Posts by proplog2

92

A True Scholar In Our Midst, Leolaia

by Skoshi in

her posts for a very long time were overflowing with an obvious scholarship.

i have avidly read her posts and have tucked away as much as my much smaller brain could be forced to take in.

i'm sure others have openly expressed their admiration and appreciation for her, but i would like to do so here.

proplog2

AlanF.

The people who have criticized Leoalia on this thread aren't worth shit. and they know it. They have an inferiority complex -- nothing new to longtime posters on this board.

I think I am the only one who said ANY criticism of Leolia. So you apparently are saying that I'm not worth shit. That is typical of your response. Anyone else would get kicked off this board for that kind of personal insult.

I am inclined to skip over Leolia's posts because they are overworked, and cluttered with quotes of pedants who are so dry that there isn't enough fluid in MY brain to reconstitute it. That of course is my opinion. Leolia style makes a fitting link in the circle jerk chain of those who impress each other but fail to package their knowledge so the average person can use it. This is, after all, not a world of scholars.

Proplog2 is one of those Monday morning quarterback critics of everything that accomplished JW-critics do, who does almost nothing at all himself but nevertheless sometimes has very good insights on this board, but for some reason is jealous of anyone other than himself who, in his opinion, rises to a measure of prominence because of demonstrably good posting skills. One wonders what sort of emotional defect is at the base of this poster.

As a scientist shouldn't you avoid words like "everything" . I'm not even on this board enough to criticize "everything". True, I do "almost nothing at all" but it is what I am able to do.

I am not jealous of people who participate on this board. I have some of Leolia's stuff in my archives (cross/stake discussion). It is useful because the Watchtower is petty for making an issue of that and they deserve to have their junk kicked around by those that like that sort of thing. I am not free of jealousy and envy. I really envy those who are rich because they inherited it. I envy those who have the financial means and other advantages to rebuild their lives. I envy those who got out of the organization while they were young and had the vigor to pursue their interests.

As to "emotional defect" - for a scientist you got a problem with lashing out with your own emotional crap. You destroy your objectivity by such wild evaluations.

And I am sure there are plenty of "scholars" who have a daily struggle with Aspergers and other Autistic problems.

92

A True Scholar In Our Midst, Leolaia

by Skoshi in

her posts for a very long time were overflowing with an obvious scholarship.

i have avidly read her posts and have tucked away as much as my much smaller brain could be forced to take in.

i'm sure others have openly expressed their admiration and appreciation for her, but i would like to do so here.

proplog2

AlanF.

The people who have criticized Leoalia on this thread aren't worth shit. and they know it. They have an inferiority complex -- nothing new to longtime posters on this board.

I think I am the only one who said ANY criticism of Leolia. So you apparently are saying that I'm not worth shit. That is typical of your response. Anyone else would get kicked off this board for that kind of personal insult.

I am inclined to skip over Leolia's posts because they are overworked, and cluttered with quotes of pedants who are so dry that there isn't enough fluid in MY brain to reconstitute it. That of course is my opinion. Leolia style makes a fitting link in the circle jerk chain of those who impress each other but fail to package their knowledge so the average person can use it. This is, after all, not a world of scholars.

Proplog2 is one of those Monday morning quarterback critics of everything that accomplished JW-critics do, who does almost nothing at all himself but nevertheless sometimes has very good insights on this board, but for some reason is jealous of anyone other than himself who, in his opinion, rises to a measure of prominence because of demonstrably good posting skills. One wonders what sort of emotional defect is at the base of this poster.

As a scientist shouldn't you avoid words like "everything" . I'm not even on this board enough to criticize "everything". True, I do "almost nothing at all" but it is what I am able to do.

I am not jealous of people who participate on this board. I have some of Leolia's stuff in my archives (cross/stake discussion). It is useful because the Watchtower is petty for making an issue of that and they deserve to have their junk kicked around by those that like that sort of thing. I am not free of jealousy and envy. I really envy those who are rich because they inherited it. I envy those who have the financial means and other advantages to rebuild their lives. I envy those who got out of the organization while they were young and had the vigor to pursue their interests.

