Go figure!Isn't Satan the father of a lie?
It is amazing how people misinterpret what the Watchtower has said.THEY WANT TO.Go up and read the post again and again...and if necessary...again and again.What it ACTUALLY SAYS (read it again of you missed it by this time...) is that IF A PERSON SPEAKS AT ALL IT MUST BE THE TRUTH.But we are not required to speak the truth when ordered to do so by someone with authority.WE CAN REMAIN SILENT, SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES, AND NOT LIE.We are not required to be traitors to our Kingdom, our God, his and our Christ, or our brethren by giving the "enemy" any information at all.NEVER LIE ...but it is not necessary to "spill the beans" to someone who plans to EAT them.For those in Rio Linda, California, here is am example from a Star Trek Episode (if memory serves ...its been a VERY long time)...Captain Kirk was a prisoner of the Klingons, and the Klingon commander was trying to get information to help destroy Federation interests.Having been frustrated by Kirk's not cooperating, he turned to Mr. Spock, and the Commander asked Spock"Is it true that Vulcans never lie?'Spock answered that that was in fact true.The Commander continued, asking him whatever the question was that he asked Captain Kirk.When Spock refused to tell him what he wanted to know the Klingon Commander rebuffed him with.."But you are required by your own code of ethics to tell the truth!!Spock looked at him the way a parent would look at a kid who was a bit slow and subject to tantrums, and replied something to the effect "...I am not required to tell you the truth...I am only required not to tell you a lie", to which the Commander exclaimed "AHA!!, so there is a truth here!!"Of course this episode of Star Trek is something like 40 years old, and only the general idea have I tried to relay to you, but I remember thinking at the time, "he should have just kept his mouth shut and said nothing...that way the enemy would have not deduced that there was in fact "a truth" there.Now, of course the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society is not the Star Trek Federation, and the Jehovah's Witness ordered in some way to divulge information to people that will use it to slander of hurt the Theocracy, as imperfectly as the WTB&TS in effect, if not legally, represents it here on Earth, but the analogy is sound in principle."Theocratic War Strategy" simply means, don't be a dufus and give the enemy, you neighbor, your boss, your opponent in open arena debate, information that he does NOT have a right to.Say NOTHING, and be prepared to be persecuted, tortured, imprisoned or killed, etc.That is what war strategy is ...being prepared to take a beating of your opponent is stronger than you are. Or dying.Now.....even if you have missed it the first few times you saw the scanned and emphasized Watchtower article...go back and read it again.NEVER ONCE DID IT EVEN IMPLY THAT WE SHOULD LIE TO ANYBODY UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES!! NOT ONCE!!I hide the truth every time I close my bedroom door to change underwear, or turn the bolt on my front door, or hang up on a telemarketer who phones me with “just a moment of your time to take a little survey…”. I hide the truth when I go to Radio Shack to pick up some parts and they want my address and telephone number, which I refuse to give them (and sometimes they are quite insistent…). I hide the truth when I cover my luggage in the back seat of my car with a blanket to try and keep it from being ripped off.In an effort to hide the truth I have drapes, and Venetian blinds on my windows . This time READ it. don't just scan it. If you are old enough to have learned how to diagram a sentence ( a valuable lost art, I hear...) do that. Read what the apostate has underlined in blue as his chief point of emphasis.What does that really mean? As far as being dishonest ……NOTHING!If you still feel the WTB&TS is being disingenuous, there is no hope for you.It drives me nuts the 7th grade writing style, but I guess that...oh...see...once you get started, its hard to stop....better to say nothing.The apostate doesn’t have a gun anyway, and if he does at this distance it does not matter.This is debate in open arena, a combat of words, directed, really at the crowds watching the combat.Enjoy the Show!!Tom.Rook@Technik-SA.US
Man that headline together with the posted article (I ask myself if GBL is aware of violating the copyright!) ends up being real crap. It clearly shows the weak attempt to discredit JWs, by someone who is disappointed because of his hurt ego.Every objective reader recognizes that headline and article have nothing to do with each other!Tom did a good job again, by explaining this in detail. Thanks for that!I guess that will silence opposers as Frank did in the pedophilia thread.
it seems like you don't understand what you are reading go figure, Read carefully pay attention and think. go back and read again before you saying craps.
