yes, I admit that at times there could be gentler tones, but there's a balance. you don't seem to read the Bible much either. I'm not addressing people I just met on the street, but generally speaking APOSTATE JUDAS-LIKE AND PHARISAICAL HERETICAL SNAKES !!! or at the very least people who are in that camp for the most part. listen very well to this. you talk about Christ-like??? do you read where Jesus called them 'sons of vipers' and 'hypocrites' and 'sons of Satan' and 'white-washed graves that appear nice outwardly but inside are full dead men's bones and all corruption'??????? Paul called them Cretans and "False Apostles" and "ministers of Satan." a balance. yes "seasoned with salt." and if you knew me and were with me all the time, you'd see that (though imperfect) I don't speak to average people on the street or in their homes the same exact way I'm going off here. in fact, I won't be on this site that much longer. it's just mostly warning messages. but you know something, I could actually be WORSE !!!! there are people who are like 10 times more blunt and rude than I am on this. I'm being more matter-of-fact and straight-forward than anything else. so don't be so thin-skinned. it's not all about panty-waist sissified whimpish stuff. it's cutting hard and bold. but understand this. if I saw ANY of you hurt on the street, unlike many Greek Orthodox demonized priests who spit and throw rocks, I would help you and comfort you and make sure you're well, and pay for your treatment. I don't wish anything bad on anyone, but that all repent of their rebellious whining and Korah-like silliness (Jude; Numbers) and stubborn pagan corrupt worldly vain junk. but your point is taken. I'll try to be a bit gentler. but understand the actual points, instead of harping on "tones" that you may not like or that you may be too sensitive to. but I appreciate your comments anyway.
sweetscholar
JoinedPosts by sweetscholar
-
144
Is repititive imprinting of ideas a primary cult tactic?
by hubert inin a post by syn that lady lee has brought up again, there is this statement by syn.
i could underline my watchtower in 10 minutes, tops, and be sure that all the answers were right.
many esteemed researchers have shown that repetitive imprinting of ideas is a primary cult tactic, and i tend to agree with them.
-
-
-
31
JW's: Polytheists?
by jstalin ini was thinking today about the issue of jesus' deity (or lack thereof), according to the wts.
they say that jehovah is god, jesus is not the same as jehovah, but that jesus is a god.
doesn't that make jws polytheists?
-
-
sweetscholar
you don't read the Bible all that carefully. the Bible DOES in fact call Angels "God's Sons" Read Genesis 6, Job 1:6; Job 2:1; Job 38:7; Psalm 8:5; Hebrews 2:7. And as far as your Matthew 1:23 "Immanuel" With Us Is God or "God With Us" or "Imon O Theos" With Us The God, that shows desperation on your part, because that's simply a NICK NAME "Emmanuel". many people had that name at the time, and that did not necessarily make them Almighty God. With the Messiah of course it had more significance, because Jehovah had turned His attention to sinful Israel in a way that He did not do in a long time, and now in a much better way, through His Beloved Son who was to be Savior and Messiah and Redeemer, and through this Messiah, God would be "with" Israel and us. that's NOT the same as finding a place that says "Jesus is THE God" in those exact words. And as far as Hebrews 1, well that very same thing was a quote from the Psalms and was originally applied to King Solomon. Was Solomon Almighty God? And the point in Hebrews 1:8 was the THRONE. Your Throne is God. Many commentators who are NOT necessarily JWs have admitted that. and again, you don't read carefully. I said find me one IRREFUTABLE UNAMBIGUOUS UNDENIABLE CLEAR THING. Matthew 1:23 and Hebrews 1:8 do NOT qualify as "unambiguous and irrefutable". you may THINK that they do, buddy, but they don't. cuz then you don't know what is really meant by "unambiguous and irrefutable and clear". I'm talking about a thing where it's so grammatically clear and obvious that anybody could see it beyond exception. like again, "Christ IS THE GOD. PERIOD." not nicknames like Immanuel. or "your throne is God" originally addressing Solomon. do you see the point now????? and again, to correct your ignorance and mistake. angels ARE called "sons of God" in Scripture. But the pre-existent Christ is the UNIQUE AND ONLY-BEGOTTEN AND FIRST-BEGOTTEN AND SPECIAL SON OF GOD. the pre-existen "Angel of the LORD" that led the Israelites in the wilderness, as even many trinitarians admit is Christ. I rest my case.
