DEBATE: Jehovah's Witnesses vs.Y'all (Note to mods inside)

Priesto · Post by **Priesto** » 2002-10-21 02:20am

Well I already knew you'd revert back to the same thing most come back to.You look at God as a person, when God is not flesh and bones.Murder is murder, when man does it.God judges for it is God, only God can judge not man.That is why we cannot partake in the act of playing God.Playing with someones life is unexcusable.Man has no authority over someones life unless given this by God.The biblical accounts are cases in which God gave the authority to his children to cast them down.But they weren't casting judgement since God decides whether you go to hell or heaven.Whenever someone dies, that isn't the end of the story.Whether you are 2 or 50, that is only the end of your physical life.You will not accept this so I'll leave it at that.
You should know that murder involves a man taking the life of another unrightfully.We don't classify the death penalty as murder do we? no.of course the death penalty is wrong, but it's still a point.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-10-21 02:23am

Priesto wrote:Well I already knew you'd revert back to the same thing most come back to.You look at God as a person, when God is not flesh and bones.Murder is murder, when man does it.God judges for it is God, only God can judge not man.That is why we cannot partake in the act of playing God.Playing with someones life is unexcusable.Man has no authority over someones life unless given this by God.The biblical accounts are cases in which God gave the authority to his children to cast them down.But they weren't casting judgement since God decides whether you go to hell or heaven.Whenever someone dies, that isn't the end of the story.Whether you are 2 or 50, that is only the end of your physical life.You will not accept this so I'll leave it at that.
You should know that murder involves a man taking the life of another unrightfully.We don't classify capital punishment as murder do we? no.of course capital punishment is wrong, but it's still a point.

In other words:

Blah blah blah blah stating unfounded assumptions as fact blah blah blah blah spouting dogma as premises blah blah blah blah "special pleading" fallacy blah blah blah blah

Priesto · Post by **Priesto** » 2002-10-21 02:25am

Ahh yes, don't you just love my unfounded assumptions?

Just pointless fundy talk, yep.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-10-21 02:32am

Just shut up and die.

victorhadin · Post by **victorhadin** » 2002-10-21 09:46am

Durandal wrote:Just shut up and die.

Now that's just juvenile. There's no need for that.

But anyhow, I am late to this debate, so kindly forgive the sin of not reading through the whole damned lot.

A question or two, though, out of curiosity for our resident believers:

1) What brought you to your faith? Parents/ family/ friends/ the bible/ what?

2) Is your life noticeably better for it? How so?

3) Would you consider it right and proper to evangelise and attempt to convert nonbelievers?

4) What are your views on a persons' lack of belief in your faith? How do you feel about them, if at all?

5) Does your faith have room to coexist with scientific scrutiny?

6) Which is 'worse'; the point of view held by an atheist or the point of view held by a believer in another, separate religion regarding god/ gods and their existance?

None of these questions are intended to be barbed, and I would be interested to hear the answers.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-10-21 02:14pm

victorhadin wrote:
Durandal wrote:Just shut up and die.
Now that's just juvenile. There's no need for that.

Have you seen some of the shit that Priesto has written in the past on this board?

victorhadin · Post by **victorhadin** » 2002-10-21 02:48pm

Not at all. As mentioned, I haven't read the etire thread, so I apologise for accidentally stepping in a massive cess pit and beginning to sink.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2002-10-21 02:51pm

victorhadin wrote:Not at all. As mentioned, I haven't read the etire thread, so I apologise for accidentally stepping in a massive cess pit and beginning to sink.

If they have the fundamentalist Moron title, they've more than earned it. It's not handed out like candy.

Australopithicus · Post by **Australopithicus** » 2002-10-21 05:10pm

Archaic` wrote: For starters, if I'm not mistaken, you were the JW here who had to be informed about the whole 1914 incident.

I would say 'what the hell are you on about?' but I don't expect a reply, seeing as I won't be posting here for a looooooooong time (please, hold back the tears, everyone

) due to my eclipse with my obsession of DBZ, as it's finally back on CNX. Also, my GCSE mock exams roll around in 3 weeks, so I'll have no time for any of you. Too bad.

