Posts by herbert

123

The Protect the Children Sham

by HildaBingen in

once upon a time there was an evil antagonist of god named ha satan.

this evildoer thought of many ways to make worldlings oppose god's covenant people.

he finally got a bright idea.

herbert

: Anal sex is unacceptable among Yahweh's people. You do not know what you talkin bout.

No, what is wrong, according to the GB, it its latest ruling, is promoting or advocating it in the congregation. If one practices such things secretly, between consenting marriage partners, then there is no official requirement that these ones own up to the elders, as there is with adultery etc. Of course this actually means nothing since anyone who went around persistently describing their sexual exploits in the congregation would ultimately be DF'ed.

Once again, as with blood, child abuse, and on and on, the WTS speaks out of both sides of its mouth.

herbert

123

The Protect the Children Sham

by HildaBingen in

once upon a time there was an evil antagonist of god named ha satan.

this evildoer thought of many ways to make worldlings oppose god's covenant people.

he finally got a bright idea.

herbert

What you overlook is that Ptolemy's theory was never proved false. Let us say that a theory is falsifiable. It does not follow that anyone has ever proved any theory to be false just because theory may be falsifiable. Neither has Ptolemy's theory been proved false.

You really are a nutcase. Of course Ptolemy's theory has been proven false. Add elementary astronomy to the list of courses you need to take. By elementary I'd suggest starting at the point where my 6 year old nephew is at. Actually, I retract, he knows much more about epicycles and their shortcomings then you will ever know.

: the wt did not get oral and anal sex wrong. they just missaprehended some things. They got it right now.

In plain English they got it wrong. Using long words doesn't change a thing. Clearly they had to make anal sex acceptable to accomodate their elders and fellow GB members who liked little boys a bit too much.

What is it Hilda, you say "misapprehended" to everything. Is it the only word you know? It certainly sounds better than lying but in the context in which you use it it means the same thing.

Herbert

123

The Protect the Children Sham

by HildaBingen in

once upon a time there was an evil antagonist of god named ha satan.

this evildoer thought of many ways to make worldlings oppose god's covenant people.

he finally got a bright idea.

herbert

Just because a theory is falsifiable does not mean that when another comes along to take its place that it is false. Ptolemy's model was an inadequate explanation. It was not false. A better model replaced it that fit the data better. That does not mean that what Ptolemy said was false. The problem is with your perception, dear.

What amazing stupidity. If a theory is falsifiable then, once falsified the theory becomes false. Otherwise it wasn't falsifiable to begin with. It's as simple as that.

The rest of your post mainly amounts to nothing more than a histrionic statement of your beliefs. Although, I did have to smile at your gaffe on sex; obviously you agree with me that the WTS got it wrong on oral and anal sex. It's pretty obvious that they have gotten it wrong on sex in general. For example, in regard to sex outside of marriage, they do believe that it's ok in certain circumstances. If, for example, one of their elders has sex with a 4 year child then it's OK as long as he doesn't do it in front of two or more adults. Another example is the homosexual rape of a 10 year old child which qualifies one to be a special pioneer provided that one says that one is sorry.

Herbert

123

The Protect the Children Sham

by HildaBingen in

once upon a time there was an evil antagonist of god named ha satan.

this evildoer thought of many ways to make worldlings oppose god's covenant people.

he finally got a bright idea.

herbert

Hilda-The-Brainless-Trollette,

A fundamental requirement for any theory is that it be falsifiable. The WTS's views on education have put you rather at a handicap. Perhaps you should consult an elementary text on physics or chemistry.

:The wt does not lie. at times certain ideas have been inadequate or the truth has been missapprehended. To missapprehend is not to engage in the act of propogating falsehood.

When the WT wrote the "Divine Purpose" book it packed it with lies. Same thing with the Creation book which is chock-a-block with lies filched from Creationist literature. It refuses to admit or correct those statements which makes them liars. Similarly, it, through its spokesmen, liars such as JR Brown and Paul Gillies, has lied about child abuse, the UN affair, etc. WT routinely lies to the press in a rather transparent attempt at "theocratic warfare" which is simply lying by another name.

:Russell never propheside in the foretelling the future sense. That is the last time I will repeat that. He gave his understanding of God's prophecies. the problem was epistemological and not ontotheological.

