When I give you a reply I am not giving myself a badge by applauding my merits and saying I am so good and such an unbeatable opponent and how I destroyed your arguments and so on. But hey, if it's approval you're looking for and it makes you feel better that you proved to yourself again how magnificent and worthy of a new badge you are that the trophy shop needs to employ workers overtime to keep up with your prizes I am glad to have contributed to your own satisfaction. But let's just read one more statement from you again: "Then when people give an alternative answer to your contrived, Dishonest abomination of a question you simply repeatedly say their answer is wrong, Even though you asked for their opinion." You make insinuations, you answer the insinuations yourself and then you think you're such an invincible opponent. Congratulations stOx. You've made YOUR day again.
True. but then, There is a very good reason you don't say that. Was i or was i not asked a question? Do you or do you not disagree with the answer i gave?
Let me quote it again: "Then when people give an alternative answer to your contrived, Dishonest abomination of a question you simply repeatedly say their answer is wrong, Even though you asked for their opinion." I don't remember trying to prove my points by calling your questions dishonest, contrived and so on. Maybe I am wrong and maybe you deserve another badge but I still fail to see it.
That's because my questions aren't dishonest and contrived. What do you want me to do? Reduce my own arguments to the level of yours to make it easier for you? The question about the most influential person was asked with the specific intention of making me say jesus, and you know it. This is why you are having a hard time accepting an opinion which contradicts what you expected to be the only possible answer.
There you go again. You know better than me what I meant. The reason I asked was to prove that to you facts do not matter if they validate someone else's opinion. Especially if that someone else is someone not from your organisation. I guess I was proving how you are the one that is being dishonest by pointing to the facts and not by simply making insinuations.
You didn't point to facts. You simply went looking for evidence to support what you already believed. When i answered your question i googled "most influential person in history" and used the data i found to come to my conclusion. You, On the other hand, came to your conclusion and then went in search for the data to support it. that is dishonest. you represented data which you selectively obtained and then tried to pass it off as "evidence", And you done this after asking a dishonest contrived question with the intention of painting me in to a corner and forcing me to giving a specific answer, a specific answer which you didn't recieve.
How is research dishonest? I'm not a historian, I don't have vast knowledge of what people have done through history, So i read up on it. You should try it some time, It's called educating yourself. it's quite interesting that you see increasing ones knowledge in a field before coming to a conclusion as being dishonest. most normal people would see it as being the exact opposite and would think selecting data to support a conclusion you have already come to as being dishonest.
I am sure your supporters will soon show up and validate your point:"to find out who the most influential person in history is you must do EXACTLY what stox did and that is use google." I'm sure it won't take long for it to happen. If someone asks you who the current president of USA is you should again google instead of saying the answer. Because some things are really hard to state. This is such a logical conclusion. Yeah right.
Again, what is dishonest about educating ones self before coming to a conclusion? If someone didn't know who the president was would it not be a good idea to research it and find out? would the fact that they researched it invalidate their conclusion or would it make their conclusion more credible? It's pitiful that you see education as a weakness and something that can be used to actually discredit an opinion. "he can't possibly be right, he is educated on the subject". it just doesn't make sense. I don't even know why i am defending myself here. What you are saying is insane and i'm sure everybody can see it. I educate myself to help me form a conclusion, And you form the conclusion then seek the evidence to support it. What one is dishonest?
What exactly means beeing abstain from blood? What all includes? What is the reason for trhis abstaining - some text written somewhere, or it arrives from some explanation about what blood is? I've heard that JW consider blood as a soul. I'm not sure if this is your explanation also. Personally I can't see any possibility how the blood can be a soul.
Somebody mentioned the current state of the Watchtower organization, to see the the current state of the organization do a search for jw 23,720. I was surprised how widespread their problem had gotten but then I recently saw that an executive at a start up that I was studying a few years back is now jailed. I believe I only had contact with his brother Barry via email but I was aware that Wendall was a co founder and he was perpetrating his crime at the time I was studying their business model.
Firstly, the 23720 link is a Google search and as usual brings up "gossip" and "rumours" that are per usual "fabricated" to suit the people writing it. Secondly, your 2nd link reports of a man being jailed for a crime committed. Where's your problem? Again, with the laws of a country. You are singing the same song tbarr and it's on an old record. If you are looking for perfect people in our organization then I am happy to say you won't find one. We (that's you included) are so far from perfect we have major obstacles to deal with from the beginnings of our lives. Hmmm...what's your objective again? Oh! I forgot...silly me.....ATTACK!!! When the word "abstain" is used it pretty much means to "not take in". There are verses in the Bible about this. You can read the following: Genesis 9:3-4 Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for YOU. As in the case of green vegetation, I do give it all to YOU. 4 Only flesh with its soul—its blood—YOU must not eat. Acts 15:19-20 Hence my decision is not to trouble those from the nations who are turning to God, 20 but to write them to abstain from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood. Acts 15: 27-29 We are therefore dispatching Judas and Silas, that they also may report the same things by word. 28 For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to YOU, except these necessary things, 29 to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication. If YOU carefully keep yourselves from these things, YOU will prosper. Good health to YOU!†Acts 21:25 As for the believers from among the nations, we have sent out, rendering our decision that they should keep themselves from what is sacrificed to idols as well as from blood and what is strangled and from fornication.†Blood is our life-force from God. Without it we die. Genesis 9:4 mentions the flesh's blood as it's soul. Meaning, it's cause to be alive. We don't derive that the soul is an entity (ghost, being) like many other believe.
By calling the report "gossip" and "rumors" are you denying or just being outright dishonest? The second link puts a name and face to one of those 23,720 JW molesters, Wendall is in jail, you can't call that gossip or rumor. Do you call what you do to all other churches attacking or something else? What do they train you to call the Catholic church these days?
st0x you're talking crap now and you know it. You just don't want to admit that you don't like "losing" to someone who has a different opinion. My question was a simple one to establish your honesty which you did. You're defending yourself right now because you know it as well as I do that you're talking crap on this occassion. There were other occassions as well but this is the most obvious one.
I reported this post of yours tbarr60. Again, you are making a personal attack against me that is totally unwarranted, outright rude and slanderous. Have I said anything at all against your beliefs? NONE! Go away and have a good look in the mirror son!
Heh, I see this as another fine example of survival of the fittest. In this case, mental weakness caused her death, eliminating the chance of passing bad genes down through more children into younger generations.
I must admit I cracked a bit and chuckled... Yeah, it is sad; a sad situation anyway. These guys have more in common with Scientology than I first thought. The biggest thing that bothered me about a Jehova friend I had was the fact that during assembly in High School, he would not stand during the National Anthem... That really bothered me... Regardless of your beliefs' you owe respect to the flag that gives you the right to be a moron... Did anyone check to see if this story was a snope? It just seems to silly to be true...