As to "emotional defect" - for a scientist you got a problem with lashing out with your own emotional crap. You destroy your objectivity by such wild evaluations.

And I am sure there are plenty of "scholars" who have a daily struggle with Aspergers and other Autistic problems.

92

A True Scholar In Our Midst, Leolaia

by Skoshi in

her posts for a very long time were overflowing with an obvious scholarship.

i have avidly read her posts and have tucked away as much as my much smaller brain could be forced to take in.

i'm sure others have openly expressed their admiration and appreciation for her, but i would like to do so here.

proplog2

Lady Lee:

I raised four kids. All have a sense of who they are and their personal skills. It is cruel to heap compliments on the kid that is gifted in front of those who aren't. I always commended my kids for "effort"- but privately. Adults (especially PHD scholars) ought to have enough satisfaction in what they are doing that they don't need praise lavished on them. My reason for being on this board is that I can get criticism. I can test my ideas. If my arguments aren't sound and I can't defend them I can change them. Criticism helps a person grow. Praise (especially public praise and awards) advances nothing.

I have yet to see anything but a syrupy gushing as a defense of this kind of thread.

92

A True Scholar In Our Midst, Leolaia

by Skoshi in

her posts for a very long time were overflowing with an obvious scholarship.

i have avidly read her posts and have tucked away as much as my much smaller brain could be forced to take in.

i'm sure others have openly expressed their admiration and appreciation for her, but i would like to do so here.

proplog2

Jgnat:

You said "Praise is not sinful" Someone must have said that "Praise is sinful". I certainly didn't. Someone must have said "accepting praise is sinful" . I didn't.

I often speak out about threads devoted to praising individuals. It would be more discreet to send a personal E-Mail to do that. Otherwise you are reinforcing status which leads to alienation for those who are never mentioned.

The insult of public praise is that it detracts from the intrinsic motivation and satisfaction of a mature person. Praise works somewhat on kids but adults resent the potential control that emerges from praise.

Proplog, my opinion of YOUR scholarship is permanently tarnished by your premature prediction of the end of the world. A couple years back, I believe. Even less honorable, in my opinion, you chose to disappear from the board for several months rather than take your "error" on the chin.

Oooh that really hurts. And that of course is your intent. I am not real concerned about your opinion of my scholarship. I don't claim to be a scholar or an expert in anything.

I remain convinced that there is something imature about these "praise" threads. And I will continue to express that opinion when I am inclined. I will leave it to the scholars here to google around with the concepts of "praise and control" "value of praise" "harm of praise"

92

A True Scholar In Our Midst, Leolaia

by Skoshi in

her posts for a very long time were overflowing with an obvious scholarship.

i have avidly read her posts and have tucked away as much as my much smaller brain could be forced to take in.

i'm sure others have openly expressed their admiration and appreciation for her, but i would like to do so here.

proplog2

Narkissos:

I am NOT anti-intellectual. I am against surrendering ones intellect to others. I am not attacking Leolaia - I am attacking the proto-cult nature of heaping praise on an individual which is the intent of this thread.

And I think it says something about a person when they don't repudiate such praise.

92

A True Scholar In Our Midst, Leolaia

by Skoshi in

her posts for a very long time were overflowing with an obvious scholarship.

i have avidly read her posts and have tucked away as much as my much smaller brain could be forced to take in.

i'm sure others have openly expressed their admiration and appreciation for her, but i would like to do so here.

proplog2

So basically this is another one of those threads endorsing and exalting some elite group.

Much of Leolaia is cut and paste. Some of it is also erroneous because the experts she quotes are riddled with fallacies. A little time on google would produce the same info. Take the time to examine EVERYTHING. Experts are not infallible.

AlanF is given to petty bitching and baiting that engages people in ego battles that overshadow the subject being discussed and often the points he is trying to make. He needs to develop some grace and quit his incessant name calling.

The Watchtower is an easy target. They are wrong on a lot of stuff. But Leolaia, Farkel, Blondie, ... etc. have blind spots too.

