Jump to content

DefenderOTT

Member
  • Content Count

    36
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About DefenderOTT

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

266 profile views
  1. The correct answer would be yes! However the context has been obscured. Therefore, the intent has changed with the post! *** g84 8/22 p. 28 From Our Readers *** The Pope on the Move Your issue of December 8, 1983, was one of the most appealing, absorbing and sensitive in recent memory. Your critical analysis of the Pope’s spiritual, political, moral and social activities was authoritative, balanced, sane and backed by an array of insurmountable Biblical facts. It exposes with conviction the fallacies and dangers of modern Catholicism. Awake! has once again enhanced its stand as the true light of the entire family irrespective of the latter’s “spiritual ideology.” C. N., Ghana Along with you, I, too, deplore the state of affairs in our Catholic Church. Along with many other Catholic Christians, however, I draw a completely different conclusion. We try to take measures against this state of affairs, rather than trying to find weaknesses among Jehovah’s Witnesses. Your presumptuous criticism of Christ’s earthly representative will accomplish just the opposite of what you want it to. H. J. S., Germany You all loved it, didn’t you? You couldn’t resist taking a shot at the Catholic Church, could you? I will never forgive the way you mercilessly tore down the Pope. If Jehovah’s Witnesses must refer to cheap shots in attempting to bring down other religions, they’re in more trouble than the Catholics. M. C., Florida We surely were not trying to take cheap shots at the pope or the Catholic Church, nor were we criticizing Catholics. The Catholic Church occupies a very significant position in the world and claims to be the way of salvation for hundreds of millions of people. Any organization that assumes that position should be willing to submit to scrutiny and criticism. All who criticize have the obligation to be truthful in presenting the facts and fair and objective in assessing such. In both respects, we try to live up to that obligation.—ED. This can be seen in the Catholic faith when it criticizes the Watchtower constantly!
  2. Once again, who can guarantee someone’s success? If a person is happy? Why does it matter? If a wealthy individual is happy contributing with their personal time to do charity work, instead of spreading the wealth? Then why should it matter? If a poor woman gave everything she had (2 cents) while rich people only gave because it was extra? Then who will God appreciate as he did with Cain and Abel? How should success be measured? Can we quantify success from those that cheat to pass college? How about those that are guaranteed high college scores because of the advantage they have with their parentÂ’s reputation. How about people like Bernard Madoff that stole anywhere from 50-65 billion of investorsÂ’ money, and his children attended good colleges, and yet, Mark Madoff ended up committing suicide. Why? While, all the money in the world couldnÂ’t save Andrew Madoff from cancer, ending his life. WhereÂ’s the proof and guarantee? Of peoples success because they should have pursued higher education?
  3. This would suggest, higher education was not needed to work with what was available back in the day. Since humanity has changed? Then, higher education is needed for all the technological advancements that weren’t around. Its moves with the sign of the times. However, if someone desires spiritual growth, who can decide how someone should follow Christ as a poor man, that needed nothing but the generosity of others, and he gave the same advice to his apostles, that followed his teachings to the very end in the same fashion, even though some were successful. Therefore, where is it said, that life is a guarantee for someone’s success. If there is? Where is it, so everyone can sign up. https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2014/08/07/335285098/rich-kid-poor-kid-for-30-years-baltimore-study-tracked-who-gets-ahead
  4. This would suggest, higher education was not needed to work with what was available back in the day. Since humanity has changed? Then, higher education is needed for all the technological advancements that weren’t around. Its moves with the sign of the times. However, if someone desires spiritual growth, who can decide how someone should follow Christ as a poor man, that needed nothing but the generosity of others, and he gave the same advice to his apostles, that followed his teachings to the very end in the same fashion, even though some were successful. Therefore, where is it said, that life is a guarantee for someone’s success. If there is? Where is it, so everyone can sign up. https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2014/08/07/335285098/rich-kid-poor-kid-for-30-years-baltimore-study-tracked-who-gets-ahead
