TrueTomHarley said:
Yet another dishonest sidestep, a clumsy red herring. Let's examine the relevant parts of the exchange, shall we?
TTH: This is AlanF’s taunt, Witness. He has said it innumerable times and now Arauna has adopted it once or twice in her replies.
Now, exactly what in your statement is "a very old expression, seldom heard anymore"? Plain old English?
After that I wrote:
<<<<
The May 1, 1957 Watchtower said (p.274):
<< If we are to walk in the light of truth we must recognize not only Jehovah God as our Father but his organization as our mother. >>
This makes for a truly excellent taunt because the idea expressed is so cultish.
TrueTomHarley's comment that this is my taunt is true in the sense that I often use it to taunt braindead JWs, but I've used the quote several times in this thread and many times in old threads. TTH's failure to reveal what he clearly knows is the source is, as usual, thoroughly dishonest.
>>>>
So, TTH, exactly where in your latest post did you respond rationally to what I actually said? Obviously you did not; hence your red herring response.
LOL! One of the JW organization's many myths its leaders promulgate.
There are so many disproofs of this myth it's hard to count them.
And it has to make sense (or be "justified") to you because you are...(insert impressive title here)?
Let's have everyone start to use the new rule: BNBR . Be nice, Be respectful.
Or at least stop calling one another names.
Attack the ideas and not the person directly.
That is why I banned Allen Smith who cannot seem to help himself from ad hominem attacks... and John Butler for his calling harm to be done to actual human beings (illegal).
Try using reason and logic and common sense instead of disparaging personal insults.
It may not work, but at least you have done your duty in a civil manner ,,,, AND ... don't get expelled.
Destroy the arguments .... not the person.
Pretend you are Spock,
.... and get a thick skin, and a sense of humor.
Well, a person without legs WOULD be short.
James Thomas Rook Jr said:
You seem to forget that when I use "hate and vitriol" it's always in the spirit of returning like for like.
You know very well that I've never been 'nasty' or you or to Anna or certain other posters. Do you know why?
On the other hand, TrueTomHarley and Arauna scream bloody murder when I give them back what they first gave me. Do you have different standards for me and them?
If you actually wade through my responses to Arauna, you'll not only learn much, but you'll see her lies -- which I don't hesitate to point out -- her misrepresentations, her sidestepping and her hypocrisy. Same for TTH, to the extent that I bother with his overt nonsense any more.
It seems to me that you expect me, an atheist, to be a better Christian than these clowns.
You do not fight a war with the army you WISH you had ... you fight with the army you HAVE!
One characteristic of Narcissistic Personality Derangement is that EVERYTHING that is sub-optimum is someone else's fault.
Be a sport ... look it up.
It has been my experience being her for more than seven years that insulting ideas is O.K. ... but without OBVIOUS prior justification, insulting specific people is verboten, but even then, a great deal of patience is shown before the boom is dropped, and only after many warnings, hints and objections.
It's THAT simple, but the clueless never get it.
... but to be fair, I have known BRILLIANT people, with Master and Doctors Degrees, that could not find their way out of a room, if a stripe was painted on the floor, with arrows.
The clueless will NEVER "get it", because they have Narcissistic Personality Derangement which is a very real affliction ( look it up), and they are literally incapable of understanding the concept.
They are no more capable of overcoming it than an amputee can grow new legs.
Private clubs can set any rules that they want.
I have house rules that Ah wants, and have had quarrelsome guests removed by the police, so I did not have to shoot them, which would have involved a LOT of paperwork.
John Paul said:
Not until after many of his predictions for the years just prior to 1914 collapsed. Until then he published dogmatic claims like these in The Time Is At Hand (1889), pp. 76-77:
<<
We present the Bible evidence proving that the full end of the times of the Gentiles, i.e., the full end of their lease of dominion, will be reached in A.D. 1914; and that that date will be the farthest limit of the rule of imperfect men.
At that date the Kingdom of God, for which our Lord taught us to pray, saying, "Thy Kingdom come," will have obtained full, universal control, and that it will then be "set up," or firmly established, in the earth, on the ruins of present institutions.
It will prove that some time before the end of A.D. 1914 the last member of the divinely recognized Church of Christ, the "royal priesthood," "the body of Christ," will be glorified with the Head.
It will prove that from that time forward Jerusalem shall no longer be trodden down of the Gentiles, but shall arise from the dust of divine disfavor, to honor; because the "Times of the Gentiles" will be fulfilled or completed.
It will prove that the great "time of trouble such as never was since there was a nation," will reach its culmination in a world-wide reign of anarchy.
It will prove that before that date God's Kingdom, organized in power, will be in the earth and then smite and crush the Gentile image (Dan. 2:34) -- and fully consume the power of these kings. Its own power and dominion will be established as fast as by its varied influences and agencies it crushes and scatters the "powers that be" -- civil and ecclesiastical -- iron and clay.
>>
And on pages 98-99:
<<
True, it is expecting great things to claim, as we do, that within the coming twenty-six years all present governments will be overthrown and dissolved; but we are living in a special and peculiar time, the "Day of Jehovah," in which matters culminate quickly; and it is written, "A short work will the Lord make upon the earth....
In view of this strong Bible evidence concerning the Times of the Gentiles, we consider it an established truth that the final end of the kingdoms of this world, and the full establishment of the Kingdom of God, will be accomplished by the end of A.D. 1914.
