these days it's pretty clear that the jw organization is running on autopilot.
charles taze.
russell, joe booze rutherford, nathan knorr and freddie franz all had a certain amount of vision.
Larc, you must be joking. You have evidence but you won't offer it? Get outa here! How about a name? You can at least produce that right? Then we can trace this person's history to Bethel, Rutherford, and so on. Well? Are you going to cough of the evidence or go the way of AlanF?
Mishnah
these days it's pretty clear that the jw organization is running on autopilot.
charles taze.
russell, joe booze rutherford, nathan knorr and freddie franz all had a certain amount of vision.
There should be a law against typing while intoxicated. Then at least you'd have about an hour a day to type your junk.
Mr. AlanF, care to provide some facts for your junk? On what factual basis do you claim Rutherford was an adulterer?
Mishnah
janh:.
janh, i would like to offer you my sincerest apology for calling you a nazi in kent's apology thread.
i must say i didn't intend for it to be taken as a slur against your race.
Ven, I merely spoke in reference to what I saw in this thread. I do not know you very well so it is entirely possible that my remarks were not accurate. But they were situational and I think that I rightly picked up on a hesitancy on your part to come right out and tell Jan what you really think. It's okay to restrain yourself according to how you see fit but I wanted to make a point that I think is valid, and that is that Jan is not very different from the org. or other intolerant groups or people. I mean, check him out! He doesn't care if one apologizes which shows a lack of concern for the feelings of others (almost a disdain for their feelings) and if you make any negative comments about what he says, if you disagree with him at all, he is offended by it and usually treats you with little or no respect from that point forward.
Intolerance is wrong and Jan needs to be made aware of his actions. I don't think he knows what he's doing. It's likely a lingering product from his past. But it's better to get these things out in the open.
Mishnah
janh:.
janh, i would like to offer you my sincerest apology for calling you a nazi in kent's apology thread.
i must say i didn't intend for it to be taken as a slur against your race.
Ven, I realize that having Jan as a exJW buddy makes it hard for you to come right out and say what you mean, and that is that is a jerk. If you did that (and you'd be right by the way) then regardless of how friendly you two have been in the past Jan would turn on you faster than the WT kicked him out of the org.
He is only your friend if you agree with him and do not make any negative remarks about his outrageous behavior. Does that sound familiar? Exactly. Jan is basically the exact same as the org. he left in terms of intolerance. You would be much better off speaking your mind about Jan the same way you do about the org. and then you'll see that there is no difference at all in terms of attitude.
Psychologically speaking, Jan is crying for help even though he is not actually aware of it. But it will not do him any good to cower to his verbal assault the way you do. Let him know how you really feel! Because he'll sure give you hell when you do and then you'll know how he really feels!
Mishnah
janh:.
janh, i would like to offer you my sincerest apology for calling you a nazi in kent's apology thread.
i must say i didn't intend for it to be taken as a slur against your race.
Jan, you write as if you really think you have any credibility. Maybe among your "friends," but who doesn't? That is why they are your friends, get it? It takes much more to gain credibility from those who are not your friends. You show here, once again, that you are intolerant of those who disagree with you and in so doing you reveal a deeply rooted insecurity that shows you've got problems, REAL problems.
I realize you have a fractured psychology from your experience, but that is a problem you must deal with not run from. Your _pattern_ of behavior is not acceptable on any level. Sure, if you made the occasional mistake or slip of the tongue and apologized, that'd be one thing. But you are not capable of serious apology nor of accepting that of others. You just demonstrated this.
Mishanh
when i was a bethelite 1974-76 the evening meals were what we called free-seating (no asigned seating).. i sat at a table with (gb member)george gangas.
he would regularly have questions that he would ask the younger brothers (kind of a bible trivia).. but being that i was only baptized 2 or 3 years i didn't want to answer questions, but i had one i wanted to asked him.. what is this spiritual paradise that the society keeps talking about?.
when i asked him he choked on his soup, and said he didn't know.. i felt bad that he didn't know.. about 2 days latter i sit at his table and basically the same brothers are their.
