Jehovah`s Witness/Do the right thing, Mr. Grunbaum...
It seems that it was as I suspected, regarding congregational procedures in dealing with sin among JWs. While many are disciplined and admonished to cease from their sin, there are others who are not. This JW was given the chance to explain the double standard, but chose not to.
MY WRITING TO GRUNBAUM, AND A CORRECTION OF HIS FALSE STATEMENTS, WHICH HE WOULDN"T ANSWER:
Your question was
Well Dan, this COULD have been last exchange, except that you threw out more of your false statements and insults, before deciding you didn’t want to talk anymore. Had you not done that, I might not have followed up. But as usual, you say many things that need correcting.
Reject it or not, it will post. As you know, I can post it if you are afraid to. So just address it, and if you wish for the correspondences to stop, then don’t make any more foolish statements like the ones contained in that last reply of yours. And get this matter of lying and slander straightened out.
You don’t just get to take your cowardly cheap shots, and then grab your ball and run into the house.
YOU: “This will be the last exchange on this or any other subject because you dont have spiritual understanding on sin,or adultery and a host of other spiritual subjects.”
REPLY: Ah, that one again, huh? Man, you people sound like a broken record. Dan, I and the other Christians in this forum, have more “spiritual understanding” in our little fingers, than you have in your entire body. And most of us have forgotten more about Biblical teaching just today, than you have known in the last 20 years.
At least I DO know what a lie is, and what constitutes slander. Futhermore, I also understand what Jehovah’s view is on such matters.
As for adultery, you have brought up this false accusation before. I assure you I know full well what constitutes Scriptural adultery, and as I said previously, I don’t even think our beliefs differ on that topic. You simply failed to READ what I said, when I clearly said “NO act of adultery occured leading to the divorce”.
Don’t go off on me, because you can’t read.
But again, I do know what a lie is, and I do know that real Christians don’t lie, and if they do, they immediately want to make it right. A real Christian does not let public lies stand for 6 years, and place his “friends” in the position of having to defend and excuse him. A person who would do that, is quite selfish and full of pride.
I also know that I should NEVER have had to approach you about this, had the person in question been a real Christian. It could have been resolved between he and I alone. I also know that once I did have to approach you, you should have demanded that a retraction be made, since you feel so free to sit in judgment of everyone else.
At the end of the day, you wimped out because you are spineless, and all talk.
I do have that much spiritual understanding, which is more than can be said of you.
Your spiritual “understanding” consists of getting on here daily and making a complete fool of yourself, pretending that you have some insight on when Armageddon and the Tribulation will occur, and now, you even know that something big is going to happen on Passover night. And when your ridiculous prediction comes to naught, I will wait to see if you come back on here the next day, and tell everyone how much spiritual insight and understanding you have, and how they have none. You are misleading weaker-minded people in your movement with your nonsense, and I have enough “spiritual understanding” to know what the Scripture says about people like you who cause weaker ones to be offended and stumble.
So, don’t talk to me about “spiritual understanding” and being “stupid”. You are at the bottom of the totem pole, when it comes to spiritual insight.
YOU: “You stupidly ask why do you think he shouldn't retract,I recall saying he should but you are so blind on this that you cant take yes for an answer.”
REPLY: Okay, let’s just go ahead and get that one out of the way. That statement was poorly worded on my part. I should have stated that you didn’t think he should HAVE to retract, which would have been an accurate summary of what you said to me in the e-mails. My wording should have clarified this.
You are correct that, in the private e-mails, you did say that he “should” retract. You also went on to indicate that it really wasn’t a big deal if he didn’t retract his lies. And that if he didn’t, it was “on him”, and you didn’t think it was worth requiring him to do so.
See Dan, how easy it is to CORRECT oneself, when it is warranted? My wording was sloppy, and I am all too happy to clarify what I was intending, to clear up any confusion that was caused.
Still, the point oddly remains here, that you have just publicly stated that he SHOULD retract. Yet he doesn’t. Which means, that you believe his statements to be false….Otherwise, why would you even think he should retract? So, you know the statements are false, and warrant a retraction, yet you also know that he has refused to do so, unless I resign from Allexperts.
