The Serena Williams Child Doesn't Do Birthdays. This Gets Interestinger and Interestinger

[Bob]

My views of this Serena issue is really simple: I am embarrassed whenever she claims she's a JW, specifically because of her conduct. Its almost like the exchange from our movie "The Prodigal Returns:

 

Will Parsons: "My wife talks about the Bible with a Witness woman. She comes by the house. Can't say I agree with them. But what I've been hearing about Jehovah's Witnesses, and what I know about you...well, lets just say there seems to be...a discrepancy. That's all".

[thegreenjudy]

8 hours ago, Thomas Walker said:

 

Granted, but my point is, most of the people who hear her say it aren't going to care that much, unless they've already formed an opinion about us.

 

We have that same double standard, because if she said 'I'm Jewish' or 'I'm Catholic', we wouldn't much care. We get annoyed or worried, because it's us.

 

 

Exactly.

 

Every single medical show I've ever seen has at least one episode where a Patient is a JW, refusing a blood transfusion. Without exception, they're way off base. Same with the news, the courts, documentaries... This world will never have a clear picture of us, because of who's running this world. I'm just saying that when it comes to that list, an athlete who's gone 'inactive' as her career takes off is low on the list of what I personally worry about.

I can see your point to an extent. Of course we feel more strongly about it than maybe an outsider. 

Also the reason why I do not care overly much of the conduct of a Catholic is because I already know that the Catholic Church doesn't have a track record of trying to live up to bible standards anyway. 

 

But that's exactly the point, we are not like other religions. And I do know people who expect much more of us than any other religion. But that's beside the point. 

 

If it wasn't important how a perceived JW comports themself, we would not have to watch out for our own conduct. After all, if it doesn't matter what Selena is doing, what's the big deal if I start doing things not quite the right way? I know that if I started a relationship with my worldly workmate and turn up at the yearly Christmas party, people at work would be rather puzzled about my conduct. The issue is not just that I would not be doing Jehovahs will and sinning against him but how I would contribute to Jehovahs reputation.

 

Of course I could turn around and think that people will have an opinion no matter what (and some people do) . But that's not entirely true. If people feel drawn to the truth because of our exemplary conduct the opposite can also be the case if we totally step out of line. When I say that honest hearted people can see through this, that is true to an extent. That doesn't mean that a person who is taken aback by Selinas example is not honest hearted but they might already have a negative opinion about the hypocrisy of mainstream religions due to personal experience - thanks to Babylon the Great. We want to stand out as different, not be mixed in with other religions. 

 

 

[Saffron]

5 minutes ago, thegreenjudy said:

That doesn't mean that a person who is taken aback by Selinas example is not honest hearted but they might already have a negative opinion about the hypocrisy of mainstream religions due to personal experience - thanks to Babylon the Great. We want to stand out as different, not be mixed in with other religions. 

This would be my point. You just expressed it better than I did. 😊

 

Let's pretend I am a person in the world who was trying to figure out which way to go. You may guess what I would probably think of these other religions based on my personal experience. What about these news reports would make me think that JW were any different from the rest of them? 

 

I'm sure no one says "I think I will consult the opinion of a tennis player so I can find God," but it is frequently in the news and many of the opinions that we form are formed unconsciously. 

 

 

[TrueTomHarley]

58 minutes ago, carlos said:

and we write an ode praising her, even comparing her to queen Esther who was a devout and courageus worshipper of Jehovah who risked her life to save His people.

Don't pin this on any 'we.' I did it. I'll take responsibility. (You are doing it out of tact, I know, and I appreciate it, but it is not necessary.)

 

I do understand your indignation that someone so blatantly falling short in some areas should call herself a Witness. How can one disagree with that? I don't. Still, I think it can be overdone. It is sort of in the spirit of when the disciples became livid seeing an unqualfied person ('he was not with us') witnessing (albeit before the formation of the congregation) and Jesus told them not to worry about it because 'he who is not against us is with us.' 

 

Our moral standards are well-known, and her larger-than-life carryings-on are well-known. I agree with @thegreenjudy. People can see through it, unless they deliberately don't want to.

