Is repititive imprinting of ideas a primary cult tactic?

by hubert 144 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  sweetscholar

  you know. you're not as nice as you think and as I thought. I wrote you a whole thing about the Bible's authenticity, and your claim about the Koran, and not once did you address that. about the history, the archeology, hygeine, nothing. instead you just chose to diss me with "indoctrination" insults. real "nice". nice dodge is what that is. ears tickled. I take back about 90% of my apology. the fact is that 95% of the people on this site are in face snakes and wackos. why didn't you read or address that whole thing to you, where I corrected your nonsense about the Bible's authenticity, and the remarks you made about how dismiss someone's words cuz of the source, which is not really true? instead you kiss "PeaceKeepers" butt, who is borderline apostate anyway, and diss me?? typical. again, if I was going off with similar tones BUT IN OPPOSITION TO JWs AND THE WATCHTOWER, you would not be giving me flack. so that makes you very hypocritical. it's very selective. I'm blunt and to the point. on this site full of warped rebellious vipers. not with regular people. and thin-skinned types can't take it. also, PeaceKeeper. blow it out your nose. I'm tired of the sissified over-sensitve whining already. you're not a real witness, but a borderline Judas. otherwise you would not be kissing the butts of actual apostates and criticizing the WT's stance on things so much, and on this site to get yours ears tickled about it.

  and don't give me this gas about "indoctrination" and whatever, cuz again, if I was coming off the same exact way, but only in opposition the JWs, you'd be either applauding it or at the very least not giving flack about it. so it's double triple and quadruple standards inconsistency and hypocrisy. you'll whine and harp about "tones" and "sarcasm" and "name-calling" and not focus on harsh real disturbing POINTS AND ISSUES. and to Piece, it was not just Christ that called people like you and apostates and religious hypocrites "fools and vipers" but also Stephen and Paul. Could they "read men's hearts" too??

  so your constant harping on that is just a convenient dodge. at least my dialog with AuldSoul, though in general disagreement, has been half-way civil an decent. pointed and blunt, but civil. so it all depends. I had another guy ask me about birthday celebrations, and I told him, and he appreciated it and that was that. he didn't whine about my tone like so many others are. he just looked at my points and considered them and that was that. again, to seattle nit, you have the nerve to diss me when I was responding to you sincerely about the Bible authenticity issue, and sent that specifically to you, with no harsh tones or anything in that message? then you wonder why I'm telling you off now? I'm sure you'll whine like a cry baby about that too. summarily dismissing the actual points made with the other message. why? cuz you already have this venomous thing against Witnesses to start with. so you'll see imperfections that are either not there, or if they're there, you'll exaggerate them and harp on them like crazy. to the exclusion of everything else.
• 

  sweetscholar

  no more addressing things in a blunt way. if you want me to talk like a sissified fool every second, then I will. just as an experiment. let's just see if I get the same kind of flack and nonsense from people even with every word seasoned with salt and be honey like. and I'm sure there'll be those who will imagine things anyway.
• 

  myelaine

  "if you want me to talk like a sissified fool every second, then I will. "

  this I gotta see...
• 

  lisaBObeesa

  "sissified"

  *snicker*
• 

  seattleniceguy

  sweetscholar,
  I haven't bothered to respond to your Bible comments because you have demonstrated that you are not capable of an adult conversation. Just so you know, however, I have considered the points you raised and none of them support the idea that the Bible is inspired by God.
  Actually, as you will have noticed, I have not attempted to engage you in debate at all. I only debate with reasonable people, where both parties are interested in learning new things. You might be such a person, but if so, you've done a very good job of disguising that fact.
  With regard to your claims that you are getting hostility because you are a Witness, I can tell you that, at least for myself, that is false. I am capabable of respectful discussion with any reasonable person. Jehovah's Witnesses can be reasonable. In my experience, these tend to be fairly rare, but I judge a person by the way they engage in dialog, not by the particulars of what they believe. Your newest arch-enemy, Peacekeeper, showed up in a reasonable tone of voice and behaved like an adult. For this, you call him "borderline apostate."
  I really am curious, however, about your identity. Your word choice and style of writing are very similar to someone I used to know. Would you please just tell me if your first name is Michelle and if you lived near Long Beach, CA a few years ago?
  Regards,
  SNG
• 

  AuldSoul

  Auldsol but they said clearly that they were true Christians.

  Again a statement without any verifiable support. You mentioned "ad nauseum;" that describes your posts not the posts of the others in this thread. You state things without any verifiable sources.

  Please, demonstrate where the Watchtower Society said John Hus/Huss and/or Wycliffe were true Christians. Cite a source that I can look up. You see, I do not believe you are correct and I would like to find out why you told people Jehovah's Witnesses teach that.

  I just looked up John Hus/Huss, I suppose it has been a while since you last did so. Try to find the reference you are using as proof of WTS teaching that these men were true Christians. I don't think it exists but will happily acknowledge my oversight if and when you produce proof of your claim.

  See, inside the organization you can get away with unsubstantiated claims. Outside it is a bit more difficult to do so. Of course, Mormons wouldn't know you lied to them, neither would anyone who had not studied out what JWs teach about these people. You have nothing to defend when you make a statement of fact to someone ignorant of the basis for challenging your statement.

  Here, you have something to defend. Have you been teaching lies to people in your ministry?

  On another topic, 1 John 2:26-29 wasn't out of context. Shall I post more of the surrounding text?