That alone speaks volumes of his lack of Christian character. My being where you people don’t want me to be, has nothing to do with a retraction. You don’t get to lie and slander people, just because they are in a forum you don’t want them in. Anyone who thinks otherwise, lacks "spiritual understanding", as you like to say.
I guess the irony of your statement is completely lost on you. You think he SHOULD retract, because obviously, you know his statements are false. Yet, you don’t think false statements in public, REQUIRE a retraction. You seem to view a retraction, as just a "nice gesture" for slandering a person, but not really necessary.
That’s your idea of "spiritual understanding", is it Dan?
YOU: “You keep bringing up your mother in public forum for some reason knowing this is not private,I asked you not to do this thats why I responded in private”
ME: Okay, I am really getting impatient with your nonsense and meddling here, Dan. So I will say to you AGAIN, what I said to you in the e-mail. Read it slowly this time….
I will bring up whatever I wish to, in regards to any situation in my life, that I so choose. The questioner asked me a question, and my comments were a necessary part of answering the question. Where you get off thinking you can “ask”/”tell” me what to say about my own personal business, is beyond comprehension.
I neither need, nor seek, your approval. If I wish to mention something about my family, I will. That in no way, gives your readers the right to bring my family up, and take their cowardly cheap shots at them.
Now, let’s set straight something else from this comment, that you are not being truthful about. You did NOT “respond” in private. You CONTACTED me in Private, after this discussion had been over for nearly a week. The topic had ceased between us, and you up and out of the blue, wrote to me. Start telling the truth for once, Dan. You are trying to make it appear that I contacted you again about it, and you were responding. That is not the case, and you know it isn’t, and I can prove it, if need be.
I will tell you again, exactly what I said to you in the e-mail….In the future in regards to my family, you can keep your nose in New York, where it belongs. If you chose not to do that, then I will call out your hypocrisy as I have had to do this week, and put the pressure on you to back up your words, by pressuring you to start dealing with the blatant liars that represent this “true” religion in this forum.
Yes, Dan, you contacted ME. We both know this is the case. And in your writing, you proceeded to inform me that my mother may be “lost forever”. Then, in Rando-like fashion, you also proceeded to tell me that my mother could not have been an “active” Jehovah’s Witness. And you were dead wrong.
My mother is 10 times the devout JW that you, DW, or T ever thought about being, and 100 times the JW that Rando is. Yes, she may have an unscriptural divorce in her past, but at least she doesn’t practice lying and public slander. And she would be sickened by your spineless conduct, and Rando’s willful lies.
So, before you sit in your self-righteous judgment seat on my family, you can stop excusing people who lie. Until you do that, you have nothing to teach anyone on “spiritual understanding”.
YOU: “I explained Gods mind on this subject and the Watchtowers that if a married person scheme to leave their mate and marries another without grounds and then run to the Elders later hoping to be reinstated it will fail.”
REPLY: And as I told you, there was no “scheme”.
But since you have all the answers, Dan, could you tell us God’s mind and the Watchtower’s, on people who “scheme” to slander others by spreading falsehoods? What is God’s mind on that, Dan?
Stop dodging that question, and just answer it for once…
YOU: “In your religious beliefs you can but not in JWs,they probably wouldn't have any action taken against Adultery and no scriptural grounds to marry.Would the Adulterers be removed from your church,only action if any would be if they were in a choir would sit for 2 or 3 weeks and be right back singing just as big as if nothing ever happened.”
ME: Okay, what you need to do here, is to keep your mouth shut on matters that you know nothing about. You don’t know the first thing about my church. I can promise you that adultery is not tolerated. Now granted, we do not disfellowship people for such wicked acts as sending a birthday card to their daughter, or for hanging a green wreath on the door at Christmas. But since adultery is actually against the Scripture, then yes, we take measures against it.
And no church that I have any say-so in the matter, will let adultery just slide by, without being dealt with.
