The Protect the Children Sham

by HildaBingen 123 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

• 

  RedhorseWoman

  The wt has got the trinity, hellfire, sex issues evolution right. they also know God and his name. So there.

  And you know this as an absolute fact....how?
• 

  Dutchie

  Mys, I am sure that you are a perfectly wonderful, good hearted person. I am going to assume that anyway. However, when you responded to Alan F's post, among the many absolutely astounding and ridiculous statements you made, you made this one:

  Alan:
  We see no reason for changing the figures -- nor could we change them if we would. They are, we believe, God's dates, not ours.":

  Mis:
  That is my point. Russell did not say that they was his prophecies. He said they was gods.

  Mis, do you see what you are saying? Can you understand from the above isolated answer that you gav to Alan F. just what is involved? Russell said that his prediction of dates came directly from Jehovah. Do you get that point?

  You are right, Russell did not claim that the predictions were his. Actually, since the prediction did not come true, it would have been better if they came from a mere mortal. But no, Russell said that they came from God and so we must conclude that the prediction God gave him was wrong! Can you see that now?

  Please Mis, I know that you want to win the argument but to overlook the obvious is simply inexcusable.

  Sometimes you have got to humble yourself and let the other person have his due. Otherwise, it is not a meaningful debate. It only aids in making you appear unlearned.
• 

  Athanasius

  Hi Hilda,

  It seems that you are the most prolific poster these days. You seem to be everywhere so it is impossible to miss a comment or two of yours. However, I noted in your earlier posts that you claimed to be a Christian Mystic, independent of the Watch Tower, defending the Jehovah's Witnesses. Yet today you have admitted to being a Jehovah's Witness in complete agreement with Watch Tower policy. So would I be correct in saying that you are a Jehovah's Witness Mystic?

  As a Mystic, were you greatly influenced by Madam Blavatsky's THE SECRET DOCTRINE? I would enjoy hearing your comments on Madam Blavatsky's most important work.

  Sincerely,

  Athanasius
• 

  Athanasius

  Greetings Hilda,

  How do you reconcile your Mystic beliefs with current Watch Tower doctrine?

  Sincerely,

  Athanasius
• 

  mystikool

  :It seems that you are the most prolific poster these days. You seem to be everywhere so it is impossible to miss a comment or two of yours. However, I noted in your earlier posts that you claimed to be a Christian Mystic, independent of the Watch Tower, defending the Jehovah's Witnesses. Yet today you have admitted to being a Jehovah's Witness in complete agreement with Watch Tower policy. So would I be correct in saying that you are a Jehovah's Witness Mystic?:

  I think my original claim was that I answer to no one but god. I still hold that position. But I also see no need to be independent from the wt. As long as they abide by the bible, I abide in them. So you could call me a jw mystic.

  :As a Mystic, were you greatly influenced by Madam Blavatsky's THE SECRET DOCTRINE? I would enjoy hearing your comments on Madam Blavatsky's most important work.:

  I have not been infleuced by Blavatsky. My infleunces were Hildegard and Catherine of Siena. I also like Denis.

  And you can find the artiel on Kung by using the wt cd. It is there.
• 

  herbert

  Hilda-The-Brainless-Trollette,

  A fundamental requirement for any theory is that it be falsifiable. The WTS's views on education have put you rather at a handicap. Perhaps you should consult an elementary text on physics or chemistry.

  :The wt does not lie. at times certain ideas have been inadequate or the truth has been missapprehended. To missapprehend is not to engage in the act of propogating falsehood.

  When the WT wrote the "Divine Purpose" book it packed it with lies. Same thing with the Creation book which is chock-a-block with lies filched from Creationist literature. It refuses to admit or correct those statements which makes them liars. Similarly, it, through its spokesmen, liars such as JR Brown and Paul Gillies, has lied about child abuse, the UN affair, etc. WT routinely lies to the press in a rather transparent attempt at "theocratic warfare" which is simply lying by another name.

  :Russell never propheside in the foretelling the future sense. That is the last time I will repeat that. He gave his understanding of God's prophecies. the problem was epistemological and not ontotheological.

  You are degenerating into poor parsing which is a sure sign that your "brain" is on overload. What, pray tell, is pointing to the end of the world in 1913/1914 but making a prediction about the future? This was done by invoking God's authority which makes it false prophecying. In any event, it was false teaching which is just as bad.

  : The wt has got the trinity, hellfire, sex issues evolution right. they also know God and his name. So there.

  LOL. There's no way to disprove the trinity. The Bible speaks of Gehenna as a place of torment so, again, there is no way to disprove the concept of eternal torture by God for sinners. On sex issues, you probably are aware of the Society's flip flops on oral and anal sex aren't you? How is that "getting it right?" The WTS's view of masturbation is nonscriptural. On evolution, well, any religion that attempts to disprove a scientific fact by using deliberate misquotations hardly has a case.