 

Sometimes I think we overdo it in the spin we try to put on things, and a frank admission to things not turning out as we expected would serve us better. Kingdom Halls are consolidating in the United States, and the explanation that we are repositioning assets to serve where there is greater demand makes perfect sense. It is a fine explanation. Nonetheless, when those Kingdom Halls were built in the first place, the intent was to fill them to the rafters, and I see no problem acknowledging that when it comes up. After all, when the churches consolidate, we say that it is because they are going belly-up. One good-natured fellow in field service pointed to a Kingdom Hall that had been sold and said teasingly 'What's with that?' I told him it was his own fault; had he come and more of his buddies, it would not have happened.

 

What I said about fooling the monitors could be taken as a slam to this site and the work of the brothers who monitor it. I did not mean it that way.

1 hour ago, carlos said:

They think they speak the pure language fluently but they can't hide their strong accent.

Yes. I love it.

1 hour ago, carlos said:

Now as for crazy wackos, well, there are all kind of people in the congregation. Most Witnesses I know are reasonable and sound, but there are also the wackos, the fanatics, the unbalanced. Jehovah doesn't especially call the mentally healthy or the reasonable or the smart, but those with a good disposition of heart. Jehovah loves those friends so we bear with them and love them too.

 

Yes. But that doesn't mean they are not crazy wackos. I don't mind being called that myself. We all are to some extent.

 

Your approach is correct, but you should go further in that direction, imo. When you hear people alleging such, don't try to deny the charge. Say instead that it is exactly what one should expect, given Jesus words about 'the physician calling, not on those who do not need it, but on those who do.' It is the person sailing breezily through the atrocities of this system of things without a care that are the ones to watch in dismay. When our people go nuts, they nonetheless wouldn't hurt a fly. When people of this system go nuts, better call a SWAT team and a Witness Protection Program. 

 

We ought not let the world define insanity for us. They are obviously the ones who are collectively insane, as is apparant by the world they have produced. To the extent people willingly remain with this mess of a world, you could argue that they are even individually insane. 

 

It was not always this way, but as I get older, I find the more eccentric our people are (within limits) the more I like them. We are all nuts from this world's point of view. I think the trick is accepting their taunt, rather than kicking against it, and then turning the tables to ask them whether they truly can take pride in the world they have collectively produced. We are glad to be no part of it, but it never gives up on trying to seep in. You can instantly spot, for example, when a speaker is as influenced by the model of the TV anchorman than by the model of the Benefit book. 

[TrueTomHarley]

Moreover, to go back to the original point of my post, this Reddit group has done us huge mischief. The Philly reporter used it as his source to write four incendiary articles in a row that likely were read by everyone in that communty (the first one was front page, perhaps they are were) except most of the friends. Since they are onliine articles, they go anywhere.

 

This group is trying with all its might to equate Jehovah's Witnesses with the sins of the Catholic church. It is a stretch, because abusers in the Church are clergy. If you want to get the same 'catch' among Jehovah's people, you must broaden your net to include, not just 'clergy,' but everybody. That doesn't mean that they are not diligently trying to do it, and equate some 'non-reporting to authorities' in previous years to being actual incubators of child abuse. They are up to no good, and the alleged sin in such cases is 'failing to go beyond the law' in reporting such cases to police. I continually make the point that if it is so crucial to 'go beyond the law' then that should become the law, which is the same point Brother Jackson made to a recent inquiry.

 

If Selena was to prompt her husband, the Reddit founder, to weigh in on that group in our favor and expose them for what they are, I believe she would be forgiven 'a multitude of sins,' even if she never did manage to get it all together in her own life, as she seems to want to do.

[Miss Bea]

With Selena, she’s had a baby. Things change in a big way with that event. Now, it is not just your life. Let’s hope she gets her spiritual life together. 

And, when, and if, someone like this is brought up to me, I just say, “anyone can call themselves a Jehovah’s Witness. Let’s hope eventually it’s so”. No big deal. Like I said, if ones are looking to find fault...

That Reddit Site. Somehow I ended up on it, glanced around, and shut it down, post haste. No whatever is worth what I saw! 

Edited September 4, 2018 by Miss Bea
Ha, you can edit twice. If you are fast enough!