So, your statement above was just plain foolish.
You know what your comments MORE ACCURATELY describe, Dan?...You.
Yep, your bungling of this matter of his public slander. You basically did exactly what you claimed my church would do with an adulterer. You weakly told Rando that “Well, maybe you should issue a retraction”. Rando says “no”, and do you remember what you said, Dan? You said…”Okay, I understand”.
Then, you made some stupid comment about how “Holland wants to cause trouble between us, but I love you”.
Now, we have a clear cut example of public lies and defamatory statements, and your answer was “Okay, I understand if you won’t retract, and I don’t condemn you”.
Basically, “Rando, get out of the choir for 2--3 weeks, then all is forgotten.”
Look, I told you once…I could care less about causing trouble between you two. Your friendship with each other matters exactly zero to me. I merely want Rando to right his lies. Once Rando retracts his lies and apologizes, then you 2 can go on a Caribbean cruise for all I care.
If he had not lied, none of this conversation would be happening. Had he made it right YEARS ago when he should have, none of this conversation would be happening. You will not make this my fault, Dan. I’ve seen the mentality of you people…Rando lies and slanders, and when Holland objects to the defamatory remarks, then he is “gnashing his teeth”. I still can’t believe you have the nerve to call people “dumb”.
Spiritual understanding, Dan? I think most people have enough brains to know that Christians don’t lie, and if they do make a mistake and lie, they will have enough conscience to retract and apologize for their lie. If you don’t get that simple point, then it is you who doesn’t have spiritual understanding.
YOU: “Now I noticed you mentioned the other party by name so the readers need to know who you are :
Derrick Holland !”
ME: I am not sure why you think that is supposed to bother me. I used my real name when I sent the question, so you were welcome to use it if you wish. Furthermore, I sent the same question to Robert Jones under my real name, and I think most people reading know it was from me anyway. I have nothing to hide, nor do I mind anyone knowing who sent it.
Why did you think that I would? I am not the one who needs this confidential…Rando is. I have no problem revealing WHO I am referring to, nor do I have a problem with your revealing I was the one writing. That is why I used my REAL name.
YOU: “First of all no one was accusing anyone of anything,I must know what tongue in cheek" actually means since I said it,I said it meant something said not to be taken literal then you come right back and say it means a JOKE, and not intended to be taken as a fact….
How is that different than what I said ,see this just demonstrates how blind you are,if I said black you will say white if I say white you say black,I say up you say down,so we just cant agree because one of us is in blackness and this tongue in cheek meaning shows its clearly you.
If you just said this in tongue in cheek to a 3rd party its just gossip not fact not a outright lie since you dont know me,but if you spread this gossip to others then it becomes slander because it not meant any longer as a joke or tongue in cheek ,here we would have you telling several people Grunbaum is a closet homosexual knowing its a lie.”
REPLY: Sorry Dan, you lose again. In fact, you would have been wise to not have pursued this “tongue in cheek” angle, after I refuted you one time. You should have just let that one go. You made several mistakes here….
1. Just because you used the term “tongue in cheek”, does not mean that you “must know what it is”. You misapplied the term. There are SEVERAL types of non-literal speech, but “tongue in cheek” refers specifically to that which is done as a JOKE.
Now Dan, you do not want to get into a squabble with me on proper English. Your grammar is atrocious, your punctuation is terrible, and you do not spell well, either. Just don’t go there, okay? Trust me, you will lose.
It is different from what you said, in that Rando was not JOKING, nor making an attempt at humor. He was angry, and really wanted people to take the statement literally….He LITERALLY wanted people to believe I am a spouse abuser. He LITERALLY wanted people to believe I was an “apostate”, so that they would not ask me questions.
Nothing even resembling “tongue in cheek” there. He really did want people to believe this was factual information.
And no, I do not say “black” just because you say “white”. I have no desire to argue with you…You are just wrong, plain and simple. That is your fault, not mine.
Tongue in cheek definitions:
URBAN DICTIONARY- “When someone speaks tongue-in-cheek, that means they're joking and kidding.”
