BETHEL'S BIG SECRET

[Space Merchant]

26 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Yes, and? 

Actually it is, in the debater space, this is what it denotes to, it is an evasive tactic to dodge a question, mainly a question that is zeroed in for a direct response.

The fact you did that was in regards to save safe. This is what @Cos, but his way of doing it was more twisted to the point of getting information of Bishops and Church Fathers and using it as an attack mechanism in a debate. What killed it for him was the original written works vs what those of Catholicism profess/revised.

You might get that with a novice debater, but not an experienced one.

And to note, both you and Witness were in that debate, not realizing your remarks were being shot down by a twisted Trinitarian narrative. It should be noted, Trinitarians see EXJW as a weapon, therefore, several, with Cos being the big shot in that debate with his lies, weaponized you and Witness for his Agenda for Church Fathers. 

[Srecko Sostar]

14 minutes ago, Dmitar said:

Just make sure your facts are straight since, the first two are relative to the Bible Students and the Zion Watchtower publishing house. Their association shifted after 1896 to the Watchtower 

bible and track society. That's the point of incorporation.

Thanks. The legal sequence has not been interrupted. It is about the same continuity.

[Space Merchant]

16 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

I don't know if he's (moderator of video) right or wrong.

He isn't a mod, he is a YouTuber he said it, word for word, that the Bible Students were Racist. That is why I brought up the notation of the Segregation Era. @Witness said everything was factual concerning the video, but the deception was refuted. You even linked a publication from the JW website, and there was no evidence of racial tension in the events of that Era and Tulsa between the Bible Students. But even then, you defend throughout the debate the lie in the video, which does not make sense, this is why the deduction tactic was used; a tool in a debater's bag, to expose.

16 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

I can say that I do not believe that the BS were racists as a group.

Then why did both you and @Witness agree with the video of which the EX JW Bethel member said that they were Racist? This is what the focus was for the first example he gave. He also tried to paint modern views with events of the 1900s which makes absolutely no sense.

16 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

But I can also believe that some BS actions (individually or as group) could have been “racist” or bordered on “racism”.

See, that is an opinion, you are learning. However, opinions are unverified, Facts can be verified. The Bible Students, and most of Christian were against Racisms at the time, for even outside of the bible Students, there are other events that took place prior to and after Black Wall Street, leading up to the events of 1964. Likewise with those who adhere to Fundamentalism.

Granted the effect Pastor Russell had on the Bible Students, they were not practitioners of Racism at all and were more so subjection to the dark aspects of Jim Crow Laws.

An example would be, if you were black in those days, and @Witness was white. She would defend you by any means necessary without being violent. Despite this, those who adhere to Jim Crow Laws are the types to target you. She would visit you and or help you by any means. Let's say both of you were in Tulsa, she'd be the one to warn you to leave prior to when the killing starts. She and her household are of your unity, one family, one unit who look out for each other, be it of blood relative and or neighbor Even in reverse if @Witness was black, she'd do the same for you. It is no different from what took place with the Bible Students.

And no, there is no bordered version of Racism, you are either for it or against it in those days, even if it means standing that the doorstep of death. Believe it or not, some people would die to protect their fellow man or their views, be the risk. The one parallel to this situation is the events in Rwanda much later from the events of Tulsa.

16 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

The existence of all-white and all-black assemblies in the United States will certainly not be in favor of their defense.

That is only if you take things out of context to deem them Racist. There is a why as this is so prior to the 1964 Act. More so, you've already shown legitimacy of the unity they had in those days.

That being said, this is why it is not a good idea to mix today's modern think with the old, it causes problems like this, and it negates to the view this EXJW provided in his opinion.

16 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Neither your's.

As in what exactly? Elaborate.

The Era and Tulsa are as clear as day, one cannot refute them with opinions.

8 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Thanks. The legal sequence has not been interrupted. It is about the same continuity.

There is a difference in incorporation vs being the founder of something.

 

[Srecko Sostar]

2 minutes ago, Space Merchant said:

Then why did both you and @Witness agree with the video

You really have reading  problem about what things i sad i agree and/or about I not said agree or disagree. 

[Space Merchant]

11 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

You really have reading  problem about what things i sad i agree and/or about I not said agree or disagree. 

When the claim of the video was being misleading, you defended all the way through in which she stated to be a factual video. Your first contribution was in relation to the Archives, and later on the other examples. You were shown to have reacted in agreeance with Witness, and she did the same for you, likewise with the one known as @Kick_Faceinator. That is why it was also brought up, you and them didn't know what the video contains only after the notation were brought up for a refutation, you were even called a YES MAN, and it was for a reason, not the first time you were called that either.