-
31
JW's: Polytheists?
by jstalin ini was thinking today about the issue of jesus' deity (or lack thereof), according to the wts.
they say that jehovah is god, jesus is not the same as jehovah, but that jesus is a god.
doesn't that make jws polytheists?
-
-
sweetscholar
you have to read what I wrote a bit more carefully. I did not say that in the Greek "New Testament" that Jesus is not called "God" with the Greek "ho" for "the" in front of it. I said that he was not called "God" with the Greek word "ho" in front of it BY ITSELF. You think I'm not already aware of John 20:28 and Thomas' confession to our Lord? Listen. And this is NOT boasting. but just reporting to help you understand something. I have read the Bible from cover to cover at least 20 times all the way through, in my life. In at least 4 different languages too. That does not mean I'm perfect in my analysis or that I know everything. cuz I discover just how much I DON'T know each time !!!! so I'm still willing to keep an open mind to an extent. with that said, the Thomas thing was just a matter of Greek grammar to indicate "POSSESSION" OF something. "The God OF me". Ho Theos MOU. The God ME. or My God. The God of me. my Powerful One. there's no other way to construct that in Greek. I'll get back to that point in a moment, but I just want to quickly address your thing about the Father also being referred to as "God" without the article. this is the problem with trinitarians I've noticed. they think that because a broad term is applied to the Father that that negates the argument. like with "ex" and "dia" for creation. "out of" and "through". both Greek terms are applied to the Father in Scripture, but the problem is that only "dia" for "through" is ever applied to the Son, never the more powerful term "ex" for "out of" or "from" indicating Ultimate Source. The Father can have a variety of terms applied to Him, but if the Son only has one broad term ever clearly applied to Him, then THAT'S the crucial point. so what that God the Father is sometimes referred to with the indefinite God Greek? how does that help the co-equal Trinitarian argument ultimately? cuz that doesn't solve their problem one bit. the issue was not whether the Almighty Father is ever referred to without the definite article sometimes. Because obviously He is at times. no kidding. so what? He can be. that's fine. the question is that Christ is never clearly irrefutably unambiguously (never mind what Granville Sharp babbled about in Titus either) undebatably referred to as THE GOD by itself. do we see Christ ever being undeniably called that in Scripture? "Ho Theos" with nothing else really after it? in other words, where do you see a clear thing in Greek "Christos who is Ho Theos." (that thing in 1 John 5:20 "true one, he is the true God" grammatically could be referring to the Father, as even Trinitarians grudgingly admitted.) with nothing else after it? Only the Father is every clearly undeniably called 'THE GOD' in the whole Bible, like in John 1:1. yes, He's at times referred to without the article. cuz He can be referred both ways. but that's what "indefinite" means as far as John 1:1. in other words "theos ein o Logos" or "a God was the Word" COULD be the Almighty God or it may not be. it's indefinite. can go either way. that's the point. but if Christ was said to be "O Theos ein o Logos" aaahhh, there would be such a good proof text linguistically to argue for Christ's co-equal deity with the Father. but the problems that John, and the Holy Spirit, did not write it that way. Thomas's thing was a matter of Greek grammer with "mou" or "my" after it. show me one UNDENIABLE Verse in Scripture that has no debate with it where you see Christ the Son being called clearly "THE God" ever, or "ho Theos" by ITSELF without a "grammatical possession" thing involved.
-
144
Is repititive imprinting of ideas a primary cult tactic?
by hubert inin a post by syn that lady lee has brought up again, there is this statement by syn.
i could underline my watchtower in 10 minutes, tops, and be sure that all the answers were right.
many esteemed researchers have shown that repetitive imprinting of ideas is a primary cult tactic, and i tend to agree with them.