THE FREE DICTIONARY- “cleverly amusing in tone; "a bantering tone"; "facetious remarks"; "tongue-in-cheek advice"…full of or characterized by humor; "humorous stories"; "humorous cartoons"; "in a humorous vein"
Dan, if you believe Rando was merely smiling and attempting humor when he made those statements, then I don’t want to see you call anyone else “dumb” again, or see you tell anyone they have “no spiritual understanding”. You take the blue ribbon, Man.
Furthermore, if this “tongue and cheek” thing is the determining factor in showing which of us is in “blackness”, then I believe we have just seen that it is you, Sir.
2. Your second error, was this "3rd party" argument. Sir, a lie is a lie, regardless if it is spoken TO the person directly, or ABOUT them.
That is one of the silliest things I have ever read, from a high-ranking official in a religion, who is supposed to be endowed with such "spiritual insight".
I am quite sure that if I came on here and told, say Ben Erdman for example, that "Benyamin Grunbaum is an ex-con", you would not hesitate to call me a "liar". In fact, you HAVE called me a "liar" in the past, for comments that were not spoken directly TO you.
Don't be so hypocritical. "Lie" seems to have a very narrow definition when you people are talking about me, but a very WIDE defintion when dealing with your own people's falsehoods.
THIS comment was very interesting….
YOU: “If you just said this in tongue in cheek to a 3rd party its just gossip not fact not a outright lie since you dont know me,but if you spread this gossip to others then it becomes slander because it not meant any longer as a joke or tongue in cheek ,here we would have you telling several people Grunbaum is a closet homosexual knowing its a lie.”
REPLY: Man, were you just not thinking? Do you see what you just wrote?
You just ADMITTED that Rando is guilty, at the very least, of gossip. Do you people not have standards against gossip, Dan? Do you not ask that a person apologize for their gossip?
And besides…I would call posting it in a PUBLIC forum with thousands of readers from all over the globe, as “telling several people” and “spreading it to others”. So again, by your OWN comment, Rando is guilty of both lying and slander.
It was an outright LIE, by virtue of the fact that the statements were FALSE. How dense do you have to be, to not get that point? You can argue all day that he had no knowledge of the facts, but that is the reason he had no business saying it in the first place. If a man says something he has no knowledge of, for the purpose of slandering someone, and the statements are false, then he’s a liar….plain and simple.
Now, why don’t you just quite making yourself look more and more ridiculous with each reply, and just get this charlatan to abide by the teachings of his own religion, and retract his lies? All you are doing, is showing how far you will go, to sweep blatant sin under the rug.
People are reading this, Dan. And if you reject it, they will simply read it under my profile. You guys could have done this the easy, and the Christian way…But no, you didn’t want to do that.
YOU: “BTW you lose yet another argument when you thought I had Randos email,I didn't, brother DW provided it,so calling me a liar without getting all the facts again shows just how you think
so you just did the very same thing,you called me a liar when I stated I didn't have personal info on the brother,you sneak and kept checking to see if he was maxed out and I contacted him so I must have lied and even as you said I know where he is.”
REPLY: Very good. I believe it was me, who suggested that you go to DW, when you started this “him-hawing” around about not “knowing how to get in contact with Rando”. It was me who gave you that very suggestion, wasn’t it?
And while we are at it, I approached you in private several months back, and simply asked you to use the resources at your disposal, to verify from the local KH in my area that I was never a baptized Witness, and that my mother is a Witness in good standing.
Do you remember that, Dan? Do you remember telling me that you BELIEVED that it was ME who was telling the truth, but you didn’t want to look into this, because you did not want to have to counter Rando’s claims that he made in public? So, even then, you knew who was truthful and who wasn’t. So you shrugged it off, because his lies and slander are of no consequence to you. So, don’t give us this big talk about keeping the Organization “clean”.
You said…”you sneak and kept checking to see if he was maxed out”
REPLY: There is no “sneaking” involved. His profile is public, and I have the right to check it if I choose to. Besides, at any given time, Rando is going to be “Maxed Out”…what else is new?
