Posts by sweetscholar

144

Is repititive imprinting of ideas a primary cult tactic?

by hubert in

in 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

hi. you have to read what I write a bit more carefully. I did not say that Jehovah always used an organization. period. I said He always used an organizational type arrangement in PIVOTAL POINTS IN DISPENSATIONAL HISTORY. after the death of the last Apostle (and this is where Mormons go overboard) true Christianity AS AN ORGANIZED ARRANGMENT began to gradually (not overnight) get corrupted and "weed-like". the Second Century Christians, who many of them were children and rubbed shoulders with some of the Apostles, can and should be considered the true ones, like Polycarp, etc. But in the third and fourth centuries, that was IT ! true Christianity (according to careful scrutiny of Scriptural passages "wheat and weeds" and "act as a restraint" and "is at work now" and "ravenous wolves" etc) ceased to exist AS AN ORGANIZATION, by the time of Constantine, Athanasius, Eusebius, Sabellius, and so forth, Plato's god being mixed with the Biblical God, and all kinds of paganism and corruption taking hold. formalism, mass, etc. but there have always been true Christians (even if they didn't have total clear light about everything) throughout the centuries. very few people know this, but the official position of JWs is that John Huss and John Wycliffe are anointed born again true Christians. part of the Body of Christ. when I tell that to people they're shocked. JWs are not Mormons. not even close.

but the point is that IN THE LAST DAYS, there are Scriptural (as well as common sense) indications that there would be a certain type of restoration of true pure separated Kingdom-adhering Christianity AS AN ORGANIZED AND STRUCTURED ARRANGEMENT. "knowledge and refinement being increased" and "who upon his Master's arrival will be glad doing so, dispensing meat in due season." and "you are My witnesses (PLURAL), says Jehovah, even My SERVANT (SINGULAR), that I will declare My excellencies and dominion" and so forth, and "who is that faithful and wise SERVANT", obviously a plural composite servant class. because that "servant" will be there "upon His arrival" about 2000 years later!

( and as far as the New World Translation issue, well it's funny and hypocritical that a big stink is made about VERY FEW PASSAGES in there, and the accusation of bias in the translation when almost every other English translation of the Bible was put together by biased Athanasian TRINITARIANS. can't the same accusation be made agains them? to be consistent? they colored certain texts to fit THEIR pre-conceptions and Nicean affections. so what? the question is what do the original Greek and original Hebrew really truly warrant. but that's another topic. also, it needs to be said, that way before the NWT Bible came out, JWs came up with the same doctrines and beliefs, using the KJV, ASV, AT, Douay, and Greek Interlinears. I can prove from a King James Bible that the Father is supreme and that there will be a New Earth, and that the 144000 are "Jews inwardly". so what. and that God used organized arrangements, not chaotic nonsense in key dispensations. anyway, thanks for the exchange. may the Lord watch over you and open your eyes and hearts and keep you. for Christ's sake. later.

144

Is repititive imprinting of ideas a primary cult tactic?

by hubert in

in 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

(to Abaddon, the foul mouthed devil-worshipper)

first of all, I have addressed specific points raised by others. maybe you didn't see it. also, it's selective about the "rude arrogant" thing. cuz if I came off the same exact way BUT ONLY IN OPPOSITION TO THE WATCHTOWER AND JWs, I would not be getting this asinine crap and "disrespect" from the majority. (by the way, not all have been like you or some others. as I said, you don't know. there've been a few where, even anti-JWs, exchanges, where it's been civil.) but come off it, you demonized nut. I have not been half as "rude and arrogant" as you and others have been. but 90% of the reason for the hostility towards me is NOT my "tone" but my position. duhh. I know that if I had the same type of tone (hey, how was your schmuckhead rude arrogant tone in your postings??) but more in the anti-JW side of it, I would not receive even one iota of flack. go sell your crap to someone who is in idiot like you. I'm not buying it. I already conceded that I could have been a bit gentler. and not perfect, and so forth. (although overblown by people who are anti-JW or with biases already) but that becomes a convenient dodge. and that's not what I've been doing mainly anyway. I've gone more into doctrinal, technical, and historical things, overall. straightforwardly. and there have been some people that I've had interesting dialogue with. even if they're not in agreement. maybe you just didn't see it. different sections. or maybe a schmuck-face devil-worshiping hypocritical fart like you just sees what he wants to see. whatever. it matters not. this posting TOWARDS YOU is just to set the record straight. good day. Abaddon. I already know you diss the Bible anyway. so where's your credibility?? the point again is nobody's perfect. take the good with the bad. and instead of whining constantly about my "tone" (which was not nearly as bad as yours and others have been, if you carefully and honestly see it) why not focus more on the points and issues raised and addressed.
and also, to re-iterate, you blind fool, I HAVE ANSWERED AND ADDRESSED OTHERS POINTS. like about "teaching" "Acts" "reporting time" "do not prevent the others" etct etc etct. go back to high school and take remedial English. cuz obviously you have trouble reading carefully. again, human nature generally sees what it wants to see, and exaggerates what it wants to exaggerat. if I was an ant-JW, with the same tone or worse, I would not get flack from dumbbell creeps like you, but rather praise. with the same tone !!! can we say hypocritical double-standards and poppycock?? I know what's what here. (I don't say that to others, just to a demonized wacko hypocrite. you call me "twat". that's funny. and I'm the rude arrogant bad guy. no wonder such a thing as "Armageddon" is forth-coming. "just as the days of Noah" oh so true.) hopefully you'll change and wise up. doubtful you ever will. you're too hung up on irrelevant ear-tickling whatever-suits-your-dumbbell biases ways. lata.

