Is repititive imprinting of ideas a primary cult tactic?

by hubert 144 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • sweetscholar

    (to Abaddon, the foul mouthed devil-worshipper)

    first of all, I have addressed specific points raised by others. maybe you didn't see it. also, it's selective about the "rude arrogant" thing. cuz if I came off the same exact way BUT ONLY IN OPPOSITION TO THE WATCHTOWER AND JWs, I would not be getting this asinine crap and "disrespect" from the majority. (by the way, not all have been like you or some others. as I said, you don't know. there've been a few where, even anti-JWs, exchanges, where it's been civil.) but come off it, you demonized nut. I have not been half as "rude and arrogant" as you and others have been. but 90% of the reason for the hostility towards me is NOT my "tone" but my position. duhh. I know that if I had the same type of tone (hey, how was your schmuckhead rude arrogant tone in your postings??) but more in the anti-JW side of it, I would not receive even one iota of flack. go sell your crap to someone who is in idiot like you. I'm not buying it. I already conceded that I could have been a bit gentler. and not perfect, and so forth. (although overblown by people who are anti-JW or with biases already) but that becomes a convenient dodge. and that's not what I've been doing mainly anyway. I've gone more into doctrinal, technical, and historical things, overall. straightforwardly. and there have been some people that I've had interesting dialogue with. even if they're not in agreement. maybe you just didn't see it. different sections. or maybe a schmuck-face devil-worshiping hypocritical fart like you just sees what he wants to see. whatever. it matters not. this posting TOWARDS YOU is just to set the record straight. good day. Abaddon. I already know you diss the Bible anyway. so where's your credibility?? the point again is nobody's perfect. take the good with the bad. and instead of whining constantly about my "tone" (which was not nearly as bad as yours and others have been, if you carefully and honestly see it) why not focus more on the points and issues raised and addressed.
    and also, to re-iterate, you blind fool, I HAVE ANSWERED AND ADDRESSED OTHERS POINTS. like about "teaching" "Acts" "reporting time" "do not prevent the others" etct etc etct. go back to high school and take remedial English. cuz obviously you have trouble reading carefully. again, human nature generally sees what it wants to see, and exaggerates what it wants to exaggerat. if I was an ant-JW, with the same tone or worse, I would not get flack from dumbbell creeps like you, but rather praise. with the same tone !!! can we say hypocritical double-standards and poppycock?? I know what's what here. (I don't say that to others, just to a demonized wacko hypocrite. you call me "twat". that's funny. and I'm the rude arrogant bad guy. no wonder such a thing as "Armageddon" is forth-coming. "just as the days of Noah" oh so true.) hopefully you'll change and wise up. doubtful you ever will. you're too hung up on irrelevant ear-tickling whatever-suits-your-dumbbell biases ways. lata.

  • ellderwho

    Further my point is, that Russell would not need to start another grass roots organization,(Miller and Seventh day inferences) rather the "true church" as you refer to would not need another beginning. If as you claim Jehovah has always used an organization, you fail to show continuity of the true church as you claim to this present day.


  • sweetscholar

    hi. you have to read what I write a bit more carefully. I did not say that Jehovah always used an organization. period. I said He always used an organizational type arrangement in PIVOTAL POINTS IN DISPENSATIONAL HISTORY. after the death of the last Apostle (and this is where Mormons go overboard) true Christianity AS AN ORGANIZED ARRANGMENT began to gradually (not overnight) get corrupted and "weed-like". the Second Century Christians, who many of them were children and rubbed shoulders with some of the Apostles, can and should be considered the true ones, like Polycarp, etc. But in the third and fourth centuries, that was IT ! true Christianity (according to careful scrutiny of Scriptural passages "wheat and weeds" and "act as a restraint" and "is at work now" and "ravenous wolves" etc) ceased to exist AS AN ORGANIZATION, by the time of Constantine, Athanasius, Eusebius, Sabellius, and so forth, Plato's god being mixed with the Biblical God, and all kinds of paganism and corruption taking hold. formalism, mass, etc. but there have always been true Christians (even if they didn't have total clear light about everything) throughout the centuries. very few people know this, but the official position of JWs is that John Huss and John Wycliffe are anointed born again true Christians. part of the Body of Christ. when I tell that to people they're shocked. JWs are not Mormons. not even close.

