Essan

Joined

• started 16 topics
• posted 624 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Essan

• 
  209

  Challenge to DJeggnog Regarding his Lies.

  by Essan in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i'm disgusted.

  so, i'm formally challenging djeggnog to either substantiate or retract his outrageous claim that:.

  1. russell made no predictions about 1914.. 2. specifically, russell never predicted christ's "coming" for 1914.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Essan

  Let's call it a "birthday present" YM. :)

  I'm so excited to find out I'm in the new system!

  Who knew?

  
• 
  209

  Challenge to DJeggnog Regarding his Lies.

  by Essan in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i'm disgusted.

  so, i'm formally challenging djeggnog to either substantiate or retract his outrageous claim that:.

  1. russell made no predictions about 1914.. 2. specifically, russell never predicted christ's "coming" for 1914.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Essan

  DJ says: "Just as "opening statements are not evidence," neither does what one reads in the Watchtower constitute evidence. It's just a statement of opinion; a statement of belief."

  The Watchtower says: "The Watchtower is not the instrument of any man or set of any of men, nor is it published according to the whims of men. No man's opinion is expressed in the Watchtower". (Watchtower, Nov. 1 1931 p. 327)

  The moral of this little story: Dj, shut the hell up you liar.
• 
  209

  Challenge to DJeggnog Regarding his Lies.

  by Essan in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i'm disgusted.

  so, i'm formally challenging djeggnog to either substantiate or retract his outrageous claim that:.

  1. russell made no predictions about 1914.. 2. specifically, russell never predicted christ's "coming" for 1914.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Essan

  I love that picture OUTLAW! :)

  "Millions now Living Will Never Die", and as if that wasn't embarrassing enough they had to labour the point, writing underneath this sign:

  "This means what it says. It is a fact."

  LOL. Priceless.
• 
  209

  Challenge to DJeggnog Regarding his Lies.

  by Essan in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i'm disgusted.

  so, i'm formally challenging djeggnog to either substantiate or retract his outrageous claim that:.

  1. russell made no predictions about 1914.. 2. specifically, russell never predicted christ's "coming" for 1914.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Essan

  DJ said: "My goodness! Are you telling me that you are not aware of the fact that based upon the proclamation that has been made by Jehovah's Witnesses since 1914 in announcing God's Messianic Kingdom by Christ Jesus..."

  Excuse me DJ, you seem to imply here that JW's have been uniformly proclaiming Christ as becoming King in 1914 since 1914, which is not true, as you well know. At least until 1929, and possibly much longer, the JW's proclaimed Christ's kingship as beginning in 1874. So, they were preaching a lie for the first 50 years as well as acting as False Prophets for considerably longer. They were and are also preaching "another good news", rather than the good news of the Kingdom which Jesus commanded and which the 1st century Christians preached, for which the penalty according to Paul is to be "accursed" - but if you want to crow about this Satanic career of the JW's DJ, then go ahead, but preferably not in this thread, because it's off topic.
• 
  209

  Challenge to DJeggnog Regarding his Lies.

  by Essan in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i'm disgusted.

  so, i'm formally challenging djeggnog to either substantiate or retract his outrageous claim that:.

  1. russell made no predictions about 1914.. 2. specifically, russell never predicted christ's "coming" for 1914.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Essan

  DJ Eggnog said: "If you do not have an answer or you feel uncomfortable answering this question, then you should not do so."

  I already answered this question you numbskull! Read my last post! Peacedog summed it up so that even you could understand it. Everyone else understands it. You're trying to compare two things which are unrelated. The modern JW teaching regarding 1914 is exactly like Russell's teaching for 1874 but NOTHING like Russell's prediction for 1914. You can't compare the two because they are unrelated.

  You've been given endless quotes showing Russell was absolutely adamant in predicting what would happen in 1914 and only began to lose his nerve slightly as the year grew very near. If we find a few quotes where he is tentative and many others where he insists events would definitely happen, that only proves that he was contradictory and duplicitous, as well as grossly presumptuous (as False Prophets tend to be according to the Bible Deut. 18:22).

  First of all, you continue to use the post-1915 altered version of the "At Hand" book and lying claim "This is what Time is at Hand actually says". You know it doesn't, you know this is a 'cover up' version. Yet you still try to peddle this lie.