[TrueTomHarley]

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

If Selena was to prompt her husband, the Reddit founder, to weigh in on that group in our favor and expose them for what they are, I believe she would be forgiven 'a multitude of sins,' even if she never did manage to get it all together in her own life, as she seems to want to do.

In fact, in the event of this outcome, and to bring matters full circle, that would be an example of something else Mordecai said to his niece. 'If salvation does not come through spotless Esther, it will come from some other source.'

 

Either way, I’ll take it and say 'thank you' to the Lord.

[Shawnster]

On 9/3/2018 at 12:59 PM, TrueTomHarley said:

Now, it turns out that Reddit is a huge online discussion forum in which topics are hosted for everything under the sun.

 

2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

 

 

What I said about fooling the monitors could be taken as a slam to this site and the work of the brothers who monitor it. I did not mean it that way.

 

 

No matter how secure a pro JW board is, apostates will get in.  That is no reason to avoid reddit (or anything like that) entirely.  Reddit has tons and tons of forums and discussion boards that are safe for Witnesses.

 

 

 

2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Moreover, to go back to the original point of my post, this Reddit group has done us huge mischief. The Philly reporter used it as his source to write four incendiary articles in a row that likely were read by everyone in that communty (the first one was front page, perhaps they are were) except most of the friends. Since they are onliine articles, they go anywhere.

 

 

This is an example of poor journalism and the reporter should be called out for it.  Even if it includes writing his editor.  Reddit, nor any Internet discussion board, is not a reliable source for information.  Period.  I don't care what you are talking about.  A reporter using an unverified social media website for information is not doing his job correctly.  This is the same as listening to and repeating gossip.

 

2 hours ago, Miss Bea said:

With Selena...

 

Serena.  Serena Williams is the tennis player with the baby.

 

Selena was the Tejano musician associated with the Truth who was murdered by a deranged fan in 1995

[Miss Bea]

23 minutes ago, Shawnster said:

 

 

Serena.  Serena Williams is the tennis player with the baby.

 

Selena was the Tejano musician associated with the Truth who was murdered by a deranged fan in 1995

Hmmm. Can’t say if it’s a typo, or my mind. I think I saw the same name, (Selena) on this post. Natch, I had to repeat it it!

[Shawnster]

2 minutes ago, Miss Bea said:

Hmmm. Can’t say if it’s a typo, or my mind. I think I saw the same name, (Selena) on this post. Natch, I had to repeat it it!

Yes, it was at least you and Tom.  Which is ironic since Tom started the topic correctly.

[carlos]

4 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

What I said about fooling the monitors could be taken as a slam to this site and the work of the brothers who monitor it. I did not mean it that way.

Yes, I think we understood what you meant. Apostates are everywhere Witnesses are, so the fact that there are some apostates in Reddit doesn't mean none of it is useful.

 

3 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

In fact, in the event of this outcome, and to bring matters full circle, that would be an example of something else Mordecai said to his niece. 'If salvation does not come through spotless Esther, it will come from some other source.'

 

But I don't think he can do anything about it. Apostates have the right to have their own forums where they can express their hate. I don't think it's legal to prevent them, not do we have any interest in closing their hate sites.

 

Haters are going to hate and lazy or prejudiced journalists are going to keep using unreliable sources. That's been happening for decades and it has never stopped or slowed down our spiritual activities. Actually I don't care at all what they say or do as long as they don't come here to cause trouble.

[sunshine]

I haven't read the article but from her reported conduct she is NOT one of Jehovah's Witnesses and it is wrong for her to say she is, if she did (I don't necessarily believe she did, as we cannot believe everything in the media).  To suggest Serena is a sister in good standing with the congregation is to suggest we condone fornication (a baby out of wedlock) and many other behaviours that would bring reproach on Jehovah's name.  I don't want to be uncharitable to the poor child, and maybe she did explain that she was bought up around the truth and the reporter "translated" that as actually being a Witness, but with so many wonderful and chaste examples of faithful brothers and sisters devoting their lives to Jehovah, I for one will not be sucked in by any degree of propaganda that suggests that someone that has devoted her life to sport is someone to admire.  On the contrary, Satan would delight if one of our young ones chose sport over pioneering becausse "well, look at Serena, she did both".  Jesus said you cannot serve two masters, and becoming the best in the world of sport and music usually demand a degree of dedication that leaves little time for Jehovah.