They ought to repudiate threads like this out of humility. But knowledge puffs up.

5

3rd witness puts nail in own coffin

by proplog2 in

i was waiting for this scripture to pop up.the final nail in the coffin of alanf's and other opposition to jws interpretation of parousia.

luke 17 offers a parallel of matthew 24. an examination of it will reveal the true meaning of parousia.

luke 17:26 moreover, just as it occurred in the days of noah, so it will be also in the days of the son of man: 27 they were eating, they were drinking, men were marrying, women were being given in marriage, until that day when noah entered into the ark, and the flood arrived and destroyed them all.

proplog2

Annomally:

I started this thread to relieve some of the pressure on the other thread.

Not too many takers. I thought maybe 3rd witness was failing to respond to posts because they got lost in the pile.

It appears he isn't up to the game on this thread either.

It seems that slowly the Watchtower is moving a little closer to the traditional "rapture" scenario.

I think one of the last things Fred Franz was working on was the "sign of the son of man".

They allowed that one shoe to hit the floor. But then the other shoe never dropped. That other shoe being the fact that Jesus gathers the holy ones at the last trumpet AFTER the great tribulation. Of course that would mean that the holy ones are appointed over the domestics only after they receive thrones in heaven. That would mean that Franz, Knorr, Rutheford, Russell are NOT in heaven.

They kept repeating the info about the literal celestial phenomena at the assembly. After Franz the Watchtower interpretation of prophecy has gotten caught in an endless loop.

5

3rd witness puts nail in own coffin

by proplog2 in

i was waiting for this scripture to pop up.the final nail in the coffin of alanf's and other opposition to jws interpretation of parousia.

luke 17 offers a parallel of matthew 24. an examination of it will reveal the true meaning of parousia.

luke 17:26 moreover, just as it occurred in the days of noah, so it will be also in the days of the son of man: 27 they were eating, they were drinking, men were marrying, women were being given in marriage, until that day when noah entered into the ark, and the flood arrived and destroyed them all.

proplog2

I was waiting for this scripture to pop up.

The final nail in the coffin of AlanF's and other opposition to JWs interpretation of parousia. Luke 17 offers a parallel of Matthew 24. An examination of it will reveal the true meaning of parousia. Luke 17: 26 Moreover, just as it occurred in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of man: 27 they were eating, they were drinking, men were marrying, women were being given in marriage, until that day when Noah entered into the ark, and the flood arrived and destroyed them all. Note that 'the days of Noah' = 'the days of the Son of man'. The days of Noah was a time when people were carrying on the everyday affairs of life and took no note of their impending destruction. They took no note of what Noah was saying and doing. How long were the days of Noah when men were taking no note until the flood came? According to Genesis 6:3 Jehovah says of wicked mankind in the days of Noah: "... his days shall amount to a hundred and twenty years.” So the days of Noah before the flood, specified by Jehovah, when men were taking no note of Jehovah was at the very least 120 years. Quite an extended period of time.

3rdWitness conveniently stops quoting this parallel account at Luke 17:27. Read on. Luke 17:28 Likewise, just as it occurred in the days of lot: they were , they were drinking... Luke 17:29 But on the day that Lot came out of Sodom it rained fire and sulphur from heaven and destroyed them all. Luke 17:30 The same way it will be on that day when the the Son of man is to be revealed. How long were the days of Lot. Does it mean ALL the days of Lot or is it just a way to refer to an ambiguous time period with certain characteristics that puts an event in context. When Jesus comes he will be present and at that time there will be people going about their business in ignorance of the tribulation that will break out. After that tribulation there will be some sort of visible celestial sign that Jesus is about to execute judgement on the nations. At the last minute he sends his angels to gather the chosen from one extremity of the heavens to their other extremity. This mass resurrection has yet to occur because the antecedent events have not taken place namely - great tribulation, sign of the son of man in heaven. The Watchtower has "deviated from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already occurred." 2Timothy 2:18

1380

The Gentiles Times Reconsidered--Again but this Time By Using the Bible

by thirdwitness in

think about this: if seven times mean only 7 years then daniel could have simply said 7 years.

why does daniel specifically use the word 'times' rather than years?

as we have already shown daniel used the word for 7 times instead of 7 years.

proplog2

It is also during Christ's parousia that he comes forth and gathers his people. Likewise it is also during Christ's parousia that he comes forth and brings the holy ones to heaven.

