Matthew 25

by Farkel 73 Replies latest jw friends

  • Farkel
    Farkel

    Flip,

    : So, what are you getting at Fark...that Jehovah's Witnesses who consider it's not 'kosher' for the likes of Hitler and his henchmen to have done, are doing and about to do...but it's alright for Jehovah and His WTB&TS to promote, eventually doing something worse?

    Your question is not very clear to me, but I'll answer it as I understand it:

    I made that quite clear when I started this thread: one does not have to believe the Bible in order to use it to show those that do believe it aren't following it, and what the Bible says the consequences would be for not following it.

    Whether I believe that everlasting destruction awaits those who don't follow Jesus' advice in Matt 25 is irrelevant. The fact is OTHERS do believe it. Dubs claim to believe it, but have such a twisted distortion of what the words actually say that I felt obligated to point out that fact.

    Farkel

  • Maximus
    Maximus

    Sorry, Farkel. The dude's love affair with LaRouche has got to be exposed:

    "LaRouche was paroled from federal prison in January 1994 after serving five years of a 15-year sentence for mail fraud and tax evasion ... who has made his reputation on bizarre conspiracy theories and extensive networking among the fringes of the political spectrum."

    THE MIND OF THE SOCIOPATH

    Cultic Studies Journal
    Psychological Manipulation and Society
    Vol. 10, No. 1, 1993

    Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism
    Dennis King. Doubleday, New York, 1990, 415 pages.
    Reviewer: Andrea Bloomgarden, Ph.D.

    Who is Lyndon LaRouche? If one is at all interested in the cult scene, one might have heard something about Mr. LaRouche. Perhaps one has heard that he is a member of the far right and hates Jews, or that he has been in prison for tax evasion. During this past election, I spotted posters espousing his presidency in the tourist areas of Seattle. In picking up Dennis King's book, one would probably hope to end up understanding something more about the motivations of Lyndon LaRouche. In particular, a good biography of LaRouche would offer an integration of what he has done with why he has done it. Perhaps "New American Fascism" would refer to a movement that he has created, and the book would integrate the culture of the United States and its ripeness for cultism with something about Mr. LaRouche's personality character.

    In reading this book, I found that 99% of the words pertained to what LaRouche had done, and the remaining, if that, on the question of why. Moreover, "New American Fascism" was not explained in any cultural context; it was more of a description of LaRouche's infiltration into mainstream politics without an explanation why this might be happening at this time. Not only was the lack of analysis frustrating, but without an explanatory framework for why LaRouche did what he did, it was difficult to integrate all of the facts presented in the book. The book reads like a dictionary. Each entry might be more or less interesting—for example, LaRouche's contacts with various American politicians had a pleasant behind-the-scenes gossipy quality—yet, there was no forest to be found for the trees.

    A total of two and one half pages (pp. 4–6) were spent on LaRouche's family background, which, if expanded, might have helped us to understand how LaRouche came to be. There were suggestions that his childhood was unhappy (not surprisingly). Since his parents were Quaker, he was told that under no circumstances could he fight with other children (even in self-defense); thus, he experienced "years of hell" from bullies at school (p. 4). It is interesting, then, that LaRouche, apparently in the opinion of many, turned into an international bully and a cult leader who essentially bullied his own followers into submission. Also, there seems to have been some hypocrisy in this family's espoused Quaker values. King describes LaRouche's parents as "ferocious sectarians who accused their co-religionists of closet Bolshevism and embezzlement of religious funds" (p. 4). However, King does not go further into this background, nor does he propose any hypotheses about how it might have affected LaRouche.

    On the positive side, there are a lot of interesting, if not shocking, descriptions of LaRouche's (and his cult followers') activities and beliefs. For example, LaRouche had a particular dislike for Henry Kissinger and went all out to try to get him. To name a few things he did to annoy Kissinger: LaRouche circulated a leaflet entitled, "Kissinger: The Politics of Faggotry" (p. 151), and had his followers harass Kissinger in Europe with "schoolboy pranks, crank calls," and so forth (p. 150). He also disseminated an article called "How Henry Kissinger Will Be Destroyed" to Kissinger's audience when he spoke at Georgetown University (p. 151). Still, one is left not really understanding where all the loathing for Kissinger came from. Of course, it is alleged that LaRouche hates Jewish people, but why did he single out Kissinger and why did he insist that Kissinger is gay when Kissinger is married and there is no reason to believe that he is gay?

    King's description of LaRouche's beliefs and activities makes for enjoyable reading in the way that a horror movie can make for good entertainment. If King is accurate, then LaRouche (and his followers) are about as cynical, sociopathic, and exploitative as they come. For example, King writes, "the LaRouchians had come to believe that really clever conspirators never carry out an assassination themselves, but simply spread hate propaganda about the targeted person which might trigger an attack by some disturbed personality or fanatic. That way they can never be held legally responsible" (p. 153). This book is full of endlessly disturbing descriptions of LaRouche's hunger for and abuse of power.