  Although, amusingly enough, by your earlier "arguments" the theory of evolution is not false, is it?

  Herbert
• 

  mystikool

  :

  The wt has got the trinity, hellfire, sex issues evolution right. they also know God and his name. So there.

  And you know this as an absolute fact....how?:

  Through God's bible, his spirit and common sensical logic. Trinity is nonbiblical and incoherent. God cannot burn people forever in hell. Sex outside marriage is wrong. Evolution is an inadequate cosmogenic theory.

  dutch:

  Mis:
  That is my point. Russell did not say that they was his prophecies. He said they was gods.

  Mis, do you see what you are saying? Can you understand from the above isolated answer that you gav to Alan F. just what is involved? Russell said that his prediction of dates came directly from Jehovah. Do you get that point?:

  You are not understanding what Russell said. Russell thought he was just repeating what the bible said. He did not come up with his own dates. He was not saying that his predictions (he never made any) came from God. Russell wasm explaining God's bible.

  :You are right, Russell did not claim that the predictions were his. Actually, since the prediction did not come true, it would have been better if they came from a mere mortal. But no, Russell said that they came from God and so we must conclude that the prediction God gave him was wrong! Can you see that now?:

  You can also conclude that Russell missapprehended God's bible. You do not have to think that God gave him wrong information. I have caught Mr F in a lie. He now wants to shift ground. We figured that would happen. Too bad for mr f. the wt did not use the possessive "their prophecies."
• 

  dungbeetle

  Huh?

  You'll stay with the Watchtower as long as it follows the Bible.

  1) The Bible says abstain from blood. JW's take blood in every form in which it occurs except 5; and even then that's okay once if you are repentant; and even then it's okay if it's cow's blood.

  2) Where in the Bible does it say blood transfusions (which didn't exist then) is an expulsion/shunning offense.

  Which is it?

  In Canada, Shunned Father's daughter stated that she would refuse one form of blood, but would be willing to take in a different form of blood as treatment. Incredulous, the Judge asked her what the difference is.

  She replied, basically that "Watchtower SAYS the other form is okay."

  B...U...S...T...E..D

  BEFORE YOU TRY AND REMOVE THE STICK FROM MY ARSE, REMOVE THE TELEPHONE POLE FROM YOUR OWN ARSE.

  
• 

  mystikool

  :A fundamental requirement for any theory is that it be falsifiable. The WTS's views on education have put you rather at a handicap. Perhaps you should consult an elementary text on physics of chemistry.:

  Just because a theory is falsifiable does not mean that when another comes along to take its place that it is false. Ptolemy's model was an inadequate explanation. It was not false. A better model replaced it that fit the data better. That does not mean that what Ptolemy said was false. The problem is with your perception, dear.

  :Russell never propheside in the foretelling the future sense. That is the last time I will repeat that. He gave his understanding of God's prophecies. the problem was epistemological and not ontotheological.

  You are denerating into poor parsing which is a sure sign that your "brain" is on overload. What, pray tell, is pointing to the end of the world in 1913/1914 but making a prediction about the future. This was done by invoking God's authority which makes it false prophecying. In any event, it was false teaching which is just as bad.:

  Russell and other just repeated what they thought God's bible was saying. they did not predict anything. they made explanatory attempts.

  :LOL. There' sno way to disprove the trinity. The Bible speaks of Gehenna as a place of torment so, again, there is no way to disprove the concept of eternal torture by God for sinners.:

  It is easy to disprove trinity. the bible does not teach it and it is not logical. Gehenna is a figurative place of torture. do you also believe worms are in hell just waiting to crawl all over your dead bod?

  :On sex issues, you probably are aware of the Society's flip flops on oral and anal sex aren't you.:

  I was talking about homsexuality, premarital sex and adultery.

  :The WTS's view of masturbation is unscriptural.:

  They say it is a bad habit. what is unbiblical bout that?
  
  :On evolution, well, any religion that attempts to disprove a scientific fact by using deliberate misquotations hardly has a case.

  Although, amusingly enough, by your earlier "arguments" the theory of evolution is not false, is it?:

  Evolution is not false. It is inadequate. The bible does not teach it and it is not logical according to common sense.

  Use yours.
• 

  RedhorseWoman

  Through God's bible, his spirit and common sensical logic. Trinity is nonbiblical and incoherent. God cannot burn people forever in hell. Sex outside marriage is wrong. Evolution is an inadequate cosmogenic theory.

  Sweetie, what you are saying is that you BELIEVE this particular interpretation of the Bible to be fact. Unfortunately, bunnybutt, that does not make your belief, FACT.

  You do NOT know that these beliefs are FACT....they are opinions and beliefs....no more, no less.

  So....the JWs MAY be correct on one or more of these points....OR....they may not be correct.