    but the point is that IN THE LAST DAYS, there are Scriptural (as well as common sense) indications that there would be a certain type of restoration of true pure separated Kingdom-adhering Christianity AS AN ORGANIZED AND STRUCTURED ARRANGEMENT. "knowledge and refinement being increased" and "who upon his Master's arrival will be glad doing so, dispensing meat in due season." and "you are My witnesses (PLURAL), says Jehovah, even My SERVANT (SINGULAR), that I will declare My excellencies and dominion" and so forth, and "who is that faithful and wise SERVANT", obviously a plural composite servant class. because that "servant" will be there "upon His arrival" about 2000 years later!

    ( and as far as the New World Translation issue, well it's funny and hypocritical that a big stink is made about VERY FEW PASSAGES in there, and the accusation of bias in the translation when almost every other English translation of the Bible was put together by biased Athanasian TRINITARIANS. can't the same accusation be made agains them? to be consistent? they colored certain texts to fit THEIR pre-conceptions and Nicean affections. so what? the question is what do the original Greek and original Hebrew really truly warrant. but that's another topic. also, it needs to be said, that way before the NWT Bible came out, JWs came up with the same doctrines and beliefs, using the KJV, ASV, AT, Douay, and Greek Interlinears. I can prove from a King James Bible that the Father is supreme and that there will be a New Earth, and that the 144000 are "Jews inwardly". so what. and that God used organized arrangements, not chaotic nonsense in key dispensations. anyway, thanks for the exchange. may the Lord watch over you and open your eyes and hearts and keep you. for Christ's sake. later.

  • PoppyR

    I have tried to follow this debate, but given up. Sweet Scholar if you are trying to influence people who are open minded about if the 'truth' is the truth, you are so going about it the wrong way! Your posts are really hard to read, full of name calling and weird references, and you strike me as one of the many nutcases that I find associate with the witnesses. I just bet you've been going for years but have no privileges? Everyone in the cong knows you're a weirdo, everybody pairs up at the service group when they see you coming? Your attitude stinks, and out of all the lovely people I've read and replied to on this board, yours is by far the worst and you call yourself a Christian???? Yes there are some people here who resort to name calling etc, but should you join them? Should you sink to that level? At least some of the other JWs on this board have interesting and valid points to make and cause me to stop and think, you are not one of them. And I for one cant be bothered to try and read any more of your posts!


  • ellderwho
    but there have always been true Christians (even if they didn't have total clear light about everything) throughout the centuries.

    If this was the case why was Russell not from the "true Christian" lineage?

  • sweetscholar

    I'm only answering what's coming to me. there are some good points and issues raised, and I'm simply addressing them as they come to me. if there is occasional brashness on my part (overblowon you and others conveniently I notice, not caring at all about the worse nastiness from anti-JWs) then there is. but that's not all there's been. again, I'm not addressing mainly neutral people am I? but people who should know better, since they claim to either be so into the Bible, or at least were Witnesses at one time, but rejected them out of personal gripes and Korah-like rebellious nonsense. let's get real here. Christ called people snakes and vipers. and so did Stephen. people who were NOT just neutral everyday ignorant people. but horrible should-know-better hypocrites. should we condemn Christ and Stephen too? if that's the case? but you're judging me and assuming things yourself. you're not with me 24/7 to know how sweet (hence my nickname) I generally am, and just how much I hold back when provoked in ordinary situations. I don't throw rocks at people. Greek Orthodox priests (as well as parishoners) have. it's just that people have a biase against JWs to start with will nit-pick and exaggerate any perceived imperfection or whatever, and harp and whine about that, and 99% ignore the actual substantive issues and points. that's true of hypocritical biased apostates in general. but I agree with you. my manner could be warmer. but I'm only human. and being a minority on this site with wolves and snakes attacking me (even when I'm writing in a cooler manner) is not that easy after a while. Christ did not kiss and sweet talk Pharisees. "you are from your father the Devil" "if Abraham was your father, you'd do his works, but you don't" "sons of hell (Gehenna)" etc. what do we do with those things? and it was not just the Son of God. but Paul called them "apostles of Satan". and "anathema". ignore that too? but generally, believe it or not, my words to regular joes and janes are seasoned and kinder. I hope that answers it finally. and also, I'm not really trying to persuade anyone, but simply warn. for the most part. it's not so black and white. you think Noah and his family were always so prim and perfect every second around those violent vile and demented people who laughed at him? look at the whole picture, instead of whining about my "name calling" which is not even 15% of what I've been doing overall. peace.

