I'm Listening To:
Read This Book:
Synthetic telepathy neural decoding your every thought. EW! You just wished you could sniff my socks! Also Snake People.
On My Mind:
You mother-[expletive] communications is corrupted. Whatever. WHATEVER. YOU GOTS ME NOW!
Blog / Website / Homepage:
NadINDYa's favorite (yes, FAVORITE!) song [SUBLIMINAL MESSAGE WARNING]: http://youtu.be/gncW1zqMFgs
I Believe In:
Copyright © 2016 Topix LLC