144

Is repititive imprinting of ideas a primary cult tactic?

by hubert in

in 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

the Way, the Christians, the Christian Church, or as their enemies called them "the sect of the Nazarenes", which was a cultic smear actually. but in every dispensation, God's servants, are Jehovah's witnesses. meaning the Lord's witnesses and servants. but specifically before 70 AD or even after, it's True Christian Church or Christians. hopefully that answers that. I doubt you asked your question in sincerity. but I answered you in sincerity. if what I said in any way is inaccurate, please point it out, chapter, verse, book, copyright, documentation, historical, linguistical, Biblical, archeological, etc. but yes, Biblically, they were the Christians, witnesses of Jesus and even "holy nation of Yahawah" (Isaiah and Peter), etc. that sort of thing. but the specific type of witnesses was "Christian Church". THE TRUE ONE. not the messed up chaos that is called "Christendom" which had its birth in 313 A.D. with Constantine. that's a counterfeit weed of poison and paganism and corruption. truth mixed with lies. I'm talking about pure unadulterated sanctified and separated Biblical Christians. free of paganism, worldliness, and corruption. not perfect, but way better than the garbage and "Lord Lord" in that day stuff we see all around us. again The True Christian Church. that was the Biblical tag for it. later.

144

Is repititive imprinting of ideas a primary cult tactic?

by hubert in

in 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

those two examples, Cornelius and the Ethiopian Eunech, actually support my position. but it's amazing how apostate Protestants and Korah-like independents think it supports theirs !!!!! utterly Adamic and braindead reasoning, and seeing only what you want to see, ignoring that he said to Philip "how can I without someone to TEACH me" (not just the Holy Spirit either). ahh, Philip was an Elder of the Church and a Leader. and that Ethiopian was reading Sacred Scripture, but apparently, wow, Scripture was not enough, he also "needed a teacher to guide him". how boot dat? Philip was part of what? THE TRUE CHRISTIAN CHURCH AND ARRANGEMENT UNDER APOSTOLIC LEADERSHIP AT THE TIME. that was the "organization" and "arrangement" at the time. and Cornelius GOT NOWHERE, without Peter "to guide him", and who was Peter???? An Apostle and Elder and Leader of the church. and Cornelius needed more than just the Holy Spirit, but needed Peter and the Apostolic authority and oversight. and you guys use those two examples to support this loose hodge podge independent mind set? wow. no wonder Armageddon is coming. human nature is el stinko. people rejected Noah and his family for more or less the same reasons people reject JWs and the purity and authority involved. men never learn from history. but love to twist, nullifty, water down, and pervert Scripture. to their own destruction. you want Cornelius to support your view without any good backing. Cornelius JOINED IN WITH THE APOSTOLIC ARRANGEMENT, Peter having to teach and guide and direct him. with the Holy Spirit. not instead of it.

144

Is repititive imprinting of ideas a primary cult tactic?

by hubert in

in 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

Michelle, clam up please. your non-addressing of specifics is idiotic and typical. you're hung up on my tone but if I was an anti-JW with the same exact tone, you'd be cheering me on. or at the very least, not willing to criticize it. hypocrite.

