Raf

Ah, so now we have TWO ex-JW ex-Ways in da HOUSE! Yeah!

WordWolf, tell the truth... You enjoyed that.

Actually, I wasn't defensive when you pointed out that the JWs had their own translation. I merely said that the translation of YHWH as Jehovah in the Old Testament made sense. They're not the only ones who do it, and there's nothing wrong with that. That's why I said your criticism was an "incomplete" statement. You inadvertently made it sound as if they shoved the name Jehovah all over the Bible where it does not belong, when in fact your criticism applies almost entirely to the NT and just about not at all to the OT. And one last thing... I did receive Jet's apology, and I would accept it if I were offended at all. The apology was unnecessary. The reason I did not communicate that I was upset is... Well, I wasn't upset. :) But more to the point, I didn't follow up on this thread after I posted, for which I apologize.

JET: Raf, are you affiliated with the JWs? RAF: No, but I was, in my childhood. JET: I could get out previous notes I made while I was in the organization and show you all the places where they put in the word Jehovah, or Jesus in place of the word 'lord' where it WAS NOT appropriate. RAF: That would only reinforce what I said, which was, “The New Testament is where it gets tricky, because they used "kurios" (not sure I have the exact transliteration there) when quoting OT passages that contained YHWH. So sometimes inserting "Jehovah" in place of Lord is appropriate in the NT, and sometimes it is not.” So, if I said sometimes the change was not appropriate, and you show instances where it was not appropriate… I’m confused. Where are we disagreeing? :) JET: One thing comes to mind is where it was talking about a woman and her husband, and it was said her husband was her 'lord' in the Bible, in the NWT is said Jehovah (I believe). RAF: I’m not familiar with that verse. I’d love to see it. JET: You are protective of the JWs; is this because you are among them? RAF: Am not; no. JET: If so, I caution you against this group. RAF: You’re about 24 years too late on that one. JET: They are fear motivated, among other things. RAF: Including disingenuous, legalistic, and no fun at birthday parties. JET: …but hey, you and others should follow your hearts. RAF: Umm, thanks. JET: I personally have found many of their doctrine full of mis-truths. RAF: So have I. JET: For instance, do you REALLY believe Jesus Christ is Michael the Archangel? RAF: Did I say I did? Where did I say I did? JET: There would be more. I've made it my passion to try and FORGET about the indoctrination I went through within that Group. RAF: Why did “Group” get a capital G in your statement? A little holdover respect for The Truth? (I’m kidding, of course. Just wanted to see if I could get a rise out of you). Anyway, I’m the opposite: I don’t want to forget that experience, because I want to recognize it when I see it happening again. For instance, the church I currently attend (even though I don’t agree with them on every point of doctrine) recently celebrated its 20th anniversary, and they had this big, back-patting celebration the last two Sundays. They were kind enough to tell us they were going to do this. I stayed away, because I get the heebie-jeebies every time groups get so danged proud of themselves. Too Watchtower and Way for my tastes. JET: At any rate, I didn't intend for my comments to 'offend' but perhaps if you want to start a post in support of the JW's so many TRUTHS, I'd be glad to dig up my notes. RAF: Why would I want to do that? Because I think they got YHWH right in the OT? I think they got tithing right, too. JET: I'd also be happy to share with you years of Horror that occurred all in the name of that Organization. RAF: Great. Not only do I have to live through that, now I have to hear how you lived through it? :) Kidding again. But, hmm, a capital O in Organization… JET: How a man disowned his family because they did not become JWs. OH, I could write a book. RAF: And I could read it. In fact, I have. Several times. One of the best is called Crisis of Conscience. Interesting stuff. JET: Have you ANY idea what takes place in their Headquarters? RAF: Yeah, and I’ll give you a hint… ker-CHING! ker-CHING! JET: Russel and Rutherford were in no way Biblical Scholars.... RAF: And they were no fun at birthday parties or Christmastime either. JET: Blessings, Jeannette RAF: Don’t give God a direct order. BAAAAAhahahahahahahaha! So, are you ex-Way as well? Rafael

Wow! I got into an argument and I missed it! :) That's a first. Jet, you did not offend me in the slightest. You simply misread me. I'll post a few relevant misreadings in a moment (ones WordWolf did not cover).

Masterful. Wierwille called the PFAL book a secular item. Priceless.

Her name is Wilma. She is the last hurricane name left in the season. Hurricane Vince became Tropical Storm Vince, never came close to the U.S. and is not even worth a cone thread. If Wilma forms, and another storm forms after her, it will be named Hurricane Alpha.

I've glanced through the chapter in Let Go and Let God called "The Magic of Believing." I do not see any evidence that Wierwille plagiarized anything in that chapter. I've glanced through a bunch of chapters and see no evidence of outright plagiarism. Similiar ideas, yes, but completely different wording. This is just a glance, and I may see more later. But so far, nothing.

You are correct. I knew a chick would be the one to get it.

Sudo, you think it's funny opening up people to devil spirits by threatening bodily harm to others? I'm telling mom! I mean, I'm telling moderators!

Told you it was a tough one.

No siree. "No, I mean I buried Horace Townsend. For good."

Pond, I'm really surprised Mike would behave that way toward you. It is unlike him (and no one would accuse me of being in his fan club). I concede, however, that his words on the stress thread are very much unlike him as well, so I'm not doubting you either. I just don't think it's very "Mike-like" to threaten anyone. Insult? Yeah, but his insults are usually a bit subtle (to him).

Is that like a wild pitch? A-cuz it was nowhere near the strike zone. :)

Apology accepted. :P

Mark, I did not deny that you accused Jerry of bigotry. I only said you berated him as being ignorant of history. I didn't say that was the ONLY thing you were saying. As for switching terms in the middle of the discussion, sorry, I won't give you a break. It makes reasonable dialogue impossible when someone changes definitions midstream.

According to Mike, he is not the only one who has adopted his thesis. I take him at his word.

Personally, I think Mike's garbage about PFAL is far more insidious than anything in the joke that opens this thread. We all knew Pirate was kidding. Mike is serious, and has lemmings following him off his spiritual cliff. So, for me, I'm going to put offensive into perspective.

When I send a private message to a fellow poster, I expect that to remain private. Anything else is rude and ungentlemanly (or unladylike, take your pick). If I send a private message that is bullying, threatening or insulting, I've already crossed the rude line, and if it comes back to bite me in the butt, I have only myself to blame. The private message privilege can easily be abused, and I do not advocate that.

You can call other forms of worship "Catholic," but then you need to define your term. They would balk at the term, most certainly. More importantly, Jerry is talking about the Roman Catholic Church, so for you to switch definitions on him mid-argument is less than fair. Umm, okay.

I can't figure out the first word(s). I did figure out the last word, but I'm stumped on the overall title.

"You will watch your tongue in my courtoom." "And you will watch your tongue in my presence!"

Probablt because they seemed to have a strategy: Steve! hits 5,000 posts, and never posts again. And they stuck to it! Hey, I applaud 'em.

This is historically incorrect, and presumes all copies of the scriptures were in the hands of the Roman Catholic Church. Also untrue. Mark, I wouldn't berate someone for an ignorance of history in the same post as inaccuracy this blatant.

Agreed. I don't even want to see his PUBLIC messages, much less his privates.