I read your entire post

And yet you still don't understand what I'm on about.

and it was a load of crap. That clear enough to you yet? Baka.

Charming man. Your knowledge of Japanese insults doesn't impress me, Bakayarou. Make your point already.

I've already shown myself more than able to pull quotes from it to justify my interpretations of the parts I have read.

Pulling quotes is of no use unless you capture two things:
1. What the passage is on about, and
2. What the passage means to the particular religion that puts it out.

It seems that you have neither.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

I never said they did.

As for immortal soul.....I believe the bible justifys that position in certain sections, doesn't it? Yours wouldn't of course, because it's been altered and had sections "cut out" by having them placed in brackets. Get a KJV.

The scriptures at Ecclesiastes 9:5, Psalms 146:4 and Ezekiel 18:4, 20 automatically refute the immortal soul doctrine. The Ezekiel verses use the word 'soul' in them, which is the nail in the proverbial coffin.

And by the way, I DO have a KJV. It's white with silver edging on the pages, and sits on a shelf in my bedroom with a smaller Christian prayerbook of similar characteristics. It's quite pretty. I have a test for your KJV. Look up Psalms 83:18 in your KJV and tell me what it says. We shall see if it has stood the test of time and translation. The debate about who has the best translation has roared for decades. The discovery of the dead sea scrolls in the original Hebrew and Aramaic texts has fuelled the debate, as who has the translation closest to the scrolls is therefore the most accurate. I say it's ours. You say it's yours. I then say who cares?

...fallacious interpretation of the passages which you use to justify your treatment of the disfellowshipped.

Uh, uh, u - uh. NOT disfellowshipped. APOSTATES. There is a large difference (which I pointed out in that post of mine which you so charmingly called 'a load of c**p). Disfellowshipped ones are often seen at the meetings of Jehovah's people, and we are GLAD to see them there. For instance, a Mrs. C and a Mr. J (Names edited for rights of privacy) have both been disfellowshipped (Mr. J twice) in my congregation. They turned up to the meetings, and we were happy to see them there. They are now both reinstated servants of Jehovah. Apostates are different. They are those who left on purpose, and are out to upset our spiritual balance in our organisation, AS I SAID BEFORE, which suggests that you didn't read it all, or that you skimmed through it all. They oppose us, and therefore are considered a threat to our spiritual health. They do this on purpose and they do it relentlessly. They are NOT the same as ordinary disfellowshipped ones.

Your translation of "ungodly buffoons for a cake" is flawed.

You really haven't been listening. Or reading, I suppose. This is NOT our translation. It is footnote, putting down the direct translation from the ORIGINAL HEBREW. You CANNOT refute the original wording of the Bible. It would be like refuting the law of gravity because someone else interpreted it a different way.

Furthermore, ungodly would imply athiesm.

Not necessarily. Someone who leaves the true religion (talking purely from my perspective, of course) for another which does not teach the true doctrine is nothing short of ungodly, for he does summarily not worship the same god. Therefore, he does not worship the true god, and is therefore ungodly.

As for mockers Vs. buffoons, while a religious person may seen a buffoon to them for rejecting what they see as holy truths

Concession accepted. And someone who mocks someone who is right is indeed a buffoon, so it really doesn't matter if you translate it as mockers or buffoons anyway. You can chop and change those two words to your pleasing, and it will mean the same thing.

Stop whining. It's a perfectly valid resource. Or is your criteria for valid resources sites that don't present anti-fundi messages based on logical interpretation of the bible, hmmmm?

No, my criteria for a valid resources is one that gives whole truths rather than half triths. And that's at best with your 'source'.

That is not your cults official definition of apostacy, as you and I both well know.

Oh, yes it is. And you just don't want to admit it, because you're afraid of being out - argued by a teenage fundie with mud - for - brains, as I'm sure you think of me.

in protest over your mishandling of the sexual abuse of children of JW's

Ah, yes. I wondered when this would come up. Panorama did a terrible job of documenting this. So much so that I can give at least 10 fallacies with that programme off the top of my head.

not even go halfway to describing what you to do Ex-JW's, splitting up families and friendships for the sole reason that they do not agree with you on various points of doctrine. Is it right to take a mother away from her children just because she became an athiest, agnostic, or another denomination of christianity?

And after an almost intelligent post, you revert to untrue propagandist nonsense, like you have in all of your posts to me so far. Families are untouched by disfellowshipping. They're FAMILY. It would be evil to split them up over such things. The congregation, however, is supposed to remain out of contact with those who are disfellowshipped, as is per a scripture in Deuteronomy. My refuting of all of these points was, in fact, delivered in that 'load of c**p' argument that you didn't read.

And furthermore for that matter of fact.....what do you think you're doing when you're going door to door?

Preaching.

Personally, I consider that stifiling my right to make my own judgements.

Think what you like. Tell us never to call again when we knock on your door, and we'll register you as a 'do not call'. It's that simple.

But doesn't Heb.6:4 say they're hopeless and will never repent?

We can always hope. That doesn't mean they will do it. And, sadly, they've largely proven Hebrews 6:4 right.

Regarding them, the psalmist said: "Do I not hate those who are intensely hating you, O Jehovah, and do I not feel a loathing for those revolting against you? With a complete hatred I do hate them. They have become tome real enemies." (Psalm 139:21, 22) It was because they intensely hated Jehovah that David looked on them with abhorrence. Apostates are included among those who show their hatred of Jehovah by revolting against him. Apostasy is, in reality, a rebellion against Jehovah. Some apostates profess to know and serve God, but they reject teachings or requirements set out in his Word. Others claim to believe the Bible, but they reject Jehovah's organization and actively try to hinder its work. When they deliberately choose such badness after knowing what is right, when the bad becomes so ingrained that it is an inseparable part of their makeup, then a Christian must hate (in the Biblical sense of the word) those who have inseparably attached themselves to the badness. True Christians share Jehovah's feelings toward such apostates; they are not curious about apostate ideas. On the contrary, they "feel a loathing" toward those who have made themselves God's enemies, but they leave it to Jehovah to execute vengeance.--Job 13:16; Romans
12:19; 2 John 9, 10.

Right....Nowhere do I see 'They are to be looked down on' or 'we personally loathe those singular people' or 'they will have a terribly painful and horrible end after armageddon'. Do you see any of those? The last statement refers to their actions, not them personally or their personalities. Merely their stand against us. And God probably doesn't like thse who turn against him. After all 'He who is not with me is against me', said Jehovah, so they're not with us, and not with him. Therefore, they are against him. Next please.

These apostates 'have gone out from us because they were not of our sort.' (1 John 2:18, 19) Hence, they no longer have fellowship with loyal anointed witnesses of Jehovah and their companions, and therefore these self-seeking heretics have no "sharing" with the Father and the Son, no matter how much they may boast of having intimacy with God and Christ. Instead, they are in spiritual darkness. (1 John 1:3, 6) Lovers of light and truth must take a firm stand against these promoters of false teaching. In no way do loyal witnesses of Jehovah want to be accomplices in the "wicked deeds" of such unfaithful persons by supporting their ungodly words and activities in any manner.

True. 'He who is not with me is against me'... They are, from our perspective, promoters of false teaching who stand against us. Again, however, nowhere do I see 'They are to be looked down on' or 'we personally loathe those singular people' or 'they will have a terribly painful and horrible end after armageddon'. Do you see any of those? We said that their deeds are wicked and their works are ungodly. No more than Psalms 35:16 said.

If we analyze these warnings given by Jesus and Paul, the following identifying features of typical apostates emerge: (1) Deviation from the truth (2) Twisted, empty speech (3) Efforts to subvert the faith of some and draw away disciples after themselves (4) Hypocrisy ('wolves in sheep's covering') (5) Recognizable by their fruits; they 'advance to more and more ungodliness'

1. They do that, otherwise they can't be apostates
2. They twist what we say into empty things that make no sense (a little like you did with one of our scriptures a while back, saying that Matthew 27:53, I think it was, was not in our Bible when it clearly is, as I quoted it to you from our translation)
3. With my example of the apostate literature put on the front of our kingdom hall, this is proven true.
4. They claim to follow God, but they do not from our perspective, and are therefore hypocritical
5. They are ungodly from our perspective.
Again, nowhere does it say'They are to be looked down on' or 'we personally loathe those singular people' or 'they will have a terribly painful and horrible end after armageddon'.

Because apostates "originate with the world" and have its wicked spirit, "they speak what proceeds from the world and the world listens to them." Since we have Jehovah's spirit, we can detect the unspiritual nature of their "inspired expressions" and therefore we reject them.

True again. As we have 'Jehovah's spirit', then they obviously do not, and are therefore wicked from our perspective. In fact, Jesus said that all men are wicked. Therefore, they must be. But again, nowhere do I see 'They are to be looked down on' or 'we personally loathe those singular people' or 'they will have a terribly painful and horrible end after armageddon'.

Some apostates profess to know and serve God, but they reject teachings or requirements set out in his Word. Others claim to believe the Bible, but they reject Jehovah's organization and actively try to hinder its work. ... True Christians share Jehovah's feelings toward such apostates; they are not curious about apostate ideas. On the contrary, they "feel a loathing" toward those who have made themselves God's enemies, but they leave it to Jehovah to execute vengeance.

God's enemies are our enemies, but they are not personally looked down upon as individuals. We loathe what they stand for. Yet again, nowhere do I see 'They are to be looked down on' or 'we personally loathe those singular people' or 'they will have a terribly painful and horrible end after armageddon'.

But persecutors, apostates, and other disrespectful opposers will be compelled to 'bow down'-acknowledging in chagrin that Jehovah's Witnesses do indeed represent God's organization.

Indeed they will. What's your point? I don't see 'They are to be looked down on' or 'we personally loathe those singular people' or 'they will have a terribly painful and horrible end after armageddon'.

Is it not true that those who have gone out from us over the years because "they were not of our sort," and who try to induce others to follow the same life-imperiling course, have cut themselves off from the source of solid spiritual food and refreshing spiritual waters? And these senseless ones, far from being generous and openhanded toward those of mankind who hunger and thirst after righteousness, do not see any urgent need for an organized preaching work in our time. They would allow each one to be guided by his own private reading and interpretation of the Bible... But the senseless opposers are not interested in the real welfare of those seeking the truth.

True again. These really aren't making a point against us at all. It is making a case against the apostates. But nowhere do I see 'They are to be looked down on' or 'we personally loathe those singular people' or 'they will have a terribly painful and horrible end after armageddon'. Do you see any of those? They say what they do against us. And they do, just as in my example.

Thus the one who doubts to the point of becoming an apostate sets himself up as a judge. He thinks he knows better than his fellow Christians, better also than the "faithful and discreet slave," through whom he has learned the best part, if not all that he knows about Jehovah God and his purposes. He develops a spirit of independence, and becomes "proud in heart . . . something detestable to Jehovah." (Prov. 16:5) Some apostates even think they know better than God...

If they think they know better than the organisation with God's backing and information, then they do indeed profess to know more than God. This part says about how apostates are proud of themselves that they think they know more about God than us. Also, they are proud that they have been 'set free', when they really haven't. Nowhere do I see 'They are to be looked down on' or 'we personally loathe those singular people' or 'they will have a terribly painful and horrible end after armageddon'. Do you see any of those? I don't.

After having yielded to such works of the flesh as "enmities, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, contentions, divisions, sects," apostates often fall victim to other fleshly works such as "drunken bouts," "loose conduct" and "fornication."

Some apostates become atheist or agnostic, and loosen their moral standards to this degree. But once again, I'm sorry to tell you that nowhere do I see 'They are to be looked down on' or 'we personally loathe those singular people' or 'they will have a terribly painful and horrible end after armageddon'.

The obligation to hate lawlessness also applies to all activity by apostates. Our attitude toward apostates should be that of David, who declared: "Do I not hate those who are intensely hating you, O Jehovah, and do I not feel a loathing for those revolting against you? With a complete hatred I do hate them. They have become to me real enemies.

Hmm. Interesting, is this. King David does not mention the word 'apostate'. This would imply that he is not specifically referring to them. And yet you have included what he said with our publication. Interesting. But as apostate principles are enemies of Jehovah, then they must also be our enemies. There cannot be one rule for the master and another for the servants. We hate the teachings of apostates, not the individuals. Once again (and I'm getting tired of saying it) nowhere do I see 'They are to be looked down on' or 'we personally loathe those singular people' or 'they will have a terribly painful and horrible end after armageddon'. Do you see any of those?

May we never be like those modern-day apostates who, rather than give a public witness, prefer to slander their brothers and to fall back into the ways of the world-antitypical Egypt.

They DO slander us. They make us out as the villains. The bad guys. Without a good reason, might I add. Again, nowhere do I see 'They are to be looked down on' or 'we personally loathe those singular people' or 'they will have a terribly painful and horrible end after armageddon', as your skeptic Bible professes.

Our safety lies in avoiding apostate propaganda as though it were poison, which in fact it is.

Poison to our beliefs, nectar to theirs. But again, nowhere do I see 'They are to be looked down on' or 'we personally loathe those singular people' or 'they will have a terribly painful and horrible end after armageddon'. Do you see any of those?

Love 'believes and hopes all things' found in God's Word and moves us to appreciate the spiritual food provided by the 'faithful slave' class, instead of listening to the slanderous statements of lying apostates.

Exactly. Love HOPES all things. We HOPE they will return to us. We LOVE the thought. But they HATE us. We HATE their teachings, NOT them personally, as I have said a hundred times previously. But nowhere do I see 'They are to be looked down on' or 'we personally loathe those singular people' or 'they will have a terribly painful and horrible end after armageddon'. Do you see any of those?

Apostates often appeal to the ego, claiming that we have been deprived of our freedoms, including the freedom to interpret the Bible for ourselves. ... True, such smooth talkers may look outwardly clean in a physical and moral way. But inside they are spiritually unclean, having given in to prideful, independent thinking.

See that first sentence, at the last part? That's you. PERSONALLY, you. But I don't hate you PERSONALLY. They are prideful and independent of the one true God and his organisation. Again, however, nowhere do I see 'They are to be looked down on' or 'we personally loathe those singular people' or 'they will have a terribly painful and horrible end after armageddon', as is claimed in the skeptics' annotated Bible.

Like gangrene, apostate reasoning is nothing but quick-spreading spiritual death. Therefore, resolve in your heart that you will never even touch the poison that apostates want you to sip.

Again this isn't towards apostate people personally. This is towards their reasonings and teachings. And again, nowhere do I see 'They are to be looked down on' or 'we personally loathe those singular people' or 'they will have a terribly painful and horrible end after armageddon'.

Apostates who hate former associates in Jehovah's service no longer have such fellowship with God and Christ.

If they cannot have fellowship with the lowly slave class of God's organisation, do you honestly think that they can have a fellowship with the almighty God and his son, who are highest in the organisation? But nowhere do I see 'They are to be looked down on' or 'we personally loathe those singular people' or 'they will have a terribly painful and horrible end after armageddon', as your skeptics annotated Bible claims we believe.

As loyal servants of Jehovah, why would we even want to peek at the propaganda put out by these rejecters of Jehovah's table who now verbally beat those who are helping us take in "healthful words"?

Again, this is us hating their teaching, not them personally. This argument of yours is really going nowhere, as nowhere do I see 'They are to be looked down on' or 'we personally loathe those singular people' or 'they will have a terribly painful and horrible end after armageddon'.

From time to time, there have arisen from among the ranks of Jehovah's people those, who, like the original Satan, have adopted an independent, faultfinding attitude. ... They say that it is sufficient to read the Bible exclusively, either alone or in small groups at home.

They are independent of us, and are therefore independent of God. As was Satan. But again, nowhere do I see 'They are to be looked down on' or 'we personally loathe those singular people' or 'they will have a terribly painful and horrible end after armageddon'. Do you see any of those?

What would you expect from the table of demons? And while the apostates may also present certain facts, these are usually taken out of context with the goal of drawing others away from the table of Jehovah.

There. We admitted that they can be right in some cases. But usually, they are twisted beyond truth. Again, this is an attack on their ridiculous teachings, not them personally. And finally, again nowhere do I see 'They are to be looked down on' or 'we personally loathe those singular people' or 'they will have a terribly painful and horrible end after armageddon'. DO YOU SEE ANY OF THOSE?

Didn't know I had access to this stuff, did you?

No, and to all intents and purposes, you shouldn't have it. Neither do you have permission from the watchtower Bible and tract society to display it, which results in a breach of copyright and of the data protection act.

Stop spewing crap so easily disproven.

Then why don't YOU stop putting up stuff that can be so easily explained with the right understanding. It'll be win - win.

I've got plenty more where this came from.

I would say 'bring it on', but I won't, seeing as I'm not making any more posts fro a long time.

It contradicts your doctrine, and is in brackets in your translation because of it. That's why the whole sentance is bracketed. Your interpretation might apply if it was one letter, but it's not. Concession accepted.

I'm not conceding anything. I'm saying that pronouns and nouns are bracketed, and there are no things that contradict the doctrine to be bracketed. Therefore, nothing else is bracketed.

Irrelevant. Your JW doctrine is that the dead are supposed to remain dead until after Armageddon. Your doctine is in conflict with this section, which is why it was bracketed off. Now are you going to defend the point or keep providing red herrings?

So it's a red herring to tell the truth about our Bible? That's a new one...And if you give me the contradicting scripture, I'll look into it. Until then, you've only given a statement with no proof behind it, so there is really no point to refute in the first place. And our doctrine is perfectly well supported by the Bible in the scriptures mentioned near the start, so it looks like I have the point up on you.

From the horses' mouth? Oh, I think I've done that well enough. Seeing as I pulled out Watchtower quotes which contradicted your own statements about JW belief, yes, I do think I know more about your religion than you do.

And you twisted it, but not understanding it, you had no hope of using it as a legitimate point, as I have explained all the watchtower quotes, and therefore this matter is closed. I have refuted all of your points, and now have severe hand cramp for my troubles.

Now that that was my last post for a while, all I want you to do, Archaic, is to find the scripture that is in brackets in our Bible that contradicts our doctrine, and to write out Psalms 83:18 of your KJV. Right. That's it, the matter has been sorted. ove along, people...nothing to see here...

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2002-10-21 05:18pm

Wow, it's Darkstar: Fundy Flavored

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-10-21 05:20pm

Oh, for fuck's sake! Who's going to respond to a post that long?

Australopithicus wrote:Some apostates become atheist or agnostic, and loosen their moral standards to this degree. But once again, I'm sorry to tell you that nowhere do I see 'They are to be looked down on' or 'we personally loathe those singular people' or 'they will have a terribly painful and horrible end after armageddon'.

By "loosen their moral standards", you just accused all atheists and agnostics of being immoral, you worthless little piece of lying chickenshit.

They DO slander us. They make us out as the villains. The bad guys. Without a good reason, might I add. Again, nowhere do I see 'They are to be looked down on' or 'we personally loathe those singular people' or 'they will have a terribly painful and horrible end after armageddon', as your skeptic Bible professes.

Jesus teaches that people like me will burn in the fire, dumb-ass.

We HATE their teachings, NOT them personally

Ah, so you can say you "hate" (not just disagree with, or criticize, but hate) the teachings of anyone not of your religion, but if one of us says something like "we hate Christianity", you scream bloody murder? Nice.

Archaic` · Post by **Archaic`** » 2002-10-21 05:56pm

Darth Wong wrote:Oh, for fuck's sake! Who's going to respond to a post that long?

*Raises his hand*

It might take me a day or two, but if that fundi fool wants to make Darkstar-eske "rebuttals" of my arguements while being ignorant of the teachings of his own religion (At least....I hope he's ignorant of them. Or is he doing that thing where it's okay to lie to everyone who isn't a JW?), well, he's got another thing coming.

