Jehovah`s Witness/Question asked of wrong expert
QUESTION: Hello Derrick.
I know you will likely see it, however in the event you dont: I meant to send the following question (see link below) to Brother Rando but perhaps because of my focusing on the "B" accidentally sent to Brenton Hepburn. Essentially I was asking Rando to justify his accusation directed at you. I felt it was uncalled for. As Brenton's response points out it certainly was. Just thought you should be aware as it does refer to you.
The unfortunate result is that I was not able to get an answer from Rando himself without submitting again. Fortunately however, Mr. Hepburn confirmed my thoughts. I just would like to see fairness and a modicum of civility from the experts.
ANSWER: Hello Phillip, and thank you so much for writing. Honestly, I would prefer this response to have been public, so that people can see my response to Rando's accusation. I will not change it to public without your permission, however, but I would rather this reply have been seen. Do you object to it being made public?
Yes, I saw Rando's attempt to contradict another answer of mine, although it was a very weak attempt, in that he never actually told anybody what was wrong with what I said. I noticed a few things about his reply, which I will address in a moment.
I actually thought briefly about challenging Rando to tell what it was that he thought was unscriptural in my answer, but I decided not to bother, because he would reject the question anyway. I also knew that his reply was so weak, that people would see right through it, as simply something coming from a root of bitterness, rather than anything with substance. And you did exactly that, and I knew the readers would, so I really wasn't worried about it...It was obvious that he really never stated anything wrong with my reply. Also, the reason he never stated what was wrong with it, was because there was NOTHING wrong with it. Rando just resents the answer coming from me, as you can see from his very last paragraph.
And as indicated in Mr. Hepburn's reply, he too agreed with my answer, and felt that my answer was much more in depth. In fact, Mr. Hepburn's understanding of my reply, was right on the money.
I think that Mr. Hepburn was bewildered as to exactly what Rando's objection was. The truth is, that Rando simply resented my actually siding with the JW woman and speaking against the so-called "Christian" husband, because he has tried desperately to paint me as a "demon" who is bent on bashing JWs, and my answer which was actually SIDING with the JW woman, makes me look too much like a fair-minded person. That is the only reason I can think of, that he would object to anything I said. Personally, I do not answer to upset OR impress Rando...I answer according to what I believe the Bible teaches.
Now, the reason I found Rando's reply to be, not a "far more reaching reasonable and logical answer"
(his words), but actually more clouded and confusing, is that he mentioned a Scripture that was not even relevant to the situation. He wrote....
""But to the others I say, yes, I, not the Lord: If any brother has an unbelieving wife and she is agreeable to staying with him, let him not leave her; and if a woman has an unbelieving husband and he is agreeable to staying with her, let her not leave her husband. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified in relation to his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in relation to the brother; otherwise, your children would be unclean, but now they are holy. But if the unbelieving one chooses to depart, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not bound under such circumstances, but God has called you to peace." (1 Corinthians 7:12-15)
This Scripture has no relevance to the situation that Carolyn described, for there was no abandonment by an unbelieving spouse, against a believing one. Obviously, a Christian who has been abandoned by an unbeliever due to their faith, is free to remarry. But that wasn't the issue in this situation. This man was claiming to be a "Christian", yet was abusing, disrespecting, and cheating on, his JW wife. Yet, they were still together. No abandonment was indicating as having occurred in her question to me.
So, why he thinks quoting a Scripture on abandonment, had anything to do with the question, is something that only Rando himself knows.
Abandonment as spoken of in 1 Corinthians 7, is a result of the UNBELIEVER initiating the separation/divorce, not the Christian. The clear teaching here, is that a Christian should commit to staying in the marriage with an unbeliever, but if the unbeliever LEAVES and does not want to stay with the Christian, then the Christian is not under bondage.
The situation that Carolyn described to me, was completely different. This woman was the innocent victim of spousal infidelity, and that is why I stated the Biblically TRUE teaching, that the ONLY Scriptural allowance for a CHRISTIAN to INITIATE a separation/divorce, is when the spouse is unfaithful through adultery. A Christian cannot initiate a separation from their spouse, merely because their spouse is an unbeliever. If their spouse initiates it, however, the Christian is not under bondage. A Chrisitian CAN initiate the separation, in the case of their spouse being unfaithful.
The Scripture Rando quoted from 1 Corinthians 7, has nothing to do with what Carolyn described.
Again, there was nothing wrong with my answer. Rando simply tries his best to twist anything, and in this case, he could do nothing with my answer, except complain because it was me giving it.
And why he quoted Matthew 5:32, is also a mystery, since that verse proves the very point I was making.
