damn u trebek!! i mean gary =P
Is the WTs God's chosen or a phoney? PROVE IT!
Lets look at this another way.
If God has a "chosen" religion (personally I don't think God is like that) Then God would make sure that they:
* Never hurt their followers in any way
* Definately never do anything that could lead to their followers death, or split up families
* Always speak 100% truth
* NEVER prophysey falsely
* Always teach that people can have a personal relationship with GOD and do not need an earthly organisation to get to God
* NEVER make lots of rules for people just like the scribes and pharisees
In those points the WTS fails miserably. They lie, they split up families, they make numerous rules, they put themselves ahead of God, they hurt their followers in numerous ways, they have stupid rules on blood (you can have this but not that type of thing) which results in death, they have over a century made numerous false prophyseys.....
Prove it ?
The FDS cannot lie. Proof enough for me.
I dont have to prove it, they prove it themselves.
Read 'Thus saith Jehovah's Witnesses' by Randy Watters at Freeminds.
When vaccines became widely available, how can you say that the WTs enlightened when they denied the rank and file to benefit for years. Does not sound very enlightening to me. Same for organ transplants. "God's people" suffered unnessarily because of their loyalty to the WT.
Well, It's easy to simplify that which is simple, unless that which is simple is actually not so simple, then it is not so easy to show that which is simple is simple, simply due to the fact that simplification is nothing more than reduction and reducing a delusion just results in a smaller delusion and that's simple except a delusion is nothing in the first place and by reducing nothing, you get less nothing and less nothing actually is simple.
I guess that's it. How'd I do?
They tell lies (and I do not give a shit if they use the phrase Theocratic Warfare) THEY TELL LIES -- let me say that again - THEY TELL LIES -- that makes them a phoney
I don't have to prove it. They have to prove that they are, and so far they've done a dismal job of it.
http://www.watchtower.org/library/ti/index.htm Hippolytus, who died about 235 C.E., said that God is "the one God, the first and the only One, the Maker and Lord of all," who "had nothing co-eval [of equal age] with him . . . But he was One, alone by himself; who, willing it, called into being what had no being before," such as the created prehuman Jesus.
The following comes from http://www.witnessinc.com/trinity.htm (I have a copy of the entire page from the Donaldson translation from which Hippolytus is quoted)
HIPPOLYTUS (235 C.E.):The Society claims that Hippolytus "said that God is 'the one God, the first and the only One, the Maker and Lord of all,' who 'had nothing co-equal [of equal age] with him...But he was One, alone by himself; who willing it, called into being what had no being before,' such as the created prehuman Jesus." Here again, when one examines what Hippolytus actually taught, one uncovers another example where the Society misrepresents the facts. Note the following statements found in Hippolytus' writings:
"God, subsisting alone, and having nothing contemporaneous with Himself, determined to create the world....Beside Him there was nothing; but He, while existing alone, yet existed in plurality ....And thus there appeared another beside Himself. But when I sayanother, I do not mean that there are two Gods....Thus, then, these too, though they wish it not, fall in with the truth, and admit that one God made all things....For Christ is the God above all.....He who is over all is God; for thus He speaks boldly, 'All things are delivered unto me of my Father.' He who is over all, God blessed, has been born; and having been made man,He is (yet) God for ever....And well has he named Christ the Almighty." The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 5, pp. 227, 153, 225
It should be carefully noted that Hippolytus was not consistent in his teachings on the Trinity. At one time in his life he was against the Trinity as taught by the church of Rome and the church was against his ideas on the Trinity. At another time he was in favour of what the church taught. He also taught that Mary conceived the Father, not the Son!!! I think both the WT and the trinitarians are making a mistake by referring to him as a source of early Christian belief.