  • sweetscholar

    actually you're assuming a little bit. I have not knee-jerkly dismissed points and issues raised by others, to me, on this site, simply because I know the types that are sending them. I agree with you that hyper-labeling of people will tend to shut down meaningful communication. and we all need to watch out for that. and try at least to keep a cool reasonable open mind. believe it or not, I will not totally diss a point (like about Acts 15:22 and the "congregation") simply because I know that the person saying it is an apostate Protestant Korah type. cuz even he may have an interesting point that needs to be considered, pondered, examined, and addressed. which is what I have done.

    like that other dude, who doesn't even profess belief in the Bible, who I was going into about Noah's Ark. and his thing on that. he asked me what was needed by those at Noah's time to be saved. I addressed him, and considered his take on it. the fact that we're in general disagreement does not mean that I did not consider his words on it. otherwise why would I take the time to go into it, and his objections. but don't think that every person's view is as valid as the next person's. cuz such a notion is not supported by reason, Scripture, logic, or common sense. they're can't be various conflicting sets of "truths" if they disagree. either Noah's Ark happened the way the Bible and Archeology indicate, or they didn't. also, I hate to say it. but you're grossly ignorant when you say that the Bible has no evidence for its authenticity. the Koran has no prophecy and no scientific support. I have papers on it, to show you the differences.

    Jesus Christ said in prayer to God the Father: “Your word is truth.” (John 17:17) But do the facts support this? When the Bible is carefully examined, do we find that it really is the truth? Students of history who have studied the Bible are often amazed at its accuracy. The Bible contains specific names and details that can be confirmed. Consider some examples. Look at pictures and writing on the temple wall at Karnak, Egypt. They tell of the victory, about 3,000 years ago,
    of Pharaoh Shishak over the kingdom of Judah during the rule of Solomon’s son Rehoboam. The Bible tells about the same event. (1 Kings 14:25, 26)
    Look also at the Moabite Stone. The original can be seen in the Louvre Museum in Paris, France. The writing tells of the rebellion by King Mesha of Moab against Israel. This event is also reported in the Bible. (2 Kings 1:1; 3:4-27) Also, the Pool of Siloam and the entrance of a 1,749-foot-long (533-meter-long) water tunnel in Jerusalem also. Many modern-day tourists to Jerusalem have walked through this tunnel. Its existence is further proof that the Bible is true. How so? Because the Bible explains that King Hezekiah had this tunnel built over 2,500 years ago to protect his water supply from an invading army. (2 Kings 20:20; 2 Chronicles 32:2-4, 30)

    At the British Museum a visitor can see the Nabonidus Chronicle, a copy of which can be seen in photos. It describes the fall of ancient Babylon, even as the Bible also does. (Daniel 5:30, 31) But the Bible says that Belshazzar was then king of Babylon. Yet the Nabonidus Chronicle does not even name Belshazzar. In fact, at one time all known ancient writings said that Nabonidus was Babylon’s last king.

    So some who said the Bible is not true claimed that Belshazzar never existed and that the Bible was wrong. But in recent years ancient writings have been found that identified Belshazzar as a son of Nabonidus and co-ruler with his father in Babylon at the time! Yes, the Bible really is true, as so many, many examples prove.