Phillip, I am glad you were able to see the obviously uncalled for remarks from Rando, but honestly, this one was mild compared to the lies he usually tells.
But if you do not object, I would like for my reply to this latest tirade of his, to be seen. But I will wait for your permission.
---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------
QUESTION: Thanks for the response. As I started reading your response and read the scripture you highlighted I picked up on the point you mentioned re unrelated scripture. Regarding permission, please keep private until further notice as I will be giving Rando an opportunity to respond by resubmitting.
Depending on his response, which probably I can anticipate, I will then decide re permission.
Thanks for your understanding.
ANSWER: Ok...I just think that since he has made a public accusation once again, with no basis, I should be able to respond in some manner. I'm guessing he will either reject your question, or accuse you of being my "follower". But I will be interested in his response, either way.
Thanks for writing, and take care.
---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------
QUESTION: Hello Derrick,
I have received a response from Rando which seemed to skirt the question so I have gone back to him accordingly with a followup. I checked for it on the forum but perhaps because the response was short or some other reason it is not showing.
To your comment re being able to respond, you are certainly able to do that for as you say he made a public accusation. I am not preventing that in any way. And certainly the question I sent to and answer from Mr. Hepburn is public so you have that to reference if you wish. However, I wish to give Rando an opportunity to show me why his statement is valid (which I doubt he will). Who knows, I may be missing something :-). So until he does so, refuses or otherwise dismisses me I would like to keep my e-mail to you private.
Just my attempt at being fair to both of you although he does seem to be playing games.
Good evening, Phillip. After receiving your permission in another writing to make this previously "Private" correspondence, "Public, I am doing that with this reply. In another writing, you granted the following permission....
I have given him an opportunity so you may make my original email to you and your response public if you wish. Could you please note that I did this in private so as to give Rando an opportunity to respond appropriately which he refused to do."
So, that is what I will do with this writing. But first, let me answer your question about why his first reply to you did not get published.
Yes Phillip, extremely short answers to not get posted. They have to have a minimum number of characters (not sure how many right off the top of my head), to get posted. It seems that my own experience, your experience, and the experience of countless others, is that Rando's "answers" are either too short to get published, or simply rejected. This is sad, but is the simple truth of the matter. But the brevity of the "answer", is why it was not published. He obviously could not actually tell you what was wrong with my answer, so he had no other choice but to reject it, or keep it out of the forum.
At the outset, let me say that Phillip asked me to keep this Private until he had a chance to go directly to Rando, and ask Rando to please explain what it was that he felt was wrong, with my answer to the question about "Marriage", sent to me by Carolyn. In Rando's public reply to my answer, he gave a very vague reply that actually had little to nothing to do with Carolyn's situation, yet still chose to criticize my answer, which was perfectly Scriptural and MUCH more in-depth. Yet, Rando never actually stated WHAT was wrong in my answer. It seems he simply didn't like the fact that it was me who answered it, as if that is his decision in the first place.
But Phillip has given me permission to let this post, and asked me to also be mild in my response, in accordance with "Scriptural counsel". Out of respect for Phillip, and the Scriptures, I will attempt to do that.
But here are the facts: Phillip, to his credit, wanted to give Rando the chance to state exactly what was wrong with my answer, by writing directly to Rando. He wanted me to keep this correspondence "Private", until Rando responded. After getting a very SHORT "reply" from Rando (too short to post), and then a subsequent rejection for a "SPAM" question, Phillip gave me permission to post this.
I believe Phillip was quite fair in wanting to give Rando opportunity to state exactly what his objection to my answer was. Rando had the chance to lay it out for us, but chose to take the "SPAM" option instead. That tells me that he has no real objection to the answer itself....just the person giving the answer. That reveals what is in his heart.
So, to keep this simple....Rando, would you lay out SCRIPTURALLY, what you believe was inaccurate information on the Biblical stance about marriage and divorce, which was given in my answer in the following link?
I would like to see Rando give us a clear, concise answer from the SCRIPTURES themselves, which do not contain lies or personal attacks, as to what was unscriptural in the above link.
Just as soon as he and DW get back from "vacation".
Thanks, Rando. I will be looking forward to it.
Phillip, I believe you summed it up with this statement....he does seem to be playing games."
Yes, that's what he does. For a change, Rando, we would like to see a real answer from the Scriptures, regarding what you believe was unscriptural in my answer....Especially since a fellow JW has now gone on record in this forum, as saying it was a Biblical answer.
Will be looking for your response, Rando.
Thank you for writing, Phillip. Nobody can fault you for your attempt to be fair. Unfortunately, not all of the other Witnesses here, make that a priority of theirs.