  5. It would be interesting to note, the extent by which some millerites thought as well as some Advents in support of Miller's movement. Even though some of those Advents like Barbour, Storr, and others that quite couldn’t agree with Miller, did find themselves seeking, further, answer in which they found Russell as eager to learn scripture wholeheartedly, then, what they had been taught. The transformation from Advents to Seventh-day Adventist became a concern to the Miller movement since their value in doctrine was now being question by their own. This didn’t sway Russell to conclude his teachings by either party. This is quite evident by Russell, overall view of scripture. However, in the end, Barbour, Storr, and others returned to their original understanding of Adventism that Russell was unable to agree with. This became evident too.
  6. Hopefully, opposers are paying attention to your “wisdom” of 2-3 lines of copyrighted material to debate and criticize. Unfortunately, this also put owners, with none compliance, for allowing it, happen in their forums. Remember, copyright is part of intellectual property. Take it from people like Charlie Chaplin that successfully defended his intellectual property from people like Charles Amador a.k.a. (Charlie Aplin), and Ben Blue (Benjamin Bernstein) Also, Windows with Lindows, to name a few.
  7. I figured, with your moniker, it implies you are a Witness. What’s this frivolous point about monikers, since under your own understanding, it means something else? We have erred in both instances under your understanding. I, however, don’t make it a habit of advocating someone abuse copyright material, which under Christian life is against bible law, Exodus 20:15 and Caesar’s law. Perhaps, you see a “little white lie” acceptable, but it shouldn't be, to a Christian. What part of “misrepresentation of facts” is tripping you that you find it hard to accept, JTR simply made an error? That in itself makes no sense, especially if you are referring to this site as, academic. What are you TEACHING then?
  8. I’m glad there are people like you that are advocates for breaking the law. Remind me of your Christian status? What does that have to do with the fact that this artist did ask for permission from Michael Jackson, and JTR misrepresented that fact, that you are poorly attempting to defend for him, now? Is this an author thing? Defend each other’s mistakes?
  9. Hmm!!! Would this thought include, taking someone else’s work, completely out of context and displaying copyrighted material, for the purpose of distorting facts? Isn’t that a REWRITE? JTR. You fall short on your facts. The first time I met him in person was long after I had gotten permission to do "Eat It" back in 1984. https://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/michael-jackson-remembered-weird-al-yankovic-on-imitation-as-flattery-20090709 http://mentalfloss.com/article/75056/9-musicians-who-refused-let-weird-al-yankovic-parody-their-songs But I can understand why you would want to defend enablers and abusers of copyright.
  10. Let's get things back to perspective. You're making several assertions that are NOT by my comments. I'm no longer looking at the author's reasoning, but rather the dates set before secular history, and how VAT4956 agrees with any post-ideology.
  11. Then, according to this author, it shouldn’t matter how one views the 19 years. If it should be read as the hypothetical has become for VAT4956 to be 568BC-587BC, 567BC-586BC, and 569BC-588BC. Wait!!! The author, even though doesn’t believe secular “facts” are interpreted, correctly? He does make a distinct observation with the 19 years. 1. 605-586-567BC possible date for VAT4956 2. 606-587-568BC possible date for VAT4956 3. 607-588-569BC off one year from a possible date for VAT4956. Providing 588BC is not adjustable. Unless we use the ancient calendar of Lunar/Solar! 1. 606/7BCBC-586/7BC-567/8BC. Then, we can apply the 19 years, correctly as indicated by VAT4956 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar as indicated by secular history. With the WT being off 1 year from the proposed secular chronology. So, where’s the famous “gotcha” moment? VAT4956 then actually agrees with all possible dates from 606/7BC to 568/9BC. Is this why skeptics, are now leaning more toward 567BC rather than 568BC as originally applied?
  12. Then your observation would be a provocative one just like ANN’s. You are supporting your conclusion from another source of the same author. Your opinion is based on the author’s book: The Fourth Day: Why the Bible Is Historically Accurate, while Foreigner’s question is on the same author’s book: Why the Bible Is Historically Accurate (2nd Ed.) The author is not looking at VAT4956 on the posted question, by foreigner. Then, the author’s opinion runs independently from you’re observation. The author then makes a calculation for VAT4956 that would be “separate” from that theory. I believe, we all know where secular history stands with VAT4956, but that’s not what the author implies in the first title of the book posted. Meaning, making an observation from 605BC minus the 19 years to conclude in 586BC. Now, isn't 604/5BC and 586/7BC standard dates?
  13. Then I would have to ask the same question the poster, (Foreigner) made. These pages show a preference not associated with his earlier claim of 605BC-586BC. The author doesn’t seem to link the two. However, you are correct. VAT4956 is not that important, unless the research being made, considers 568BC to 587BC while excluding 567-586BC. Then, the dilemma for secular chronology continues.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.