144

Is repititive imprinting of ideas a primary cult tactic?

by hubert in

in 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

the reason they couldn't get in also is because it was too late to repent when the doors were shut closed by God Himself. but for DECADES Noah and his family church were building that ark and preaching. I understand your thing about "physical objects" and "abstractions", but the point that's clear is that that physical object, the Ark, represented the organized church arrangement of Noah and his family. what's the problem? I said it like 3 or 4 times already. you had to do whatever Noah and his family were doing. how do we know? cuz look at the end result for the people who DIDN'T join in with Noah during all those years of constructing the Ark, which was an act of faith and obedience, that "condemned the world", Hebrews 11. the Ark represented Jehovah's sanctified organization and arrangement at that time in history. in that general dispensation. and you want the Bible to be as bulky as 10 volume encyclopedia or something to spell out in minute detail all the time what is obvious to a blind monkey. it gets ridiculous after a while. OBVIOUSLY THOSE WHO DISSED AND REJECTE NOAH AND HIS WORK WERE LOST AND CONDEMNED BY GOD, MEANING THAT ANYONE WHO THEORETICALLY JOINED WITH NOAH AND HIS WORK WOULD HAVE BEEN SAVED BY GOD, IN THAT ARK, IN THAT ARRANGEMENT. got it this time? probably not. cuz you're obviously a Bible-rejector who does not WANT to see that God was working with "exclusivist" and perceived "cultic" situations in the Bible. everyone laughed and rejected Noah and his family as fanatical and weird and cultic and presumptous. boy were they wrong. the only thing that man learns from history is that man never learns from history. peace.

144

Is repititive imprinting of ideas a primary cult tactic?

by hubert in

in 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 said they were involved with that specific thing, of sending representatives out. but not directly with deciding the circumcision issue and the "necessary thing" bound on all congregations matter. I said that very clearly. maybe you just didn't see that post. I don't know. but no, I did not purposely side-step that point. it was a good point. but please don't accuse me like that. I don't know why you didn't see that thing I wrote on it. I addressed it pretty clearly. I also said (and it seems you're overlooking the general drift of Acts 15 and overly focusing on just verse 22) that it was really the Apostles and Elders, not the rest of the congregation, that actually DECIDED the crucial matters, not just something like who would be sent out to deliver a message. maybe you just glossed over what I wrote. whatever. I'm saying it again now. again, people see what they generally want to see, not necessarily what all the facts (ALL of internal and external evidence) truly fully indicates. all of us have done that. witnesses included. it's just where is the weight of evidence ultimately? this hodg podge confusing mish-mosh Korah-like joke called "Christendom"?? or something a little more organized and centralized and Biblical and pure and un-worldly? think about it. peace.

144

Is repititive imprinting of ideas a primary cult tactic?

by hubert in

in 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

wasn't the fact that Christ died for our sins (not just was resurrected to be King) but that He was atonement for mankind, "the grace of God" as it's called in Scripture "new light". progressive understandings and clarification? and of course it was "new light" that people did not have to circumcised and follow thoseo 613 Mosaic Law commandments, per se. I just use that stuff as an example that after Christ's death and resurrection, there was progressive understanding and refining and clarifications of things. if Russell and Rutherford were coming out of false denominations and darkness, and things got "brighter and brighter" then so what?? that's different than the Galatians thing, where it was discussing altering or totally totally "new" (hi, Book of Mormon) revelation (hi Muslim Koran) or totally totally new Gospel (hi Roman Catholic Church that says we need Mary's intercession) and stuff like that. that has nothing to do with as the prophets predicted "knowledge and refinement being increased". also, yes, Jesus is the Greater Moses, not the Governing Body of any church. but just as Moses appointed judges and priests and under-leaders, and so forth, so did Christ (the Apostles and Elders of His True Church) with central oversight. are we to overlook or constantly water down the governance that took place in Acts and in Paul's, James', and John's and Jude's and Peter's Epistles??? because it's not convenient for our position. if it wasn't a Christian "Council" in Acts 15 and so forth, then what was it? didn't they "COUNCIL" together, under the Holy Spirit, and discuss the matter and work it out. closed door or not. you're hung up on those types of particulars. the point is that it was not so "open" to just anyone either. when I'm talking about the general drift of the situation. the point is it was not this loose independent thing in the ultimate sense. sure, local congregations had a certain autonomous thing TO AN EXTENT, but Paul's letters and instructions and that of the Apostles and Elders, were BINDING on all the local Christian congregations scattered. a point that is not that hard to grasp.