You hypocritically talk about “sneaking” to check his profile, and you have a few select JW readers who practically LIVE to see when I’m “on vacation”.
You said….”so you just did the very same thing,you called me a liar”
REPLY: Fine. I listed in that e-mail, several lies from you. You are still guilty of the other ones. If this particular situation on contacting Rando is as you say it is here, then I RETRACT and APOLOGIZE. Since I am the one who suggested you go to DW, then I can accept that perhaps that is what you did.
See? Now, you guys do the same thing. Let’s see who can show Christian integrity, when shown to be wrong.
That still does not excuse the other lies you told, however.
And in those e-mails, we both know that you told me the following:
1. “"I agree if he said these things it was making false accusations”
So by your OWN admission, he made false statements. I even gave you Scriptures on what the Bible says about false accusers, and you brushed it off and ignored it. Since admitting that he DID indeed make “false accusations”, you have brushed it off as no big deal. Yeah, you said he “should retract”, but you put no pressure on him to do so, and allowed him to cast both you, and your religion, in a bad light.
As far as I’m concerned, that makes you severely unqualified for any position that you may hold in this Organization.
2.. You contacted Rando about retracting his comments, and even weakly advised him to do so. His reply was…
“"When Derrick Holland resigns from Allexperts we'll talk... and not before that time.”
Your reply was…”Okay, I understand.”
3.. You said that Rando “feels bad”, but is too embarrassed. I quote…
“"The fact that I personally checked him on this as a high official from his Mother believe me he is not happy about this and feel very sorry about this he just refuse to let it be known of his embarrassment.”
Then when I contacted Rando about this, he DENIES saying this to you.
I quote Rando: “I NEVER told anyone I "felt bad". Go take your Prozac pills Holland, you're delusional.”
So, who is not telling the truth here? You, or Rando? Why would you tell me he “feels very sorry about this”, and he says he never told anyone that he “felt bad”?
You know what? I am actually inclined to believe HIM on that one, and I’ll tell you why. This is just my opinion, mind you….His refusal for the last 6 years to make his lies right, would indicate that he does NOT “feel bad”. You have every reason to tell me that, however, possibly hoping I will read that and be satisfied that he is feeling remorse, but is simply too embarrassed to publicly admit his wrong. Basically, trying to smooth things over, and get out of a difficult position.
I could be wrong about that, but one thing I know….SOMEBODY isn’t being honest in this…You, or him.
YOU: “Again you show you dont understand what a lie is or just gossip idle personal talk; groundless rumor with no facts.Gossip can lead to slander:
*** it-1 p. 990 Gossip, Slander ***
Gossip is talk that reveals something about the doings and the affairs of other persons. It may be unfounded rumor, even a lie, and although the gossiper may not know the untruthfulness of the rumor, he spreads it nevertheless, thereby making himself responsible for propagating a lie. It may be someone’s faults and mistakes that the gossiper is talking about. But even if the things said are true, the gossiper is in the wrong and reveals lack of love”
REPLY: Thank you so much for selectively quoting from a Watchtower publication for us all. I have come to the conclusion that it is YOU, who does not understand what a “lie” is. In fact, your view is at odds with your own literature.
Now, I didn’t really disagree with anything quoted in the paragraph from the publication you gave for us, but it was completely irrelevant to this particular situation, in that Rando’s comments were not true. Nor did his comments “reveal something about my doings”. They were made to give a willful FALSE impression, in order to slander my character. And you know this to be the case, as well. Rando DID know that the comments were his own invention, so again, this article does not even apply.
However, I DID find some quotes in your literature, that DO apply here. Allow me to quote from a few MORE of your publications, to give us a greater feel for the Watchtower’s view, which is completely at odds with the spineless way in which you handled this.