  And let's look at your attempt to pretend that his "if" in the "At Hand" book is significant - which would be in stark contrast to his other bold and unqualified predictions to 1914. You claim that it is significant and key that Russell said:

  " if this is shown to be a fact firmly established by the Scriptures," the operative word there being "if," in case you missed it, then "it will prove Firstly..., Secondly..., Thirdly...," and so forth. Russell writes "if" because we isn't able to predict what will occur when the Gentile Times had come to an end, but if what he had said "is shown to be a fact firmly established by the Scriptures," then blah, blah, blah. I the English language, the word "if" introduces a hypothetic clause conditioned on the conditions expressed being true. Get it?"

  I get that you're trying to deceive, again, yes.

  By omitting what Russell said just before this and by focusing on this "If" you're trying to claim that Russell was basically just saying "I'm not sure about this folks, but if this can be proven, then it might be the case that X, Y and Z may possibly happen in 1914" But that's just a lie isn't it?

  Let's look at what Russell actually said and in what order:

  "In this chapter we present the Bible evidence proving that the full end of the Times of the Gentiles, i.e., the full end of the their lease of dominion, will be reached in A.D. 1914 and that that date will be the farthest limit of the rule of imperfect men. And be it observed, that if this is shown to be a fact firmly established by the Scripture, it will prove - Firstly... Secondly... Thirdly..."

  Only after three unqualified, absolute statements of certainty, only then, does he says that "if" this is proven then it also proves, X, Y, Z. There is an obvious and vast difference which does not allow for the meaning you try to give it. He starts by claiming something as already proven. There is no indication of doubt or room for uncertainty. It's proven as far as Russell is concerned and he's simply saying "I can and will prove this categorically, and when I have done that, you will see that this will necessarily also prove x, y, and z."

  I encourage all to read page 76 and 77 of this book and see if they can honestly see the same meaning is his words as you try to claim. A statement saying "if" something is established, after you have already said it is definitely established and is fully proven and certain to occur, proves that "if" cannot convey uncertainty or allow room for doubt. The meaning is rendered closer to "When I prove this". This is fully confirmed by comparing this passage with countless other comments of Russell's regarding 1914 - even those in the same book as you quote from - such as:

  "We consider it an established fact that the final end of the kingdoms of this world and the full establishment of the Kingdom of God will be accomplished by the end of A.D. 1914. Then, the prayer of the Church, ever since her Lord took departure - "Thy Kingdom Come" - will be answered" - (The Time Is At Hand, 1902 edition, p. 99)

  I could post more quotes like this proving the point, again, and again, and again, as I and others already have, but what's the point, DJ? You don't have the honesty to acknowledge them. I also note that you've switched from (insanely) denying Russell made any predictions to attempting to claim (falsely) that his claims were just tentative "maybes", but you don't have the honesty to admit that you are changing your claims. No matter, these new claims are also false, just less ridiculous.

  Regarding Russell, I really don't care why Russell made such catastrophic errors, only that he did. So I'm not interested in your excuse making on his behalf. You haven't even successfully excused yourself yet. Why should we listen to apologetics on behalf of an obvious False Prophet from an established liar? The issue, the purpose of this thread - which I should know seeing as I created it - is to show that you are a liar who makes repeated false historical claims in defense of the Society - in this case that Russell predicted nothing for 1914 and specifically no coming of Christ, in any capacity, visible or invisible - and that you have no regard for the facts and neither the honesty nor humility to admit that you are spectacularly and totally wrong. This purpose has been fully accomplished.

  The rest of your cheerleading on behalf of the Jehovah's Witnesses is an irrelevant distraction from the topic of this thread and is also quite wasted on me because, if I recall correctly, I was a JW for rather longer than yourself and so am well aware of what they teach and who they really are and that the Society is deeply fraudulent and deceptive, as are it's apologists.
• 
  77

  Like we'll ever settle this once and for all, but here goes; ARE YOU A TRUE CHRISTIAN?

  by nicolaou in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  the watchtower says; "there is an enormous distinction between true christianity and the religion practiced by those who are christians in name only" - wt 1st october 2009. now, in the light of all the current controversy over the word 'atheist' and what it means can you see how irritating it is to have your frame of reference, be it a religious belief system or something else, redefined by others?

  and usually it is redefined by those who have something to gain by the linguistic manipulation.. for the watchtower the gain is easy to see but what about the attempt by many believers to define atheism as a belief system?

  could it be that equating rational atheism with belief is nothing more than an attempt to legitimize faith?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Essan

  LOLOL. Yes, I suppose those who show no mercy should expect none.

  But if I get back into this topic again, I'll be here all night, and every night for the next week.