-
-
sweetscholar
I don't know why it's so hard to grasp. and of course you don't really believe (or at least have serious doubts regarding) the Noah's Ark account in the Bible. but what's the difficulty really? they had to do WHATEVER NOAH AND HIS FAMILY WERE DOING AT THE TIME. whatever that was. well what did they do? construct the ark, abstain from what God said were no no's, and "preaching righteousness." The Verses of Scripture are whatever is indicative of what provided salvation from the Flood. common logical sense. whatever Noah and his family did, that's what other people should have done, to be spared God's Judgment and Wrath. can we get a nice hardy "DDUUUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH". sorry. couldn't resist. I'm only human. not perfect. but your nonsense kinda warranted it. your foolish questions and silliness don't make sense. you're asking (nay demanding) for specific Verse Citations to show whether "yes" to any of your listed criteria are to be expressly plainly there in the sense of "you must do this, this, this and that to be spared God's Flood and Judgment, with Noah's Ark, and so and so". come on. the Verses (and reasoning powers that God gave you) indicate that WHATEVER NOAH DID THAT'S WHAT OTHERS HAD TO DO ALSO, TO BE SAVED IN THE ARK OF SALVATION. and again, the original point is that God does NOT tolerate quite as much as you think. God had only ONE true religion throughout history. Enoch, Noah, Moses, Jesus. that sort of thing. yes God is not as restrictive and dogmatic as some characters make him out either, so there's a balance. but overall, it's a narrow road, and NOT a "do whatever feels right in your heart" thing. if Noah's Ark was true (and there IS tons of archeological and historical evidence to show that Global Flood did happen thousands of years ago) and if God is real, and the Bible is true, then obviously logically the only true religion or "church" at that specific time in history was Noah's Ark. what's the big difficulty in grasping that??? it's doing whatever God wants at whatever time in history. and at that time that was it. constructing the Ark, staying clean, and preaching God's Word of "righteousness" to the world. and Rutherford's take on this that or the other at the Resurrection doesn't negate any of that. refining of dross and error advancing light in the "last days" is what it is. the point is that pagan corrupt blood-guilty and blood-stained idolatrous Roman Catholic Church does NOT have the "Truth". and neither do the silly Buddhists who worship a dead man named "Buddha" and don't believe in a Creator. not all religions or philosophies can logically be right or true if they all conflict with each other. can we can get another "duhhhh". you can't have two sets of CONFLICTING 'truths'. such a notion (held by certain people today) makes NO sense. either there is a purgatory or there isn't. and don't give me this gas about "oh it exists for some people and not for others. it's a personal individual thing. you can't judge." the Romanist Church does not say that purgatory only exists for Catholics, but exists IN GENERAL. and the Protestant churches say "no there is no such place for anybody." well??? which is true? can't both be right. that's just one of MANY MANY MANY examples of what I mean. either Mohammad was a true prophet of God or he was a gross demonized imposter. and don't say "well he's a prophet to Muslims, even if he's not for you." Cuz that's not the real position. the position in the Koran is that he is a prophet, period. and the Bible says that Christ was the last of "Jehovah's Prophets". and that anyone adding to that, or the Bible, is cursed and "anathema" and not of God. a false spirit and false gospel. false prophet. well? which notion is true? Babylon is confusion. wake up. narrow road of life and light. true light. "AND FEW ARE THE ONES FINDING IT." of course with human nature from Adam being so horrendous and rebellious and warped and fallen and stubborn and silly. and with the Devil running around deceiving people. no wonder the world's a mess. a nice result of people doing "what feels right to them." anymore asinine questions? (by the way, I like your cowboy hat. I have several myself.) peace.
-
9
on a co-equal trinity and pagan holidays
by sweetscholar init's easy to see straws or beams or splinters in other people's eyes, and yet fail to notice the trunks and logs and things in our own eyes.
but anyway, about those emails.
there are points that are never really truly honestly addressed.