REGARDING PUBLICLY SAYING SOMETHING THAT IS FALSE, AND NOTICE HOW THIS PARAGRAPH PERFECTLY DESCRIBES “BROTHER” RANDO’S REACTION:
“Who of us has not said or done something unkind and then later been confronted about it? We likely felt embarrassed or somewhat guilty. Such feelings can lead a person to deny an error or offer some “explanation” that twists the truth in order to excuse the wrong or make it appear correct. Or in an uncomfortable situation, we might be tempted to mention only selected details, editing them to color the facts. Hence, what we say might technically be true yet give a totally different impression. While this may not be flagrant lying, such as is common in the world today, is it really ‘speaking truth each one with his neighbor,’ or brother? (Ephesians 4:15, 25; 1 Timothy 4:1, 2) When a Christian phrases things in such a way that he inwardly knows is leading brothers to a wrong conclusion, to believe something that is really not true, not accurate, how do you think God feels?”
The big difference here, is that Rando did not say something that was “technically true”…He said things that were blatantly false. If Jehovah takes a bad view of someone who twists partially true statements in order to give a false impression, I wonder how He views those who just outright lie, for the same purpose?
OR HOW ABOUT THIS ONE?:
“A righteous person cultivates godly qualities and speaks the truth. He realizes that lying is against Jehovah’s law. (Proverbs 6:16-19; Colossians 3:9) In this regard, Solomon states: “A false word is what the righteous hates, but the wicked ones act shamefully and cause disgrace for themselves.” (Proverbs 13:5) The righteous one does not simply avoid lies; he actually hates them. He knows that no matter how innocent they seem to be, lies are destructive to good human relationships. Moreover, the credibility of the one who resorts to lies is shattered.”
END OF QUOTE:
What do you think, Dan? Are Rando’s actions, or YOURS, in harmony with the above quote from your own literature?
LET’S LOOK AT ANOTHER WT QUOTE:
“Elders work diligently to protect the congregation from those who tell malicious lies. (Read James 3:14-16.) A malicious lie is told with a view to harming someone; its purpose is to make the person suffer in some way or experience distress. It involves more than making petty, misleading statements or exaggerating the facts. Of course, all lying is wrong, but not every case of untruthfulness requires judicial action. Hence, elders need to use balance, reasonableness, and good judgment when determining if a person who has made statements that are untrue has established a pattern of deliberate, malicious lying that would require judicial action. Or would firm, loving admonition from the Scriptures suffice?”
END OF QUOTE:
Once again, we see the WT right on Scripturally, in regards to lying. However, we see yours and Rando’s actions, not in harmony with your own literature. Since the “loving admonition” didn’t work, that is what led to my original question, as to what actions are taken towards one who does this, with no remorse. Evidently in this case, none.
LET’S LOOK AT ONE MORE QUOTE FROM YOUR PUBLICATIONS:
“ Are there occasions when Christians may be justified in telling a lie?
The Bible’s Exalted Standard
The Bible roundly condemns all sorts of lying. “[God] will destroy those speaking a lie,” declares the psalmist. (Psalm 5:6; see Revelation 22:15.) At Proverbs 6:16-19, the Bible lists seven things that Jehovah detests. “A false tongue” and “a false witness that launches forth lies” are prominently included in this list. Why? Because Jehovah hates the harm falsehood causes. That is one reason why Jesus called Satan a liar and a manslayer. His lies plunged humanity into misery and death.—Genesis 3:4, 5; John 8:44; Romans 5:12.
Just how seriously Jehovah views lying is highlighted by what happened to Ananias and Sapphira. These two deliberately lied to the apostles in an apparent attempt to appear more generous than they really were. Their action was deliberate and premeditated. The apostle Peter thus declared: “You have played false, not to men, but to God.” For this, they both died at God’s hand.—Acts 5:1-10.
Years later the apostle Paul admonished Christians: “Do not be lying to one another.” (Colossians 3:9) This exhortation is particularly vital in the Christian congregation. Jesus said that principled love would be the identifying mark of his true followers. (John 13:34, 35) Such unhypocritical love can only grow and flourish in an environment of complete honesty and trust. It is difficult to love someone if we cannot be confident that he will always tell us the truth.