    Yet the Bible does not contain only true history. Everything it says is true. Even when it touches on matters of science, it is marvelously accurate. To give just some examples: In ancient times it was commonly believed that the earth had some visible support, that it rested on something, such as on a giant. Yet in perfect agreement with scientific evidence, the Bible reports that God is “hanging the earth upon nothing.” (Job 26:7) And rather than saying that the earth is flat, as many believed in the past, the Bible says that God “is dwelling above the circle of the earth.” (Isaiah 40:22)

    The Bible gave sound accurate rules on when to perform circumcision of newborn Jewish boys—the eighth day after birth. (Leviticus 12:3) That day has the highest vitamin-k quantity and blood-clotting ability of the male’s entire life. Something that could not be known back then without a microscope or laboratory. And also good rules on sanitation and hygiene were given. (Leviticus 13:1-15; Deuteronomy 23:13)

    All sound and correct. Ahead of its time. And so on. The Bible vindicated and proven true. But the greatest proof that the Bible really is from God is its perfect record in FORETELLING the future. No book by men accurately reports history before it happens; yet the Bible does. It is filled with accurate PROPHECIES , yes, of history actually written in advance. Like with Israel’s captivity in Babylon, and the later release by Cyrus the Persian. (Jeremiah 20:4; Isaiah 45:1) Some of the most remarkable prophecies are about the arrival of God’s Son the Messiah. The Hebrew Scriptures accurately foretold hundreds of years in advance that this Promised One would be born in Bethlehem, that He would be born of a Virgin, that He would be betrayed for 30 pieces of silver, that He would be counted in with criminals, that no bone of His body would be broken, that dice would be cast for His garments, and many MANY more details.—READ: Micah 5:2; Matthew 1:22,23; 2:3-9; 27:3-5,35; Isaiah 7:14; 53:12; Zechariah 11:12,13; Luke 22:37,52; 23:32,33; Psalm 22:18; 34:20; John 19:36. (The Bible has a different character and power and reliability than do any of the other religious “holy” books in existence!)

    The Koran has mistakes about Samaria, Abraham and Moses living at the same time when they lived hundreds years apart, saying in one place that the earth was created in 8 days and in other place in 6 days. and so forth. don't even compare the Bible and the Koran. it won't work. and I was actually right about you. you're not just some neutral onlooker. but a person who is too acquainted with JWs to be so sweet-talked every second. a person who is trying to hurt the cause, not just seek things out. no wonder I went off on you!!! so I take back about 50% of my apology, since I gave it under a false impression. but even so, I concede a little bit. but you're not that "nice" a guy yourself. and plus in many ways, you're intellectually dishonest. to diss the Bible's validity, and claim that the Koran has the same evidence for it. that is simply inaccurate. I get annoyed, because it becomes obvious that you see what you want to see, and believe what you want to believe. because the issue is what the issue has always been. since the Garden of Eden. FINAL AUTHORITY. human nature since Adam rebels against it. and finds loopholes and escape clauses and false reasonings to worm their way out of it. "deceiving themselves with false reasoning" (James 1,2). But again, I have addressed, and have not summarily dismissed things that I've heard all the time. and the Bible does have archeological and historical proof for its authenticity. explain the 8th day circumcision vitamin k thing?? I'd like to hear an explanation for that one.

  • YoursChelbie

    *IF the Brooklyn Governing Body etc. really are God’s true and only channel, why did they choose to become supporters of the UN agenda by becoming a NGO?-----to get a library card is not good enough reason.

  • sweetscholar

    if not more so. they both seeked out Biblical Light and Truth, taught others, and were persecuted. and separated themselves from the world's falsehoods, as much as they knew at the time. again, you and yours only see what you want to see. John Huss was a true Christian, though not having total clarity and light on everything, and was persecuted by the Roman Catholic Pharisaical Church, and so was CT Russell. it is what it is, and not what you stubbornly want it to be, because of your affinity with Korah and Cain. rebelling against final authority and appointments. "we are all God's congregation, and we don't need your guidance and control) (Jude 11,12; Numbers 12-15; Genesis 3,4,5) I hope that finally answers your questions, elderwho. on that matter anyway.

  • seattleniceguy

    Are you Michelle from California? Please PM me if so.

Share this