A comment I heard tonight

by Generic Man 300 Replies latest jw experiences

  • jeanniebeanz
    jeanniebeanz

    Ok, Schizm. Let's play a guessing game. I'll try to guess the secret and you say 'yes' or 'no'.

    The Governing Body made the decision to join an organization which stood in defiance of God as ruler of the world in order to practice Theocratic Warfare, in hopes that by rubbing elbows with the politicians it would help them gain inroads into legalizing the witnesses in countries opposed to them. They knew that this was wrong according to everything that they have printed about the UN, but they felt that it is okay to lie to a governmental authority which is backed by Satan because God himself condoned his followers lying to government figures in the OT (according to them).

    Am I getting warm?

    J

  • OldSoul
    OldSoul
    Schizm: On the other hand, look who it is that hasn't caught onto what the WTS has done by becoming an NGO with the UN. You're absolutely hilarious, OldSoul. Talking about cheap intertainment!

    While I know for certain why they associated themselves to the UN, I also suspect I know your thoughts on the matter. You are a conspiracy theorist and full of Shiite. You have only conjecture to substantiate your view, but I will humor you by bringing your fantasy into the open:

    Schizm finds out about the WTS associating to the NGO. A reasonable person would investigate the allegation, but Schizm isn't reasonable. He is mildly troubled at first though. Then, at the unlikeliest of times, it hits him like a bolt out of the blue (probably guided by Holy Spirit).

    "What better way to see who is truly loyal no matter what?" postulates Schizm, as he leans forward to wipe a remnant of feces from his anus. A glint in his eye, he begins to mentally weave a tall tale of Theocratically Acceptable Deception (TAD for short) designed to catch the unstable in a trap! Over time, this becomes his only way to justify the behaviors he sees. He is presented with a paradox of actions that plainly do not match stated belief, and he invents an imaginary solution that allows him to continue associating with Jehovah's Witnesses.

    Of course, he only has a TAD for proof, and a TAD of logic to support this tall tale. But for him, a TAD is plenty. "Speak truth, each one with his neighbor." "If anyone stumbles one of these little ones..." "...they bind up heavy loads but are unwiling to budge them with their finger." "...avoid even the appearance of evil." "...not to be stumbling anyone..."

    Such plain spoken principles must simply be a TAD too inconvenient for Schizm to think about, because that would mean the unthinkable -- reality is real. Br-r-r-r!

    Schizm, I have a very good imagination. I prefer to avoid relying too much on it, though. For some reason, I have the strange idea I am supposed to be using "intellect" and "logic" instead. For some reason, I have this notion that I should be testing what I am told for error. Oh, wait! That's simply because I don't twist what the Bible says!

    Romans 12:1, 2 is plain. "Power of reason?" Logikos. Logic.

    1 John 4:1 is plain. "Test?" The root word means put to the test. Try. Prove. The same word is used in Romans 12:2 for "prove."

    Hebrews 5:14 is plain. "Distinguish?" The root word is diakrinos. It basically means to judge between, to decide between, to discern the character or nature of, to choose with understanding. Diakrinos is a dangerous concept for Jehovah's Witnesses. You should stop it, if you want to remain one of Jehovah's Witnesses. A Watchtower said that diakrinos leads to presumptive doubts about the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses. The Bible says diakrinos leads to spiritual maturity. I already know which source you trust more.

    OldSoul

  • EvilForce
    EvilForce

    For anyone trying to reason with Schizm....

    I clicked on his profile and reviewed his post history and various postings. Please take a moment of your time to review these posts and judge for yourselves if continued debate is likely to produce any answers, biblical support, or honest exchange.

  • OldSoul
    OldSoul
    You're also a hypocrite.

    Wow, Master Member of an apostate Web site with over 800 posts, many with liberal usage of LMAO! They say it takes one to know one. I believe you are imposing your own sad state onto those around you. It is a psychological trick used as a survival mechanism by many cultists. Don't worry, it has a name. You can be helped. It is called "transference."

    Actually, I can't explain my being "in good standing." I don't attend meetings. I don't report field activity. I don't contribute any moneys. Perhaps it is because of hopeful nepotism that I still retain my "good standing" status. However, I am in good standing despite my absence. Since I am currently in the process of communicating with the "Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses" (the newest legal cover name for the mouthpiece of the Faithful and Discreet Slave) on the subject of NGO Affiliation with the assistance of the local BOE, perhaps you had best reserve comment about my spirituality lest God judge you harshly as one for whom it would be better to have had a millstone about your neck and a big gulp of salt water.

    I am just a publisher. I have no position of authority beyond "husband" in any congregation. I am a "little one," so I caution you to take greatest care how you treat me. So far, your lumbering oafishness and coarse manner has reaffirmed courses of action I had not yet decided with certainty.

    OldSoul

  • OldSoul
    OldSoul
    EvilForce: if continued debate is likely to produce any answers, biblical support, or honest exchange.

    Your point is well taken and noted. I did a similar thing with Schizm the first time I got sucked in. Then I posted a long exchange with "A Friend In Need" and realized that there is some value in debating people like Schizm whether there is any immediate result for Schizm or not.

    Schizm's reasoning is very abductive, oddly perverted in a manner familiar to any who have spoken at length with Jehovah's Witnesses. Circular logic and demeaning questions are the order of the day, necessary elements to avoid looking realistically at their own beliefs and measuring them honestly against the Bible. While I have hope that Schizm will learn to think for him or herself, it is not that hope which causes me to continue despite a foregone outcome.

    Schizm will give me endless opportunities to show others, by example, how to calmly defend their minds against perverse and controlling reasoning with good humor.

    Respectfully,
    OldSoul

  • HappyDad
    HappyDad

    Schism to Old Soul...............

    You are a liar.

    You're also a hypocrite.

    And he had the nerve to say that in my last post........all I did was call him names........

    What names? Nothing such as he called Old Soul.

    He makes no sense at all.

    HappyDad

  • EvilForce
    EvilForce

    Old Soul...

    The phrase "Do not cast your pearls among swines" comes to mind. But hey, it's your time and effort and if you can keep your cool, more
    power to you :)

    I think I would rather try to convince my living room wall to move since I think it'd have a higher chance of success.

  • toreador
    toreador

    Scholar and schitzims may be related.

  • jeanniebeanz
    jeanniebeanz

    I think that A Friend In Need is their mom... hahaha Insanity runs in the family, I'm sure. At any rate, watching them all get their a**es kicked soundly by people on this board, or watching them lose it when caught making an obviously flawed statement is educational...

    The last thing he said to me was edited out by a mod, so I missed it. I'm sure it was a hate-filled testament to the lack of character of this individual and all like him.

    J

  • Schizm
    Schizm

    OldSoul has typed a couple of long-winded, meaningless posts, and still hasn't attempted to address the things I said to him earlier. Which is it, OldSoul: Is it that you're just to blind to have seen what I said? Or is it simply that you prefer to NOT answer because you haven't any answer? I'll bet it's the latter--that you have no answer.

    You said that in Ehud's case "there was no deceit". Here again is what I had said to you:

    There indeed was deceit, even according to your perception of the matter. Do you actually think that Eglon believed that Ehud had THAT SORT of message from God? Certainly, if Eglon hadn't been fooled he would never have dismissed his guards in the first place.--Schizm.

    Now are you going to address the question or not? Probably not, would be my guess. Oh you will have plenty of irrelevant things to say though, because you enjoy running off at the mouth.

    .

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit