yesterday i asked you know and yardif why they frequent these apostate sites.i asked this question: "how do you justify coming on these boards?".
you know's answer:"the way i understand it, it is a conscience matter.
" when i asked whether he was serious, he replied:"i am serious".when i asked him for further clarification, he suddenly vanished from the conversation.
Southland,
Are Yadirf (Friday) and YouKnow the same person? They sure seem similar!
Seems to me that THAT road has already been traveled before. But, if you insist, if you ask me I'll give you my phone number and you can call me to verify whether or not the two of us are the same. Okay?
Friday
.
yesterday i asked you know and yardif why they frequent these apostate sites.i asked this question: "how do you justify coming on these boards?".
you know's answer:"the way i understand it, it is a conscience matter.
" when i asked whether he was serious, he replied:"i am serious".when i asked him for further clarification, he suddenly vanished from the conversation.
Outlaw,
You kinda screwed up in your last post, didn't you. It's awfully unusual to see one of your posts that isn't punctuated with "LOL".
Also, when will you ever learn the difference between "your" and "you're"? I've yet to see you get that right.
Friday
.
yesterday i asked you know and yardif why they frequent these apostate sites.i asked this question: "how do you justify coming on these boards?".
you know's answer:"the way i understand it, it is a conscience matter.
" when i asked whether he was serious, he replied:"i am serious".when i asked him for further clarification, he suddenly vanished from the conversation.
HoChiMin,
Gee, you're smart!
Friday
.
yesterday i asked you know and yardif why they frequent these apostate sites.i asked this question: "how do you justify coming on these boards?".
you know's answer:"the way i understand it, it is a conscience matter.
" when i asked whether he was serious, he replied:"i am serious".when i asked him for further clarification, he suddenly vanished from the conversation.
Minimus,
My suggestion is that everytime these JW apologists try to create a disturbance here, IGNORE them (if we can..lol).REMIND THEM ALWAYS, that they can't talk to us since they are loyalists to the Society.
I get the impression that you think that this board should be for the exclusive use of apostates. Who died and appointed you boss? Too, you charge me with being here solely for the purpose of causing a disturbance. A review of the threads that I've started will provide the answer. Also, I've grown quite tired of having had the "they can't talk to us since they are loyalists to the Society" bit thrown into mine and others faces over the years. Do you imagine yourself as being the first to confront a JW with that? Do you not know that there are exceptions to almost every rule? Surely your own children, if you have fathered any, have excelled above your maturity.
Friday
.
yesterday i asked you know and yardif why they frequent these apostate sites.i asked this question: "how do you justify coming on these boards?".
you know's answer:"the way i understand it, it is a conscience matter.
" when i asked whether he was serious, he replied:"i am serious".when i asked him for further clarification, he suddenly vanished from the conversation.
Dia,
"Jesus beat the crap outta certain people on a number of occasions"?Where is that scripture??
If you put what you quoted me as having said back in its proper context, then I'll consider answering your question.
Friday
.
yesterday i asked you know and yardif why they frequent these apostate sites.i asked this question: "how do you justify coming on these boards?".
you know's answer:"the way i understand it, it is a conscience matter.
" when i asked whether he was serious, he replied:"i am serious".when i asked him for further clarification, he suddenly vanished from the conversation.
Big Tex:
Yadirf, I posted what I did in response to your statement that an inactive/irregular Witness is still a Witness.
There YOU go, just like Outlaw did in the beginning ... You YOURSELF are saying that such a person is still a Witness, because you call them an "inactive Witness".
But am I really "inactive," as Outlaw suggested here in this thread? Consider: Not only have I not disowned the WTS (as you and most others here have done), but I am supportive of the WTS; I continue to stress to my family members that it is indeed God's Organization; I contend with you apostates in defense of the WTS; I correspond with Brooklyn, with information that I feel will benefit the Organization; I anticipate changes to be forthcoming in fulfillment of Daniel 11:35; etc.
So, am I really inactive?
Friday
.
i think that i read somewhere that jws believe that the magi who followed the star were 'evil' .
is that the case - if so how did they figure that?
paduan
So the star moved a bit ?
No, it didn't "move a bit". It was made to REAPPEAR.
Oh, I forgot - if kings have stars, [a] and that one was really Satan - [b] where was Jesus' star - shouldn't he have a star ?
[a] "And that one was really Satan"
I'm afraid that you're a bit confused. The "Star of Bethlehem," as it is commonly referred to, had Satan as it's source. The "star" didn't represent Satan, as you imply.
[b] "Where was Jesus' star - shouldn't he have a star ?"
See Revelation 22:16.
Friday
.
Edited by - Yadirf on 23 August 2002 14:43:49
i think that i read somewhere that jws believe that the magi who followed the star were 'evil' .
is that the case - if so how did they figure that?
paduan
I forgot this part:
Nevertheless, how do you read Isaiah 14:10-15 ?
I've already stated that the star mentioned in Isaiah represented the King of Babylon. Isn't that the only relevant thing there is having to do with the discussion at hand? If not, perhaps you should elaborate on what you are getting at. What's your point in asking? What, specifically, are you asking? Perhaps, for my benefit, you should answer the question you posed.
Friday
.
i think that i read somewhere that jws believe that the magi who followed the star were 'evil' .
is that the case - if so how did they figure that?
paduan
So it was high enough to see from the east, imprecise enough to venture into Jerusalem, but actually low enough in the sky to pick out Jesus' place.
It's stretching into a flat earth theory.
Was the "star" stationed over Jesus home when the Magi originally saw it? No! That's not hardly what I was saying. Was it stationed over Jerusalem at the time then? No, not even that!. What then? It apparently wasn't so very far off from them, but merely lay in the direction of Israel. Since they reckoned that the star had to do with a "king", it would therefore only be natural for them to venture to Jerusalem, the city where the King lived.
Friday
.
yesterday i asked you know and yardif why they frequent these apostate sites.i asked this question: "how do you justify coming on these boards?".
you know's answer:"the way i understand it, it is a conscience matter.
" when i asked whether he was serious, he replied:"i am serious".when i asked him for further clarification, he suddenly vanished from the conversation.
Big Tex says:
One of the last meetings I attended, this "loving" brother [circuit overseer] stated that not only does Jehovah not hear the prayers of anyone who has doubts, he does not acknowledge any dedicated, baptised witness who is inactive or even irregular. According to him, from the platform no less, if a brother or sister reaches that deplorable state, it is as if they are dead to Jehovah.
I'm aware of the fact that some over-zealous C.O.s make unreasonable, unauthorized statements of the sort that you speak of here. Insofar as "doubts" it seems that I've read in Raymond Franz' first book that even Nathan Knorr himself expressed a degree of uncertainty regarding the 1914 doctrine itself. I wonder, therefore, what this particular C.O., whom you mention, would say about Nathan Knorr? To be consistent he would have to think that Jehovah didn't listen to Nathan Knorr's prayers -- and while he was serving as President of the WTBTS at that. I'm sure that the day will come, if it hasn't already, that the C.O. mentioned will regret having uttered such a foolish thing.
Friday
.
Edited by - Yadirf on 23 August 2002 2:11:56