Matt: 24:29 "Immediately after the tribulation....

Matt: 24:30 "And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven... (celestial display of some sort according to Watchtower's most recent interpretation)

"And they will see the Son of man coming ...

"And he will send forth his angels with a great trumpet sound and they will gather his chosen ones together from the four winds from one extremeity of the heavens to their other extremity"

The gathering of the chosen ones is associated with Christs coming.

The separation of the word coming and presense is word play. The only reason this becomes an issue is because the Watchtower first of all needed to explain the no-show of 1914. Secondly it is necessary for making sense of a century long period of Christ hanging around in preparation for armageddon.

Forget about Third-Witness. He's another You Know. And You Know what happened to him. Third-Witness is just another JW on his way out. He isn't acting on behalf of the governing body.

1380

The Gentiles Times Reconsidered--Again but this Time By Using the Bible

by thirdwitness in

think about this: if seven times mean only 7 years then daniel could have simply said 7 years.

why does daniel specifically use the word 'times' rather than years?

as we have already shown daniel used the word for 7 times instead of 7 years.

proplog2

Here is something I wrote back in 1999 on the alt.jw newsgroup

The date of 1914 has been a pivotal date for the Watchtower. A lot
hinges on it. Russell counted down to 1914 and the Watchtower has
been counting the years since 1914. The new Daniel book reaffirms
the Watchtowers old mistakes with reference to this date.

The overarching error in connection with the date of 1914 is not
the debate over when the count of 2,520 years starts but whether
there should be ANY counting of 2,520 years at all. On page 94 the
question for paragraph 24 is:

"The great dream tree symbolizes what?"

The Daniel book says

"the tree stands for rulership and sovereignty far grander than
that of Babylon's king. It symbolizes the universal sovereignty of
Jehovah...especially with respect to the earth."

If you read the 4th Chapter of Daniel it says nothing specifically
about the tree symbolizing the universal sovereignty of Jehovah.
Since the 4th Chapter of Daniel doesn't say that the tree
symbolizes the universal sovereignty of Jehovah it is THEREFORE
presumptuous for the Watchtower to make that claim. The 4th
chapter however doesn't leave the interpretation of the dream to
our imagination. It tells us specifically what that tree
represents. Daniel reveals the interpretation with these words at
Daniel 4:22 "It is YOU O king". That's it. The tree represents
Nebuchadnezzar. Any further elaboration of this simple explanation
is pure speculation. The Watchtower is allowed to speculate but
individual JW's are disfellowshipped if they question this
Watchtower speculation.

Next the Watchtower invokes an imaginary "rule" for interpreting
prophecy.

The question for paragraph 28 page 96:

"What rule must be applied to the 2,520 days of the prophetic seven
times?"

The answer: "A day for a year." To support this "rule" they quote
Ezekiel 4:6,7 and Numbers 14:34. Read those scriptures. There is
nothing about them that suggests that there is some universal rule
of using a day for a year when interpreting prophecies that mention
a number of days. Once again this is speculation. It's no wonder
they warn JW's about speculation. They seem to have a problem with
the consequences of foolish speculation.

But, suppose there really is a rule that you use a day for a year? How consistent are they in following that rule? Why don't they use
that rule with Daniel 8:14 in counting the 2,300 days? Or what
about the 1,290 days and 1,335 days in Daniel 12:11,12? Apparently
this rule is not a rule at all!!

The debate on 607BC is an interesting discussion but it is merely
a side issue. Even if 607BC were the indisputable beginning to the
70 year period of desolation there is no basis for counting 2,520
years to some imagined point in the future when Christ begins to
rule.