Like all cowards Idiotnog wouldn't dare give his identity on here. He knows he shouldn't be on here. His stupidity is quite entertaining though.
Is the Watchtower shy about repeating their new "generation" teaching?
by slimboyfat 245 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Vanderhoven7
@djeggnog
Re: Luke 16:19-31 is not a parable. Think of how this story was understood at the time.
<<Why should I when you don't seem to have done any thinking?>>
Very dismissive of you DJ. But why should my alleged lack of thought determine yours? Certainly assuming Luke 16:19-31 is a parable reveals that the lack of thought is your own. As such, your "Bosom of Abraham" analogy fails as justification for your organization's practice of assigning any meaning it wants to scriptural terms.
FYI, the Pharisees in Jesus' audience considered Abraham's Bosom a literal place.....the paradise side of Hades.
-
slimboyfat
What's wrong with being anonymous?
-
outsmartthesystem
Egg - "Let me see if I understand what you are saying here: Your conscience tells you that I should not be posting messages to JWN? Really?!? You truly believe that I should be obeying your conscience? Seriously?!?"
Yet another red herring from a JW. The challenge was for you to explain why YOUR conscience allows you to justify disobeying the governing body's counsel to avoid sites such as this. Since when it is acceptable for a Jehovah's Witness to allow his OWN conscience to override the dictates of the governing body? Can you show me the publication that states that this is acceptable behavior? I am worried about you. You seem to be developing a penchant for Ray Franz type independent thinking. This is DANGEROUS! The challenge was NOT for you to adopt another man's conscience. Never once did iCeltic ask you to adopt his conscience.
Egg - You have been misled to believe something that really isn't true or taught by God's organization. Although it is not advisable that Jehovah's Witnesses visit websites like this one for those without serious doubts as to their faith might succumb to some of the flawed argument posited here and what faith they did have before coming here is gradually eroded away. It can happen and this is the reason for the many articles that the Society has published in this regard.
This is a lie. The question box in the September 2007 KM asks the question as to whether or not the FDS endorses independent groups who engage in research or debate. The answer was a resounding "no". The publication brings out that witnesses have created chat rooms for the purpose of exchanging or debating their views....but Jehovah's people are receiving ample spiritual instruction at meetings, assemblies, conventions and through WT publications. "Thus the FDS does not endorse any websites that are not produced or organized under it oversight". Never ONCE does this or any other publication of theirs make any distinction between old/young/new/old/with doubts/without doubts/strong or weak. It is advised that ALL witnesses stay away from websites like this one. Again please advise why YOUR conscience overrides the counsel given by your leaders.
Egg - However, to my knowledge, the fact that you and many others might consider yourselves to be apostates does not mean that I view you as such. Some of you are misguided individuals that have never learned the truth. You should know that I do not rely upon the subjective judgments of others for the decisions I make and the conclusions I draw. If anyone's conscience should accuse the person, it is a sin for that person and they should not be here, but if one's conscience should excuse the person, then they commit no sin. (Romans 2:15; James 4:17)
According to the doctrine of your cult, whether a person is merely disfellowshipped or an all out apostate that preaches against the advancement of your cult, you are to treat that person the same. Exept in certain situations when family or business makes it necessary to converse.....Jehovah's Witnesses are not even supposed to say a greeting to a disfellowshipped one. This again begs the question.....why do you banter back and forth with people on this website that have admitted to being disfellowshipped or disassociated? Why is YOUR conscience allowed to trump the counsel of your leaders?
Egg - You should know that I do not rely upon the subjective judgments of others for the decisions I make and the conclusions I draw. If anyone's conscience should accuse the person, it is a sin for that person and they should not be here, but if one's conscience should excuse the person, then they commit no sin. (Romans 2:15; James 4:17) No one can decide for me who is an apostate and who isn't an apostate. Many of you have Bibles, but put more faith in the hype than the things that Bible teaches so that you parrot as doctrines what others believe to be sins, or rules or commands, when what is being spread is opinion, falsehood, lies like 'the Society instructs you not to post on sites like this one.'