-
-
sweetscholar
it's a question and point that I've come across before a number of times already. it's not a new point or discovery. and if you're asking me this in at least a semi-sincere way, and in an honest manner, then I welcome the question. civil discussion about it is fine and even necessary. but are you just gonna be closed-minded and dismissive with everything I write and say here? hopefully not. if you can humbly keep your mind open just a crack, it might suit you well. I don't say that condescendingly either, but honestly. we all could and should take that advice, in general. I say that a case CAN be made for a co-equal trinity, in Scripture. Just not an air-tight or totally bullet-proof case. I concede some seeming points here and there. but where's the weight of evidence? The Bible was written in such a way so as to test men's hearts. let's discuss this matter now. here we go. let me first say this: a text without a context is a pre-text. (just like trinitarians have lifted "I and My Father are one" out its proper and understandable and reasonable context in John 10 concerning one in pastoral or shepherding work, being "one" with the Father in holy mission and saving purpose, and NOT in some mystical Nicean "substance" thing, of Athanasian hallucinations.)
now, what was the overall situation and context and point in Isaiah? People of an Athanasian or Trinitarian bent have constantly used Isaiah 44:24 to TRY to prove that Jesus is the Supreme Creator, just like His Father is, or that they must be co-equal or con-substantial or co-eternal, or the same God, because Scripture states that God made all things by Himself. So the pre-existent Christ must have been "God" exactly and equally like God the Father is. That therefore Jesus would have to be part of the Godhead since Paul and John said that all things were created through Jesus Christ. (John 1:3,10; Colossians 1:16) RUSaved, as I said before, regarding this, because, frankly, you guys always do it, DO NOT TAKE PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE OUT OF THEIR PROPER AND NECESSARY CONTEXT. What was the context of Isaiah 44:24 ??? What was the setting?? What do the surrounding Verses indicate? RUSaved, stop using closed-system logic. Let's examine things openly and honestly and fairly. Let's take it from the NIV. (Read this through)
"This is what the LORD says--your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb: I am the LORD, who has made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself, who foils the signs of the FALSE PROPHETS and makes fools of DIVINERS, who overthrows the learning of the wise and turns it into nonsense, who carries out the words of his servants and fulfills the predictions of his messengers, who says of Jerusalem, 'It shall be inhabited,' of the towns of Judah, 'They shall be built,' and of their ruins, 'I will restore them,' who says to the watery deep, 'Be dry and I will dry up your streams,' who says of Cyrus, 'He is my shepherd and will accomplish all that I please; he will say of Jerusalem, "Let it be rebuilt," and of the temple, "Let its foundations be laid."'"--Isaiah 44:24-28.
Jehovah is the Creator of heaven and earth. He is powerful enough to take action against Babylon, and in favor of His forgiven people. (With me so far?) We see that Yehowah Elohim feels absolutely certain about future events and He brings the test to a climax and puts Himself to the severest test of whether He is the one true God compared with gods of the pagan nations. (A very crucial and important point there.) He names, almost 200 years in advance, the very man whom He will raise up to free His people from Babylon.
The fortunetellers, the diviners, the astrologers, the political forecasters who made unfavorable predictions against Yehowah's people, particularly the forecasters of Babylon--all of these Jehovah has proved to be "frustrated fools", having things backwards. At the same time He has proved His own servants, His messengers, His witnesses like Isaiah and Jeremiah, to be true by fulfilling the inspired counsel that He gave through these prophets.
So, sir, when it says that God stretched out the heavens and earth by Himself, it's in the context of refuting pagan gods and idols, that the false gods of the nations (hostile nations) had nothing to do with the creation of the universe. It's exposing false ideas and concepts of the worldly nations. It's the idiomitic Hebraic expressions, and in context, that need to be understood. But this does not ipso fact of necessity mean that a true one, a mighty Firstborn Son of God, can't be a Master Worker and Craftsman at the Father's side while "the foundations of the earth were being marked out." (Read Proverbs 8:22-36; John 3:36; 1 Cor. 1:24.) Trinitarians ALWAYS take Isaiah 44:24 out of its historical, linguistical, religious, Biblical, grammatical, and logical context. To attempt to support an extreme doctrine.