D_wiltshire, I notice that you now claim to have been at Bethel. Your claim to have been an elder coupled with the appeal letter you allegedly wrote was really something. Do you honestly expect anyone to believe that you served in such capacities and thought it would make any difference to write the letter you wrote? Do you really expect anyone to believe that Mr. Gangas replied to you as you claim? I guess most of the exs here will give you support, because they need to do so in order to feel part of a group after having been cut off from one already. But stop insulting the intelligences of the few sane people aboard this ship.
Mishnah
most exjws are familiar with the claims that the gospel accounts about jesus "fulfills" around 300 prophecies in the old testament.
this claim is taken verbatim from christian fundamentalists.
checking out these so-called prophecies will reveal that they do not stand up to scrutiny.
Jan, you are missing several points.
HOSEA 11:1 - You mention types and antitypes but do nothing to demonstrate that Hosea did not have a second fulfillment in mind. Matthew believed that he did and if we accept the premise that they were both inspired by the same spirit, then there is no problem. You need to _prove_ that they were not inspired to know the secondary fulfillment and that you have not done.
TWO DONKEYS - To "sit" upon something could convey the idea that both he and his garments were placed upon the animals. So Jesus and his property sat on the two animals, and in effect that meant that Jesus was upon the two in terms of his person and his property. You have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to biblical Hebrew. So you make wild comments about what Zechariah 9:9 means. You, in effect, distort matters to fulfill your own speculative condemnation. This is just what you condemn Matthew for doing. The Hebrew text uses the conjunction waw which can mean "even" or "and." You limit its meaning self-servingly to skew the issue to your liking. That is dishonest. The LXX translates it using KAI which can also mean "even" or "and."
If this is the best you can do, and apparently it is since this is what you led with, then you have nothing legitimate to offer. All you do is state opinion as fact.
Mishnah
most of the stuff posted here is negative, hateful, and blasphemous against god.
even if many of you are right in saying that the jws are wrong on many and important issues, that does not make you right.
so unless you are convinced that there is no biblical god you are facing serious trouble when you die or if the lord comes during your lifetime.
Rex, you are making excellent points. Tina is just confused and needs help. I understand her mental disposition after reading her material. She is going through a rough transformation and it is not uncommon for someone to leave one group bitter and hostile, only to view all other groups the same way. Ultimately, she is forced to link the group she left with God and various elements of religious thought, to help preserve a sane mental state. (The reason being that thoughts of consequences, etc., can be almost unbearable for many.)
I am sure there is more to her presently complex psyche, but I think the more we try to reason with her and others like her it will either help restore some balance to her or push her over the edge. The choice is hers.
As for ianao, this one is a clear example of someone suffering from a tortured mindset. That is why ianao can only reaffirm what others say for him. His thought process is shattered from past experience and there is a certain fear in venturing too far out on your own. It is much safer to just repeat and reaffirm what someone else says. That is why we get the "well said," and "again, well said" replies.
are any of you going to the brci conference in waterloo, canada?
it should be coming up soon, in a matter of weeks.
they are a really good group of x's.
goo, when/where did janh plagiarize your thesis?
most of the stuff posted here is negative, hateful, and blasphemous against god.
even if many of you are right in saying that the jws are wrong on many and important issues, that does not make you right.
so unless you are convinced that there is no biblical god you are facing serious trouble when you die or if the lord comes during your lifetime.
ianao, it is hard for me to comprehend the very bad argument you present. Basically, you suggest that one may blaspheme God and that is okay, but not his spirit. Well first of all such a person would have to ask to be forgiven. Do you think the blasphemers on this board repent? Maybe they will, maybe they will not. But that is the very heart of the issue! RISK.
Secondly, you are operating under a misunderstanding of what the Bible teaches about blasphemy and forgiveness. Anyone who blasphemes against another in whom the spirit resides, is in trouble. Notice that in 1 Thessalonians 4:8 it says, "the man that shows disregard is disregarding, not man, but God, who puts his holy spirit in you." How much more so then is it a disregard for God, whose spirit it is!
I am not sure you understand the very simple argument I presented about risk. You may want to think it over more.
