by metatron 48 Replies latest jw friends
"Go back and read what it was that I wrote"
OK.
"unless this quote of @metatron's should in some way mischaracterize what Buchanan wrote in his book."
Are those your words? If you want to raise doubts about what I quoted or exactly what Buchanan meant, perhaps you might bother to read the F**king book, as I suggested.
And my point about the ever deceptive Writing Staff that avoids giving readers quote sources, still stands.
metatron
@djeggnog wrote:
Buchanan believes Jehovah's Witnesses are a part of the mainstream, because I can think of no other reason why he would have written in his book "that 12% of JW's think gay behavior is OK," unless this quote of @metatron's should in some way mischaracterize what Buchanan wrote in his book.
@metatron:
Are those your words?
Yes, but what possible difference would it make to whom those words belong when you don't understand what they mean? I'm going to rephrase what I said in two way, but I don't know that my rephrasing them at all will solve what appears to me to be a reading comprehension problem on your part:
[1] You claimed in your post that Pat Buchanan had indicated "that 12% of JW's think gay behavior if OK," so unless this 12% number in your post is wrong, Buchanan must be of the belief that Jehovah's Witnesses are a part of the mainstream.
[2] You claimed in your post that Pat Buchanan had indicated "that 12% of JW's think gay behavior if OK," so assuming this 12% number in your post is correct, Buchanan must be of the belief that Jehovah's Witnesses are a part of the mainstream.
If you want to raise doubts about what I quoted or exactly what Buchanan meant....
No. The point I was making (again!) was that "Buchanan must be of the belief that 'Jehovah's Witnesses are a part of the mainstream.'"
I don't believe you quoted Buchanan. If you did, where was it? You merely asserted that Buchanan "claims that 12% of JW's think gay behavior is OK." I quoted you and so it was to "this quote of @metatron's," or, changing one word since I'm now talking to you instead of about you, it was to "this quote of yours" that I was referred.
And my point about the ever deceptive Writing Staff that avoids giving readers quote sources, still stands.
I'm not so sure you can rightly blame the Writing Committee for your lack, @metatron. We write, but if you can only pronounce the words on the page and cannot understand what they mean or comprehend simple concepts like "unless this quote of @metatron's should in some way mischaracterize what Buchanan wrote in his book," you are pointing the finger of blame at the right person. Find a mirror and look at the person staring back at you. The person you should blame for your lack is you. You should have not only completed high school, but you should have gone to college and taken a course in Basic Comprehension and one in English Comprehension, like many folks other than you did. You read and write functional English, and you do this on a high school level, almost as if you were home-schooled. If you were home-schooled, that's fine, but I read and write English. (I don't intend to come off as mean here, but I'm pretty sure your quips have begun to annoy me.)
@djeggnog
(Duplicate post)
"I don't believe you quoted Buchanan".
One more time: Read the f**king book yourself! Buy a vowel, genius! Go to the original source and decide without all this contentious and foolish commentary.
"you should...... you should...." Tell that to the mirror
metatron
DjEggNogg..
This is your Claim..
At any rate, Jehovah's Witnesses don't do polls,.....DJeggNogg
The WBT$ acknowledges JW`s "DO"participate in Polls/Surveys..
That hate can be replaced with love is illustrated by a survey taken in 1994 of 145,958 of Jehovah's Witnesses in Germany.
In some countries one marriage out of every two or three ends in divorce. But the above-mentioned survey indicated that
only 4.9 percent of the Witnesses are divorced or separated from their mates." Awake 1997 Sep 8 p.11
That hate can be replaced with love is illustrated by a survey taken in 1994 of 145,958 of Jehovah's Witnesses in Germany.
In some countries one marriage out of every two or three ends in divorce. But the above-mentioned survey indicated that
only 4.9 percent of the Witnesses are divorced or separated from their mates." Awake 1997 Sep 8 p.11
It doesn`t matter who conducted the Surveys I posted..
The WBT$ admits in Writing,JWs participate in Surveys..
Your a Proven Liar at the Highest Level in Watchtower World..
DjEggNogg rated PG(Pointless GasBag)
...................... 
...OUTLAW
I apologize for the little typo which wasn't a part of what I originally dictated (where indicated in red).
@metatron:
And my point about the ever deceptive Writing Staff that avoids giving readers quote sources, still stands.
I'm not so sure you can rightly blame the Writing Committee for your lack, @metatron. We write, but if you can only pronounce the words on the page and cannot understand what they mean or comprehend simple concepts like "unless this quote of @metatron's should in some way mischaracterize what Buchanan wrote in his book," you are pointing the finger of blame at the right person. Find a mirror and look at the person staring back at you. The person you should blame for your lack is you. You should have not only completed high school, but you should have gone to college and taken a course in Basic Comprehension and one in English Comprehension, like many folks other than you did. You read and write functional English, and you do this on a high school level, almost as if you were home-schooled. If you were home-schooled, that's fine, but I read and write English. (I don't intend to come off as mean here, but I'm pretty sure your quips have begun to annoy meothers.)
ED: I'm never mean, but I do think it to be annoying to others that come to a thread to see if anything of substance has been added to it only to discover that someone, who doesn't realize how incomprehensible his objection is to those that read, write and speak English, is arguing how the words "unless this quote" in a sentence that he writes on here should be understood.
@djeggnog wrote:
I don't believe you quoted Buchanan. If you did, where was it?
@metatron wrote:
One more time: Read the f**king book yourself! Buy a vowel, genius! Go to the original source and decide without all this contentious and foolish commentary.
Why? Reading Buchanan's book won't solve your problem. You have a reading comprehension problem, and hopefully, this time, you will find a little humility, and listen and learn from me.
Here's what you are failing to understand, @metatron: The words "quote," "quotes," "quoted," "quoting," "quotation" and "quotations" all have a definite meanings, and I'm being a bit technical here because I believe it to be necessary since you clearly don't understand when something you are reading is a direct quote and when something you are reading is not a direct quote, but an indirect quote (i.e., a paraphrase).
In a recent exchange I had here with someone on JWN, I had pointed out to the person how insensitive Jesus wasn't of the Samaritan woman at John 4:5-26, who Jesus could just as well have dismissed as immoral and misguided, someone that considered herself to be a religious person, but whose worship wasn't totally unacceptable to Jehovah. Of course, this would have been true, but what reason would there have been for Jesus to have come down on the woman in such an insensitive fashion? Like all of the Samaritans, she believed in the Torah and claimed to believe in God, but she really didn't know God. The following is an assertion of something that Jesus did not say to the woman (which means you will not find these words in the Bible):
"The man with whom you are now living isn't your husband and yet despite knowing what Jehovah commanded in the Samaritan Pentateuch, knowing that as long as your first husband is living, you aren't free to remarry, you've disregarded God's word and given yourself to how many is it? Counting the one you're living with now, six men, and yet you stand here boasting in your flesh, asserting yourself to be on the same footing with other Jews like myself, who trace our lineage back to Jacob just because you also trace your lineage back to Jacob?
Believe me, woman, you may be religious, but you're just a whore that worships self, which makes you no different than the Gentiles that don't know Jehovah either, who through fornication, make sacrifices at the altar of their god. They are just as delusional about their worship as you are. What your 'religion' is, woman, is a farce, because the truth is that you cannot be a worshipper of God since you clearly don't even know him!"
What I posted above is just a paraphrase and isn't a quotation from anything that Jesus had actually said to the Samaritan woman. I'm now going to quote just one portion of what Jesus actually did say to the woman (which means you will find these words in the Bible at John 4:17, 18, 21-24):
"You said well, 'A husband I do not have.' For you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband. This you have said truthfully.
"Believe me, woman, the hour is coming when neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you people worship the Father. You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, because salvation originates with the Jews. Nevertheless, the hour is coming, and it is now, when the true worshipers will worship the Father with spirit and truth, for, indeed, the Father is looking for suchlike ones to worship him. God is a Spirit, and those worshiping him must worship with spirit and truth."
Now I could say that Jesus told the Samaritan woman that she was a whore, and that she didn't know God. But I'd only be paraphrasing Jesus' words by asserting that this is essentially what Jesus said. This is exactly what you did in your initial post to this thread when you wrote how you had read on page 71 of Pat Buchanan's book that "[h]e claims that 12% of JW's think gay behavior is OK." This statement wasn't something that you quoted from Buchanan's book, just as I cannot quote Jesus as specifically saying to the Samaritan woman that "she was a whore and that she didn't know God."
To quote Jesus, he said to the woman: "For you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband." He also said to her: "You worship what you do not know." Both of these are quotations taken from the Bible, which means that I am quoting what Jesus said from the Bible.
@djeggnog wrote:
At any rate, Jehovah's Witnesses don't do polls
@OUTLAW wrote:
The WBT$ acknowledges JW`s "DO"participate in Polls/Surveys..
More than 50% of the people that are frequent contributors to the threads here on JWN are only willing to believe the things that they choose to believe, even when the facts don't quite match up with their beliefs. Now I didn't do a poll, I didn't conduct a survey, but this is what I believe to be true. Would you say that this "50%" number is fairly representative of you, @OUTLAW?
@djeggnog
BrainDead EggNogg..
This is your Claim..
At any rate, Jehovah's Witnesses don't do polls,.....DJeggNogg
The WBT$ acknowledges JW`s "Do"participate in Surveys..
The WBT$ also agrees with and published the results of this survey..
That hate can be replaced with love is illustrated by a survey taken in 1994 of 145,958 of Jehovah's Witnesses in Germany.
In some countries one marriage out of every two or three ends in divorce. But the above-mentioned survey indicated that
only 4.9 percent of the Witnesses are divorced or separated from their mates." Awake 1997 Sep 8 p.11
That hate can be replaced with love is illustrated by a survey taken in 1994 of 145,958 of Jehovah's Witnesses in Germany.
In some countries one marriage out of every two or three ends in divorce. But the above-mentioned survey indicated that
only 4.9 percent of the Witnesses are divorced or separated from their mates." Awake 1997 Sep 8 p.11
The WBT$ proves Your a Liar..
..................... ...OUTLAW
Dear Moron,
I don't give a rat's a$$ what your long, boring, windy, contentious posts are all about.
I don't do commentary on commentary like the Talmud (0r your worthless posts). This thread is about a statement in a book. Wanna argue about what it means, Read the f**king book, idiot.
You have now triggered the "pearls before swine" principle.
'bye
metatron
What are you talking about eggnog? :)