  It would be madness, I tell you! Madness! Aspergers-a go go.
• 
  77

  Like we'll ever settle this once and for all, but here goes; ARE YOU A TRUE CHRISTIAN?

  by nicolaou in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  the watchtower says; "there is an enormous distinction between true christianity and the religion practiced by those who are christians in name only" - wt 1st october 2009. now, in the light of all the current controversy over the word 'atheist' and what it means can you see how irritating it is to have your frame of reference, be it a religious belief system or something else, redefined by others?

  and usually it is redefined by those who have something to gain by the linguistic manipulation.. for the watchtower the gain is easy to see but what about the attempt by many believers to define atheism as a belief system?

  could it be that equating rational atheism with belief is nothing more than an attempt to legitimize faith?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Essan

  Right this isn't fair. Clearly I'm ill LOL. Stop drawing me back into this discussion Bohm.

  If I were an alcoholic would you offer me a drink?

  I'm a compulsive poster trying to control my habit. Help me out here, you madman. :)
• 
  77

  Like we'll ever settle this once and for all, but here goes; ARE YOU A TRUE CHRISTIAN?

  by nicolaou in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  the watchtower says; "there is an enormous distinction between true christianity and the religion practiced by those who are christians in name only" - wt 1st october 2009. now, in the light of all the current controversy over the word 'atheist' and what it means can you see how irritating it is to have your frame of reference, be it a religious belief system or something else, redefined by others?

  and usually it is redefined by those who have something to gain by the linguistic manipulation.. for the watchtower the gain is easy to see but what about the attempt by many believers to define atheism as a belief system?

  could it be that equating rational atheism with belief is nothing more than an attempt to legitimize faith?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Essan

  You're asking an agnostic how to establish truth? LOL

  No, truth is not a "likely fact". Obviously. To pass the latter off as if it were the former, is a "trick".

  To pretend that we know something when we don't and can't know something for sure, is a "trick". Seeing as the likelihood of God's existence cannot be accurate and objectively established, then, to pass of a supposed "likelihood" as a categorical fact, would be a "trick", a deception. It doesn't matter which conclusion we lean towards, God exists, or God doesn't exist, such a conclusion is, in the end, just a belief.
• 
  77

  Like we'll ever settle this once and for all, but here goes; ARE YOU A TRUE CHRISTIAN?

  by nicolaou in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  the watchtower says; "there is an enormous distinction between true christianity and the religion practiced by those who are christians in name only" - wt 1st october 2009. now, in the light of all the current controversy over the word 'atheist' and what it means can you see how irritating it is to have your frame of reference, be it a religious belief system or something else, redefined by others?

  and usually it is redefined by those who have something to gain by the linguistic manipulation.. for the watchtower the gain is easy to see but what about the attempt by many believers to define atheism as a belief system?

  could it be that equating rational atheism with belief is nothing more than an attempt to legitimize faith?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Essan

  Bohm, I'm sorry, but the phrase "Probability doesn't establish truth" is so spectacularly self-explanatory that I don't think I need say any more. If that phrase no longer carries an obvious and undeniable meaning for you then I am afraid that you are in danger of disappearing forever up your own orifice. LOL.
• 
  77

  Like we'll ever settle this once and for all, but here goes; ARE YOU A TRUE CHRISTIAN?

  by nicolaou in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  the watchtower says; "there is an enormous distinction between true christianity and the religion practiced by those who are christians in name only" - wt 1st october 2009. now, in the light of all the current controversy over the word 'atheist' and what it means can you see how irritating it is to have your frame of reference, be it a religious belief system or something else, redefined by others?

  and usually it is redefined by those who have something to gain by the linguistic manipulation.. for the watchtower the gain is easy to see but what about the attempt by many believers to define atheism as a belief system?

  could it be that equating rational atheism with belief is nothing more than an attempt to legitimize faith?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Essan

  "how about 3: subjecting god to the rigor applied to any scientific hypothesis reveal there is to little evidence to accept it."

  This doesn't disprove God. If it could be accurately done - which it can't - and if it came out with the result you expect, it would only prove God was unlikely, not that God doesn't exist. Probability doesn't establish truth. We've been through this. So at the end one would still not "know", therefore one would still be agnostic. If one used supposed probability to decide that they believed that God did not exist, then they'd be a believer, who bridged a gap in full proof with faith based belief.

  Anyway, I really don't want to get back into this debate. Where is my self control? LOL