42

exjw, is there a script

by carla in

is there any one scripture (or more) that really suprised you once you took the wt glasses off and just read the bible as is, without all the extra literature?

sweetscholar

you can't go bananas on that and ignore things like "be obedient to those taking the lead among you AND BE SUBMISSIVE" (Hebrews 13:17) "for they are keeping watch over your souls as those who will render an account; that they may do this with joy and not with sighing, for this would be damaging to you." what do we do with verse, sweetie? or "the Holy Spirit and WE OURSELVES will add these NECESSARY THINGS onto you." (Acts 15) say it means something else, so conveniently?? or what about "beware the rebellious talk of Korah" (Jude 11,12) relegate that as inconsequential or just for Israel when Jude was applying it (under the Holy Spirit) to the Christians??? Or "may you keep submitting to those types of persons" referring to the elders and leadership.(1 Cor 16:16) how boot dat one? and "have regard for those presiding over you" (1 Thessalonians 5:12) or "let the elders who preside well receive DOUBLE HONOR, especially those who work hard in in speaking and TEACHING." (1 Timothy 5:17) or "He (Moses) is being entrusted with all My house" (Numbers 12:7) or "So they (Korah, Dathan, and Abiram) congregated themselves against Moses and Aaron and said to them: 'That is enough of you, because the whole assembly are all of them holy and Jehovah is in their midst (sound familiar?). Why then should lift yourselves up above (as leaders and "governers") the congregation of Jehovah?"

but we know what happend to Korah and his apostate crew. they were electrocuted and burned with fire. how boot dat? one thing that people learn from history is that people don't learn from history. we hear today against JW leadership: why should you lift yourself and control things, blah blah blah. God and Christ are with us too. yeah sure. again, all Verses of Scripture need to be considered. from both "Testaments" obviously. important matters to think about. human nature generally tends to rebel against authority, even God's true appointed authority. as the cases in Scripture clearly show. "cast him out of the church" said Paul and John. how boot dat? (and to think that you were once an elder.

apparently not a very keen Bible student though. not all elders are necessarily. I know that you think you are now. but if you keep spewing out that gas that God did not work and use and communicate through an organized body throughout Biblical history and dispensations (Noah's Ark, Israel, First Century Apostolic Christianity) then you aint no keen avid Bible study-er. you're just a rebellious Korah-like apostate fool. I hate to sound so invective and mean, but I'm just being matter of fact and Biblical when I say that. you have a very scatter-brained attitude with all this. you actually with a straight face used Cornelius and Eunuch as examples in a kooky attempt to support your position. that was priceless.

again, Cornelius got nowhere without Peter the Apostle and Elder and Leader of the Church. and the Ethiopian got nowhere without Philip the Elder and Leader of the Church. and "someone to teach me". guidance. THE HOLY SPIRIT AND WE OURSELVES ADD THESE NECESSARY BINDING THINGS ONTO YOU. again I'll ask you: how boot dat. yeah, whatever.

42

exjw, is there a script

by carla in

is there any one scripture (or more) that really suprised you once you took the wt glasses off and just read the bible as is, without all the extra literature?

sweetscholar

you're only saying it's literal "gentiles" cuz that's what YOU have been taught and programmed to believe by Protestantism. where do you see in John 10 the word "Gentiles" in any specific clear reference to those "other sheep"? and again where do you even see the word "Israel" in John 10 in reference to the first "sheep fold". no. what's clear is that the first sheep fold would be anointed born again Christians who would be both Jews and Gentiles, since Christ says He lays down His life for them. what? Christ does not lay down His life for the Gentiles? "other sheep" right after is mentioned. since that was the immediate context, NOT discussions about Israel versus Gentiles. so what do you mean "context"? where do you see in the context anything about the sheep fold referring to physical Jews and physical Gentiles? so you're a hypocrite and liar. you have the blinders, cuz your expositers and Protestant books have taught you (and of course you buy it like a fool) that the "other sheep" have to be physical Gentiles. ignoring the point that there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile in Christ's anointed flock. "other sheep" has to mean something else. the problem is that you think the 144000 are literal Jews despite what Paul said regarding that kind of thing. "Jews inwardly not outwardly" is for what then, if literal Jews have to figure in too?? contradiction if that's the case. but whatever. you'll believe what suits you. you hypocritically talk about "blinders" when the same can be said about you and your crew. going by the party line of "oh duhh, the other sheep are the gentiles, aah doyh". despite no clear contextual evidence for that assertion. though you claim there is. when there actually isn't. it's laughable. later.