 

An article in the daily mail won't make me forget all the Slave has taught me, but what of a newly interested one or a gullible teen?

 

R

Edited September 5, 2018 by sunshine

[TrueTomHarley]

19 hours ago, Shawnster said:

This is an example of poor journalism and the reporter should be called out for it.  Even if it includes writing his editor.  

 

I did attempt this. When my letter was not acknowledged, I put it online.

 

http://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2018/07/an-open-letter-to-the-philadelphia-inquirer-because-they-did-not-acknowlege-much-less-print-the-sent.html

Edited September 5, 2018 by TrueTomHarley

[carlos]

5 hours ago, sunshine said:

I haven't read the article but from her reported conduct she is NOT one of Jehovah's Witnesses and it is wrong for her to say she is, if she did (I don't necessarily believe she did, as we cannot believe everything in the media).

Serena and Venus Williams were brought up in a Witness family and were brought up around the truth. They attended meetings and had demonstrations as any other Witness child. They even became unbaptized publishers. But as they became more and more absorbed by their sports careers they gradually distanced themselves from spiritual activities. They were never baptized and, in view of their behavior, they are not unbaptized publishers anymore. So no, they definitely are not Jehovah's Witnesses.

 

On the other hand, we will be happy if they reconsider their priorities and come back to Jehovah's people.

 

EDIT: I haven't heard anything about Venus Williams in a long time. So in this time maybe she has changed her life and is an unbaptized publisher again, or even baptized. I don't know.

Edited September 5, 2018 by carlos

[Shawnster]

4 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

 

I did attempt this. When my letter was not acknowledged, I put it online.

 

http://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2018/07/an-open-letter-to-the-philadelphia-inquirer-because-they-did-not-acknowlege-much-less-print-the-sent.html

 

There are always alternatives.

 

https://ethics.journalism.wisc.edu/resources/holding-media-accountable/

 

HOLDING MEDIA ACCOUNTABLE

ShareFacebookTwitterGoogle+

ACCOUNTABILITY AND COMPLAINTS

Upset about a news organization or report?

Where should you turn?

A good place to start is to read this section. It contains links to press and broadcast councils, ombudsmen and other media entities where you can register a complaint or express concerns.

 

 

 

https://accountablejournalism.org/resources

 

https://www.spj.org/ethics-papers-accountability.asp

[Shawnster]

52 minutes ago, carlos said:

Serena and Venus Williams were brought up in a Witness family and were brought up around the truth. They attended meetings and had demonstrations as any other Witness child. They even became unbaptized publishers. But as they became more and more absorbed by their sports careers they gradually distanced themselves from spiritual activities. They were never baptized and, in view of their behavior, they are not unbaptized publishers anymore. So no, they definitely are not Jehovah's Witnesses.

 

On the other hand, we will be happy if they reconsider their priorities and come back to Jehovah's people.

 

EDIT: I haven't heard anything about Venus Williams in a long time. So in this time maybe she has changed her life and is an unbaptized publisher again, or even baptized. I don't know.

 

 

Her dad isn't the best of examples, either.  Notice the embroidery on his shirt.

 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/imageserver/image/methode%2Ftimes%2Fprod%2Fweb%2Fbin%2F47974b0c-575c-11e7-869c-518339a19c7c.jpg?crop=1361%2C765%2C121%2C42&resize=685

 

 

 

 

Edited September 5, 2018 by Shawnster

[TrueTomHarley]

19 hours ago, Shawnster said:

There are always alternatives.

As much as I don't like what they wrote, I doubt an ethics site would find much fault with them.

 

The reporters went to sources we that deem unreliable. But if we say: 'Those are former members with an axe to grind,' the news reports are written in such a way that most people would say: 'I can see why.'

 

That is why I chose to respond the way I did.

 

It is especially complicated because we do not usually get into specifics, and that is what the reporters want. We say that we abhor child abuse. It works for us. We know the truth of matters. But it does not satisfy them. They go to people who will fill their ears, and we tend not to counter them, though we could, because we follow the scriptural counsel to stay away from apostates.

[Bob]

50 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

As much as I don't like what they wrote, I doubt an ethics site would find much fault with them.