You are degenerating into poor parsing which is a sure sign that your "brain" is on overload. What, pray tell, is pointing to the end of the world in 1913/1914 but making a prediction about the future? This was done by invoking God's authority which makes it false prophecying. In any event, it was false teaching which is just as bad.

: The wt has got the trinity, hellfire, sex issues evolution right. they also know God and his name. So there.

LOL. There's no way to disprove the trinity. The Bible speaks of Gehenna as a place of torment so, again, there is no way to disprove the concept of eternal torture by God for sinners. On sex issues, you probably are aware of the Society's flip flops on oral and anal sex aren't you? How is that "getting it right?" The WTS's view of masturbation is nonscriptural. On evolution, well, any religion that attempts to disprove a scientific fact by using deliberate misquotations hardly has a case.

Although, amusingly enough, by your earlier "arguments" the theory of evolution is not false, is it?

Herbert

123

The Protect the Children Sham

by HildaBingen in

once upon a time there was an evil antagonist of god named ha satan.

this evildoer thought of many ways to make worldlings oppose god's covenant people.

he finally got a bright idea.

herbert

Hilda - the trollette,

:But Ptolemy's idea was not false. It is just scientifically inadequate. A new model had to take its place. Ptolemy had an epistemological problem. His theory was not false.

Here you show real ignorance. Ptolemy's theory was false. However, that does not make it dishonest or unhelpful in the sense that even thinking about the structure of the universe was a step in a positive direction.

However, WTS teachings are both false and dishonest in many cases. Why? Because the WTS claims to speak for God it cannot easily dump its failed teachings and prophecies and so it resorts to shoring them up even after they have been disproven. Further, the WTS lies as is easily seen by reading its Creation book.

Now, as for prophets, what prophet does not come in a god's name? Of course Russell claimed that the prophecies were God's prophecies. That is the scenario neatly laid out in Deut. 18. Of course, when those prophecies failed it became clear that they had nothing to do with God. Ergo, the propecies then were to seen to be those of the false prophet Russell. That's why the failed prophecies of the WTS are "theirs" and theirs alone - if not theirs then whose?

Basically, Hilda you are part of a religion that has never managed to get a single thing right. Not only that, its teachings are or have been downright insane. It's really funny watching you use big words to explain why a religion that banned Aluminum pans, considered vaccinations to be from the Devil and had a machine for curing diseases that involved screwing up bits of paper and sticking them in it, actually does speak for God - but in an entirely misapprehensive way.

Herbert

123

The Protect the Children Sham

by HildaBingen in

once upon a time there was an evil antagonist of god named ha satan.

this evildoer thought of many ways to make worldlings oppose god's covenant people.

he finally got a bright idea.

herbert

dungbeetle,

Here's how it goes:

1. Abstain from blood

2. Blood transfusions involve blood, so abstain from transfusions.

3. Blood transfusions carry health risks, so JWs are protected by avoiding transfusions.

4. Minor extracts of blood are acceptable, but we still abstain from transfusions.

5. JWs avoid transfusions but can accept all subcomponents of blood. After all, it is proper to use blood in this way because the GB says so.

6. JWs are protected from health risks because they avoid transfusions and, as we all know, Acts 15 prohibits transfusions.

Thus the policy has evolved from a prohibition on blood to a prohibition on transfusions. Slick footwork by WT Legal but not slick enough. Go to http://www.jwbloodreview.org for the full dissection of the murderous and dishonest shell game played by WT Legal.

herbert

123

The Protect the Children Sham

by HildaBingen in

once upon a time there was an evil antagonist of god named ha satan.

this evildoer thought of many ways to make worldlings oppose god's covenant people.

he finally got a bright idea.

herbert

Trollette,

: We do not take blood of any kind. Acts 15:29 says abstain from blood. What do you not understand about the word abstain?

How is accepting hemoglobin, Factor VIII and any product derived directly from blood abstaining from blood? On what scriptural grounds does the GB distinguish between an intact red blood cell and the hemoglobin contained within it. Be specific.

: There is nothing wrong with blood when it is used properly.

Who defines properly? Show me the scriptures. Why is it proper to accept the products derived from donated blood? Does not the scripture say that all blood must be poured out? Essentially you are saying that "There is nothing wrong with using blood in ways that the GB says are acceptable." That's mereley a tautology.

: How do new teaching violate Acts 15?

Acts 15 says to abstain from blood. If your doctor told you to abstain from strong liquor would it be acceptable to separate the alcohol from the whisky and drink or inject that? Use your brain, if any.

