Why... (page 5)

Tina

Hi larc,
Wayne sounds like another BS artist to me lol..... his postings dont make any real sense,just another proselytizer,,,,,,we used to get em all the time on h20 :> Cheers,Tina

I thought you had a modicum of education in science in general, and the behavioral sciences in particular. Now, you are leaving the discussion of the behavioral sciences and running to a discourse on religion. You ask me what psychologists think of the "world king". Your question has about as much relevence as asking what astronomers think about pizza. The subject are unrelated, just like the areas of theism and science are unrelated and mutually exclusive.

I can't tell if you are naive or you are baiting me.

outnfree

I have a question for Wayne: WHY ARE YOU HERE?

You are ALLOWED to be here, granted, because of your DF'd state. You are even WELCOME here, even though not all of your views will be tolerated or accepted. But if you so fervently believe that the FDS and the WTS are God's workers here on earth, WHY are you NOT LISTENING TO THEIR DIRECTIVES? You are not supposed to be mingling with apostates. Espcially not on the internet, where you're not even supposed to go to sites that are for happy & active JWs. In fact, you're not even supposed to spread encouraging stories that you may have received via e-mail from people you DO know, because you can't be certain that the stories are true (would a Witness LIE?!!!) Doing any of these things will CERTAINLY hinder you from working your way back in!!!
If you do equate the law of Christ with the a-nationalistic organization that is the Watchtower, then you really should not be here.
So why are you?

Just wondering,
outnfree

Wayne

lark

You can read. I asked what a psychologist thought of the " WORD " King. Listen, my friend, you are the one who "skeward" me--with a diatribe of your own dichotomy of who was worthy to use his or her credentials.

Thus, I ask, intrapersonally, what does the idea of a "Kingdom" mean to you in which the 144,000 "Kings" are public servants?

Sorry if I sound difficult. I am sheep like; but, I do resent being held up to ridicule by a superior mind as having been skeward.

WMF

Wayne

outnfree

--go figure. I know that many are out as a result of human error. My beef is not against any of you--I only wonder why after condemning the human errors, set in the examples of the super fine modern day apostles, that you move on to condemning the teachings of the Christ; and, yet, you too hang around herein with other JW's of the past and present.

HUH?

Tina

wayne,
Many are out for other reasons than human error. Many of these (including myself) have explored other thoughts and philosophies,as we researched christianity and found it wanting. Many dont follow the teachings of judeo-christianity,but dont condemn others who do.
That's what 'movin on 'is all about. We all find our own paths,go on our own journeys.
And you didnt clarify anything that larc asked you yet. Tina

Wayne

Hi Tina

No, I don't intend to go there with him either.

Bright Blessings

Wayne Michael

Wayne

Ok lark, I will walk with you this one last turn.

You say:

You ask me what psychologists think of the "world king". Your question has about as much relevence as asking what astronomers think about pizza. The subject are unrelated, just like the areas of theism and science are unrelated and mutually exclusive.

I reply: [although, once more I remind you that I used the term "word" and not "world"]

In the "New System" scientists will be a "word" that once was a noun used to label those who attempted to study the dynamics of the works of the Great Theocrat Jehovah God.

If this is not a site, which I understood it to be, that studies theism than what are we doing here?

The ball is in your court; [ if you wish to continue ]however, at your previous direction, I will use theocratic debate as the sweet spot of my serve.

Wayne Michael

Tina

You're not a well person.Nuff said

larc

Wayne,

I miss read the word, that you pointed out. However, it doesn't change my point. Science has nothing to say about the King, the 144,000 or any aspect of religion. Now, I miss read the word. You then, miss stated the question. You first ask what psychologists thought about the King, then later you asked me what I thought about the king. Those are two different questions entirely. Now, on the business of skewering. I skewered your ideas, especially you claim of status to back an assertion. You agreed that you had erred in that regard, and I respect that. I never skewered you personally, which was the point of my statement in another context. I never hurled insults at you as some others did. In fact, I have urged others not to do that to others on the other thread.

Even though you irritated me right from the get go, and you are apparantly irritated now that doesn't affect my opinion of you. I think you are a sincere, intelligent young man. I think the reason that you received so much heat on this board is that many here have had very tragic experiences. To them, the discussion of WT policy and/or what elders should do is not very satisfying. If you could show stats that indicated that the problem discussed here was rare, it wouldn't make them feel any better. They were injured.

Why...

Share this