Oh....what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive. Here is a quote from Egg on a different topic that we discussed last summer. "If anyone desires to buy a raffle ticket, he is free to do so; if anyone desires to wear a beard, he is free to wear one. If anyone feels he must continue his association with a disfellowshipped person, that's ok; he is free to do this as well, but in his engaging in any such conduct when admonished not to do so, he is not submitting to God's arrangement, and this is the point." So DJ....why do you feel that it is no longer necessary to "submit to God's arrangement" by associating on an unapproved website with unapproved associates? Have you "taken a stand against the arrangement of God?"
Egg - It is Jehovah's Witnesses as a body of Christians that interpret Bible doctrines.
Yup. You got it. All seven of them
Egg - There are those of us that know the difference between a recommendation that comes from the governing body and a command that comes from God.
Would you be so kind as to make a list of both and post it? That a ways.....lurkers may be able to decipher once and for all what rules they are allowed to break and what ones they may not.
Egg - Now it's true that certain ones among Jehovah's Witnesses -- not all of them being elders, for many sisters are participants in the propagation of such "commands of men" as well -- and many former Jehovah's Witnesses here like you and @cantleave are also just as guilty of engaging in spreading such propaganda about the Society's teaches and iron hand on God's congregation since that is what some of you did before you disassociated yourself or were disfellowshipped from it, but Jehovah's Witnesses do not teach such a "doctrine," and neither does the Society teach such a false doctrine, and repeating this mantra as to a violation of some rule imposed by some Grand Poobah of Jehovah's Witnesses against posting on websites such as this one over and over again simply won't make this false doctrine true.
Ah....how slyly you have made a little switcheroo with the words of iCeltic. iCeltic never said it was a DOCTRINE of JWs that you not post on websites such as this. He said that you received (from your leaders) INSTRUCTION not to post on such websites. I like how you changed INSTRUCTION into DOCTRINE and then proceeded to say that it is a lie that such DOCTRINE exists. You've set up your own straw man argument to defeat hoping no one would notice. Hmm.....I wonder where you learned how to do that? Again....no one says it is DOCTRINE that you not post here. But it is INSTRUCTION - that you choose to ignore. Your independent spirit is very troubling.
Egg - You are free to be judgmental and be a busybody in other people's affairs, @iCeltic, but Christians should not be judging others and should live quietly and be minding their own business and not be minding someone else's business. If you were a Christian, then you would to be paying attention to yourself and to what things you do and not be worrying about me and the things I do.
Egg - Christians are a free people, and as such are guided by their own consciences that have been trained to distinguish between right and wrong. You do not have to believe me. I'm fine with you and others on here believing whatever things you wish to believe, which is how it should be, with each one carrying his or her own load and each one proving to himself or herself the good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Agreed. But I'd still like to know why YOUR conscience allows you to disobey "Jehovah's arrangement."
Egg - Since no one would take advice from a pedophile on child-rearing
This is actually a very weak analogy. Accepting advice on child-rearing from a pedophile would not be out of the question. Perhaps that person has helpful advice from a medical standpoint....or from an educational standpoint. A good idea is a good idea regardless of who it may be coming from. Of much more importance would be not allowing such a person to come in contact with your children because that is where the danger lies. Come to think of it.....I am pretty sure the governing body has given similar advice. Something along the line of not going to websites like this one because that's where the danger of "spiritual predators" lies..... :)
Egg - If you are merely concerned about my salvation or my spiritual welfare, please don't be; I'm fine.
Are you sure? You've displayed a very independent attitude. You have rejected the advice of your leaders....which clearly shows that you are not "following Jehovah's arrangement". And you regularly converse with disfellowshipped individuals. I am not sure Jehovah wants such a Korah-like influence in his lovely "new system". You might want to think about repenting before "what's coming down the pike real soon now" gets here.