While all lying is reprehensible, some lies are more serious than others. For example, one person may lie out of embarrassment or fear. Another may wickedly make a practice of lying with the intent to harm or injure. Because of his malicious motivation, such a willful liar is a danger to others and would be disfellowshipped from the congregation if he does not repent.”
I believe the Society’s position is quite clear on this. And this calls into question something even bigger….Yours and Rando’s, actual BELIEF that the Society speaks for Jehovah God. You both claim adherence and loyalty to “the slave”, and to be followers of its teachings. Yet, I see you BOTH going directly against its teachings in this matter.
So the question arises….If you actually believe what you publicly SAY you do, then why aren’t you following it?
I believe I know the answer, Dan. I believe the answer is this….When a lie is told in DEFENSE of the Society, and when the “truth” is defended with a lie, and when the subject of the lie is viewed as an “opposer”, then all is “fair in love and war”. Is it theocratic war strategy, Dan?
Please explain your inconsistency here.
Look, you have no argument left. You have tried and you have failed. The bottom line is, Rando has consistently employed the use of lying and slander, and has repeatedly refused to correct it, when asked to do so. Even for the sake of the Organization he claims to follow.
I know the weaker-minded Witnesses will probably start chiming in with their…”Holland is gnashing his teeth, and shouldn’t be here anyway”. That is of no consequence to me. I am dealing with Scriptural facts, and that is all I am interested in. Not a bunch of people claiming to believe something they aren’t willing to practice.
Dan, do you still want to talk some more about what constitutes a lie? Because I think you could use the education. Its quite simple, and I will only deal with 3, of the countless lies this man has stated in this forum.
1. He made a comment to a question that, “You probably beat your wife like Derrick Holland”.
Now, I am not sure why you cannot comprehend that this statement is saying that “Derrick Holland beats his wife”.
If I tell a guy that “You are a Red Sox fan like Daniel Selinski”, I am obviously saying that you are a Red Sox fan, and not a Yankees fan. But if it turns out that you are a Yankees fan, then I have made a stupidly false statement, which I had no business making.
2. He also said that he had “found out” that I was a former JW, and an apostate. Now, this is clearly a blatant lie, as it means that he is saying that he LEARNED or CAME ACROSS INFORMATION that proved that I was a former JW. Well, that is not the case…so he told a deliberate lie.
And his stinking pride has kept him from rectifying this lie, for 6 years now. He had better hope the “end” doesn’t come in 2015...that’s all I can say.
3. He publicly stated that my mother “is no JW, and is posing as one”. Again, this is a blatant false statement…in other words, a lie.
And you, Selinski, don’t have the guts to call it what it is. Despite your profile of how you claim….“If you want responses that are watered down select another Jehovah's Witness expert because here you will get truth undiluted,unadulterated and Brutally Honest”
No Dan, we haven’t gotten anything even close to that from you.
Now, you can either back up your words and use your big talk to show your brother why he should right his wrongs, or you can keep taking a pounding…Its up to you.
Now, if you do not have the brains to see that these 3 statements are lies, and were made for one purpose and one purpose only….to DEFAME and SLANDER…then you don’t have nearly the brains you claim to have.
Now, how much further do you want to take this? Your dear friend Rando is concerned only with himself, and his own pride, as evidenced by the fact that he continues his stubborn refusal to follow the teachings of his own religion, and do the right thing. He is such an expert on the Trinity, and cannot even figure out that lying is wrong.
So if you want this back and forth to end, then I want a public retraction. I remember you demanding a public retraction when Luis said something about you that he shouldn’t have, regarding some speech you gave in London at some “Bible conference“. So, don’t criticize me for the same thing, as what was said about me, was much worse than what Luis said about you. And by the way…Luis DID retract, and it didn’t take him 6 years. I advised him to do so, and he didn’t say “Only when Selinski resigns from Allexperts.”
So, don’t whine about my asking for a retraction when I have been lied on, when you did the same exact thing, over a much less severe issue.
How do you think all this is making you guys look, Dan? Just act like Christians…Is that so hard?