vienne

Joined

• started 100 topics
• posted 1,381 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by vienne

• 
  6

  Another comment from an Advanced Reader for S. Identity vol. 2

  by vienne in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i'm almost done reading it myself.

  i'm impressed but since my mom was one of the writers, i am prejudiced.

  here is the latest comment.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  vienne

  I'm almost done reading it myself. I'm impressed but since my mom was one of the writers, I am prejudiced.

  Here is the latest comment

  https://truthhistory.blogspot.com/
  
• 
  14

  I need sources for all the times JWs have expected Harmageddon

  by Etude in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i expect that 2 new jw guys in the area are going to revisit me.

  the left some brochures emphasizing how bad the world is and talking about the end.

  i need to break through with examples (wt articles, publication excerpts, etc) so that they can gag a bit.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  vienne

  You should be aware that Russell viewed Armageddon significantly differently from Rutherford and modern Witnesses. Russell saw it as human chaos, a struggle between haves and have-nots. About 1929 Rutherford promoted the current. He thought it was near in the 1920s. Later he expected World War 2 to lead into Armageddon. The Consolation's editor thought it was months away. There was 'informal' speculation about 1954 because it was forty years after 1914, a supposed parallel to Moses' life. However, in a general way the Watchtower was advising caution, saying there was a vast work ahead. Nineteen seventy-five was a year of high expectation. And now ... they seem to believe it is imminent.
• 
  43

  Did Russell come up with the no hell fire and no Trinity doctrine or did steal that belief from another religion as well?

  by nowwhat? in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  just wondering hate to give the devil his due.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  vienne

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66zlVvrhfHI
  
• 
  43

  Did Russell come up with the no hell fire and no Trinity doctrine or did steal that belief from another religion as well?

  by nowwhat? in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  just wondering hate to give the devil his due.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  vienne

  proof of something that does not exist is difficult.
  
• 
  43

  Did Russell come up with the no hell fire and no Trinity doctrine or did steal that belief from another religion as well?

  by nowwhat? in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  just wondering hate to give the devil his due.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  vienne

  You see his doctrine as 'lies.' That's very subjective. Thousands of Bible Student adherents see his doctrines as absolute truth. They would dispute your characterization of his beliefs. In any case, to fit the definition of Charlatan, he would have have been consciously misrepresenting.

  We're arguing about words here without making much progress.You present a definition of "lies" that is true in itself, but you misapply it to this situation. You've done the same with the word "charlatan" apparently to justify your characterization of Russell. I agree he was often wrong. I agree he believed things derived from others that were wrong. Being wrong does not make anyone a liar within the definition you quoted.

  I'm disengaging from this conversation. We're parting here with both of us believing ourselves to be in the right. Would you characterize one of us as a liar? That's a rhetorical question ... You need not answer it.
  
• 
  43

  Did Russell come up with the no hell fire and no Trinity doctrine or did steal that belief from another religion as well?

  by nowwhat? in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  just wondering hate to give the devil his due.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  vienne

  There is a vast difference between being wrong, which Russell most definitely was, and a conscious pretense, a false representation. Words and their definitions matter.
  
• 
  43

  Did Russell come up with the no hell fire and no Trinity doctrine or did steal that belief from another religion as well?

  by nowwhat? in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  just wondering hate to give the devil his due.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  vienne

  There is a difference between a word's denotation and its connotation. The two functions define a word.

  Subtle definitions

  The person called a charlatan is being accused of resorting to quackery, pseudoscience, or some knowingly employed bogus means of impressing people. The aim is the same, however: to swindle his victims by selling them worthless nostrums, and similar goods or services, that will not deliver on the promises made for them. The word calls forth the image of an old-time medicine show operator, who has long left town by the time the people who bought his snake oil tonic realize that it does not perform as advertised.

  Legal implications

  Because of the connotations about intentional deceit, calling a living person a "charlatan" can actually be libelous or slanderous. Therefore, even with mounting evidence in support it can be a dicey thing to just call someone out as a charlatan scam artist.

  https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Charlatan
• 
  43

  Did Russell come up with the no hell fire and no Trinity doctrine or did steal that belief from another religion as well?

  by nowwhat? in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  just wondering hate to give the devil his due.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  vienne

  You still mis-define Charlatan, but I don't see any reason to continue to debate that. I just see him as 'wrong' on many issues, especially in his view of women.

  The American side of my family has its share of Watch Tower adherents from the Russell era, some mentioned in Zion's Watch Tower. My mom rejected Witness belief, and though my Austrian-born gramma converted to Witness belief, my mom did not follow her into that folly.
• 
  43

  Did Russell come up with the no hell fire and no Trinity doctrine or did steal that belief from another religion as well?

  by nowwhat? in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  just wondering hate to give the devil his due.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  vienne

  If something is sincerely stated, it does not make the thoughts accurate. But it does not make them a lie. It makes them wrong, which Russell frequently was. Words matter. If we want to be effective, we must use them as intended. Otherwise we violate grammar conventions and are nothing more than a misleading polemicist. That defeats our claims. It is reason for others to shrug their shoulders and think us illiterate.

  My mom would have told you the Latin phrase that covers that aspect of false reasoning. I'm just telling you that your terms are wrong, grammatically speaking. If we misidentify, then we lose an argument.
  
• 
  43

  Did Russell come up with the no hell fire and no Trinity doctrine or did steal that belief from another religion as well?

  by nowwhat? in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  just wondering hate to give the devil his due.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  vienne

  The definition suggests that the claim was knowingly false. Russell believed what he taught. So, while he was mistaken, we cannot call him a charlatan within the definition of the word.

  I understand that you do not like him. I'm not certain how familiar you are with his life, beyond what you might have read on opposition Internet boards on in polemical literature. But, even if we detest the man, we should describe him fairly.