>>
Many more such dogmatic statements could be quoted from Russell's book.
The September 1 and 15, 1893 Watch Tower is quite revealing as to Russell's view of what would happen before 1914, and that he did not think his views were speculation of any sort. On pages 282-284 it said (p. 1581 of Reprints):
<< The question comes from many quarters: "Brother Russell, are you not possibly mistaken by a few years in your calculations, since you expect, upon Scriptural authority, that the great trouble will all be over by A.D. 1914, and that in its severity it will probably not reach us before A.D. 1906 to 1908? Is it not possible that the present financial trouble is the beginning of the great trouble?"
We answer, No; we think there is no mistake. >>
A number of times Russell clearly implied that he could not possibly be wrong. Zion's Watch Tower, July 15, 1894, said on page 226 (p. 1677 Reprints), under the subtitle "Can It Be Delayed Until 1914?":
<<
Seventeen years ago people said, concerning the time features presented in MILLENIAL DAWN, They seem reasonable in many respects, but surely no such radical changes could occur between now and the close of 1914: if you had proved that they would come about in a century or two, it would seem much more probable.
What changes have since occurred, and what velocity is gained daily?
"The old is quickly passing and the new is coming in."
Now, in view of recent labor troubles and threatened anarchy, our readers are writing to know if there may not be a mistake in the 1914 date. They say that they do not see how present conditions can hold out so long under the strain.
We see no reason for changing the figures -- nor could we change them if we would. They are, we believe, God's dates, not ours. But bear in mind that the end of 1914 is not the date for the beginning, but for the end of the time of trouble. We see no reason for changing from our opinion expressed in the view presented in the WATCH TOWER of January 15, '92. We advise that it be read again.
>>
The January 15, 1892 Watch Tower said on page 19:
<< The Scriptures give unmistakable testimony to those who have full faith in its records, that there is a great time of trouble ahead of the present comparative calm in the world -- a trouble which will embroil all nations, overthrow all existing institutions, civil, social and religious, bring about a universal reign of anarchy and terror, and prostrate humanity in the very dust of despair, thus to make them ready to appreciate the power that will bring order out of that confusion and institute the new rule of righteousness. All this, the Scriptures show us, is to come to pass before the year 1914 (See MILLENNIAL DAWN, Vol. II, Chapter IV.) -- that is, within the next twenty-three years. >>
The October 1, 1904 Zion's Watch Tower, on pages 296-8 (pp. 3436-8 Reprints) printed a letter from a man who pointed out that Russell's chronology conflicted with data given by Ptolemy's Canon, and that he understood that Russell's view of the Gentile times had changed. Russell responded at length, pointing out that changing his chronology by even one year would throw it completely out of whack. He emphasized his faith in his figures:
<< We know of no reason for changing a figure: to do so would spoil the harmonies and parallels so conspicuous between the Jewish and Gospel ages.... The brother seems to further misunderstand us to teach that no great trouble will come before October, 1914 A.D. This is incorrect: we expect the great trouble of Rev. 13:15-17 before that date. >>
As 1914 approached Russell changed and toned down some of his opinions. The July 1, 1904 Watch Tower said, under the title "Universal Anarchy -- Just Before or After October, 1914 A.D.," on pages 197-8:
<< What seems at first glance the veriest trifle and wholly unrelated to the matter, has changed our conviction respecting the time when universal anarchy may be expected in accord with the prophetic numbers. We now expect that the anarchistic culmination of the great time of trouble which will precede the Millenial blessings will be after October, 1914, A.D. -- very speedily thereafter, in our opinion -- "in one hour," "suddenly," because "our forty years" harvest, ending October, 1914 A.D., should not be expected to include the awful period of anarchy which the Scriptures point out to be the fate of Christendom. >>
Contrary to Russell's expectations the War ended in 1918 without being followed by worldwide Socialist revolution and anarchy. The last member of the Church of Christ had not been glorified, the city of Jerusalem was still trodden down by the Gentiles, the Kingdom of God had not crushed "the Gentile image," and the "new heavens and the new earth" could not be seen anywhere by trouble-tossed humanity. Not one of the seven predictions enumerated in The Time Is At Hand had come true.
The book Light I, 1930, page 194, well described the effects of the failed predictions:
<< All of the Lord's people looked forward to 1914 with joyful expectation. When that time came and passed there was much disappointment, chagrin and mourning, and the Lord's people were greatly in reproach. They were ridiculed by the clergy and their allies in particular, and pointed to with scorn, because they had said so much about 1914, and what would come to pass, and their 'prophecies' had not been fulfilled. >>
So, John Paul, your transparent excuses are seen for what they are.
Of course it does. Russell taught that there was to be a grand "harvest" between 1874 and 1914.
And of course, he made the false prediction that Jesus would begin visibly ruling in 1914.
Which Russell did not predict.
The rest of your excuses have been shown up for what they are -- deceptive attempts to excuse false prophecies made by the founder of the Watchtower Society.
Like I said, reread those passages you try so hard to defend. It will give you evidence you are not willing to learn the truth.
My excuses or yours. The only deception I see comes from people that don't educate themselves about history. Anyone can take something out of context in order to express a negative outcome. What those people can't do is teach an educated person how to lie, especially when those, lies are poorly drawn.