    Back to the problems with the book. Essential in a biography is something about the biographer's relation to the material. King does not say a word about how he knows so much about LaRouche or why he is interested in his subject. This would be helpful information for the reader. If, for example, King were an ex-follower, that would be interesting to know.

    In sum, if one were to write a dissertation on Lyndon LaRouche, this book might be helpful in its comprehensiveness. It covers, with completeness, LaRouche's activities from about age 19 onward. However, it will not be a satisfying read for one who wants to understand what makes Lyndon LaRouche tick, or for one who hopes to walk away from the book with a greater understanding of the sociopathic mind.

    Andrea Bloomgarden, Ph.D.
    West Chester University Counseling Center
    Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

    ...................WOULD YOU BUY A USED CAR FROM THIS MAN?.............

    Uncommon Ground:
    The Black African Holocaust Council
    and Other Links Between
    Black and White Extremists

    Another Black-White Extremist Link: NOI and Lyndon LaRouche

    The most extensive ad hoc alliance involving Black and white extremists is the relationship between the Nation of Islam and the Lyndon LaRouche organization. LaRouche, who was paroled from federal prison in January 1994 after serving 5 years of a 15-year sentence for mail fraud and tax evasion, is a former Trotskyist who turned sharply rightward during the 1970s and who has made his reputation on bizarre conspiracy theories and extensive networking among the fringes of the political spectrum. LaRouche's relationship with NOI provides clear proof of the chameleon-like character of his group; as recently as the mid-1980s, while LaRouche associates were preparing intelligence reports on American anti-Aparthied groups for the Republic of South Africa, LaRouche-controlled publications were denouncing NOI for their relationship with Libyan dictator Muammar Kaddafi, alleging that Farrakhan was involved with Kadaffi's sponsorship of international terrorism. By the end of the decade, however, followers of LaRouche and Farrakhan -- including NOI Health Minister Abdul Alim Muhammad -- met in Paris to discuss the theory that the AIDS virus is part of a government conspiracy against African-Americans.

    More recently, the two organizations have joined forces to denounce the Anti-Defamation League, which has exposed the anti-Semitism and extremism of both groups. During the fall of 1992, LaRouche representatives joined Abdul Alim Muhammad in two rallies at Washinton, D.C.'s Howard University devoted tothe proposal that ADL is "the new Ku Klux Klan" -- an ironic designation, considering the fact that LaRouche has been associated with several members of the "old" Ku Klux Klan. Joint LaRouche-NOI rallies have continued to take place at Black-oriented colleges in the District of Columbia, Baltimore, and Boston, throughout 1994.

    Participants in these rallies have stopped at nothing to demonize the League. "ADL is behind drugs, destruction of children, and AIDS," one LaRouche representative stated at Howard. "This is not an attack on Jews -- it's an attack onthe Anti-Defamation League....and the synagogues of Satan [who] have too much control of the country," a Farrakhan supporter told The Washington Times. LaRouche rhetoric has also slipped into the public comments of NOI officials; New York NOI Minister Conrad Muhammad, for example, asked The NewYorker magazine in February 1994, "Why not condemn the criminal activities and the charges that have been laid at [ADL's] door that they were a front organization for Meyer Lansky and other gangsters?" These charges against ADL have been leveled exclusively by LaRouche publications.

  • bluesapphire
    bluesapphire

    OldHippie: Just found your comments to me. Just wanted to let you know that you DON'T TELL ME WHAT TO DO ASSHOLE! I post what I want, when I want and how I want!

    And you will notice it is not an "isolated" instance (contrary to what you WISH). You're a typical JW idiot! And don't talk to me about judging people's motives, mind, etc. I saw what I saw and it was real. Actions speak clearly in the JW halls! They reveal the true attitude of JW's. Or do you mind explaining to me why the elders wanted to kick the guy out of the hall in a thunderstorm with an empty stomach. My story clearly illustrated Farkel's post in real life action. And Farkel's quotations show that the R&F JW's follow instructions.

    PS: Thank God my faith was NOT rooted in this pathetic excuse for a religion!

  • jurs
    jurs

    Farkel,

    Just wanted to tell you that I enjoyed your post and am printing it out. You brought up some good points that I'm going to share with a co worker of mine whose fiance is now studying with JW's.
    Anyhow thanks for your post !!!
    jurs

  • teejay
    teejay

    Englishman,

    I'll tell you what I got out of Farkel's post: One of the ways that one can see that Jehovah's witnesses aren't Christian, are "un-Christian and un-Biblical," is in that they don't care for the physical needs of Christ's brothers.

    Is that what you got, or did I miss something?

    I don't expect you to answer my response TO YOU because, well... between me and you, we both know who the real coward is here, don't we? Chump.

  • GinnyTosken
    GinnyTosken

    Teejay!