  1 John 2:18-3:8 — Young children, it is the last hour, and, just as YOU have heard that antichrist is coming, even now there have come to be many antichrists; from which fact we gain the knowledge that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of our sort; for if they had been of our sort, they would have remained with us. But [they went out] that it might be shown up that not all are of our sort. And YOU have an anointing from the holy one; all of YOU have knowledge. I write YOU, not because YOU do not know the truth, but because YOU know it, and because no lie originates with the truth.Who is the liar if it is not the one that denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one that denies the Father and the Son. Everyone that denies the Son does not have the Father either. He that confesses the Son has the Father also. As for YOU, let that which YOU have heard from [the] beginning remain in YOU. If that which YOU have heard from [the] beginning remains in YOU, YOU will also abide in union with the Son and in union with the Father. Furthermore, this is the promised thing that he himself promised us, the life everlasting.
  These things I write YOU about those who are trying to mislead YOU. And as for YOU, the anointing that YOU received from him remains in YOU, and YOU do not need anyone to be teaching YOU; but, as the anointing from him is teaching YOU about all things, and is true and is no lie, and just as it has taught YOU, remain in union with him. So now, little children, remain in union with him, that when he is made manifest we may have freeness of speech and not be shamed away from him at his presence. If YOU know that he is righteous, YOU gain the knowledge that everyone who practices righteousness has been born from him.
  See what sort of love the Father has given us, so that we should be called children of God; and such we are. That is why the world does not have a knowledge of us, because it has not come to know him. Beloved ones, now we are children of God, but as yet it has not been made manifest what we shall be. We do know that whenever he is made manifest we shall be like him, because we shall see him just as he is. And everyone who has this hope set upon him purifies himself just as that one is pure.
  Everyone who practices sin is also practicing lawlessness, and so sin is lawlessness. YOU know too that that one was made manifest to take away [our] sins, and there is no sin in him. Everyone remaining in union with him does not practice sin; no one that practices sin has either seen him or come to know him. Little children, let no one mislead YOU; he who carries on righteousness is righteous, just as that one is righteous. He who carries on sin originates with the Devil, because the Devil has been sinning from [the] beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was made manifest, namely, to break up the works of the Devil.

  It appears to me that some were teaching things that did not harmonize with the truth and the people they were trying to reach were not encouraged to refer to the letters from Jerusalem regarding the matter. Instead, they were instructed to adhere to the spirit's leadings. Please, if you think I have taken it out of context, demonstrate your point.

  I understand being frustrated by the point that everyone who practices righteousness is born from him. But what about the part that discusses the counterpoint of those who practice lawlessness? How can that be understood? I'll even give you test case to use:

  How can the organization be righteous if it does not maintain its own published standards of neutrality?

  Here's another:

  Why are all Jehovah's Witnesses not children of God if all are practicing rightesouness?

  With respect to Cornelius and the Ethiopian Eunuch, you are confusing teaching the Gospel with authority to teach NEW LIGHT. Before they received the holy spirit, how could the anointing teach them? After receiving the holy spirit...the Ethiopian Eunuch went back to Ethiopia. There is no indication of further correspondence with Jerusalem. How did he CONTINUE to learn? Holy Spirit. You make much of the Spirit moving us to teach those who do not know, while John clearly makes the exception that these KNOW. And he specifies twice that they know because of their anointing, not because of letters from Jerusalem.

  You twist and turn and offer no sources. Tsk. When you do offer sources, you not only fail to quote them correctly you give them meaning directly contrary to the wording and expect us to swallow it as truth. When I post Scripture and apply it exactly as John applied it in the same book, you claim I took it out of context. You should take more time to be certain of your statements before making them.

  AuldSoul
• 

  ellderwho

  sweetS.

  Your a bit all over the place. If you wish to debate thats good. If you want to have a swagger that, you have authority, your not going to get anywhere here. Theres many here who know more about your faith than you think.
• 

  myelaine

  regarding what SNG said....
  

  I'm not too worried about my rep. however...

  I tried to read some of his "stuff"....from the first post onward....uck!

  I don't think we actually stand together on much of anything. (at this point)

  am I "on record"?

  michelle
• 

  ellderwho

  SNG,

  I am capabable of respectful discussion with any reasonable person. Jehovah's Witnesses can be reasonable. In my experience, these tend to be fairly rare, but I judge a person by the way they engage in dialog, not by the particulars of what they believe.

  You make a good point. Personally its amusing to me the way a Jw apologist will conduct him/herself. An otherwise rational person in there circle of friends can turn ugly in other sitiuations. Kinda reminds me of my mom, when backed down with critical thinking, will lash out at a moments notice. Strange indeed.

  EW
• 

  AuldSoul

  John himself was TEACHING them by writing his very epistle.

  sweetscholar,

  Alas, but this is not so. Letters to freinds may include any manner of admonition, counsel, or encouragement and still not be teaching. Inciting, yes. Teaching no. They had no need of his teaching. He said so himself. Directly and unambiguously. Can't twist away from his own words, can you? Bet that doesn't feel very comfortable.

  "I write you, not because YOU do not know the truth, but because YOU know it, and because no lie originates with the truth." Yes indeedy, plain spoken words there, sweetscholar.

  Same line of reasoning, different author:

  Galatians 1:6-9 — I marvel that YOU are being so quickly removed from the One who called YOU with Christ’s undeserved kindness over to another sort of good news. But it is not another; only there are certain ones who are causing YOU trouble and wanting to pervert the good news about the Christ. However, even if we or an angel out of heaven were to declare to YOU as good news something beyond what we declared to YOU as good news, let him be accursed. As we have said above, I also now say again, Whoever it is that is declaring to YOU as good news something beyond what YOU accepted, let him be accursed.

  How did Paul encourage the Galatians to view the concept of "new light?" Please plainly state, if you can, in direct unambiguous terms exactly what Paul was telling them about people who bring them different good news than the good news they already accepted. I ask because I'm sure you believe I took that out of context, too, so am inviting your explanation of what Paul was saying to them.

  AuldSoul