Are you sure about the pioneer hours changing? Positive? I haven't heard anything else about this and September is already here.
"We are not required to be traitors to our Kingdom, our God, his and our Christ, or our brethren by giving the "enemy" any information at all."--------------------------------Sorry Tom. You are delusional. The Watchtower has nothing to do with the Kingdom, God or Christ. They are just a book selling corporation and to protect their bottom line they have and will instruct their members to lie for them. They have investments and investors they have to protect. They don't want their boat rocked.
@ GBLMaybe you should admit that your headline is misleading on purpose. The article you quoted has nothing to do with your headline. Admit that you just wanted to put it this way, although there is no basis for that in the article!JWs are much more than a book selling company. We already had that topic in another thread here. You still did not answer on several solid points that were made there! It was shown that your propaganda does not hold! Why don’t you manage to provide counter arguments?You also said “The Watchtower has nothing to do with the Kingdom”. Well how could you know? Remember your article about the kingdom! I showed beyond any doubt that your assertions were wrong and that what you said about the kingdom and about the interpretation of JWs is wrong! Again, you never managed to present any counter arguments! Man, try at least to be a little honest! You can’t really believe all the mud you throw. Are you running out of stones?
Sorry Nathan. Frank did not silence anyone about the pedophiles in the congregations. It was just that his theories were so lame and ridiculous that no one could stomach them anymore. We have decided that it hurts no one to let Frank believe whatever he wants to believe. All honest hearted ones know that the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society created a Paradise for pedophiles because of it's ridiculous doctrines and its interest in its own well being. They created the mess and they are paying the price. There are new lawsuits coming up and I hope that they will have to pay a lot more. It's the least they can do for the victims.
Tom, thanks for the reading lesson, but I can ready very well. I know what the article says and I stand by my statement that the Watchtower teaches it's members to lie.For your information, Meriam Webster's dictionary defines as lie as:1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive 2 : to create a false or misleading impression So, it is not just verbalizing a falsehood that makes one a liar. You can also create a false or misleading impression. That is a lie too.So you can make all the chummy analogies that you want, along with your comparisons to Star Trek and other shows, but the fact remains that the Watchtower lies and it teaches Jehovah's Witnesses to lie.
tom rook said"But we are not required to speak the truth when ordered to do so by someone with authority."So here you said it yourself, lie to authoritys. you say "Captain Kirk was a prisoner of the Klingons, and the Klingon commander was trying to get information to help destroy Federation interests....."I say, that's weird tom, real weird. I do agree that Star Treck and the Watchtower are a good comparison to each other.nathan said"I guess that will silence opposers as Frank did in the pedophilia thread."I sayno he didn't silence anyone it just ended way back two pages ago...move forward.
You also said “The Watchtower has nothing to do with the Kingdom”. "Well how could you know? Remember your article about the kingdom! I showed beyond any doubt that your assertions were wrong and that what you said about the kingdom and about the interpretation of JWs is wrong! Again, you never managed to present any counter arguments!"--------------------------------Beyobd any doubt? Oh Nathan, really. I did not respond because it was so silly, I really thought you were kidding. You were serious? Sorry, but your whole premise was riddled with error. But if that is what you want to believe, then go ahead. You're only deluding yourself.
To GBL:Mocking a person (Tom) is not an answer or an intelligent reply. It only shows you really don't have an answer.
Most witnesses don't know how much lying the watchtower does. They will do anything to keep their image and they justify lying. Bethelites know this but the average jw does not. Thank you for exposing them. Witnesses don't want to hear it but of course it is true.Keep up the good work. My whole family reads this blog. It is our favorite one. We have learned many things. Thank you.
Here in a video of an elder lying on the stand in court:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iCzxajZxqsHe is doing theocratic warfare. He is in our circuit and he says that he was protecting the watchtower. He did this by lying and the watchtower instructed him to do it. He said that the other side tried to have him indicted for perjury. He is typical of a jehovah's witness. They blinding follow the watchtower.