: So what is your suggestion? Do you want blood to be a conscience issue?

It is essentially a conscience issue as it stands. However, the WTS prefers to keep people in a state of confusion. That's for obvious and dishonest reasons.

Herbert

123

The Protect the Children Sham

by HildaBingen in

once upon a time there was an evil antagonist of god named ha satan.

this evildoer thought of many ways to make worldlings oppose god's covenant people.

he finally got a bright idea.

herbert

MystiFool the Trollette said;

: Have you not heard about prople getting diseases from blood transfusions or were you sleeping during all these years? I do not take blood in any form.

I note that you avoided my question which was about how the WTS's policy protects against disease. I really am uninterested in your own stand on blood since that is irrelevant to WTS doctrine.

The point is that your beloved Society's rules offer zero protection from diseases transmitted by blood because it approves of a JW accepting any part of blood. Thus, it can take no credit for supposedly protecting its followers through its teachings. Your clumsy attempt to muddy the waters is very typical of WT Legal.

As usual, the WTS wants to have its cake and eat it too - it claims that JWs don't accept blood transfusions. That is correct in the sense that they don't take transfusions of whole blood. However, the WTS has succeeded in associating transfusions with blood borne disease as opposed to the blood itself. Transfusions themselves have become the bogey man as opposed to the blood itself. By allowing the medical uses of all blood parts in some form or other the GB affords JWs no protection from diseases transmitted by blood. Further, since their new teachings violate their own understanding of Acts 15 then they put people's health at risk without any basis in scripture or in medical science. That is criminal irresponsibility and amounts to issuing medical advice without having medical qualifications. Not only that but this "advice" is enforced by shunning. This is all done in a cowardly attempt to disguise the fact they very clearly do not speak for God.

Face the facts Hilda-the-Trollette - you have no argument and your obfuscation is just plain lying. Lives are at risk from insane medical directives and predatory pedophiles and all you can do is try to save those old buffoons who think they speak for God. As AlanF says, one would think that your own self-interest would make you press for change. But, it may already be too late for that - in your case I confess that I hope it is.

Herbert

123

The Protect the Children Sham

by HildaBingen in

once upon a time there was an evil antagonist of god named ha satan.

this evildoer thought of many ways to make worldlings oppose god's covenant people.

he finally got a bright idea.

herbert

jerome,

It's much like roach control. It's a dreary business that requires no intellectual expenditure but which has to be done nevertheless.

herbert

123

The Protect the Children Sham

by HildaBingen in

once upon a time there was an evil antagonist of god named ha satan.

this evildoer thought of many ways to make worldlings oppose god's covenant people.

he finally got a bright idea.

herbert

Trollette said;

: Have you not heard about prople getting diseases from blood transfusions or were you sleeping during all these years? I do not take blood in any form.

I note that you avoided my question which was about how the WTS's policy protects against disease. I really am uninterested in your own stand on blood since that is irrelevant to WTS doctrine.

The point is that your beloved Society's rules offer zero protection from diseases transmitted by blood because it approves of a JW accepting any part of blood. Thus, it can take no credit for supposedly protecting its followers through its teachings. Your clumsy attempt to muddy the waters is very typical of WT Legal.

As usual, the WTS wants to have its cake and eat it too - it claims that JWs don't accept blood transfusions. That is correct in the sense that they don't take transfusions of whole blood. However, the WTS has succeeded in associating transfusions with blood borne disease as opposed to the blood itself. Transfusions themselves have become the bogey man as opposed to the blood itself. By allowing the medical uses of all blood parts in some form or other the GB affords JWs no protection from diseases transmitted by blood. Further, since their new teachings violate their own understanding of Acts 15 then they put people's health at risk without any basis in scripture or in medical science. That is criminal irresponsibility and amounts to issuing medical advice without having medical qualifications. Not only that but this "advice" is enforced by shunning. This is all done in a cowardly attempt to disguise the fact they very clearly do not speak for God.

Face the facts Hilda-the-Trollette - you have no argument and your obfuscation is just plain lying. Lives are at risk from insane medical directives and predatory pedophiles and all you can do is try to save those old buffoons who think they speak for God. As AlanF says, one would think that your own self-interest would make you press for change. But, it may already be too late for that - in your case I confess that I hope it is.

Herbert