My apologies to everyone here though. I understand all too well how boring it is to watch a tireless rebutter Vs. tireless rebutter showdown.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2002-10-21 07:42pm

EXCESS FUCKING VERBAGE.

Majin Gojira · Post by **Majin Gojira** » 2002-10-21 09:38pm

Lord of the all mighty FUCK! That was painfully long....if someone answers that...please...make it short and consice...

to quote a movie goer....

"Argh...Words..."

Raoul Duke, Jr. · Post by **Raoul Duke, Jr.** » 2002-10-21 10:23pm

Cyril wrote:So? It was written by men 2000+ years ago; of course it's going to be scientifically inaccurate(absurd, if you prefer). Are you suggesting that they should have known about bacteria? My point was that this has *no bearing* on Christianity itself.

Do we have a concession in that statement? "It was written by men 2000+ years ago..." Why would the word of God be as ignorant as that of a human being?

Archaic` · Post by **Archaic`** » 2002-10-22 02:51am

Majin Gojira wrote:Lord of the all mighty FUCK! That was painfully long....if someone answers that...please...make it short and consice...

to quote a movie goer....

"Argh...Words..."

I'll attempt to link to articles directly for my watchtower quotes this time instead of shoving them down his face. Unfortunatly, it's not always possible, and you just know how he's going to react to me giving him sites from the Disfellowshipped.

EmperorMing · Post by **EmperorMing** » 2002-10-22 05:09am

Archaic` wrote:
Majin Gojira wrote:Lord of the all mighty FUCK! That was painfully long....if someone answers that...please...make it short and consice...

to quote a movie goer....

"Argh...Words..."
I'll attempt to link to articles directly for my watchtower quotes this time instead of shoving them down his face. Unfortunatly, it's not always possible, and you just know how he's going to react to me giving him sites from the Disfellowshipped.

There are other sites, you know...

Archaic` · Post by **Archaic`** » 2002-10-22 05:45am

Find me a non secular site that isn't run by a disfellowshipped JW which carries anything better than just excerpts of the Watchtower and I'll gladly use it.

EmperorMing · Post by **EmperorMing** » 2002-10-22 06:08am

Archaic` wrote:Find me a non secular site that isn't run by a disfellowshipped JW which carries anything better than just excerpts of the Watchtower and I'll gladly use it.

OK by me.

Non-secular, as in non religious or...

Archaic` · Post by **Archaic`** » 2002-10-22 06:49am

Non-secular as in something by some christian denomination, preferably JW's, and who aren't disfellowshipped JW's.

EmperorMing · Post by **EmperorMing** » 2002-10-22 07:05am

Archaic` wrote:Non-secular as in something by some christian denomination, preferably JW's, and who aren't disfellowshipped JW's.

Ahh; I know of a few SDA sites in this regard...

Archaic` · Post by **Archaic`** » 2002-10-22 09:56am

Oh? Do tell.

Raoul Duke, Jr. · Post by **Raoul Duke, Jr.** » 2002-10-22 08:00pm

Archaic` wrote:Non-secular as in something by some christian denomination, preferably JW's, and who aren't disfellowshipped JW's.

"Heretics" who haven't been caught yet. lol

Archaic` · Post by **Archaic`** » 2002-10-22 08:02pm

*Laughs*

I don't think they'd appreciate me linking to their stuff. There's actually quite a few who've posted things on sites associated with the disfellowshipped, but some of those articles might give away who they are, and I'd rather not put them in danger.

Raoul Duke, Jr. · Post by **Raoul Duke, Jr.** » 2002-10-22 08:09pm

Archaic` wrote:*Laughs*

I don't think they'd appreciate me linking to their stuff. There's actually quite a few who've posted things on sites associated with the disfellowshipped, but some of those articles might give away who they are, and I'd rather not put them in danger.

Okay, do me a favor and lend me a clue on this: exactly what kind of "danger" would they be in? I mean, are we talking about social suicide or old-fashioned sheets-on-their-heads downhome crawss-burnins here?

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

DEBATE: Jehovah's Witnesses vs.Y'all (Note to mods inside)

Some honest questions.

Re: Some honest questions.