And also, you never really addressed Revelation 3:14, with the Greek "arkhie" meaning "beginning" (NOT beginnER) of God's creation. a Greek term which does NOT mean "ruler" or "source". "arkHON" means "ruler" OF something in the Greek "New Testament", and "arkHEGOS" means "Source" or "Author" OF something in the Greek Scriptures. every single time that the word "arkhie" is used by all writers of the inspired New Testament, where "OF" is next to it, in a genetive sense, it always always means "BEGINNING" or "first in a group" of something. how boot dat?
And now back to the ultimate creation question. it's this simple. God the Father is the Ultimate Source of creation. He "CREATED" (one Hebrew word), and Christ the Master Worker "MADE" all things, a different Hebrew and Greek work. The Father Jehovah can be spoken as both creating and making, but the Son Jesus only "made". Why? because the Father supplied the materials, and the Son worked the materials, at the bidding and in the service of God. Thence, "all things were made through Him, and not one thing that was made was made without Him" and so on. But to TRUE pure unadulterated NON-Athanasian "Christians" of the Bible, there is ONE GOD, the Father, OUT OF (EX) whom all things are,... and one Lord Jesus Christ, THROUGH (DIA) whom all things are." Paul did not say: "to us there is one God, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit". Why? that would have been a perfect place for him to say and define and make clear who the True God of Christianity is, IF that God is really a co-equal co-eternal trinity. Paul didn't write: "to us there is one God, the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." He didn't phrase it like that. read it carefully. he put only the Father in the "one God" classification. we can get into at another time how Christ is "Lord" in a way (Messianically) that is different than how the Father is "Lord". And that the Father is "God" in a way different (in a Supreme Absolute sense) than how Christ is. And Paul also did not say "to us there is one God, the Father and Christ Jesus OUT OF whom all things are." In other words "ex" is never used of the Son. Even though "dia" as well as "ex" is used of the Father, the crucial point is that the Greek "ex" (for "from" or "out of") is never ever ever used of Christ in the inspired "New Testament." why is that? if Christ is just as much the Creator as the Father is? the answer is that Christ is NOT the ultimate Creator of the universe, but rather its "Maker". Because God the Father both "creates" and "makes" but the Son only "makes" in the sense of working materials that were already there provided by God the Father, the Eternal Unbegotten Supreme God, "whose Name alone is Jehovah." Amen. anymore questions? I hope this helps answer some of these things. And I hope you give at least a smidgen of consideration and fair attention to the points and positions here. -
9
on a co-equal trinity and pagan holidays
by sweetscholar init's easy to see straws or beams or splinters in other people's eyes, and yet fail to notice the trunks and logs and things in our own eyes.
but anyway, about those emails.
there are points that are never really truly honestly addressed.
-
-
sweetscholar
it's a question and point that I've come across before a number of times already. it's not a new point or discovery. and if you're asking me this in at least a semi-sincere way, and in an honest manner, then I welcome the question. civil discussion about it is fine and even necessary. but are you just gonna be closed-minded and dismissive with everything I write and say here? hopefully not. if you can humbly keep your mind open just a crack, it might suit you well. I don't say that condescendingly either, but honestly. we all could and should take that advice, in general. I say that a case CAN be made for a co-equal trinity, in Scripture. Just not an air-tight or totally bullet-proof case. I concede some seeming points here and there. but where's the weight of evidence? The Bible was written in such a way so as to test men's hearts. let's discuss this matter now. here we go. let me first say this: a text without a context is a pre-text. (just like trinitarians have lifted "I and My Father are one" out its proper and understandable adn reasonable context in John 10 concerning one in pastoral or shepherding work, being "one" with the Father in holy mission and saving purpose, and NOT in some mystical Nicean "substance" thing, of Athanasian hallucinations.)