Welllllll.Next time I change my underwear I will do it in front of someones house instead of in my bedroom.Since I am old, fat and ugly, it really would be obscene ...but boy! would it be truthfull!!(Just a joke...for those in Rio Linda).Some "truths" are best kept hidden.That is why when you do on-line banking, the "truth" about your accounts are hidden with encryption programs.Tom.Rook@Technik-SA.US
@ GBL and kimmy jo:Lol that is your only response? Man that is really awkward! You call keep throwing mud all the time. When someone refutes your arguments, you start calling him an idiot. And usually you never stop. It ended way back kimmy? That is ridiculous! There are threads here where you find new posts for a period of more than one week. In other threads you called a lot of postings silly, but obiviously not silly enough not to respond. So now we are supposed to believe that you did not respond because his post was so silly? Come man, even you don’t believe that! That is just poor tactics when you got nothing to say in defence.“We decided”, GBL? Did you have a secret agreement with all readers here not to post a response to frank? Well I’m sure you had not! So should we believe that is was just a coincidence that you all decided the same for yourself? Although in other threads you usually don’t keep your mouths shut? Lol such a nonsense!@ GBLOh my arguments were silly? What a bold statement. And uttered on a really strong basis of facts. Oh er I forgot..., no, I did not forget, you don’t have any basis for that. Not one single argument. But interestingly, children behave like that. If they don’t know an answer and feel pressured they start to rail against it.If it was not that funny to proof your articles wrong, maybe we would tell you the same here: “You were serious? Sorry, but your whole premise was riddled with error. But if that is what you want to believe, then go ahead. You're only deluding yourself.“
tom rook threatens,"Next time I change my underwear I will do it in front of someones house instead of in my bedroom."Tom, that's nasty and not even close to a rational comparison to misleading people in the name of Jehovah God.nathan,OK then let's just say this about MY not continuing to respond to your comments about pedophilia. I think you are heartless, insensitive and not a reasonable man and do not want to continue with you. What the Org. has done referring to this subject is NOT OK and does not reflect Jehovah's love.
I would be interested to know what makes you think I am heartless and insensitive. This is an impolite assertion that just tries to make it easy for you. And please tell me why, if I am not a reasonable man, you did not manage to refute my arguments! It must be very easy for you to refute the arguments of a dumb sucker. Still you did not do it, why? I guess I know why: Because my arguments in fact are very reasonable, but they are not what you want to hear!
Btw kimmy I was refering to the article posted by frank here, not to my arguments. Why did you not answer to what he said? Let me quess: You think he is heartless, insensitive and not reasonable, right? Would you please tell us why you think that?
nathan,I do not like going around circles with words...in other words argue. Truth is simple and as I stated in earlier posts, my comments about you and others were based on a observation, when you write you speak your heart condition.I also said regarding the way the Watchtower society and Congs of JW handle the pedophile issue is not something I agree with. Now we can argue words, and have word play, but bottom line is, I'll say it again... "What the Org. has done referring to this subject is NOT OK and does not reflect Jehovah's love."...and niether do you, in your comments, which reflect your heart.
nathan you said this about me which is UNTRUE..."When someone refutes your arguments, you start calling him an idiot. And usually you never stop." I think you are talking about tom, ronde or your other bud, anonymous.All I did was cut and paste someones comment and held him to it....you are refering to toms comment... "But we are not required to speak the truth when ordered to do so by someone with authority."I responded,"So here you said it yourself, lie to authoritys."" I never called names.
kimmy jo,May I ask you a question, kimmy (another one as this)? If you don’t like to argue, why are you around in a discussion forum? Why don’t you just read the articles and remain silent? But maybe this is the reason why you don’t use many arguments in your postings, but mere assertions, personal opinion and rude words. Interesting that it is you who said “when you write you speak your heart condition”.Yes truth is often simple, but there is no chance of deciding what truth means, if you are not open to arguments! It is not about word play, kimmy, you misunderstand the point. Unfortunately you show with your last posting that you are not interested in objective truth. You said, that whatever arguments are presented to you will still say the same (it was “NOT OK). So nothing can change your mind. That is not reasonable. But on the other hand you go and accuse others of being blind. Strange, really. Furthermore there are a lot of topics here that have nothing to do with the pedophile issue. However, you still refuse to accept arguments. What kind of person does so?Again I ask you to tell me which of my comments do not reflect God’s love? Where did I say brutal and rude words to or about anyone who did not try to make fun of me? Just give me one single line! You assert things here without presenting any evidence for it. It doesn’t work that way. I am open to criticism, but be constructive.
hey kimmy, that was especially referring to GBL. I wrote it under "@ GBL and kimmy jo". This is more the tactics of GBL. You are right never called me an "idiot". But still you called me "heartless", "insensitve", "not reasonable", and "arrogant". True that is not literally the same as "idiot" but not still not really nice. But I am used to this. What I really don't like is that you call me all this, without giving any rationale for it.
nathan,you acuse me of......"personal opinion and rude words."but I think tom and ronde are the real pro's at this...consider that tom always refers to GBL as "apostate".you continue,"If you don’t like to argue, why are you around in a discussion forum?"I say, because it is a "discussion" forum and I appreciate the material presented by GBL.. You say,"Where did I say brutal and rude words to or about anyone who did not try to make fun of me? Just give me one single line!" I say, maybe you should turn the other cheek, or stop the arguing, since it is a discussion board.you continued by quoting me, "You said, that whatever arguments are presented to you will still say the same (it was “NOT OK). So nothing can change your mind. That is not reasonable. But on the other hand you go and accuse others of being blind. Strange, really."I say you completely misunderstood that. What I said was this..."What the Org. has done referring to this subject(pedophilia) is NOT OK and does not reflect Jehovah's love."...you say,"Again I ask you to tell me which of my comments do not reflect God’s love? " I will point it out if I have the time, come accross it or care to but that is not why I am here to point out this about you. I was once a JW. I know you can except me as a thinking, God loving HUMAN BEING who accepts Jesus as my saviour. It is unaceptible to you that I am not accepting of the Watchtower and their teachings. You are programed to literaly HATE me because of this rather than hear my story and understand. This comes threw in your speech. You my friend are the one with the closed mind, I know because I was once where you are. My gut telling me that what is said is not done and the hypocracy is mountain high in the org. I am not disowned by Jehovah God, only by your organization and that does not break my heart, but it sure stirs up HATE in you.
CORRECTION...."I was once a JW. I know you can NOT except me as a thinking,..."
Kimmy jo,I don’t accuse you of rude words. I showed that you used them, since you called me “heartless”, “not reasonable” and “arrogant”. So this was no assertion, this was a fact.I know that Ronde, is not always a friendly guy, but you addressed me directly, so I answred to you and not to Ronde. Regarding Tom: Well calling GBL an “apostate” is not really impolite. I guess GBL likes to be called like that, since he is apostate from JWs, whom he hates. So I don’t think that “apostate” is a swearword.Well I said: “If you don’t like to argue, why are you around in a discussion forum?”You answered: “because it is a "discussion" forum and I appreciate the material presented by GBL”.Where is the sense in that? If you don’t like to argue you shouldn’t be in a discussion forum, because in a discussion forum, arguments are used! This is what the word discussion implies. So if you just answer to my question “because it is a "discussion" forum” that is illogical!I know that you like the things presented by GBL, that is why I proposed that you should become a silent reader, if you don’t like to argue. But saying that you don’t like to argue, but to participate in a discussion forum does not make sense to me.I said: “Where did I say brutal and rude words to or about anyone who did not try to make fun of me? Just give me one single line!”You answred: “maybe you should turn the other cheek, or stop the arguing, since it is a discussion board.”Again I don’t understand that. I should to arguing, because this is a discussion forum? A discussion is made up of arguments. And the exchange of arguments is what makes the difference between a discussion and a conversation. If all people here would stop to argue, there wouldn’t be a discussion. Your reply is illogical.No, you did not only say that what the Org (how you call it) has done regarding the pedophilia issue is “NOT OK”! You also said: “Now we can argue words, and have word play, but bottom line is, I'll say it again...”. This clearly states, that you don’t care which arguments will be presented, after you heard them you will say the same again. The logical conclusion from your words is: nothing will change your mind.My question still stands: “I ask you to tell me which of my comments do not reflect God’s love?” Please answer that, because everything else won’t be constructive.Why are you thinking so negative kimmy? Of course I can accept (I believe you mean that word) you as thinking human being. I also accept that you love God and believe in Jesus. Why shouldn’t I? But if you love God, it might be a good idea to watch your words!I have absolutely no problem if you don’t accept what is written in the Watchtower magazines. I also have no problem if you don’t believe what JWs teach. This is up to you, and actually none of my business. The only thing that I won’t accept in silence is people throwing mud and telling lies or personal opinions presented as facts. And that in general. I won’t accept that if you do, or if somebody else does.What JWs are surely not programmed to is to hate anybody. Since you were one, you will know that. There is absolutely no reason for hating people. And there is no basis for that in the Bible. On the contrary! I have no problem to listen to your story. Do you have no problem to listen to mine? Again I ask you to tell me what in my speech makes you think that I hate you. I don’t really believe that you hate me personally, although you use much ruder language than I do. So why should you think that I hate you?Why should my mind be closed? Again an assertion on your part. You were once where I am now? Another assertion. And again, one that is not too polite, because it tries to put me down.If you don’t want to be a JWs anymore that is just fine with me, that does not stir up anything in me. This is your personal decision. My opinion is that God does not force anybody, so why should I? No reason for that. Yes, I regret if people turn away from JWs, but it is their choice to do so.I know that Ronde sometimes makes strange comments regarding this matter. But Ronde is not me, and his opinion does not represent what JWs do in general.
nathan says,"“apostate” is not really impolite. I guess GBL likes to be called like that, since he is apostate from JWs, whom he hates."I say, correctly said, you mean, apostate from the Watchtower and JW's cong. but not Jehovah himself. You can't speak for Jehovah. Stop spreading HATE.you say,"...because in a discussion forum, arguments are used! This is what the word discussion implies. So if you just answer to my question “because it is a "discussion" forum” that is illogical!I know that you like the things presented by GBL, that is why I proposed that you should become a silent reader, if you don’t like to argue. But saying that you don’t like to argue, but to participate in a discussion forum does not make sense to me......."I say, OMG! word play. I'm not into all that kind of jibber that says nothing, like your example above.Look nathan, you have given alot of words that say that you seem to take personaly what I think about you. WHY SHOULD YOU CARE how I think or feel about you???? It is your comments I am commenting on, not you personally. I have heard it said that "out of the mouth the heart speaks". Remember, it is a disscusion forum, if you don't agree with what I say, oh well thats the way it goes here. OH MY.
Hey kimmy,What is your problem? Why don’t you read carefully?I said, that GBL is “apostate from JWs” (JWs being used here as common abbreviation for Jehoavh’s Witnesses). I said nothing more! (Personally I don’t believe that GBL is in Hod’s favour, but well God will judge that) Your comment is redundant. Go and tell GBL not to spread hate.Word play? Are you kidding me? Read what you said again. It was complete nonsense! And you know that! I showed that in plain words, without any word play! Why don’t you admit it? Are you too proud to do so?Your last paragraph is again pure fiction! You never say anything that can be checked. You said that I “you have given alot of words” that show that I take personally what you think about me. Again you don’t even provide one single line to back your assertion.Well in fact I couldn’t care less about what you are thinking about me. That was not the point. You are playing the word and behaviour police in that forum, and all I showed was that you yourself don’t behave very well here! I presented evidence that you behave impolite. Nothing more. I don’t take that serious, because that is no arguments. I just showed it.You said: “It is your comments I am commenting on, not you personally.” Not true at all! First of all, you leave out two thirds of my comments! And you called me personally “arrogant”, “not reasonable” and “heartless”! You referred to me not to my comments when you used the words! And you know that! You are not honest!About the discussion forum! Well I remember that it is. But it seems you don’t. Go back and read your illogical statements about the discussion forum, which I exposed! If I don’t agree with what you say, well I always tell you, I always correct you. No problem with that. But you refuse to accept that!Sigh, it’s been long since I talked to someone with such a wrong self-perception.
nathan,As long as you are in posting in agreement with tom and ronde with all their lengthy, contradicting, mouthy posts you are in effect as they are. I never called you an "idiot" or any such thing as that and I do not argue.This is enough conversation about this, move on.
Kimmy jo,You it seems that you completely lost your view on reality. Several reasons for that.1) I am not always the same opinion as Tom and Ronde. This can be seen clearly, since I have written correcting statements for example to Ronde directly.2) You want to discredit Tome and me, just because weh share the same opinion on some issues? It seems that you share nearly every opinion with GBL. Does that mean that you are per se wrong? No. Neither does it mean that if I share an opinion with somebody else.3) You said: “I never called you an "idiot" or any such thing as that”. That is a lie. Everybody can re-read your postings. I quoted it several times now what you called me. Here it is once more: “not reasonable”, “heartless”, and “arrogant”. So you did call me such things as that”! Stick to the truth!4) Well you are right in this one. Unfortunately you don’t argue much. But you don’t view that as an error! And that is a big mistake! Discussion only works, if people exchange arguments. And that is called arguing! So just boasting out your opinion, accusations and swearwords, does not prove anything, and as you would say, does definitely “not reflect God’s love”!5) You still refuse to tell me any concrete example, where I was posting something “contradicting”, “mouthy”, “arrogant”, “not reasonable” “heartless” etc. You always end up asserting what comes to your mind. Nothing of it is true! So if what you say is not true and not backed with any line of evidence in such little things, what should we expect from you on larger scale issues?6) You did not admit that all you said regarding the discussion forum here and arguing is completely illogical. If you are really so interested in truth, why don’t you admit it?7) You leave out most of my arguments. Don’t you have any arguments for your position? Well I know you don’t like arguing, but still then the question stands: “Why are you around on a discussion forum?” Arguments are inherent for discussion!The list goes on like that. I have no problem if you don’t want or can’t be precise. I have no problem, if all you contribute is impoliteness and mere assertions. I have no problem if you accuse others of things you do yourself. People here know what this is called. No matter if they share my opinion on topics regarding JWs or not, what they have seen from your last 5 postings and my last 5 postings is, who of us uses serious logical arguments and who does not. Thus they see, whose opinion has some weight, and whose has almost none. They see who makes valuable contributions and who doesn’t. It is not only that I see it, but you also achieved that everybody on this forum can see it.Now the last one who has not seen it so far is you. Or maybe you have, but don’t dare to admit it.
"Maybe you should admit that your headline is misleading on purpose. The article you quoted has nothing to do with your headline. Admit that you just wanted to put it this way, although there is no basis for that in the article!JWs are much more than a book selling company. We already had that topic in another thread here. You still did not answer on several solid points that were made there! It was shown that your propaganda does not hold! Why don’t you manage to provide counter arguments?You also said “The Watchtower has nothing to do with the Kingdom”. Well how could you know? Remember your article about the kingdom! I showed beyond any doubt that your assertions were wrong and that what you said about the kingdom and about the interpretation of JWs is wrong! Again, you never managed to present any counter arguments!"----------------------------------Nathan, I hope that this is the post that you wanted me to answer.First of all, although it might just be a matter of opinion, I stand by the title of my post. I truly believe that the Watchtower encourages it's members to lie. Thwy call it theocratic warfare, by it is lying all the same. The Watchtower will and has lied to protect itself.It's true. The Watchtower has absolutely nothing to do with the Kingdom of God. The Watchtower, however, is more than a publishing company. There invest in stocks and bonds, they are a large purchaser of prime real estate and they disguise themselves as a religion to attract honest hearted persons who will work for free. Do you know how the Governing Body comes to a decision that affects the life and welfare of its millions of followers? They do so around a board table, without a Bible and without prayer. A two-thirds majority wins. Faith-inspiring, huh?There seems to be some point about the Kingdom that you wanted a response to. I don't know what it is so you will have to post it again. Sorry. But I will look again and if I can find it, I will post it.If you don't see an answer from me, I ask that you please post it again.
Well GBL, the article you quoted has nothing to do with the article. Tom covered that point very good. If you still think that your headline is correct, please tell us in detail how you can read that out of the article!Regarding the book selling company issue: I posted several questions to you that in my opinion show that your argument is not valid. You did not answer on it. If you can't remember, just tell me, I will post it here once again.Regarding the kingdom of God. What you said was that JWs would teach another gospel about the kingdom as Jesus did. And you presented some arguments for that. I proved all those arguments wrong. There is a quite lengthy discussion about it with kevin in the "This Good News of The Kingdom" thread. For you, my first answer is really interesting. And please, when you respond, tell me what exactly is silly about my arguments!
Post a Comment