 

The Government needs to hold media accountable. That's the only way to get them to change their behavior. I don't mean interfering with free speech, but I mean you cannot accuse people of committing a CRIME and not give proof they broke the law.

 

 

50 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

It is especially complicated because we do not usually get into specifics, and that is what the reporters want. We say that we abhor child abuse. It works for us. We know the truth of matters. But it does not satisfy them. They go to people who will fill their ears, and we tend not to counter them, though we could, because we follow the scriptural counsel to stay away from apostates.

There are practical and logical reasons for not replying as well. When it becomes clear that nothing will change a person's mind, there is nothing to gain -- you'd only serve as a vehicle to give the lies more publicity. In this age of yellow journalism, there is no reason for us to give them nothing more than a statement and a link to our policies.

 

If they really wanted to get the truth from us, they'd be beating down our doors first and foremost. They don't do that.  They want headlines, and clicks. Real news fails, fake news sales.

[Zebra555]

45 minutes ago, Bob said:

In this age of yellow journalism,

I had to look this term up:

Yellow journalism - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism

 

Yellow journalism and the yellow press are American terms for journalism and associated newspapers that present little or no legitimate well-researched news while instead using eye-catching headlines for increased sales. Techniques may include exaggerations of news events, scandal-mongering, or sensationalism.

 

 

[Bob]

1 hour ago, Zebra555 said:

I had to look this term up:

Yellow journalism - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism

 

Yellow journalism and the yellow press are American terms for journalism and associated newspapers that present little or no legitimate well-researched news while instead using eye-catching headlines for increased sales. Techniques may include exaggerations of news events, scandal-mongering, or sensationalism.

  

 

Fits perfectly, huh?

[TrueTomHarley]

5 hours ago, Bob said:

When it becomes clear that nothing will change a person's mind, there is nothing to gain -- you'd only serve as a vehicle to give the lies more publicity.

Seeing that it was already front page news in a major city newspaper and relayed across the country, I wasn’t overly worried about giving it more publicity. I thought a complete and exhaustive perspective, without invitation to further debate, could do no harm.

 

of course, the goal is not to change the minds of the Reddit people. As you say, that is futile and counterproductive. The goal is to flesh out for the reading public what is presented one-sidedly.

Edited September 6, 2018 by TrueTomHarley

[Bob]

20 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Seeing that it was already front page news in a major city newspaper and relayed across the country, I wasn’t overly worried about giving it more publicity. I thought a complete and exhaustive perspective, without invitation to further debate, could do no harm. 

Yeah. And I wasn't speaking about "you" specifically. I was speaking generally using the generic "you" when it comes to repeating baseless accusations in generally. But yeah, it was already out there as you say.

[Shawnster]

10 hours ago, Bob said:

The Government needs to hold media accountable

Not the government's place to hold media accountable.  That's actually the opposite of free speech.  It's not the government's place to set standards like that.  If there is ever a litmus test media outlets must pass, then that is the first link toward government ran propaganda posing as media. 

 

It's the job of the consumer, the reader, the public to hold media accountable.  

[Bob]

11 hours ago, Shawnster said:

Not the government's place to hold media accountable.  That's actually the opposite of free speech.  It's not the government's place to set standards like that.  If there is ever a litmus test media outlets must pass, then that is the first link toward government ran propaganda posing as media. 

 

It's the job of the consumer, the reader, the public to hold media accountable.  

Good point. 

 

But the Government does limit free speech. You can’t threaten the President, you can’t scream “bomb” or “fire” in a movie theater or on an airplane, etc. So free speech is and must be limited by the law/government. 

 

But I do accept your point and generally agree with you about consumers etc holding them accountable.

 

Don’t get me wrong, though brother. I don’t want the government setting standards. I think it’s reasonable that the media should not being allowed to accuse people of committing a crime without evidence of such. 

 

You can be sued for libel and slander. 

Edited September 7, 2018 by Bob

[GeordieGirl]

Looks like someone had a tanty. The tennis gods must have been asleep .. or on the privy!!!! 
Definitely no Christian qualities on display .. she's not even a decent loser.

 

https://www.bbc.com/sport/tennis/45461716

US Open 2018: Serena Williams accuses umpire of sexism after meltdown in final