now, what was the overall situation and context and point in Isaiah? People of an Athanasian or Trinitarian bent have constantly used Isaiah 44:24 to TRY to prove that Jesus is the Supreme Creator, just like His Father is, or that they must be co-equal or con-substantial or co-eternal, or the same God, because Scripture states that God made all things by Himself. So the pre-existent Christ must have been "God" exactly and equally like God the Father is. That therefore Jesus would have to be part of the Godhead since Paul and John said that all things were created through Jesus Christ. (John 1:3,10; Colossians 1:16) RUSaved, as I said before, regarding this, because, frankly, you guys always do it, DO NOT TAKE PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE OUT OF THEIR PROPER AND NECESSARY CONTEXT. What was the context of Isaiah 44:24 ??? What was the setting?? What do the surrounding Verses indicate? RUSaved, stop using closed-system logic. Let's examine things openly and honestly and fairly. Let's take it from the NIV. (Read this through)
"This is what the LORD says--your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb: I am the LORD, who has made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself, who foils the signs of the FALSE PROPHETS and makes fools of DIVINERS, who overthrows the learning of the wise and turns it into nonsense, who carries out the words of his servants and fulfills the predictions of his messengers, who says of Jerusalem, 'It shall be inhabited,' of the towsn of Judah, 'They shall be built,' and of their ruins, 'I will restore them,' who says to the watery deep, 'Be dry and I will dry up your streams,' who says of Cyrus, 'He is my shepherd and will accomplish all that I please; he will say of Jerusalem, "Let it be rebuilt," and of the temple, "Let its foundations be laid."'"--Isaiah 44:24-28.
Jehovah is the Creator of heaven and earth. He is powerful enough to take action against Babylon, and in favor of His forgiven people. (With me so far?) We see that Yehowah Elohim feels absolutely certain about future events and He brings the test to a climax and puts Himself to the severest test of whether He is the one true God compared with gods of the pagan nations. (A very crucial and important point there.) He names, almost 200 years in advance, the very man whom He will raise up to free His people from Babylon.
The fortunetellers, the diviners, the astrologers, the political forecasters who made unfavorable predictions against Yehowah's people, particularly the forecasters of Babylon--all of these Jehovah has proved to be "frustrated fools", having things backwards. At the same time He has proved His own servants, His messengers, His witnesses like Isaiah and Jeremiah, to be true by fulfilling the inspired counsel that He gave through these prophets.
So, sir, when it says that God stretched out the heavens and earth by Himself, it's in the context of refuting pagan gods and idols, that the false gods of the nations (hostile nations) had nothing to do with the creation of the universe. It's exposing false ideas and concepts of the worldly nations. It's the idiomitic Hebraic expressions, and in context, that need to be understood. But this does not ipso fact of necessity mean that a true one, a mighty Firstborn Son of God, can't be a Master Worker and Craftsman at the Father's side while "the foundations of the earth being marked out." (Read Proverbs 8:22-36; John 3:36; 1 Cor. 1:24.) Trinitarians ALWAYS take Isaiah 44:24 out of historical, linguistical, religious, Biblical, grammatical, and logical context. To attempt to support an extreme doctrine.
And also, you never really addressed Revelation 3:14, with the Greek "arkhie" meaning "beginning" (NOT beginnER) of God's creation. a Greek term which does NOT mean "ruler" or "source". "arkHON" means "ruler" OF something in the Greek "New Testament", and "arkHEGOS" means "Source" or "Author" OF something in the Greek Scriptures. every single time that the word "arkhie" is used by all writers of the inspired New Testament, where "OF" is next to it, in a genetive sense, it always always means "BEGINNING" or "first in a group" of something. how boot dat?
