LIES, DAMN LIES, AND APOSTATES (page 3)

Morbidzbaby

Maybe back then they saw it as others have seen it... a picture depicting others set to be impaled. Maybe they couldn't afford underwear! You're gonna begrudge them a proper impalement cause they can't afford UNDIES?? All joking aside, it was 1927 when this was printed and homosexuality wasn't as "mainstream" (for lack of a better word!) as it is now. Perhaps they didn't see it as homoerotic. Also, consider the context this picture was used in. I don't like the WBTS any more than the next apostate. However, I'm not quick to ascribe bad motive to every SINGLE thing they do. I give the benefit of the doubt to everyone... (perhaps that's why my ex has screwed me so many times lol).

I don't consider it offensive, blasphemous, or any of the other words that were used. This VERY WELL could have really happened at crucifictions of the time. Keep in mind, too that nudity isn't frowned on in non-puritanical cultures. A wang is a wang and who gives a shit if it's hangin out getting some air? Honestly, if a person reads more into this than just that it's a simple piece of art, THEY are the perverts with the problem.

Morbidzbaby

And yes, Falcon...it's sexy as hell

OUTLAW

But the picture certainly does not settle well in the minds of many.

The real issue is why would The Watchtower org. use it?.....Koolaidman

Who Cares?..The picture is 84 years old..

Basing a Show on it,doesn't make the WBT$ look bad..

It makes "You" look Desperate..And..Crazy..

Listen to Six Screens!..

Winner of the..

Award..

..................... ...OUTLAW

Mr. Falcon

A wang is a wang and who gives a shit if it's hangin out getting some air?

In that case, my wang should be arrested for loitering. Thank you, good night.

J. Hofer

i remember when i first looked at websites like this one some 10 years or so ago, i saw many posts about how the wt literature has pictures of demons in it that would make it into your mind subconciously. all i thought was, those apostates are a crazy bunch of nutcases. it took me another 3 or 4 years to start taking some of you folks serious again.

although... still a lot of nutcases around here.

shamus100

although... still a lot of nutcases around here.

:D :D :D

RayPublisher

PublishingCult

I agree with you that the picture and discussion of it was "much ado about nothing". However there are many of us that still believe in the Bible, which condemns homosexuality. If you don't believe in Jesus, God, the Bible, etc. that is your right and I respect it.

By the same token Rick is a Christian man trying to combat the WT in his own way. Something you seem to be invested in as well. Here we all gather for common cause. Here we try and make sense of the sh!t we were taught by imperfect men and try to work through it. Why waste energy with the strong attacks and anger? A post stating that you thought his subject was homophobic and it bothered you is one thing. But your video and your post as it stands comes across very mean and childish to many of us.

Several of the comments on the YouTube page are similar in tone to what I'm saying. People are acknowledging that you have a point, but why be so mean, and such a little boy about it? If you don't like his show don't listen to it. If you think it's terrible, do your own podcast or conference call and show us how it should be done. That's how we make things better- by building others up, not just being in the "tearing down business" 24/7.

PublishingCult

Ray, the majority of us think that combatting the WTBTS and their lies shouldn't be done with sensationalism, grandstanding, bigotry, lies, and half-truths, and deceptions.

Childish is wild speculation and attributing nefarioius motives to Rutherford for using the artwork, and childish is painting a masterful work of art as blasphemous, lude, perverted- attributing homosexual themes to it, and using it as a pretext to condemn homosexuality.

The Bible, in fact, does NOT condemn homosexuality. That is a lie born out of mistranslation of the original language text, misinterpretation absent of historical context. So, if you are going to use the Bible to condemn homosexuality, you'd better not be wearing poly-cotton blend underwear and you'd better be abstaining from all forms of "uncleanness" yourself. Rafter. Rafter. :)

PublishingCult

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJQlnyqHYU4

whathehadas

Come on Man......PC you got angry off this one topic on Rick's Call and decided to make a Video. If he is such a "bad apostate", then why wait to make this Video when he has been around on these forums for quite sometime now. I may not agree with everything on his calls and even posts on this forum but I wouldn't go as far as shoot the poster and drop a bomb on the followers also. If you don't agree with his views on homosexuals, okay funny fact being that many people don't like it either and they are all not bible-thumping christians. Rick's show has had many credible people on it such as Randy Watters( who is the founder of Freeminds.org that you reference to in your vid), Barbara Anderson, James Penton, Wilbur Lingle, Peter Gregerson and many others including some atheists and Homosexuals. While some of them have different views, they came on the so called "drama queen's channel" and offered insight on the JW. You can say what you want you want about Rick but he is giving another voice for the ex-Jw community whether the CALLERS(i.e Johnny, Thomas) maybe questionable or not. Anyways a JW who comes on these internet forums will be met with various views on beliefs and topics of rumors of the WT. They may be turned off for various reasons being that they are not supposed to be on these sites in the first place as instructed by the WT. Hey but if they came on here then eventually they will see something that will shake their faith. It should be up to them though as to make THEIR OWN discernment on what is credible information by doing their OWN research in the matters. Most things can be takened as opinions or

LIES, DAMN LIES, AND APOSTATES

Share this