Egg - Perhaps you've noticed that at the beginning of this century a revamping occurred, so that the governing body as it formerly existed is no more; for example, the president of the Society does not sit on the governing body. Eventually, there will be no governing body as they are now known to us and all communications as far as our organized work is concerned will soon be coming through the elders.
Perhaps you should inform the governing body of these revelations of yours. They may need to make arrangements
Egg - Now things are changing and many of you that have monitoring God's organization for some reason -- maybe you do so as a backstop against the possibility that you were wrong and Jehovah's Witnesses is God's organization, I don't know -- have been left totally in the dark. But I'll continue to post here as long as I decide to do so until @Simon should declare JWN to be an apostate website.
It is quite simple. We enjoy watching the cult that we used to be a part of slowly crumble under the weight of its own hypocrisy. And I love that you'll post here until Simon should declare that it is an apostate website. The only people that you banter with on this site are those that are admittedly DFd or DAd.....or those that have faded. Regardless we are all promoting anti-Watchtower sentiments. But the TECHNICALITY that Simon has not OFFICIALLY deemed this to be an apostate site somehow makes it ok for you to be here? Exactly how does an official lablel (apostate site vs non-apostate site) change ANYTHING? Somehow God approves of you conversing with DFd and DAd people simply because the website hasn't been labled yet? That's awesome! I guess I'll let you come over and see my pet lion in the new system. After all, my label still says I am a witness.
-
iCeltic
Egg - I'm not a busybody in other peoples affairs, I'm not worrying about you. I'm challenging you, as are others here. You continually say things like 'gods organisation' , the vast majority of people here don't agree with you, we don't believe watchtower is gods organisation. You do, and that's fine by me, you are allowed your view, as are the rest of us here.
The simple facts of the matter are, this website is not a site for JWs to come and associate with like minded people, it's more a place to find help to recover from the damage watchtower has done to people's lives. Don't insult the people here by saying that it's ok for you to engage with us here. It's as ok for you to do that as it is to celebrate your birthday.
Slimboyfat - there's nothing wrong with that at all, many here have the best reasons for doing so, my point was that egg is saying its ok as a JW to post here, I was only saying that if that's the case, let all your JW brothers and sisters know that you do it. Of course he won't, because it's not.
-
Vidqun
In the "Great Quotes" thread Razziel's grandmother said something profound. I dedicate this quote to Djeggnog (with Razziel's permission of course): "If you keep on shitting in a circle, you will eventually step in it."
-
elderelite
Proverbs 10:19
-
smiddy
djeggnog
You have done it again
You have ignored my post where I stated "" DJEGGNOGG"" { VALIDATED MY POST} "{ THAT A GENERATION = APPROX. 50 YEARS DURATION }"
smiddy used Matt Ch.1 :17 to prove his point 48 years = 1 generation according to this scripture
djeggnogg used Luke Ch.3 :23-38 to refute my point of view.... which I beleive validates it....He beleives , "according to MY reasoning" a generation amounts to 53 years . { and isn`t that what I am saying ? A ball park figure mind you } But he then trys to cloud the issue by saying the lifespan of humans in earlier times is different from humans in later times . Thats a" phurphy"A persons age has no relevance to how long a generation is.Full stop.
The scripture I use and the scripture he uses is approximately 50 years ,no more
smiddy
-
djeggnog
@djeggnog wrote:
Christians are a free people, and as such are guided by their own consciences that have been trained to distinguish between right and wrong. You do not have to believe me. I'm fine with you and others on here believing whatever things you wish to believe, which is how it should be, with each one carrying his or her own load and each one proving to himself or herself the good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
@Bungi Bill wrote:
- Jehovahs Witnesses, though, are "free" only to do what they are told!
No amount of baffflegab / circumlocution / verbal diarrhea (or staight out codswhallop) from you or anyone else changes that.