And back to creation. it's this simple. God the Father is the Ultimate Source of creation. He "CREATED" (one Hebrew word), and Christ the Master Worker 'MADE" all things, a different Hebrew and Greek work. The Father Jehovah can be spoken as both creating and making, but the Son Jesus only "made". Why, because the Father supplied the materials, and the Son worked the materials, at the bidding and in the service of God. Thence, "all things were made through Him, and not one thing that was made was made without Him" and so on. But to TRUE pure unadulterated NON-Athanasian "Christians" of the Bible, there is ONE GOD, the Father, OUT OF (EX) whom all things are,... and one Lord Jesus Christ, THROUGH (DIA) whom all things are." Paul did not say: "to us there is one God, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit". Why? that would have been a perfect place for him to say and define and make clear who the True God of Christianity is, IF that God is really a co-equal co-eternal trinity. Paul didn't write: "to us there is one God, the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." He didn't phrase it like that. read it carefully. he put only the Father in the "one God" classification. we can get into at another time how Christ is "Lord" in a way (Messianically) that is different than how the Father is "Lord". And that the Father is "God" in a way different (in a Supreme Absolute sense) than how Christ is. And Paul did not say "to us there is one God, the Father and Christ Jesus OUT OF whom all things are." In other words "ex" is never used of the Son. Even though "dia" as well as "ex" is used of the Father, the crucial point is that the Greek "ex" (for "from" or "out of") is never ever ever used of Christ in the inspired "New Testament." why? if Christ is just as much the Creator as the Father is? the answer is that Christ is NOT the ultimate Creator of the universe, but rather its "Maker". Because God the Father both "creates" and "makes" but the Son only "makes" in the sense of working materials that already there provided by God the Father, the Eternal Unbegotten Supreme God, "whose Name alone is Jehovah." Amen. anymore questions? -
144
Is repititive imprinting of ideas a primary cult tactic?
by hubert inin a post by syn that lady lee has brought up again, there is this statement by syn.
i could underline my watchtower in 10 minutes, tops, and be sure that all the answers were right.
many esteemed researchers have shown that repetitive imprinting of ideas is a primary cult tactic, and i tend to agree with them.
-
-
sweetscholar
something I wanted to add, that I forgot to actually say in my other long email message to you. which I hope you red first. as far as the Noah's Ark thing, my point was that the only true religion at whatever time in history, according to the Bible, is DOING WHATEVER GOD WANTS YOU TO DO IN WHATEVER WAY HE WANTS YOU TO DO IT, AND WHATEVER TIME HE WANTS YOU TO DO IT IN. so sometimes that may involve alters (later on with the Jews) or Lord's Supper or Baptist (with true Christians) or meetings and preaching or teaching, and abstaining from so and so. it's doing God's revealed Will, at whatever point in history. so then Noah's Ark, if the story in the Bible is true and literal and accurate, turned out to be the ONLY TRUE religion on the planet. in other words, the Truth. though you rave in protest at the thought of "Truth" in that sense.
-
144
Is repititive imprinting of ideas a primary cult tactic?
by hubert inin a post by syn that lady lee has brought up again, there is this statement by syn.
i could underline my watchtower in 10 minutes, tops, and be sure that all the answers were right.
many esteemed researchers have shown that repetitive imprinting of ideas is a primary cult tactic, and i tend to agree with them.
-
-
sweetscholar
well you're a relativist who believes in situation ethics and lame-brain whatever feels good or right to the person is ok philophies. no logic in any of that. Absolute Truth or Divine Truth or Biblical Truth don't exist to you. that's why you object to "pagan demented world" terms and language. I know you don't believe that Noah's Flood actually happened, or the Ark and stuff like. but just for variety's sake, for the sake of argument, let's just say that that did in fact happen JUST the way the Bible says that it did. ok? with me so far. well this is a question I've posed to people, and their responses betrway the general Biblical ignorance or lack of common sense or logic that people in general have in the world. it's a simple question that a 4th grader could theoretically answer, if he's minus retarded baggage and silliness in his brain. it's this: IF Noah's Ark was actually true, then what was the only true religion at that time in history? what PROVED to be the ONLY TRUE RELIGION on this earth, again IF God flooded and destroyed the world, the people who did not listen to Noah and his