This among the very reason I held back at first to bring up all points, just to see what you, Witness or Kick will say, for this was on purpose. Like I said, an experienced debater. Even on the bible side of things, discernment was used to Examine the video in question vs the response. And from there, I was able to see the video was misleading via bias opinion, and the fact I am able to trek the video's history, opposing comments to the video, I was able to see that some comments were purposely blocked/removed via marked as spam to prevent people from seeing the truth, i.e. comments related to example 2 specifically.

The fact you were backed into a corner with facts from page 8, already knowing that any response that came forward it automatically indefensible on your part, and Witness'; allowing it to trail out, which also caused the notation of one not being able to critical think.

In short, Iceberg-sque before taking action, resulting in putting you in a position to being unable to refute facts, likewise with Witness.

[Srecko Sostar]

4 minutes ago, Space Merchant said:

When the claim of the video was being misleading, you defended all the way through in which she stated to be a factual video. Your first contribution was in relation to the Archives, and later on the other examples. You were shown to have reacted in agreeance with Witness, and she did the same for you, likewise with the one known as @Kick_Faceinator. That is why it was also brought up, you and them didn't know what the video contains only after the notation were brought up for a refutation, you were even called a YES MAN, and it was for a reason, not the first time you were called that either.

You think too much. That is why you persistently claim that other people thought or said this or that, and they did not. What do you care if I vote for someone else's comments or they vote for mine? You see where that got you. To your own misconceptions and misconceptions about others. Maybe we are just collecting points on the forum :))))))

[Dmitar]

37 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

The legal sequence has not been interrupted. It is about the same continuity.

Actually, it did to secular authority.

[Space Merchant]

19 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

You think too much. That is why you persistently claim that other people thought or said this or that, and they did not. What do you care if I vote for someone else's comments or they vote for mine? You see where that got you. To your own misconceptions and misconceptions about others. Maybe we are just collecting points on the forum :))))))

Yet going back to pages 1, 2, and 3, we see you agreeing via reaction with Witness. We see your first remark about Archives, and pages later, we see you interjecting with narratives in order to put up a defense on the video with your assertions. These were proven even previously on the fact you were exposed due to a zeroing question.

I don't think much, it is basic examining. Nothing insane, even if someone just Socrates'd himself .

I do not use misconceptions; never such for misconceptions are opinion based, I am, and always have been against misconceptions of which is what this video is addressing in which was refuted.

You can think about collecting points, for doing so is a waste of time. I always do call backs to whole quotes and reactions.

I just pointed it out, but the fact you mention the react with that remark, is evidence to claim; you deliberate answered it yourself. Again, I let things trail on purpose, and the end result is as predicted.

Definition for Upvote - (in an online context) register approval of or agreement with (a post or poster) by means of a particular icon. (in an online context) an instance of using a particular icon to register approval of or agreement with a post or poster; show of support. 

Secondary Definition - to cast a vote in support of (an online comment, article, etc.) by clicking on an arrow or other icon, usually affecting the post's rank or position on a website. noun such a favorable vote

Example: Even when the information is wrong, both you and Witness still show a sign of support with each other.

If you want to fight a legitimate notation deem as a fact from a Dictionary related to online forums - then be my guest. Then again, you might not because in the past you favored definitions, only when it is used to others and not you, until now.

That being said, let this be a lesson for both you and Witness. Do your own research, do not blindly accept whatever a video says. This is also a call back to what the Bible says to a similar effect.

[Dmitar]

6 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

You think too much. That is why you persistently claim that other people thought or said this or that, and they did not.

Just curious. Can this thought not be applied to you, and @Witness ?

[Pudgy]

1 hour ago, Dmitar said:

Just curious. Can this thought not be applied to you, and @Witness ?

No, Dimitar, it appears you have an exclusive on this one, but occasionally you make a good, none-snide comment, and I do upvote you when you do.

If memory serves, it’s a total of seven now.

8 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

You think too much. That is why you persistently claim that other people thought or said this or that, and they did not. What do you care if I vote for someone else's comments or they vote for mine? You see where that got you. To your own misconceptions and misconceptions about others. Maybe we are just collecting points on the forum :))))))

If you get 1 million “upvotes”, you can get a free Bell Helicopter.

Or, you could finance it for 7 years, with a monthly payment of $111,234.00.

[Pudgy]

Dimitar, 

EVERY ASSUMPTION YOU HAVE MADE ABOUT ME HAS BEEN FLAT WRONG, but at least you are 100% predictable.

You are wrong about everybody.

[Dmitar]

The good thing, secular authority, wasn't wrong about you @Pudgy. That make your comments much more worthless.