If you read above I didn't write "Christians might be free people"; you did. If you should be one of Jehovah's Witnesses and you, as one of Jehovah's Witnesses, should turn over your brain to someone else to obey whatever that person says, then you are not free, but in slavery. Nothing you might say in response to me will change this.
@iCeltic:
If there is no problem with you posting here post your congregation and position held, if any, in that congregation.
I'd be willing to do that if you can inform me how I might do so without compromising my anonymity. I live on the West Coast and in California, I'm well known. Pitch me a suggestion and I'll consider it.
@iCeltic wrote:
Djeggnog - when watchtower changes a doctrine, you believe it, when watchtower demands that you live a certain way, you do it. When watchtower instructs you not to post on sites such as this you, what, ignore it?
@djeggnog wrote:
Let me see if I understand what you are saying here: Your conscience tells you that I should not be posting messages to JWN? Really?!? You truly believe that I should be obeying your conscience? Seriously?!? [¶] You have been misled to believe something that really isn't true or taught by God's organization.
@iCeltic wrote:
My conscience? What on earth are you talking about? I couldnt care less if you posted here or not, you are of no threat to me, but it is clear to me that Jehovah's Witnesses should not post on these sites, I remember hearing that myself from the kingdom hall when I went.
If you don't know what I'm talking about here, then maybe I shouldn't be talking to you at all. I was talking about how someone demands that Jehovah's Witnesses live in a particular way or else, and you then went on to cite as an example of one of such demand my posting messages to JWN. Again, you raised this as an issue, so I would expect you to know why it was you raised it. If you ran JWN and didn't want me here, you could delete my account so that I could no longer post here, but you don't own JWN, so what business is it of yours what I do? Do you exercise any authority over me? No, you don't. Do you believe you speak for Jehovah's Witnesses? No, you don't. Do you believe you speak for the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses? No, you don't. Do you believe you speak for the Society? No, you don't. Do you consider yourself to be a sane, reasonable person? No, you cannot possibly think you are.
Either you are lying or the brothers delivering talks on not even looking let alone taking part in conversations with, as you would call them, apostates, are lying.
Those assigned parts on circuit or district assemblies are given an outline, and they can stick to what the outline says, but they can also digress from it, and often "digress from it" is what they did. But for you to say that I am lying about this is an interesting statement, one that you cannot prove, because you're like a fundamentalist in that if you should read something and believe that you understand what you have read, then even if you should be 70%, 90% or 100% wrong, you refuse to look inward or consider the possibility that you really didn't understand what it was you read after all. I've known many active Jehovah's Witnesses that are like you, and these folks could be described by three (3) words: (1) opinionated, (2) ignorant and (3) perverse. I am telling you the truth here, but you cannot listen to my words, so as far as you are concerned, I am a liar. I accept that to you this is what I am.
@cantleave:
Like all cowards Idiotnog wouldn't dare give his identity on here. He knows he shouldn't be on here. His stupidity is quite entertaining though.
I wonder if you will ever tire of all of this name-calling you do in the messages you post directed to me. How can you possibly call me an idiot or call me stupid? No one may have been courageous enough to give you their assessment of you as a communicator here on JWN, so I won't either, but it's ridiculous that I can actually count of reading such messages from you, @cantleave. And to think that you were formerly an elder. My, my.
As to my compromising my own anonymity here by divulging anything personal about me, including what positions I've held (this sounds a bit like a request made during a job interview!) and the names of the congregation with whom I now associate or may have associated in the past for no other reason than because you are curious about me and want to learn a little something more about me than you know at present is flattering, @cantleave, but I would be an idiot to give such information to a stranger, someone that I wouldn't even invite into my home based solely on the darkness I discern in many your messages.
I didn't come to JWN looking to make friends, but if I did, there's nothing about you to which I would be drawn so that I would want to become your friend. I wouldn't put it past you to be so deranged in mind as to want to stalk me in real life and all that entails due to your murderous disdain and hatred for the Society, since even though I don't know why you are no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses, I do know that there is a reason, and that if it were for pedophilia or rape or any of such things, you wouldn't be as willing to 'fess up and disclose to us here what that reason is, but maybe you will. Who knows? You could be one sick bastard that only someone not of sound mind would befriend. I don't know and I don't want to know you better, @cantleave, ok?