    Fancy bumping into you on this thread! I've been patiently awaiting a reply from you on the "Thank You Ray Franz" thread:

    http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=1125&page=3&site=3

    In a post to Larc, you accused me of saying that you had no redeeming qualities and of lying. In case you missed my answer there, here it is again.

    Ginny

    ----------

    Teejay,

    Norm, without ever engaging me even ONE TIME in one-on-one dialog, told me point blank that there was no hope for me, that I had no redeeming qualities. Ginny did the same, but only after she(?) called me a laughingstock for believing a lie she told.

    We discussed this at length in the "I Gave My Word" thread, Teejay:

    http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=9870&site=3

    You accused me there of saying that you had no redeeming qualities. I replied:

    Please read my statement again, Teejay. I carefully worded it because I have never known anyone without some redeeming qualities. I also understand that there are facets of your personality others may know and love that I may not have seen on this board. I said, “I . . . patiently wait to see these redeeming qualities, but plainly stated, based on what I've seen of you on this board, you disgust me.”

    You replied:

    Again, I'm sorry for misreading/misquoting your words. My mistake. I can see your point. After rechecking, there's miles of difference between what I thought you said and what you actually said. I thought you said that I had "no redeeming qualities," . . . Yes, I can see the difference. Please excuse my confusion.

    I also explained what you term my "lie" and why I consider you a laughingstock:

    I said, “ . . .you took it [my joke] quite literally. For those who have met me, you are quite a laughingstock, Teejay.” I am being quite candid and sincere. You did take my joke literally, and for those who have met me and know that I am very much a woman, it is funny that all this time you’ve been picturing me as a big mean hairy hoss. What makes it even more hilarious is that you persist and make a federal case out of it. Not even a photo could convince you. Ginny is the evil mistress of deception.

    You replied:

    I'm sorry that I mistook your joke as a truth instead of the joke it was. My mistake.

    Even after all of this, you still persist with the "she(?)" stuff.

    Is your memory so short, or are you deliberately trying to distort the truth? It is exactly this sort of behavior that disgusts me.

    Ginny

    [Edited to add a more complete quote about "redeeming qualities."]

    ----------

  • hillary_step
    hillary_step

    Maximus,

    Though not long Stateside as you know, I understand from colleagues that 'La Douche' is a man with an intellect the size and texture of YK's eyepatch - small and soggy. Be careful though lest you become the target of his withering focus, I understand it has the power to stir tea.

    Speaking from a European perspective, all I see in your loaded picture is a man in a cream linen jacket trying to stab a gnat with his forefinger. Am I missing something?

    Best to you - HS

    'The mind of the bigot is like the pupil of the eye, the more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract... Holmes

  • MacHislopp
    MacHislopp

    Hello Farkel,

    I've read with great pleasure your subject.

    Well done, I do agree with you. The extrapolation that the

    WTS does to apply to ...themselves Jesus' word is quite

    astonishing! I think it has to do with their pet theme

    of LOYALTY. You know how it goes...it is Jehovah, Jesus

    and ...the "gb", because their represent God's organisation on

    this planet.

    Thanks again, and greetings, J.C.MacHislopp

  • proplog2
    proplog2

    Everyone seems to like your post Farkel. However you make the following quote from the Insight book:

    *** it-1 1151 Hospitality ***
    Those showing hospitality and kindness to Christ's "brothers" would
    be doing it because they recognized them to be brothers of Christ
    and sons of God. (Mt 25:31-46) In another statement he showed that
    not mere humanitarian hospitality would bring lasting reward from
    God but hospitality rendered to God's prophets because they are
    recognized as God's representatives, disciples belonging to
    Christ._Mt 10:40-42; Mr 9:41, 42.

    Notice how the society attempts to downplay the words of Jesus I've
    just cited. They draw the fire away from the very clear
    instructions to help those "least" brothers (and sisters) with
    food, clothing, shelter and succor and flat out state that
    humanitarian hospitality is just not enough. One must also show
    hospitality to "God's prophets" because they are RECOGNIZED as
    "God's representatives." Hmmm. I wonder who they are talking about
    here. Could it be themselves?

    Notice that the Watchtower quotes Matt 10:40

    "He that receives YOU receives me also, and he that receives me receives him also that sent me forth. He that receives a prophet because he is a prophet will get a prophet's reward, and he that receives a righteous man will get a righteous man's reward. And whoever gives one of these little ones only a cup of water to drink BECAUSE HE IS A DISCIPLE, I tell you truly, he will by no means lose his reward."

    Would you care to show how this relates to Matt 25?

    Perhaps you could also explain Hebrews 6:10 "For God is not unrighteous so as to forget your work and the love you showed for his name, IN THAT YOU HAVE MINISTERED TO THE HOLY ONES AND CONTINUE MINISTERING."

  • teejay
    teejay

    english man,

    I assume you didn't see the question I asked of you, so my post will serve to bring this bttt. Did I miss something in Farkel's post? Thanks.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit