AlanF

Joined

• started 104 topics
• posted 4,636 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by AlanF

• 
  82

  Russell as "That Servant"; Re: Dunsscot

  by AlanF in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  since dunsscot claims he's leaving this board, and in answer to my specific request for a committment to answer all replies i might give to his latest replies to my previous dissections of his nonsense he said that he would not, i won't be giving a detailed reply to him.. however, dunsscot's posts contain a number of statements that prove how easily the watchtower society fools the jw community by lying to it, either outright or in so many words.. in this post we will examine a fiction that the society has managed to get poor people like dunsscot to believe with respect to c. t. russell, namely, that russell never claimed that he was "the faithful and wise servant" of matthew 24:45. the simple truth is that russell did indeed believe it.

  the fact that he did was printed in the watch tower, and the society itself taught it until about 1927.. let's first look at the context of dunsscot's denial of this important bible student teaching.

  in the set of exchanges below, the reader can see that dunsscot is attempting to deny that jw leaders claim to be god's exclusive earthy spokesmen.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  AlanF

  Every time you post, Dummy, you get yourself in deeper.

  :: ... Take this trivial matter of what "QED" means. In an earlier thread, Maximus expressed his opinion that the full expression should be "Quod Erat Demonstratum". You expressed yours that it should be "Quod Erat Demonstrandum". Not knowing Latin, I expressed no opinion. Knowing Maximus' facility with both English and Latin, and your abysmal ignorance of even proper ["Standard" is better] English, I concluded that I would go by his opinion.:

  : That was your first mistake.

  That was my only mistake. And of course, Maximus has already posted some material from a major Latin reference that refutes your claim about his usage, here: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=9942&site=3
  Naturally you haven't tried to refute the given reference, because you can't read it, it being in Latin and all.

  :: Therefore, in my first post on this thread, I used Maximus' version to write:"Conclusion: Russell was an arrogant pseudo-servant of YHWH. Quod erat demonstratum." You challenged the correctness of that [use of deictic term with no referent!] :

  You're quite the fool, aren't you. In the above sentence, "that" obviously refers back to the phrase "I used Maximus' version to write ... Quod erat demonstratum". It's obvious that you don't understand plain English.

  We again note that you're focusing on trivial grammatical matters.

  :: "I think that should be 'Quod erat demonstrandum.' "In other words, I did not challenge the correctness of your use of Latin -- you challenged mine.:

  : You are a liar.

  No, you're just plain stupid. I provided the sequential text that proves what I stated. The fact that you're quite unable to follow simple time sequences of English statements is painfully evident.

  Note the sequence very simply, once again:

  (1) AlanF: "Conclusion: ... Quod erat demonstratum."
  (2) Dummy: "I think that should be 'Quod erat demonstrandum.' "
  (3) AlanF: "Wrong. You were already corrected on this by Maximus."

  Thus, you challenged my usage, because your statement (2) occurred after my statement (1) and in response to mine. Obviously you don't understand what "cause and effect" means.

  : In your reply to my comments, you did in fact challenge my proficiency in Latin.

  That's incorrect -- I challenged your use of Latin in this one instance, not your proficiency in Latin, and I challenged it only after you challenged my usage. Do look again at the above sequence of sentences, Dummy. Count them in order: one, two, three. Convince yourself which sentence corresponds to "one", which corresponds to "two" and which corresponds to "three". Then explain to our readers why your lack of comprehension of the sequence, "one, two, three" proves that you're chronologically dyslexic.

  : But you were mistaken as usual.

  Maximus has provided a reference in the above-referenced thread that proves you're wrong. Argue with him.

  : I know more about Latin that you will ever know, and it KILLS you inside!

  Frankly, I don't give two shits about your knowledge of Latin. I don't even give one shit. I'd like to know it, of course, but then, I'd also like to know Spanish, French, Greek, Hebrew, etc etc etc. Ah, to be young again!

  Pedant point: You can't say, "I know more about Latin that you will ever know." You must say, "I know more about Latin than you will ever know."

  : You think you know it all. As the old country song says, however, "WRONG!"

  Ah, Dummy, your "angry little man" syndrome is making your face redder.

  :: And of course, I accepted the opinion of one more learned than I, Maximus. Having accepted it (properly, it turns out), I replied:"Wrong. You were already corrected on this by Maximus. It appears that you suffer from a severe learning disability."I was wrong in saying "Wrong", because both expressions are correct.:

  : Both expressions are not correct.

  Indeed they are. Maximus proved it with a Latin reference. I proved it with references to Net resources -- which you obviously didn't read. See below for proof.

  :: ... However, just as Maximus was incorrect in saying that "... demonstrandum" is wrong, you are incorrect in saying that "... demonstratum" is wrong.:

  : No, I am not.

  Are too are too are too!!!! Nyaah nyaah nyaah.

  Dumbly repeating "I am not" is just, well, dumb, Dummy.

  : "Q.E.D.: That which was to be demonstrated (proven)-Latin abbreviation of quod erat DEMONSTRANDUM, usually appended to mathematical or logical proofs to indicate successful conclusion of the proof of the initial hypothesis. Used to indicate the logical 'proof' of any argument or hypothesis" (Consecrated Phrases: A Latin Theological Dictionary, page 99).

  Very good, Dummy! That proves that your expansion of "QED" is fine. It does not prove that the one Maximus gave is wrong. This is elementary logic, Dummy.

  :: Since you claim to know Latin, and you went to the trouble to look up a bunch of material on the Net, and you failed to verify that the latter is correct, that says a great deal either about your poor research ability, or your honesty.:

  : I do not CLAIM to know anything.

  I think you're being a bit harsh on yourself. I, however, claim to know a few things.

  But I digress. I know what you meant. Pedant point: To "claim" is to "assert, usually but not always with the possibility of contradiction". Thus I might claim that the sky is blue, and my assertion would be right. Since there is certainly the possibility of contradicting your assertion that you know Latin (which will remain until I see evidence of a college transcript or actual competence in the language), my usage of "claim" is precisely correct.

  What you should have written here is this: "I do not merely claim to know anything about Latin." Using "merely" and putting it in italics emphasizes the "possibility of contradiction" aspect of "claim". It would have precluded the possibility of my poking fun at you like this.

  I suggest that in the future, Dummy, if you want to criticize my grammar or spelling, you make damned sure that your post is perfect.

  : I know it, buddy. This philosopher has paid his dues in that regard.

  Prove it. Tell us, please, where you were trained in Latin.

  : I will now show you that my research was neither "poor" nor dishonest.

  LOL! You either didn't read the websites I posted the URL's for at all, or you're so poor at reading that you missed the pertinent contents. You also admit below that you deliberately failed to present evidence from the websites where you found that "Quod Erat Demonstratum" is often used -- which is flat-out dishonest.

  :: If you couldn't find the material at all, it proves you're a lousy researcher, because all one has to do to find reams of examples of either usage is to type the expression at a Net search engine. I found many dozens of hits on both expressions.:

  : I did find the material on the net. But I also know that you cannot believe everything you read on the net. This fact is something you conveniently overlooked.

  I certainly didn't overlook that point. The URL's I provided are perfectly fine, and in accord with a great deal of other information. I merely selected four out of dozens that did the job.

  : QED is the abbreviation of the Latin expression "quod erat demonstrandum" (with the gerundive). Your comments show that you know next to nothing about language

  Correction: I know next to nothing about the Latin language. But that's just repeating what I've already told you. On the other hand, your posts show that your command of standard English is something like that of a non-native speaker who learned it in his teens.

  : and the changes that it naturally undergoes over time. Quod erat demonstrandum is a medieval construction; quod erat demonstratum is not. Now do you see the point? One construction is also a gerundive (demonstrandum) and the other is not. The gerundive in this case fittingly indicates necessity or obligation. QED.

  Whatever. Since I don't know Latin, I can't personally evaluate the correctness of your claims. I'll let Maximus do it.

  :: And of course, if you found the material but failed to present it, then you're just plain dishonest.:

  : I did not post it because it was not germane to the issue or just plain wrong.

  So you did find it, and failed to present it. You're dishonest, then. You can't even claim that what you found was wrong, since you're obviously too biased to present an objective opinion. I mean, you couldn't even manage to look at a mere four websites that I suggested. You merely blew them off without thought.

  :: In either case, you failed to show what you claimed: that "... demonstratum" is incorrect usage.:

  : In this case, it is.

  You have yet to demonstrate it.

  : Try saying quod erat demonstrandum to a medieval and see what he would think.

  Find me one and I'll give it a shot.

  : The medievals thought that quod erat demonstrandum was more fitting.

  Are you actually admitting that ancient Latin speakers that you're aware of used "Demonstratum"? Are you hiding information again, Dummy? Information that you felt "was not germane to the issue or just plain wrong"? Isn't that "cooking the data", Dummy?

  :: Here are some websites that prove that this is correct usage, i.e., that QED is properly expanded as "Quod Erat Demonstratum"
  :: "The Great Three-Letter Abbreviation Hunt": http://www.atomiser.demon.co.uk/abbrev/q.html
  :: http://www.sff.net/people/wmccarth/apdxb.htm
  :: http://www.geocities.com/mtcicero.geo/speech.htm
  :: http://www.west-point.org/family/bicent/academics.html

  : Did you even read these websites?

  Of course, Dummy! But you didn't. Or you can't read, which is evidently not true.

  : Not all of them support your point. Maybe none do.

  Which ones don't support my point? What do you mean, "maybe none do"? This proves that you didn't even read the websites, since you can't make up your mind about how many do or don't.

  However, the fact is that each website demonstrates my point. In the same order as the above URL's are listed, below are listed the specific statements from the websites that prove my point:

  "QED - Quod Erat Demonstratum / Quite Easily Done / Quantum ElectroDynamics"

  "QUOD ERAT DEMONSTRATUM - Latin: 'which was to be proved.' "

  "The Narration typically concludes with the statement of the proposition (the "thesis statement" or what some speakers call the "QED," short for the Latin tag quod erat demonstratum - the claim that the speaker’s argument has been proven)." (From Mike Adkins; Adjunct Professor, DeVry Institute Phoenix and Art Institute of Phoenix; Rhetoric, History & Philosophy)

  "If a proof of a theorem was required, the double underline was required but the letters QED (Quod Erat Demonstratum) were printed beside it to indicate what was asked has been proved." (U.S. Military Academy at West Point)

  Note that the last two URL's are from apparently reputable sources: a professor at an accredited institution of learning, and the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. I think that the opinions of such people are as good or better than those of someone who learned Latin through a correspondence course, don't you?

  So, Dummy, how will you deal with the fact that you've been caught in a really stupid mistake? Have you been hitting the bourbon again? I know that it's quite pleasant to start drinking in the middle of the afternoon, but it does cramp one's posting style.

  : Additionally, the American Heritage Dictionary says:

  : QED
  
  : ABBREVIATION: Latin quod erat demonstrandum (which was to be demonstrated)

  : This quote is from the online fourth edition.

  : From http://srd.yahoo.com/goo/quod+erat+demonstrandum/6/
  : http://www.lineone.net/dictionaryof/difficultwords/d0010815.html, we read:

  : quod erat demonstrandum

  : 'which was to be demonstrated' (abbr. Q.E.D.). quod erat faciendum, 'which was to be done' (abbr. Q.E.F.).

  Very good, Dummy. All you've proved is what I've stated several times already: your expansion of QED appears to be correct.

  What your illogical little brain is having great difficulty absorbing is that showing that one expansion is correct does not automatically show that another, slightly different expansion, is incorrect. You have completely failed even to argue, much less prove, that the expansion that Maximus gave is wrong. To do that, you'll have to read the Latin reference he posted on that other thread.

  What you're doing, Dummy, is akin to this: Suppose someone claims that "QED" means "Quantum ElectroDynamics". You claim that it doesn't. The person cites a reference, as in my 1st URL a little ways above, that proves it. You cite one of your favorite references that shows that "QED" means "Quod Erat Demonstrandum". Have you proved the other guy's reference wrong? Of course not, because two different phrases can be condensed into identical acronyms.

  : QED,

  On the contrary: Scotch verdict.

  AlanF
• 
  82

  Russell as "That Servant"; Re: Dunsscot

  by AlanF in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  since dunsscot claims he's leaving this board, and in answer to my specific request for a committment to answer all replies i might give to his latest replies to my previous dissections of his nonsense he said that he would not, i won't be giving a detailed reply to him.. however, dunsscot's posts contain a number of statements that prove how easily the watchtower society fools the jw community by lying to it, either outright or in so many words.. in this post we will examine a fiction that the society has managed to get poor people like dunsscot to believe with respect to c. t. russell, namely, that russell never claimed that he was "the faithful and wise servant" of matthew 24:45. the simple truth is that russell did indeed believe it.

  the fact that he did was printed in the watch tower, and the society itself taught it until about 1927.. let's first look at the context of dunsscot's denial of this important bible student teaching.

  in the set of exchanges below, the reader can see that dunsscot is attempting to deny that jw leaders claim to be god's exclusive earthy spokesmen.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  AlanF

  Wow, Dummy, you sure know how to lie and distort in arguments. In that, you're one
  of the best examples of a JW I've ever seen! You also demonstrate once again how trivial
  your mental prowess is.

  Take this trivial matter of what "QED" means. In an earlier thread, Maximus expressed
  his opinion that the full expression should be "Quod Erat Demonstratum". You expressed
  yours that it should be "Quod Erat Demonstrandum". Not knowing Latin, I expressed no
  opinion. Knowing Maximus' facility with both English and Latin, and your abysmal ignorance
  of even proper English, I concluded that I would go by his opinion. Therefore, in my
  first post on this thread, I used Maximus' version to write:

  "Conclusion: Russell was an arrogant pseudo-servant of YHWH. Quod erat demonstratum."

  You challenged the correctness of that:

  "I think that should be 'Quod erat demonstrandum.' "

  In other words, I did not challenge the correctness of your use of Latin -- you
  challenged mine. And of course, I accepted the opinion of one more learned than I,
  Maximus. Having accepted it (properly, it turns out), I replied:

  "Wrong. You were already corrected on this by Maximus. It appears that you suffer from
  a severe learning disability."

  I was wrong in saying "Wrong", because both expressions are correct. But you
  claimed that the expression I used was wrong:

  "If you cannot get a simple medieval Latin expression right, how can I trust you in
  other matters?"

  After that, you cited references showing that your usage was corrrect. I've verified
  your references and done independent checking on my own that your usage was indeed
  correct. However, just as Maximus was incorrect in saying that "... demonstrandum"
  is wrong, you are incorrect in saying that "... demonstratum" is wrong. Since
  you claim to know Latin, and you went to the trouble to look up a bunch of material on
  the Net, and you failed to verify that the latter is correct, that says a great deal
  either about your poor research ability, or your honesty. If you couldn't find the
  material at all, it proves you're a lousy researcher, because all one has to do to find
  reams of examples of either usage is to type the expression at a Net search engine. I
  found many dozens of hits on both expressions. And of course, if you found the material
  but failed to present it, then you're just plain dishonest.

  In either case, you failed to show what you claimed: that "... demonstratum" is
  incorrect usage.

  Here are some websites that prove that this is correct usage, i.e., that QED is properly
  expanded as "Quod Erat Demonstratum":

  "The Great Three-Letter Abbreviation Hunt": http://www.atomiser.demon.co.uk/abbrev/q.html
  http://www.sff.net/people/wmccarth/apdxb.htm
  http://www.geocities.com/mtcicero.geo/speech.htm
  http://www.west-point.org/family/bicent/academics.html

  Now let's look at the poor logical skills shown by your statement, "If you cannot get
  a simple medieval Latin expression right, how can I trust you in other matters?"

  Since I know almost nothing of Latin and never claimed to, and I explicitly stated my
  opinion that you were wrong because I accepted Maximus' opinion, properly there
  can have been no expectation that I personally should have gotten a matter of
  Latin grammar right. I never said anything like that nor did I imply such. In fact, I
  explicitly cited my source reference, i.e., Maximus.

  Your 'logic' is akin to someone saying to one who never claimed to know calculus, but
  relied on his mathematician friend:

  "If you can't do integrals right, how can I trust you in other matters?"

  Or to one who never claimed to know how to forecast weather, but relied on a TV
  weather report:

  "If you can't get the weather right, how can I trust you in other matters?"

  Really, Dummy, your 'logic' is a fine example of a red herring, of comparing apples and
  oranges, and of the straw man technique -- examples of attempting to make connections
  between things that are not logically connected, or of attempting to turn the argument
  into something it is not. In short, you don't know diddly squat about logic.

  In sum, Dummy, your demonstrating that "Quod Erat Demonstrandum" is correct usage is in
  no way equivalent to demonstrating that "Quod Erat Demonstratum" is incorrect usage. And
  my and Maximus' usage of the latter term was correct. And your overall logic is
  non-existent. So readers may now easily see the answer to your question, "If you cannot
  get a simple medieval Latin expression right, how can I trust you in other matters?" The
  answers are simple enough that even you can understand: I did, and you can.

  . . . . .

  Your bullshit about "infralapsarians" and so forth simply shows your need to focus
  on the trivial because you have nothing to say about the non-trivial. Your continued
  use and misuse of big words, which often are so esoteric that they don't show up in
  online dictionaries, along with your major focus on minor mistakes in typing and grammar,
  is diagnostic of the "little man" syndrome. You really do need professional help.

  For example, you'll read a word like "apophatic" in a theological treatise you barely
  comprehend, read its definition and form a half-baked notion of what it means, and then
  misuse it in a post. But you can't actually explain to your readers what it means and
  use it in non-trivial sentences that convey a clear meaning to them.

  Now let's take a look at an example where you show such massive stupidity that you, as
  usual, accuse someone else of a mistake while you yourself are simultaneously making the
  same or even a worse one.

  You said:

  ::: I find it amazing how someone can type so many words and say nothing. Not one
  thing you typed PROVES (apodictically or otherwise) that Brother Russell called himself:
  "God's mouthpiece." That was your original contention, AF. Are did you want us to
  miss the wood for all the trees you planted in that last submission?

  Note the minor typo in bold, "Are did you". Obviously you meant to type, "Did you".
  As I said I would do, I did not point out this minor error, but as a trivial dig made a
  similar-in-spirit 'mistake' to see if you would catch it while ignoring your own mistake.
  Just as I expected, you fell into my little trap: you found my 'mistake' and ignored your
  own, proving once again your double standards. You pointed out my 'mistake' by adding
  "[sic]" below:

  :: No, Dummy, I are [sic] did not want you to miss any wood (please note that the
  expression is not about wood, but woods; you do know that there's a difference, I hope).
  In fact, I gave complete quotes of the discussion, enough for you not to have made such
  a stupid error as you did here [awkward phrasing].

  You even have the gall to express an opinion about "awkward phrasing" in a piece meant
  to be informal and even, at times, colloquial. This again shows your great need to focus
  on form rather than substance -- again diagnostic of the "little man" syndrome.

  :: The point I made about Russell claiming to be "God's mouthpiece" was not something you
  challenged [Wrong!]. Therefore it needed no justification [Wrong!].

  Here you've added "[wrong]" twice, but failed to justify your claims. Let's prove why
  you're wrong, by making a challenge that you will fail to deal with logically:

  Point out the precise language you used that challenged my claim (now justified) that
  Russell claimed to be "God's mouthpiece".

  :: Had you challenged that particular claim, I would certainly have provided the
  documentation, as I do below. Let me point out just what sentences you have not
  understood, by bolding the appropriate ones in the material in my first post in this
  thread:

  : You evidently do not possess a basic knowledge of English. One can use the term "wood"
  in English to describe a forest.

  You obviously don't know the difference between modern and obsolete English. Modern
  English speakers never use "wood" for "woods". It's as obsolete as using "pottage"
  for "stew". You seem to have learned much of your English, not by using it among good
  speakers of the modern variety, but by reading old English tomes on philosophy and
  religion. Not a good way to learn at all.

  : Methinks you need to beg MIT for some of that money you evidently spent on English
  and history classes.

  Methinks you need to find out what classes someone took before making such
  a stupid statement. I took no English or history classes at MIT. I took
  engineering, math, physical science, writing, and few other humanities
  courses. Before college, I scored a perfect 800 on the Verbal SAT, so by
  objective measure my English is generally fairly good.

  You, on the other hand, have obviously missed a great deal by getting a Ph.D. by
  correspondence school. Perhaps you should bone up by taking "English As A Foreign
  Language".

  The rest of your post of "Aug 13, 2001 8:35:02 AM" is so disorganized that it's not
  possible to comment on it. This disorganization is a good indication of how your mind
  is organized.

  But enough of your trivia. Let's get to some meat.

  . . . . .

  You've insinuated that my statement that Russell called himself "God's mouthpiece" is
  false:

  Not one thing you typed PROVES (apodictically or otherwise) that Brother Russell
  called himself: "God's mouthpiece." That was your original contention, AF.

  In your post of "Aug 13, 2001 10:40:05 AM" you finally managed to squeak out this
  admission: "Yes, Russell did call himself 'God's mouthpiece.' "

  Glory be!

  Yet you want to minimize what Russell actually meant by saying that. You want to claim
  that Russell did nothing more than what he wanted other Christians to do -- to be
  mouthpieces for God individually. You actually refer to the website of a Bible Student
  to 'prove' your claim, but don't seem to realize that asking a Bible Student whether
  Russell claimed to be virtually inspired is akin to asking Richard Nixon whether
  politicians lie, because Bible Students on the whole have a worshipful attitude towards
  their founder.

  I'm perfectly well aware of what Russell wrote in the quotes on the Bible Student website.
  That material changes nothing about what I said. The fact is that Russell, like the head
  pig in George Orwell's Animal Farm, set himself up as being "more equal" than the
  other 'animals'. In other words, while claiming that other Christians could be
  "God's mouthpieces", the way he treated people who disagreed with his religious doctrines
  proved that his tolerant-sounding words were merely for show. The fact that Russell
  taught that only by examining the Bible via his "Scripture Studies" could a person
  really understand the Bible proves that in practice he had inserted himself between a
  person and the Bible. That is haughty and arrogant in the extreme. The fact that Russell
  thought of himself as "the faithful and wise servant", and that the Watch Tower Society
  itself taught that doctrine, further proves it.

  In fact, Russell and his followers taught that he was God's greatest mouthpiece of all
  time, after Jesus Christ himself. This is shown by the Society's doctrine that Russell
  was "the Laodicean Messenger", which is a topic for another post. Russell clearly
  taught that he was virtually inspired because his writings virtually perfectly mirrored
  the Bible. I will now prove this, using some quotes that the Bible Student website
  naturally failed to present.

  Further along in the Watch Tower article where Russell claimed that one who quit
  reading his "Scripture Studies" would go off into darkness after stopping, and
  after suggesting that people should check Studies in the Scriptures against the
  Bible, Russell said, using the "royal we":

  We would conclude, practically, that we could not understand anything about the
  Bible except as it was revealed. We would, therefore, not waste a great deal of time doing
  what we know some people do, reading chapter after chapter, to no profit. We would not
  think of doing it. We would not think we were studying the Scriptures at all. We would
  think we were following the course that had been anything but profitable to ourselves and
  many others in the past - merely reading over the Scriptures. We would say that the same
  Heavenly Father who had guided us to this truth, to this understanding of the Scriptures
  as his children, if he had some further information for us he would bring it to our
  attention in some manner; and therefore we would not see the necessity of reading the new
  Testament every day or every year; we would not consider that necessary. We would consider
  that the Scripture which says, "They shall be all taught of God," would imply that in his
  own appointed way God would bring to our attention whatever feature of divine truth would
  be "meat in due season for the household of faith."

  In other words, God had already revealed to Russell everything he needed to know up to
  that point, and when God wanted him to know anything else, he would bring it to Russell's
  attention. In the meantime there was no need for Russell to read the Bible, since he
  already had everything he needed from it. Was he not God's specially appointed messenger,
  God's mouthpiece? Of course, this applied also to the Bible Students generally. Apparently
  Russell never read Joshua 1:8:

  This book of the law should not depart from your mouth, and you must in an
  undertone read in it day and night, in order that you may take care to do according
  to all that is written in it; for then you will make your way successful and then
  you will act wisely.

  After some discussion about preaching only what one understands, Russell continued:

  After God favors us in this time with an understanding of Present Truth, he has
  given us a knowledge of more truth than we could have gained in a thousand years if we had
  read and studied unaided; and now we can attempt to present it to others. Why has he given
  us a knowledge of this Truth? He wishes us to be "thoroughly furnished unto every good
  word and work."

  It must be asked, Who aided Russell to gain his "understanding of Present Truth?" It
  certainly was not the Second Adventists, as regards much of the doctrine he taught in
  1910. What he implied was that God - somehow - mysteriously revealed truth to him. Russell
  was as incapable of seeing the possibility that he could be wrong 'right now' as any of
  Jehovah's Witnesses are today. He clearly came to think his own writings were
  indistinguishable from the Bible itself. This is obvious in his next statement, which is
  a left-handed way of implying that his volumes could not possibly contain error:

  This is not, therefore, putting the SCRIPTURE STUDIES as a substitute for the
  Bible, because so far as substituting for the Bible, the STUDIES, on the contrary,
  continually refer to the Bible; and if one has any doubt as to a reference or if one's
  recollection should lapse in any degree, one should refresh his memory, and, in fact,
  should see that his every thought is in harmony with the Bible - not merely in accord
  with the SCRIPTURE STUDIES, but in accord with the Bible.

  This last quote was put on the Bible Student website, but without the context of Russell's
  previous statements about his not needing to read the Bible at all until God somehow gave
  him new knowledge, it can be made to say exactly the opposite of what it does. In context,
  the above quotes prove that Russell at a minimum equated his own writing with the Bible,
  and in practice elevated it above the Bible because he claimed that anyone who thought to
  understand the Bible without his help was in 'darkness'. In other words, Russell was the
  supreme arbiter of what the Bible actually said.

  Now let's summarize what Russell and the Watchtower Society wrote about Russell's
  position as "that servant", as "the faithful and wise servant". This is merely extracted
  from the full quotes I presented earlier in this thread.

  "... our Lord ... will make choice of one channel for dispensing the meat in due
  season, though other channels or 'fellow servants' will be used in bringing the food to
  the 'household.' "

  "Thousands of the readers of Pastor Russell's writings believe that he filled the office
  of 'that faithful and wise servant,' and that his great work was giving to the household
  of faith meat in due season. His modesty and humility precluded him from openly
  claiming this title, but he admitted as much in private conversation."

  "Pastor Russell being the messenger to the Laodicean Church, and occupying the position
  of the Lord's special servant to give the Household of Faith meat in due season..."

  "It will be disputed by some even who have come to a knowledge of present truth, that
  Brother Russell occupied any more peculiar relationship to the Lord than any other servant
  or follower of Jesus... fulfilled prophecy, or physical facts, and the circumstantial
  evidence are conclusive proofs that Brother Russell filled the office of that faithful
  and wise servant."

  "As he goes on in this way, he becomes convinced in his own mind that the Lord made
  a mistake in selecting Brother Russell as that servant; and this doubt leads to the
  conclusion later on that Brother Russell was not "that servant" at all...
  To abandon or repudiate the Lord's chosen instrument means to abandon or repudiate
  the Lord himself, upon the principle that he who rejects the servant sent by the
  Master thereby rejects the Master...
  Through his prophet Ezekiel Jehovah forshadowed the office of a servant ...
  in keeping with the Lord's arrangement he used a man. The man who filled that office,
  by the Lord's grace, was Brother Russell...
  the office of "that servant" has been filled by Brother Russell...
  to repudiate him and his works is equivalent to a repudiation of the Lord.
  We believe that all who are now rejoicing in present truth will concede that Brother
  Russell faithfully filled the office of special servant of the Lord; and that he was
  made ruler over all the Lord's goods."

  In view of the above absolutely definite statements, the claim made in the 1927 Watch
  Tower, that Russell never claimed to be "the faithful and wise servant" himself, is
  shown to be a gross lie. According to the quoted 1916 Watch Tower, Russell said as
  much in private, and according to the later quotes in Watchtower literature, that
  private admission became official Watchtower teaching until 1927. Rutherford's lie was
  pure historical revisionism told in order to consolidate his power as head of a new, but
  supposedly collective, "slave".

  It is a measure of your overriding dishonesty, Dummy, that you failed even to acknowledge
  the statements that the Society itself made proving that Russell and his followers taught
  that he was "the faithful and wise servant". This teaching was fuzzy light from 1884
  through 1916. In 1916 it became official "new light". In 1927 it became "old light".

  In view of Russell's admission and Watchtower teaching that Russell filled the office
  of "the faithful and wise servant", the real meaning of his statement that he was
  "God's mouthpiece" is extremely clear: Russell taught that he was God's exclusive
  spokesman on earth, and no one had any cause to dispute his teachings. For obvious
  reasons he could not claim outright to be inspired, but he did everything else but make
  such a direct claim. He did this especially by claiming that anyone who did not follow
  his teachings would quickly go into "darkness".

  In view of all the above, and the other material I've posted, it is fair to state that
  Charles Taze Russell was a haughty, arrogant man. Quod Erat Demonstratum.

  AlanF
• 
  82

  Russell as "That Servant"; Re: Dunsscot

  by AlanF in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  since dunsscot claims he's leaving this board, and in answer to my specific request for a committment to answer all replies i might give to his latest replies to my previous dissections of his nonsense he said that he would not, i won't be giving a detailed reply to him.. however, dunsscot's posts contain a number of statements that prove how easily the watchtower society fools the jw community by lying to it, either outright or in so many words.. in this post we will examine a fiction that the society has managed to get poor people like dunsscot to believe with respect to c. t. russell, namely, that russell never claimed that he was "the faithful and wise servant" of matthew 24:45. the simple truth is that russell did indeed believe it.

  the fact that he did was printed in the watch tower, and the society itself taught it until about 1927.. let's first look at the context of dunsscot's denial of this important bible student teaching.

  in the set of exchanges below, the reader can see that dunsscot is attempting to deny that jw leaders claim to be god's exclusive earthy spokesmen.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  AlanF

  For Dummy the Scot:

  First let's have a little lighthearted fun with Dummy:

  :: Conclusion: Russell was an arrogant pseudo-servant of YHWH. Quod erat demonstratum.:

  : I think that should be "Quod erat demonstrandum."

  Wrong. You were already corrected on this by Maximus. It appears that you suffer from a severe learning disability.

  You also appear to think that pointing out a possible small error in Latin grammar amounts to a refutation of a mass of solid quotations. But you learned that sucking at Mommy's tits, didn't you.

  This is a fine example of how JW defenders will often focus on tiny perceived errors in their opponents' arguments, and ignore the important points. They often even manage to get their own arguments completely screwed up in the process of scrabbling for a defense. The following is an interesting example:

  In my earliest post to Dummy, I said:

  << Having read your responses to a number of people, dunsscot, (with the exception of responses to myself and Farkel, who it is obvious you're afraid to deal with) it has become evident that you're little more than a moron with a college degree in philosophy. Unfortunately, while you use much esoteric jargon and seem to understand it, you don't understand a more fundamental truth: if you use opaque jargon on the uninitiated, you don't really understand what you think you're talking about. >>

  In the post "Re: TO DUNSSCOT Aug 11, 2001 10:37:38 AM" Dummy replied to another poster:

  << : I, for one, find Alan's writings to be clear, well-reasoned, and accurate.

  AF is admittedly an intelligent man. I will give him that. He can write in a clear fashion as well. But most of his reasoning is not clear and he evidently does not comprehend either Standard or non-standard English too well. But we cannot excel in every field, can we? :-) Furthermore, methinks that in this case, accuracy is in the eye of the beholder. If you think his handling of the 3/15/90 WT material was accurate, there ism not really much that I can do for you. If you think he accurately represented Russell's comments earlier, then I goes Alvin C. Plantinga is correct when he writes about we infralapsarians being prone to noetic malfunction. >>

  Now, I could focus on minor typing errors like Dummy's writing "there ism not really..." or "then I goes Alvin...", but I won't. What I will point out is that Dummy's last sentence is complete gobble-de-gook. An "infralapsarian" is "a term applied in the 17th century to Calvinists holding the view that God's election of some to everlasting life was consequent to his prescience of the Fall of man, or that it contemplated man as already fallen, and was thus a remedial measure" (The Oxford English Dictionary). Since Dummy is a 21st-century Jehovah's Witness, he certainly is not a 17th-century Calvinist, and so when he says anything at all about "we infralapsarians" he's talking gibberish. Next note the completely screwed up logic in Dummy's last sentence (the phrase "noetic malfunction" is a pretentious way of saying "a breaking down of the mind"). He's attempting to show the other poster that my representation of Russell's comments was wrong, but instead of saying that, he says precisely the opposite, in effect, "If you think AlanF's right, then Plantinga was right in saying we 17th-century Calvinists are braindead." Good one, Dummy!

  On to more serious stuff:

  Dummy replied to me:

  :: I find it both distressing and entertaining that someone like Dunsscot, who proclaims himself a JW intellectual, can be so deceived. How much easier is it then, for JW leaders to deceive the rank & file, who have no such pretensions about themselves?:

  : I find it amazing how someone can type so many words and say nothing. Not one thing you typed PROVES (apodictically or otherwise) that Brother Russell called himself: "God's mouthpiece." That was your original contention, AF. Are did you want us to miss the wood for all the trees you planted in that last submission?

  No, Dummy, I are did not want you to miss any wood (please note that the expression is not about wood, but woods; you do know that there's a difference, I hope). In fact, I gave complete quotes of the discussion, enough for you not to have made such a stupid error as you did here. The point I made about Russell claiming to be "God's mouthpiece" was not something you challenged. Therefore it needed no justification. Had you challenged that particular claim, I would certainly have provided the documentation, as I do below. Let me point out just what sentences you have not understood, by bolding the appropriate ones in the material in my first post in this thread:

  :::: ... JW leaders claim to be in their positions not because of a promise made to one of their ancestors, but because JW (more properly, Bible Student) leaders from roughly 1880 to 1919 were so superior in every important way to other Christians that God selected them as his special earthly spokesmen.

  ::: I do not think that your statement aptly describes the attitude of JW leadership. The Proclaimers book shows that other groups had a measure of the truth besides the Bible Students. But Russell thought that JWs were able to piece more of the biblical puzzle together through God's spirit. Russell and other men at that time believed that God's favor shone on them because of the scriptural understanding they had acquired. However, Russell was not haughty about the gems of truth available to the Bible Students at that time.

  :: Of course he was. Would you like me to produce reams of documentation to prove it?

  Note the basic flow of thought here:

  Dummy: Russell wasn't haughty.
  AlanF: Sure he was. I can prove it with quotes.

  Then I expanded on my claim with further statements about Russell's teachings:

  :: He called himself "God's mouthpiece". He taught that anyone who failed to read his books would, within two years, "go off into darkness". If I told you, dunsscot, that I was God's mouthpiece and that if you didn't study and apply my writings every day you'd go off into darkness in short order, you'd rightly claim that I was haughty. You display a double standard here.

  : Calling oneself "God's mouthpiece" does not mean one is necessarily haughty. Of course, I would expect documentation for such a claim and for the statement concerning Russell's books. One or two pieces of evidence will do. But the historical evidence shows that Russell was a humble brother...

  Since I had made a statement about providing documentation proving that Russell was haughty, and Dummy asked me to produce it, that's exactly what I did. Dummy certainly did not ask for documentation about Russell's calling himself "God's mouthpiece", and so I did not feel it necessary to produce it. I did miss Dummy's request for documentation about "the statement concerning Russell's books", and for that I repent in dust and ashes. I atone for that sin below.

  So, Dummy, now that it has all been laid out before you in excruciating detail, can you argue that your statement:

  Not one thing you typed PROVES ... that Brother Russell called himself: "God's mouthpiece." That was your original contention, AF.

  has anything to do with what I stated or what you specifically asked me to produce? Of course not -- you're a dummy.

  I find it amazing how someone can read so many words and understand nothing. In view of Dummy's severe lack of understanding of simple English sentences, it is clear that most of his reasoning is poor, and he obviously does not comprehend either Standard or non-standard English well.

  : Nevertheless, I will visit the website that supposedly shows Russell's claims of infallibility.

  Replying to a matter again before you've heard it, eh? Don't you pay attention to the Bible's words about that? Don't you ever learn? Had you read the material I referenced on the Web, you'd have found the reference to "the statement concerning Russell's books". Nevertheless, I reproduce it below.

  : But you still have to show where Brother Russell ever called himself God's mouthpiece or the faithful and discreet slave. Even if he did call himself "God's mouthpiece," it does not mean that he was haughty. But of course you have not proven that which was to be demonstrated in the first place.

  The various statements in the quotes I have already provided prove that the Watchtower Society's leaders stated that Russell admitted in private to being "the faithful and wise servant". That Russell was "that slave" was officially stated Watchtower dogma from 1916 through 1927, and was clearly implied in Watchtower literature as far back as 1895, and according to the Society itself was implied as far back as 1883.

  The asked-for statements from Russell, and a lot more besides, can be found here: http://www.geocities.com/osarsif/end2.htm#basis which is in the article "The WTS and the End of the World" => "Part 2: The Orwellian Thinking of JWs" => "The Basis of Early False Predictions".

  Here is the statement where Russell claimed to be "God's mouthpiece", right off this website:

  In the July 15, 1906 Watch Tower, on page 229, Russell wrote:

  Many are the inquiries relative to the truths presented in MILLENNIAL DAWN and ZION'S WATCH TOWER, as to whence they came and how they developed to their present symmetrical and beautiful proportions - Were they the results of visions? Did God in any supernatural way grant the solution of these hitherto mysteries of his plan? Are the writers more than ordinary beings? Do they claim any supernatural wisdom or power? or how comes this revelation of God's truth?

  No, dear friends, I claim nothing of superiority, nor supernatural power, dignity or authority; nor do I aspire to exalt myself in the estimation of my brethren of the household of faith....

  No, the truths I present, as God's mouthpiece, were not revealed in visions or dreams nor by God's audible voice, nor all at once, but gradually, especially since 1870, and particularly since 1880. Neither is this clear unfolding of truth due to any human ingenuity or acuteness of perception, but to the simple fact that God's due time has come; and if I did not speak, and no other agent could be found, the very stones would cry out.

  Clearly Russell's arrogance knew no bounds. He, like the Watchtower Society today, wanted to have it both ways. He wanted his writings to be viewed as coming from God, because he, as "God's mouthpiece," was telling forth God's thoughts. On the other hand God did not directly "inspire" him, but in some mysterious and unspecified way "revealed" things to him. Today, hardly anyone making statements such as "I am God's mouthpiece" would be taken seriously.

  A number of times Russell clearly implied he could not possibly be wrong. Zion's Watch Tower, July 15, 1894, said on page 226, under the subtitle "Can It Be Delayed Until 1914?":

  Seventeen years ago people said, concerning the time features presented in MILLENIAL DAWN, They seem reasonable in many respects, but surely no such radical changes could occur between now and the close of 1914: if you had proved that they would come about in a century or two, it would seem much more probable....

  Now, in view of recent labor troubles and threatened anarchy, our readers are writing to know if there may not be a mistake in the 1914 date. They say that they do not see how present conditions can hold out so long under the strain.

  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. But bear in mind that the end of 1914 is not the date for the beginning, but for the end of the time of trouble. We see no reason for changing from our opinion expressed in the view presented in the WATCH TOWER of January 15, '92. We advise that it be read again.

  The January 15, 1892 Watch Tower said on page 19:

  The Scriptures give unmistakable testimony to those who have full faith in its records, that there is a great time of trouble ahead of the present comparative calm in the world - a trouble which will embroil all nations, overthrow all existing institutions, civil, social and religious, bring about a universal reign of anarchy and terror, and prostrate humanity in the very dust of despair, thus to make them ready to appreciate the power that will bring order out of that confusion and institute the new rule of righteousness. All this, the Scriptures show us, is to come to pass before the year 1914 (See MILLENNIAL DAWN, Vol. II, Chapter IV.) - that is, within the next twenty-three years.

  If the scriptural testimony was "unmistakable," and if Russell was presenting "God’s dates," and he was "God’s mouthpiece," it can hardly be denied Russell was arrogantly dogmatic. What man of faith would doubt the words of "God’s mouthpiece"?

  Here is Russell's claim that anyone who failed to read his books would "go off into darkness" within two years:

  It was apparently this belief - that he had a special appointment from God - that led to virtually equating his own writings with the Bible itself. In the following material from the September 15, 1910 Watch Tower article "Is the Reading of 'Scripture Studies' Bible Study?", pages 298-9 (4684-5 Reprints), note the difficulty Russell had in maintaining humility. The article discussed the "plan of reading twelve pages of the STUDIES IN THE SCRIPTURES each day." It gave a rather mixed message about how the Bible ought to be viewed. Since Studies in the Scriptures pretty well covered everything the serious Bible student needed to know, it said that, while reading the Bible was important, and "the six volumes of SCRIPTURE STUDIES are not intended to supplant the Bible," nevertheless the volumes "are in such form that they, of themselves, contain the important elements of the Bible as well as the comments or elucidations of those bible statements."

  If the six volumes of SCRIPTURE STUDIES are practically the Bible topically arranged, with Bible proof-texts given, we might not improperly name the volumes - the Bible in an arranged form. That is to say, they are not merely comments on the bible, but they are practically the Bible itself, since there is no desire to build any doctrine or thought on any individual preference or on any individual wisdom, but to present the entire matter on the lines of the Word of God. We therefore think it safe to follow this kind of reading, this kind of instruction, this kind of Bible study.

  Furthermore, not only do we find that people cannot see the divine plan in studying the Bible by itself, but we see, also, that if anyone lays the SCRIPTURE STUDIES aside, even after he has used them, after he has become familiar with them, after he has read them for ten years - if he then lays them aside and ignores them and goes to the Bible alone, though he has understood his Bible for ten years, our experience shows that within two years he goes into darkness. On the other hand, if he had merely read the SCRIPTURE STUDIES with their references, and had not read a page of the Bible, as such, he would be in the light at the end of the two years, because he would have the light of the Scriptures.

  So, Dummy, what do you have to say about Russell's "humility" now?

  AlanF
• 
  82

  Russell as "That Servant"; Re: Dunsscot

  by AlanF in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  since dunsscot claims he's leaving this board, and in answer to my specific request for a committment to answer all replies i might give to his latest replies to my previous dissections of his nonsense he said that he would not, i won't be giving a detailed reply to him.. however, dunsscot's posts contain a number of statements that prove how easily the watchtower society fools the jw community by lying to it, either outright or in so many words.. in this post we will examine a fiction that the society has managed to get poor people like dunsscot to believe with respect to c. t. russell, namely, that russell never claimed that he was "the faithful and wise servant" of matthew 24:45. the simple truth is that russell did indeed believe it.

  the fact that he did was printed in the watch tower, and the society itself taught it until about 1927.. let's first look at the context of dunsscot's denial of this important bible student teaching.

  in the set of exchanges below, the reader can see that dunsscot is attempting to deny that jw leaders claim to be god's exclusive earthy spokesmen.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  AlanF

  Since Dunsscot claims he's leaving this board, and in answer to my specific request for a committment to answer all replies I might give to his latest replies to my previous dissections of his nonsense he said that he would not, I won't be giving a detailed reply to him.

  However, Dunsscot's posts contain a number of statements that prove how easily the Watchtower Society fools the JW community by lying to it, either outright or in so many words.

  In this post we will examine a fiction that the Society has managed to get poor people like Dunsscot to believe with respect to C. T. Russell, namely, that Russell never claimed that he was "the faithful and wise servant" of Matthew 24:45. The simple truth is that Russell did indeed believe it. The fact that he did was printed in The Watch Tower, and the Society itself taught it until about 1927.

  Let's first look at the context of Dunsscot's denial of this important Bible Student teaching. In the set of exchanges below, the reader can see that Dunsscot is attempting to deny that JW leaders claim to be God's exclusive earthy spokesmen. The first comments are mine:

  :::: ... JW leaders claim to be in their positions not because of a promise made to one of their ancestors, but because JW (more properly, Bible Student) leaders from roughly 1880 to 1919 were so superior in every important way to other Christians that God selected them as his special earthly spokesmen.

  ::: I do not think that your statement aptly describes the attitude of JW leadership. The Proclaimers book shows that other groups had a measure of the truth besides the Bible Students. But Russell thought that JWs were able to piece more of the biblical puzzle together through God's spirit. Russell and other men at that time believed that God's favor shone on them because of the scriptural understanding they had acquired. However, Russell was not haughty about the gems of truth available to the Bible Students at that time.

  :: Of course he was. Would you like me to produce reams of documentation to prove it? He called himself "God's mouthpiece". He taught that anyone who failed to read his books would, within two years, "go off into darkness". If I told you, dunsscot, that I was God's mouthpiece and that if you didn't study and apply my writings every day you'd go off into darkness in short order, you'd rightly claim that I was haughty. You display a double standard here.

  : Calling oneself "God's mouthpiece" does not mean one is necessarily haughty. Of course, I would expect documentation for such a claim and for the statement concerning Russell's books. One or two pieces of evidence will do. But the historical evidence shows that Russell was a humble brother. Please note the following information. Quoting Russell, the Kingdom Has Approached book noted:

  How anyone can claim that "calling oneself 'God's mouthpiece' does not mean one is necessarily haughty" is beyond me. Below I will provide some documentation for my claims and further links to "reams of documentation".

  With regard to the above, Dunsscot failed to do his homework. Based on that failure he claimed, in the post "Re: TO DUNSSCOT Aug 11, 2001 10:28:37 AM", that I had "twisted Russell's words". We will soon see that he bases this claim on his having bought into the Society's lies.

  Here is one quotation from Watchtower literature (the 1973 book God's Kingdom of a Thousand Years Has Approached) that Dunsscot set forth to 'prove' that Russell was humble, and more importantly, that he never claimed to be "the faithful and wise servant":

  *** ka 345-6 17 The "Slave" Who Lived to See the "Sign" ***
  ... Watch Tower issue of November, 1881, page 5. In the fourth- and fifth-last paragraphs of the article "In the Vineyard," he {Russell} said:

  We believe that every member of this body of Christ is engaged in the blessed work, either directly or indirectly, of giving meat in due season to the household of faith. "Who then is that faithful and wise servant whom his Lord hath made ruler over his household," to give them meat in due season? Is it not that "little flock" of consecrated servants who are faithfully carrying out their consecration vows-the body of Christ-and is not the whole body individually and collectively, giving the meat in due season to the household of faith-the great company of believers?

  Blessed is that servant (the whole body of Christ) whom his Lord when he has come (Gr. elthon) shall find so doing. "Verily, I say unto you, that he shall make him ruler over all his goods." "He shall inherit all things."

  31 From this it is clearly seen that the editor and publisher of Zion's Watch Tower disavowed any claim to being individually, in his person, that "faithful and wise servant." He never did claim to be such.* However, he did continue to edit the Watch Tower magazine down to the day of his death on October 31, 1916.

  So in 1881, Russell believed that "that servant" was really "the church", that small group of Christians who were 'takng the lead' in teaching other Christians. However, any serious student of the history of the Watchtower Society knows that the bolded statement in the above-quoted paragraph 31 is a bald-faced lie. In 1895 Russell's wife Maria convinced Charles that he was indeed "that servant" and he included thinly veiled references to himself as "that servant" in subsequent issues of Zion's Watch Tower. He never explicitly claimed such in printed publications but in private conversation the Society itself documents that he did (see below for references). For a lot more detail on this, see James Penton's Apocolypse Delayed (2nd edition, pp. 33-35).

  A little research shows that the above-quoted book contains a second lie. The 2nd statement in paragraph 31 contains a footnote, which says:

  See the book The Battle of Armageddon, published in 1897, page 613, under the heading "Dispensing of Food to the Household.-Matt. 24:45-51; Luke 12:42-46."

  But Russell's 1897 book actually says this concerning "the faithful and wise servant" (p. 613, 1916 edition):

  The intimation here seems to be, that at the particular time indicated by the prophecy, -- namely, during the Lord's presence {which Russell taught began in 1874; original is bolded}, and at the time of the gathering of the elect {which Russell taught began between 1844 and 1874} -- our Lord, the great Servant of his people, will make choice of one channel {original is bolded} for dispensing the meat in due season, though other channels or "fellow servants" will be used in bringing the food to the "household." But the servant is merely a steward, and liable to be removed at any moment, should he fail to fully and duly acknowledge in every particular, the Master... Faithfulness on the part of said steward (both to the "Master" and to "his fellow-servants" and "the household") will be rewarded by his continuance as steward; -- so long as he serves faithfully, he may continue, and may serve the household ... But if unfaithful he will be deposed entirely and put into outer darkness, while presumably another would take the place, subject to the same conditions.

  Obviously at that time, Russell was teaching quite the opposite from what he taught in 1881, namely, that the "faithful and wise servant" is a person and not a group within the Christian church.

  The fact that C. T. Russell came to believe that he personally was the "faithful and wise servant" or the "faithful and discreet slave" is proved by a number of direct statements in Watchtower literature.

  From The Watch Tower, December 1, 1916 (p. 5998 Reprints):

  It is here interesting to note that Jesus said, "Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his Lord hath made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season? Blessed is that servant, whom his Lord, when he cometh, shall find so doing! Verily, I say unto you that he shall make him ruler over all his goods." Thousands of the readers of Pastor Russell's writings believe that he filled the office of "that faithful and wise servant," and that his great work was giving to the household of faith meat in due season. His modesty and humility precluded him from openly claiming this title, but he admitted as much in private conversation.

  From The Finished Mystery, Studies in the Scriptures, Series VII, "75,000 Edition", 1917, p. 4:

  In 1879 Charles Taze Russell began the publication of THE WATCH TOWER, of which he was the sole editor as long as he remained on earth. THE WATCH TOWER was, and is, the first and only journal declaring the presence of the Lord Jesus. Pastor Russell being the messenger to the Laodicean Church, and occupying the position of the Lord's special servant to give the Household of Faith meat in due season, it was to be expected that he would bring forth from the Lord's great "Storehouse" the needed spiritual food for the Church, in harmony with God's will. By the Lord's grace he wrote the six volumes of STUDIES IN THE SCRIPTURES, which writings, aside from the Bible, have gladdened more hearts and thrilled Christians with greater hope and joyful expectation than have any other writings extant. These books have been properly designated "Keys to the Divine Plan of the Ages."

  From The Watch Tower, March 1, 1922:

  p. 70:
  "NONE OF THE WICKED SHALL UNDERSTAND"
  ... It will be disputed by some even who have come to a knowledge of present truth, that Brother Russell occupied any more peculiar relationship to the Lord than any other servant of follower of Jesus. In him we find another example of one who applied his heart to wisdom.

  What was his peculiar relationship to the Lord, and why was and still is he the special target of the adversary? Let us examine the evidence here upon these points.

  pp. 72-74:
  THE WISE SHALL UNDERSTAND
  ...

  Jesus plainly said that during the time of his presence he would have a faithful and wise servant whom he would use to give meat to the household (of faith) in due season. Every one today who has a knowledge of the divine plan of the ages must truthfully answer that he derived that knowledge from studying his Bible in connection with what Brother Russell wrote; that before such time he did not even know that God had a plan of salvation. Every person who today is rejoicing in the light of the truth of God's Word realizes that the Lord brought to him that truth, unfolding it through the ministrations and work begun by Brother Russell shortly following the presence of the Lord.

  Was he a servant of the Lord? No one who knew him and who tells the truth can deny the fact that he was a servant, because he gave his time over to service. He devoted all of his earthly possessions that others might gain a knowledge of God's plan. He devoted his life from the time of his early manhood until his death in going throughout the earth serving others in the name of the Lord.

  A FAITHFUL AND WISE SERVANT
  Was he faithful? This question must be answered in the affirmative...

  WISE TOWARD GOD
  ...

  The indisputable facts, therefore, show that the "time of the end" began in 1799; that the Lord's second presence began in 1874; that the harvest followed thereafter and greater light has come upon the Word of God. In this connection, then, let us note the words of Jesus: "Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season? Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing." (Matthew 24:45, 46) It must be conceded, then, that at the end of the world, at the "time of the end", during the presence of the Lord, during the harvest, he would have in the earth a servant who would be faithful and wise. The physical facts show that Brother Russell met every one of these requirements. This prophetic utterance, then, has been fulfilled. Therefore fulfilled prophecy, or physical facts, and the circumstantial evidence are conclusive proofs that Brother Russell filled the office of that faithful and wise servant. He applied his heart unto wisdom.

  Note that the arguments presented in the above quote are virtually identical to those that Russell presented in his 1897 book.

  From The Watch Tower, May 1, 1922 (pp. 131-132):

  AMBITION'S FRUITAGE
  Ever and anon there arises some one who has been following the Lord, for a time at least, who possesses a measure of beauty of mind and character, and possibly of person---one who takes himself too seriously. He succeeds in convincing himself that the Lord has appointed him to look after things divine and to lead God's people out of the wilderness. As he goes on in this way, he becomes convinced in his own mind that the Lord made a mistake in selecting Brother Russell as that servant; and this doubt leads to the conclusion later on that Brother Russell was not "that servant" at all. He begins to doubt what Brother Russell wrote, and so expresses himself. Now he disregards the Lord's Word, which says: "Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths."

  Thus disregarding this admonition, and being led on by the subtle influence of the adversary, he convinces himself that it is his solemn duty to undo all the things that Brother Russell taught and to turn the church's vision in the right way. He prepares a manuscript and charts in support of same, setting forth his views. Submitting it to others and being advised that his thoughts are wrong, he construes this to mean a desire to prevent him from permitting his light to shine, and disregards such advice. So thoroughly is he impressed that he must thus teach the people and undo that which has been taught, that he begins the publication of his thoughts and to send these forth to the consecrated. His arguments seem plausible to those who make only a superficial examination, and especially to those who have forgotten what they were taught. Doubt arises in the minds of some who thus read. Now the test is on...

  FAITHFULNESS IS LOYALTY
  To be faithful means to be loyal. To be loyal to the Lord means to be obedient to the Lord. To abandon or repudiate the Lord's chosen instrument means to abandon or repudiate the Lord himself, upon the principle that he who rejects the servant sent by the Master thereby rejects the Master.

  There is no one in present truth today who can honestly say that he received a knowledge of the divine plan from any source other than by the ministry of Brother Russell, either directly or indirectly. Through his prophet Ezekiel Jehovah forshadowed the office of a servant, designating him as one clothed with linen, with a writer's inkhorn by his side, who was delegated to go throughout the city (Christendom) and comfort those that sighed by enlightening their minds relative to God's great plan. Be it noted that this was a favor bestowed not by man, but by the Lord himself. But in keeping with the Lord's arrangement he used a man. The man who filled that office, by the Lord's grace, was Brother Russell.

  Jesus clearly indicated that during his second presence he would have amongst the church a faithful and wise servant, through whom he would give to the household of faith meat in due season. The evidence is overwhelming concerning the Lord's second presence, the time of the harvest, and that the office of "that servant" has been filled by Brother Russell. This is not man-worship by any means. It matters not who Charles T. Russell was--whether he was a doctor, a hod-carrier or a seller of shirts. St. Peter was a fisherman; St. Paul a lawyer. But these matters are immaterial. Above all, these men were the chosen vessels of the Lord. Regardless of his earthly avocation, above all, Brother Russell was the Lord's servant. Then to repudiate him and his works is equivalent to a repudiation of the Lord, upon the principle heretofore announced.

  That last statement has evolved so as to become today's Fundamental Doctrine of Jehovah's Witnesses.

  From The Watch Tower, March 1, 1923 (pp. 67-69):

  HIS SECOND COMING
  The fact of our Lord's second coming is definitely settled by the Scriptures. (John 14:2, 3; Acts 1:11; 2 Timothy 4:8) The Scriptures show that his second presence was due in 1874. (See C83-127.) Also it is definitely settled by his own words, that at the time of his second presence he would gird himself, cause his servants to sit down to meat, and would come forth and serve them. (Luke 12:37) He also firmly establishes the fact that during his presence he would conduct a harvest work (Matthew 13:18-40; 24:31); and with equal force he states that at that time he would appoint some one to the office of that "faithful and wise servant" and make him ruler over all his goods. (Matthew 24:45-47) These points are incontrovertible; therefore must be considered by all reasonable and fair-minded Christians as conclusively settled.

  By proof is meant the physical facts in fulfilment of prophetic utterances by the Lord or some of his inspired witnesses. This proof shows that the Lord has been present since 1874, and that he has been conducting and is still conducting a harvest work; and that this harvest work has gathered together from every creed and denomination, and from the four quarters of the earth, as well as from all the ecclesiastical systems, those who really love the Lord. It must be conceded, then, that this work of the Lord is done in an orderly way. He could do it in no other way except in an orderly way. If it is conceded that he began his work in an orderly way, the burden of proof is on the objectors to show that he would afterward change his course and do that work in a disorderly way. The presumption must be indulged that he would continue it in an orderly way, even to a completion.

  In connection with his presence and the harvest work, the office of that "faithful and wise servant" is important, and is made so by the Lord himself. The one who fills that office is made ruler over all the Lord's goods during the time of his incumbency in office. The office of that "faithful and wise servant" therefore is a part of the orderly manner in which the Lord carries on his work during his second presence. The office is of far greater importance than the individual who fills the office; for if the officer placed in the office should fail to fill it properly, the office would still exist, and the Lord could easily appoint or assign some one else to fill that office.

  We believe that all who are now rejoicing in present truth will concede that Brother Russell faithfully filled the office of special servant of the Lord; and that he was made ruler over all the Lord's goods.

  The above teaching about Russell is crystal clear. The quoted Watch Tower article then goes on to explain exactly what Russell meant in earlier Watch Tower articles when he referred to one individual as being "that servant". This proves exactly what the Watchtower Society was teaching and caused Bible Students to believe up until 1927. It proves that today's statements by the Society that indicate that Russell did not teach that he was "that servant" are pure historical revisionism -- bold-faced lies. The article continues:

  Discussing this question of "that servant" himself in THE WATCH TOWER (April 15, 1904), Brother Russell said:

  " `Who then is the faithful and wise steward whom his Lord shall set over his household, to give them their portion of food in due season?' The implication seems to be that when the right time should come for understanding the parable, it would be clearly set forth: that at the time of the parable's fulfilment the Lord would appoint a servant in the household to bring these matters to the attention of all the servants, and that certain responsibilities would rest upon such a one respecting the dispatch of his duties. If faithfully performed, a great blessing would be his reward; and if unfaithful to his charge, severe penalties would be inflicted. The implication would be also that if faithful the servant would be continued in his service, and if unfaithful he would be dismissed and another take the position and its responsiblities.

  ". . . there would be no violation of principle, however, in supposing that the Lord at the time indicated would specially use one member of his church as the channel or instrument through which he would send the appropriate messages, spiritual nourishment appropriate at that time; because at various times in the past the Lord has used individuals in such a manner."--WATCH TOWER REPRINTS, pages 3355, 3356.

  If Brother Russell filled that office, then it must be conceded that he did so under the supervision of the Lord. "The steps of a good man are ordered by the Lord." (Psalm 37:23) Acting under the supervision of the Lord, Brother Russell organized the Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society. In expressing his reason why the Society was organized, he said:

  "It seems tolerably certain that some of the saints will be in the flesh during a great part at least of the `time of trouble'; and if so, there will be need of printed matter, tracts, etc., as much then, perhaps, as now, and possibly will be more heeded; for when the judgments of the Lord are `in the earth the inhabitants of the world will learn righteousness.' (Isaiah 26:9) Should those at present prominently identified with the work {undoubtedly referring to himself} not be the LAST to be `changed,' some interruption of the work might result; but this may be obviated by having a legal standing, granted by a State Charter."--WATCH TOWER REPRINTS, page 671.

  I must point out that "page 671" from Watch Tower Reprints is from the October, 1884 issue. Thus, according to the Watchtower Society in 1923, Russell as early as 1884 was "undoubtedly referring to himself" as "that servant". The article continues:

  In modest phrase Brother Russell here clearly indicated that it was his thought that the Society, as organized in an orderly manner, would carry on the work begun by him and finish that which had been committed to him personally. Often when asked by others, Who is that faithful and wise servant?--Brother Russell would reply: "Some say I am; while others say the Society is." Both statements were true; for Brother Russell was in fact the Society in a most absolute sense, in this, that he directed the policy and course of the Society without regard to any other person on earth. He sometimes sought advice of others connected with the Society, listened to their suggestions, and then did according to his own judgment, believing that the Lord would have him thus do.

  Since Brother Russell's "change" some who believe that he filled the office of "that servant" have said that the Lord has cast off the Society. Is such a conclusion either reasonable or Scriptural? Brother Russell's own thought was that the Society would continue to do the Lord's work as above indicated. Besides, if the Lord was pleased to have this organization started originally for his purposes, why should he cast it off? Why not continue to direct the servants therein according to his own will or supply other servants? Such is the reasonable conclusion.

  Do not the facts prove beyond a doubt that the Lord has been doing some harvest work during the past six years and since the death of Brother Russell? During that time have not many been gathered to the Lord, even out from the world, and have manifested every evidence of acceptance with the Lord? If the Lord, then, has been doing a work and is still doing it, is it reasonable to conclude that he is doing it in an orderly manner? If the Society is not being used to fulfil the office in carrying out the work, then who is? Can any of the murmurers or objectors point to another arrangement the Lord has in which he is carrying out his work? If any of them know of any other arrangement, let them come forward and name it. If there is any such other arrangement that the Lord has, all the saints will want to be in harmony with it and serve in the Lord's way, and not man's way.

  WHAT CONSTITUTES THE SOCIETY?
  The word Society as used herein is a generic term applied to the body of consecrated, anointed Christians throughout the world engaged in the work of representing the King and the King's interests on earth. It is an organization for the purpose of doing the Lord's work in an orderly way. This organization has its officers, elected in an orderly manner. The officers are not the Society, but are servants of the Society. Should every individual now in the Society prove disloyal, the Lord could put others into their places, and still the Society would exist and continue his work. Let us be wise enough to make the distinction between office and individual. All the individual members of the Society may make mistakes, being imperfect, but that would not mean that the Lord would cast off his organization and go about doing his work in a disorganized manner.

  If it is seen, then, that the Lord is conducting his work through his followers organized into a body for that purpose, and doing it in an orderly way, then all saints should wish to abide together in harmony and work together in harmony, following peace and holiness, having their hearts and minds united together in love; and in no other way could they get on. (Hebrews 12:14; Colossians 2:1-3, Diaglott) Each one, then, who represents the Lord should be looking out well for the interests of the King and his kingdom. Each one who possesses the spirit of the Lord will be glad to leave all judgment of his brother to the Lord, and to follow the admonition given by the Scriptures to cover the defects of his brother with the mantle of love. He will keep in mind that every servant must make his accounting to the Lord and not to any other body member.

  For the following, see also the Proclaimers book, page 143.

  In the February 15, 1927 Watch Tower article "Servant--God and Evil" the Society reconsidered Matthew 24:45, 46 and then repudiated its earlier view of C. T. Russell; he was no longer "the faithful and wise servant". After a good deal of discussion the article concluded (pp. 55-57):

  Jesus said that he would make them {the `faithful ones'} `ruler over all his goods'. To rule, as stated here, means to be appointed as a convoy or guard or escort. It would mean then that those faithful ones are designated by the Lord to look after his kingdom interests on the earth. Now let each one answer the question for his own satisfaction: Who on earth are now earnestly and zealously looking after the kingdom interests by proclaiming the day of God's vengeance, holding up the standard for the people, testifying that Jehovah is God, and declaring that the kingdom of heaven is at hand? All who answer truly must admit that there is but one small body of Christian people on earth, and that these are working harmoniously together to this end, and that there is none other so doing. The same class of Christians collectively are feeding each other upon the Word of God, and are diligently endeavoring to feed the prisoners who are also of the household of faith.

  There seems to be no ground, within the meaning of the Scriptures, for concluding that "the faithful and wise servant" refers to any individual person, but does have reference to the feet members of Christ on earth--those who are blind to everything except to the will of the Lord, and who are harmoniously lifting up their voices together in declaring his message of the kingdom...

  What is here said is no reflection on anything that has heretofore been written. Some have claimed that the scripture, "The faithful and wise servant," specifically applies to Brother Russell. He never made that claim himself. That Brother Russell was greatly used of the Lord no one can doubt who knew him. That the Lord used him more wonderfully than any one on earth since St. Paul's day there can be no doubt. But that does not at all affect the explanation of this scripture. It is clearly manifest from the scriptures hereinbefore cited that the elect Servant of God is Christ, Jesus the Head and his body members; and that Christ Jesus speaks of these faithful members as a part of himself.

  To say that "that faithful and wise servant" specifically applies to one individual and to none other would imply that a large proportion of the body members of Christ could not be classed either as faithful or wise. That would be doing violence to the scripture. It is only the wise and faithful that God has promised shall be preserved in this time of stress. "O love the Lord, all ye his saints: for the Lord preserveth the faithful."--Psalm 31:23...

  Furthermore, if the coming mentioned in the above text refers to the Lord's coming to his temple, and the text applies after he comes to his temple, it is manifest that this scripture could not be understod prior to 1918. The Lord does not interpret his Word in advance...

  With these physical facts with which we are all familiar now in mind, let us read this scripture and answer the question: "Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season?" (Matthew 24:45) The answer to this is, Those found faithful when the Lord comes to his temple. The goods of the Lord are all his interests. The Lord has made this faithful and wise class ruler over all his goods, or kingdom interests, on earth. Continued faithfulness unto death is required of each one who remains in this wise and faithful Servant class.

  By this time readers will have noted that the last bolded statement in the above quote is a bald-faced lie, that Russell "never made that claim himself" about being "that servant". Remember that the December 1, 1916 Watch Tower, stated clearly that "he admitted as much in private conversation". So beginning in 1927, the Watch Tower Society began lying about Charles Taze Russell's beliefs and teachings. It continues through today.

  That the Society's deception continues today is proved by the fact that even our learned scholar Dunsscot has been deceived. Note how he quotes the Proclaimers book to 'prove' that Russell was a humble man and never claimed to be "that servant":

  From the Proclaimers book, we also read:

  *** jv 120 10 Growing in Accurate Knowledge of the Truth ***
  He {Russell} mentioned by name older men such as Jonas Wendell, George Stetson, George Storrs, and Nelson Barbour, who personally contributed to his understanding of God's Word in various ways. He also stated: "Various doctrines we hold and which seem so new and fresh and different were held in some form long ago: for instance-Election, Free Grace, Restitution, Justification, Sanctification, Glorification, Resurrection." It was often the case, however, that one religious group was distinguished by a clearer understanding of one Bible truth; another group, by a different truth. Their further progress was frequently hindered because they were shackled to doctrines and creeds that embodied beliefs that had flourished in ancient Babylon and Egypt or that were borrowed from Greek philosophers.

  *** jv 49 5 Proclaiming the Lord's Return (1870-1914) ***
  Then how did Russell perceive the role that he and his associates played in publishing Scriptural truth? He explained: "Our work . . . has been to bring together these long scattered fragments of truth and present them to the Lord's people-not as new, not as our own, but as the Lord's. . . . We must disclaim any credit even for the finding and rearrangement of the jewels of truth." He further stated: "The work in which the Lord has been pleased to use our humble talents has been less a work of origination than of reconstruction, adjustment, harmonization."

  Russell thus was quite modest about his accomplishments. Nevertheless, the "scattered fragments of truth" that he brought together and presented to the Lord's people were free of the God-dishonoring pagan doctrines of the Trinity and immortality of the soul, which had become entrenched in the churches of Christendom as a result of the great apostasy. Like no one at that time, Russell and his associates proclaimed worldwide the meaning of the Lord's return and of the divine purpose and what it involved.

  DUNS: Pastor Russell was a humble servant of YHWH. Quod erat demonstrandum.

  We may note that when the Society quotes its early literature we often have something akin to Richard Nixon's claiming that politicians never lie. Clearly, our learned Dunsscot is into believing the Nixons of the world.

  As for Russell being modest about his accomplishments, he was no more modest than is today's Governing Body when they declare that they themselves are "faithful" and are "wise servants" of God. Any imperfect man who declares himself "faithful and wise" is far from humble. When he does it in connection with making interpretations of the Bible, and applying to himself, and when every interpretation he has ever made has uttely failed, then he has proved himself arrogant, and the opposite of "faithful and wise".

  The reader can see some of Russell's statements about his own virtual infallibility by going to the website "Research on the Watchtower" ( http://www.geocities.com/osarsif/end2.htm#russell ) and reading part of the article "The WTS and the End of the World". Click on "Part 2: The Orwellian Thinking of JWs", then on "C. T. Russell’s View of Himself". A lot more material proving that Russell viewed himself as practically infallible can be dug up.

  Conclusion: Russell was an arrogant pseudo-servant of YHWH. Quod erat demonstratum.

  I find it both distressing and entertaining that someone like Dunsscot, who proclaims himself a JW intellectual, can be so deceived. How much easier is it then, for JW leaders to deceive the rank & file, who have no such pretensions about themselves?

  AlanF
• 
  13

  TO: MAXIMUS & SEEKER--RE: TROLLISM OR TRUTH

  by MadApostate in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  the xjw mafia's attack on myself has progressed from underhanded insinuations of "trollism", to alanf's and farkel's failed attempts last week to label me a "wts troll", to yesterday's fullblown attack conducted by kent, tina, and even some of their buddies posing as new posters.

  e.h. even accused me of being the same person as "utilitarian reformist".

  (wrong!).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  AlanF

  MadApostate refused to get in touch with me by telephone. I don't trust anyone who under these circumstances refuses personal contact with me. They have absolutely nothing to lose, not even the cost of a phone call. This guy's demand for a $10,000 bet is a transparent ploy and might fool JWs who enjoy being fooled anyway, but not intelligent people.

  I questioned -- but never accused -- two other people recently about being trolls (msil and Utopian Reformist). I gave my phone number. Eventually each called me, and I confirmed what they told me, and now I know they're not trolls.

  MadApostate on the other hand is definitely a troll. As a practicing JW, he wouldn't want to sully himself by actually talking to Satan's spawn. He also knows that I would use all of my contacts to verify his identity. Thus we find him shooting out octopus ink.

  AlanF
• 
  59

  Never Hire A Jehovah's Witness!

  by Kent in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  if you are an employer, never hire a jehovah's witness.

  the reason for this is simple: that mistake may cost you a lot of money!

  you can bot expect a jehovah's witness to do what they are told to do, but you can expect them to do the oposite!

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  AlanF

  I agree with Kent on this one. Anyone who gets a waitressing job at a Chi-Chi's Mexican restaurant knows that one of the standard duties is to sing Happy Birthday to customers. If Cora Miller didn't want to perform such a duty, she should not have accepted the job. If she accepted the job while knowing about this duty, she would have been showing bad faith. In any case, if her religious beliefs would have prevented her from doing her duties, she should have made it known to the employer upfront. Not doing so is lying. This case is not about religious discrimination -- it's about whether a person is willing to tasks they were hired to perform.

  Of course, we don't necessarily know all the details of the case from the news story.

  AlanF
• 
  33

  A New Scientific Discovery About J.W.'s

  by Mindchild in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  hi all of you wild and funky people,.

  by way of introduction, some two decades ago, i left the jehovahs witness ideology at considerable personal costs, from there went forward to get a quality college education and im now a research scientist at an american university.

  a few months ago i, along with a team of international scientists, published a scientific paper that addressed a neural-behavioral discovery i had made many years ago that involved jehovahs witnesses.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  AlanF

  What an amazing set of scientific findings you've presented, mindchild! You and your colleagues may well be awarded a Nobel Prize!

  For larc, spectral analysis is a technique often used to analyze data in order to determine whether periodicities exist. It can determine a lot more besides, but that's the basic idea.

  To give a simple illustration, suppose you wanted to analyze tree ring growth data for a few hundred years to see if you could find any periodicities in growth, which would in turn imply periodicities in climate. You measure the width of growth rings on thousands of trees going back as far as you like, average the results and then plot the average width versus time on an x-y graph. You'll see a squiggly line with humps and dips, but most likely won't see much more than a faint trace of periodicity. Spectral analysis lets you extract the individual periodicities and gives you information about the magnitude of each periodicity in your data. In this case, most likely the strongest periodicity would be at some multiple of the period of the sunspot cycle, i.e., 11 years. Scientists have done this and actually found the strongest period at 22 years.

  The term "spectral analysis" comes from the "spectrum" of light, i.e., white light is made up of many frequencies all munged together into the normal ROYGBIV spectrum. When a prism splits light into its various frequencies (colors), it's doing a kind of spectral analysis. More sophisticated equipment can measure the intensity of each color. Light from the sun and stars contains not only a huge number of low-intensity frequencies that make up almost a continuum, but many particularly intense frequencies, or nulls at a frequency, that represent emission or absorption of light at those frequencies by a particular molecule. If you've ever viewed pictures of spectra from the sun or stars, you'll have seen those emission or absorption lines.

  Mathematically, any set of data can be analyzed to see the "frequencies" (or equivalently, the periods) inherent in the data. This is done via the technique called "Fourier analysis", which breaks data down into a set of sine waves of various magnitudes, frequencies and phases. In the case of measured data, computer programs exist to do this. The set of extracted sine waves is called the spectrum of the data. If you simply add up all of the extracted sine waves, you get back the shape of the original data curve.

  "Least squares" is another set of mathematical techniques that allows one to find the best fit to a predetermined curve of a set of "noisy" data. Once could use this, for example, to find the best fit sine wave to a set of data that look something like a noisy sine wave. I'm not familiar with details of the "least squares spectrum" technique described by our esteemed mindchild, but I imagine it would combine these two techniques to yield a "most probable" spectrum.

  Hope this helps.

  AlanF
• 
  16

  message for seven006

  by jonjonsimons in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  dave,.

  just checking to see if today is going better for you than yesterday.

  i know your dealing with some tough issues right now.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  AlanF

  Dave, you're in FL? Give us a call when you can, 970-206-1555.

  AlanF
• 
  133

  BERRY LAWSUIT EVALUATED

  by MadApostate in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i would like to preface my discussion of the recently filed berry lawsuit with several remarks.

  first, i am not an attorney, and my only connection with the legal profession is that which occasionally arises out of my personal or business affairs.

  second, i have no access to court records, opinions, etc., other than what is available via internet search engines.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  AlanF

  To anewperson:

  Actually I've met a number of top Watchtower personnel personally over the years. I've spoken to at least four members of the former PR department, including Schroeder and James Pellechia. All of them impressed me as being sincere, upfront people -- quite in contrast to J.R. Brown. On occasion I've walked into Bethel or called on the phone and asked to talk to someone in PR, and one of these guys showed up. I don't believe any of these guys work in PR anymore. I've also personally met Albert Schroeder, who needs no introductions, and Harry Peloyan, who turned out to be a complete dickhead and is the editor of Awake! and the compiler of the Creation book. I've also met George Couch, the Bethel Home Overseer, Ulysees Glass (now deceased), a former Gilead Instructor, Harley Miller, until recently head of the Service Department, and even Nathan Knorr when I was a little kid. These guys get very mixed reviews in my book.

  Please email me soon at [email protected].

  AlanF
• 
  107

  FATAL ASSUMPTIONS

  by You Know in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  jesus further related in the 15th chapter of john: "nevertheless, i have spoken these things to you that, when the hour for them arrives, you may remember i told them to you.

  these things, however, i did not tell you at first, because i was with you.

  so, the point is that jesus has not told his anointed ones certain things yet because the hour for them has not arrived.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  AlanF

  To Individual's Wife and Kat:

  You Know said:

  : I have yet to see even one XJW take responsibility for allowing themselves to be stumbled. It is always someone else's fault that you lost your faith in God.

  This is the sort of baldfaced lie that this idiot, and many JWs as well, are known for. He and I and others have had many discussions of this very thing. The truth -- which YK can't accept because he needs to blame Satan or Ray Franz or someone else -- is that plenty of people get disgusted with the JW religion, and in the process open up their minds to everything that was closed off before. One can read about science, history, archaeology and anything else without those thick blinders on anymore. Those blinders make one automatically filter out anything that doesn't pass muster with the Society.

  In my case, I gradually realized that the Society was wrong about many aspects of science and history. Then I found out that they actually tell lies about these things in order to bolster their religious claims. Once I realized that the idiots in Brooklyn are charlatans, I examined the Bible itself, on its own merits, and it came up severely wanting. So no one stumbled me about the Bible, or about God. Examining the Bible itself was all I needed.

  In case you ladies don't know it, You Know was once a drug-crazy biker. He stumbled into the JWs and, like most of his kind, substituted the JW drug for LSD. And like most former bikers and hippie-types, he's far more vicious and less forgiving than JWs who didn't live such nasty lives before they were JWs. Today he claims to be anointed, and hopes to rule over people as a holy Priest-King. Imagine a monster like that having power over anyone!

  A couple of years ago YK decided that he was going to engage in massive apostate-bashing by making a website. Unfortunately for him, in the process of registering the site he revealed his true identity -- Robert King of Kirkland, Washington. As a result of that he shut down the site and moved somewhere else. About the same time he claimed that he was going to educate himself about evolution and other science matters so as to bash apostates. He never did that either.

  So you can see that Bobby You Know Priest-King is nothing but an ignorant blowhard still getting high on ancient LSD left in his brain. The unfortunate thing is that many JW leaders are not far off from him when it comes to publishing religious dogma.

  AlanF