You say I know I shouldn't be here, but you're wrong: I know no such thing, for as an adult, I decide for myself what it is I will or will not do, and while I readily submit to God's organization, there are things that my conscience will never allow me to do, which is the kind of freedom I enjoy as a Christian. Put another way, I don't do abject anything, and what someone described as "doing what one is told" sounds to me like to tend to think of men that are Jehovah's Witnesses as wimps or sissies. What about you? Were you a wimp or a sissy, doing what everything you were told to do by someone else? I'm wondering how candid you are about publicly divulging such things about yourself since I don't see how you would lose your anonymity by doing so. Why don't you humor me, @cantleave? Prove that you don't suffer from cowardice and tell me a few things about yourself that you don't really want people to know. Go ahead.
@Vanderhoven7 wrote:
The problem is that Luke 16:19-31 is not a parable.
@djeggnog wrote:
Ok.
@Vanderhoven7 wrote:
Think of how this story was understood at the time.
@djeggnog wrote:
Why should I when you don't seem to have done any thinking?
@Vanderhoven7 wrote:
Very dismissive of you DJ.
My intent wasn't to convey dismissiveness of you or your statement, but to point out what is apparently obvious to me, even though it isn't to you: You cannot possibly have concluded that Luke 16:19-31 isn't a parable, not if you had done any thinking.
Look: I really don't want to hijack this thread any more so than it has already been hijacked, since it is supposed to be about the recent interpretation of Jehovah's Witnesses regarding the expression, "this generation," used by Jesus at Matthew 24:34, and the only reason I mentioned this parable was to make a point about the need to interpret the expression "bosom position of Abraham" just as there is a need to interpret the expression, "this generation," so I'll just make this one obvious point regarding this parable at Luke 16:22-24:
"Also, the rich man died and was buried. And in Hades he lifted up his eyes, he existing in torments, and he saw Abraham afar off and Lazarus in the bosom position with him. So he called and said, 'Father Abraham, have mercy on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in anguish in this blazing fire.'"
The rich man is buried in Hades, right, and yet what does he do in this parable? The dead man speaks! The dead cannot speak, but the rich man says something to Abraham, who he (what?) "saw," meaning that this dead man is said to have used his eyes to see Abraham (where?) "afar off," wherever "afar off" is. But this dead guy didn't use see Abraham from "afar off," but as I said he used his power of speech to speak to Abraham from "afar off," saying "Father Abraham, have mercy of me." I'll stop right here. Are you prepared to tell me that you read these three verses from this account about the rich man and Lazarus and think this story is about a rich man that "died and was buried" and while he was dead was able to see and speak?
But why should my alleged lack of thought determine yours?
What? I didn't say this, did I? Nothing you say or don't say can affect my thoughts. What exactly do you mean by saying this? I don't understand what you mean here.
@djeggnog wrote:
Or, more specifically since we are talking about interpretation here, you may recall in Jesus' parable about the rich man and Lazarus, we read at Luke 16:22 Jesus' relating to us how it was that following Lazarus' death, he was "carried off by the angels to the bosom position of Abraham" (NWT) or how he "was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom" (KJV). Most people today would interpret the expression, "bosom position of Abraham" or "Abraham's bosom" to mean that Jesus was saying that Lazarus had died, but Jehovah's Witnesses interpret this expression differently to mean that Lazarus had come into God's favor, just as we read at John 1:18 how Jesus had come to be "in the bosom position with the Father" (NWT) or was "in the bosom of the Father" (KJV).
@Vanderhoven7 wrote:
Certainly assuming Luke 16:19-31 is a parable reveals that the lack of thought is your own. As such, your "Bosom of Abraham" analogy fails as justification for your organization's practice of assigning any meaning it wants to scriptural terms.
Well, I believe you're mistaken about the rich man and Lazarus not being a parable. I shared with you what I believe it to be and I'm ok with you believing differently than I do, but thinking doesn't seem to be your forté, your thing. I just don't see how you can think that Luke 16:19-31 is not a parable.
FYI, the Pharisees in Jesus' audience considered Abraham's Bosom a literal place.....the paradise side of Hades.
Ok, @Vanderhoven7.
@slimboyfat:
What's wrong with being anonymous?
I think @iCeltic is only interested in my not being anonymous. He is perfectly fine with your being anonymous.
@djeggnog wrote:
Let me see if I understand what you are saying here: Your conscience tells you that I should not be posting messages to JWN? Really?!? You truly believe that I should be obeying your conscience? Seriously?!?
@outsmartthesystem wrote:
The challenge was NOT for you to adopt another man's conscience. Never once did iCeltic ask you to adopt his conscience.
Please read my reply to @iCeltic. I see no need to repeat it for you here.
This is a lie. The question box in the September 2007 KM asks the question as to whether or not the FDS endorses independent groups who engage in research or debate. The answer was a resounding "no".
How exactly did I lie? This "question box" article to which you refer seeks whether the Society endorses or sanctions websites that it doesn't itself set up, and the answer is it doesn't provide oversight for any website other than its own websites. You have read way more into this "question box" article than is there.
@djeggnog wrote:
You should know that I do not rely upon the subjective judgments of others for the decisions I make and the conclusions I draw. If anyone's conscience should accuse the person, it is a sin for that person and they should not be here, but if one's conscience should excuse the person, then they commit no sin. (Romans 2:15; James 4:17) No one can decide for me who is an apostate and who isn't an apostate. Many of you have Bibles, but put more faith in the hype than the things that Bible teaches so that you parrot as doctrines what others believe to be sins, or rules or commands, when what is being spread is opinion, falsehood, lies like 'the Society instructs you not to post on sites like this one.'
@outsmartthesystem wrote:
According to the doctrine of your cult, whether a person is merely disfellowshipped or an all out apostate that preaches against the advancement of your cult....
Look, young man: You don't get to tell me what doctrines Jehovah's Witnesses believe or to what doctrines I should adhere. If you want to ask me a question, ask away, but I would never allow someone else to tell me what the beliefs of my own faith are or what they believe I ought to be doing to live in compliance with them. You're a very silly man.
@outsmartthesystem:
Oh....what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive. Here is a quote from Egg on a different topic that we discussed last summer.
You're off-topic.
@djeggnog wrote:
Even if this were true, what things the Society suggests or admonishes doesn't rise to the level of a command from the Almighty, which is the very thing that we find Jesus condemning about the teaching of the Pharisees, or they proscribes rules that took on the dimension of commands and taught these "commands of men as doctrines." Contrary to what you believe, the Society doesn't promulgate doctrines, nor does it change Bible doctrines. It is Jehovah's Witnesses as a body of Christians that interpret Bible doctrines.
@outsmartthesystem:
Yup. You got it. All seven of them
I was referring to all Jehovah's Witnesses, all seven million plus, not the current seven members that comprise the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses. You are the one saying mindless things about the governing body being responsible for all of the interpretations to which Jehovah's Witnesses adhere.
Tell me this, @outsmartthesystem: Of the seven members of the governing body -- Herd, Jackson, Lett, Lösch, Morris, Pierce and Splane -- which of these provided the adjustment that Jehovah's Witnesses received back in 1942 regarding the change in our understanding of Bible chronology to which all Jehovah's Witnesses adhere today? If you don't know, that's ok, but I only ask this question to point out how stupid this idea of yours that seven men are responsible for how all Jehovah's Witnesses interpret Scripture.
@djeggnog wrote:
Believe me: There are those of us that know the difference between a recommendation that comes from the governing body and a command that comes from God.
@outsmartthesystem wrote:
Would you be so kind as to make a list of both and post it? That a ways.....lurkers may be able to decipher once and for all what rules they are allowed to break and what ones they may not.
I think this to be a stupid request. If you don't know the different between a recommendation that comes from someone and a command that comes from the Almighty, then you're lost and I'd doubt that anyone will be able to help you. Maybe someone would be willing to help you, but I'm not willing to offer you any assistance with this. Frankly, like I told @Vidqun recently, I wouldn't know how to help someone that doesn't understand basic concepts.
@iCeltic wrote:
Djeggnog - when watchtower changes a doctrine, you believe it, when watchtower demands that you live a certain way, you do it. When watchtower instructs you not to post on sites such as this you, what, ignore it?
@djeggnog wrote:
Now things are changing and many of you that have monitoring God's organization for some reason -- maybe you do so as a backstop against the possibility that you were wrong and Jehovah's Witnesses is God's organization, I don't know -- have been left totally in the dark. But I'll continue to post here as long as I decide to do so until @Simon should declare JWN to be an apostate website.
@outsmartthesystem wrote:
It is quite simple. We enjoy watching the cult that we used to be a part of slowly crumble under the weight of its own hypocrisy....
This was part of my response to a question asked by @iCeltic. I don't recall asking you a question and I don't care what things you do to bide your time until the great tribulation arrives. You don't need to explain anything to me. I don't care what you are doing or why you are doing it, @outsmartthesystem. Even though it seems you want to take out your anger against Jehovah's Witnesses or probably, more specifically, against certain ones among Jehovah's Witnesses, your beef is with someone else, because I don't know you or want to know you. Don't use me as a substitute because you lack the fortitude to buy a plane ticket to go and call out the ones against whom your anger rages.
After that stunt you pulled awhile back in posting one of the longest and pointless messages I've ever seen posted to a thread on JWN, you should feel fortunate that I posted any response to any of your posts in this thread. You are someone that loves to argue over minutiae, and I never forget stunts like the one you pulled, and be advised that I may pass on responding to any subsequent post you might make to this thread unless those posts should be on topic.
@iCeltic:
I'm not a busybody in other peoples affairs, I'm not worrying about you. I'm challenging you, as are others here. You continually say things like 'gods organisation' , the vast majority of people here don't agree with you, we don't believe watchtower is gods organisation. You do, and that's fine by me, you are allowed your view, as are the rest of us here.
For whom do you speak on JWN? I see you write about how "the vast majority of people here" and "we" and "us," but did any of these folks give you their proxy to speak on their behalf? If not, then from whom didn't you receive their proxy? I don't believe you speak for anyone but yourself.
The simple facts of the matter are, this website is not a site for JWs to come and associate with like minded people, it's more a place to find help to recover from the damage watchtower has done to people's lives. Don't insult the people here by saying that it's ok for you to engage with us here. It's as ok for you to do that as it is to celebrate your birthday.
Tell you what: Mind you own business and don't concern yourself with what I am doing. If you want, I will start ignoring your posts so as not to interfere with the expression of more of such delusional viewpoints, ok? Would that work for you, @iCeltic?
Slimboyfat - there's nothing wrong with that at all, many here have the best reasons for doing so, my point was that egg is saying its ok as a JW to post here, I was only saying that if that's the case, let all your JW brothers and sisters know that you do it. Of course he won't, because it's not.
Many active Jehovah's Witnesses know that I post messages to this website. They read the printed copies of the ones to which I have posted here. Contrary to what you believe, it is not a secret to everyone that I post messages here, but as Paul stated, if a person should be comfortable eating vegetables, why put a stumbling block before him or give him a cause for tripping for it just wouldn't be loving to cause another to stumble over what things we eat that his faith doesn't permit him to eat. Understand? If not, that's tough, but maybe someone here will explain the point I have made here (that you don't understand) to you.
@djeggnog
-
iCeltic
Egg - you more than twist my words and are insulting, I withdraw from this conversation.