family, and take part in that "strange work" (compare Isaiah 28:21) of building the Ark and "preaching righteousness" at that time? what HAD to be "the only true church and only true religion" at the time? ok? well these are the asinine responses that people have, if they respond at all: "aaahhhh, duhhh, ahh the Jews?" "aaaahh, the ten commandments" "ahh, eeehh, Israel?" and I patiently and lovingly and gently tell them "well no, think about it. The Jews did not exist yet at this time. this happened BEFORE the Jews were around." analyze it, this is the problem people have. people think that "religion" or "true religion" or "true church" has to be this elaborate formal alter and steeple thing all the time. but that's NOT what is ULTIMATELY. the logical and Biblical answer to my very simple question is: THE ONLY TRUE RELIGION AND TRUE CHURCH AT THAT TIME IN HISTORY PROVED TO 'NOAH'S ARK'. in other words, Noahs' Family, "the Church of Noah" under Jehovah's command, preaching His Warning and Word, and the constructing of the Ark, before the Flood Waters were unleashed. duhhhhhhh. that's what proved to be (if the Bible's account is true and historically accurate) the ONLY true religon, hence THE TRUTH. the Truth. ultimate religious, spiritual, divine, Truth. you have a hang-up and uptight thing about capatilizing the letter "T" in "Truth"??? only shows that you're a relativist who thinks that all religions and philosophies are ok, it's just personal choice. well look at the miserable horrendous state of the world, cuz people do what "feels right". Noah was an arrogant cultic "exclusivist" if that's the case. and so is Christ Jesus. cuz HE (not JWs) called the Road to Life a NARROW ROAD WHERE ONLY A FEW WOULD BE ON. a few, buddy. NOT the majority of people in the world. and not even the majority of professing so-called "Christians". The Bible is extremely "exclusivist" in a certain sense. cuz it makes clear distinctions between "righteous people" and "unrighteous people" and an unrighteous person does not necessarily have to steal or kill to qualify. just worshipping dragons or cows is enough to qualify as "unrighteous" and "false" in the Bible's eyes and God's eyes. WAKE UP. your beef is not so much with Jehovah's witnesses as it is with Jehovah Himself. and His Bible. and don't give me this lame "poor man's argument" (as it's called in logic) of "your interpretation" cuz there's true and false interpretations or "understandings" of things. but either Noah's Ark and the Flood and Sodom and Gommorah happened or they didn't. either it's a narrow road or it isn't. people (screwed up sons and daughters of Adam) generally do and believe what they WANT to do and believe, not usually what the honest genuine cold rude facts actually indicate or support. later.
-
144
Is repititive imprinting of ideas a primary cult tactic?
by hubert inin a post by syn that lady lee has brought up again, there is this statement by syn.
i could underline my watchtower in 10 minutes, tops, and be sure that all the answers were right.
many esteemed researchers have shown that repetitive imprinting of ideas is a primary cult tactic, and i tend to agree with them.
-
-
sweetscholar
that are not even put out by witnesses understand the need to inculcate and emphasise points with repetition and REMINDERS throughout a speech or in general. human memory is el stinko. and Paul said to CONTINUE in the things learned by us. people who don't like what's being said or repeated will pick at those things and moan and belly-ache. and again, look in the mirror. you're a silly nutjob who lives in mud. with a face of a lizard. doofis doofis doofis. where's your credibility ??? I rest my case.
-
144
Is repititive imprinting of ideas a primary cult tactic?
by hubert inin a post by syn that lady lee has brought up again, there is this statement by syn.
i could underline my watchtower in 10 minutes, tops, and be sure that all the answers were right.
many esteemed researchers have shown that repetitive imprinting of ideas is a primary cult tactic, and i tend to agree with them.
-
-
sweetscholar
doofis, you don't even come close. try addressing the specific points of my writing instead of childishly and schmuckishly saying silly crap. living in mud huts has corroded what's left of your mind. prodigal son went to the pigs and vomit. duhh. wake up and grow some sanity, why don't you. anyway, it's doubtful you even actually totally red what I wrote. try examining the points, instead of making sarcastic dumbbell remarks. (My sarcasm towards you right now is TOTALLY warranted and Biblical, like Elijah saying to the Baal prophets that Baal was not answering them cuz he was probably busy taking a dump.) but study things carefully instead of laying on the beach getting too much sun. those beams can fry your skin and brain. address the important matters here. if your mind can grasp what I wrote, that is. apparently it can't. lata.