Jehovah`s Witness/That's Your Reply, Eddie?
Well, we see that Eddie G makes a bold claim to "understand" the Trinity through and through, and even better than most people. Yet, when it is shown that he does not, he doesn't even try to answer the evidence.
Instead, just another typical diversion, and attempt to change the subject.
And yes, the incessant claim of "personal attacks", when there weren't any. They always try to fall back on that one. Even though they are the ones posting the personal attacks, which is easy to prove.
Wow Eddie, THAT is your “reply”? Another diversion, completely ignoring the devastating evidence showing that you, in fact, do not understand the Trinity as you claimed, after all?
I regret that you chose to end your writing with a lie, and a rather hypocritical one, at that.
YOU: “Why not just answer the questions instead of useless rants nad personal attacks?”
Personal attacks? Why would you say that, Eddie? Would you mind replying to this question, and outline exactly what in my previous writing, was a “personal attack”? You won’t be able to do that, because there wasn’t one. If there was, then show it.
Fact is, you guys never seem to learn that these little diversionary games will never work with me, because I will simply hold you to the subject. You only tried it about 25 times during the cross/stake discussion, and it never worked then. Why do you think it will now?
Tell us, Eddie…What was the “personal attack”?
Was it because I pointed out the FACT, that you did not practice honesty after claiming we worship the cross, by INTENTIONALLY NOT TELLING anyone that you tried to get 2 other Baptists to support your lie, but they instead confirmed exactly what I had already told you? When we all know that you would certainly have posted it, had they agreed with you?
Is that the “personal attack”, Eddie? Sorry, but that one won’t work. You DID do exactly what I pointed out. It wasn't a fabrication....It is a fact, which I notice that you didn't even ATTEMPT to deny. Do you find it hard to look in the mirror, Eddie? Or to go the Kingdom Hall, and hear a Watchtower lesson on why a Christian should be honest and have integrity, knowing full well that you didn't display it in that regard?
I truly regret that you did not practice either honesty, nor humility, and come back and apologize and say “Mr. Holland, I need to make a correction. It seems you were correct about not worshipping the cross, and I apologize for my mistake.”
. But you didn’t do that, Eddie. You didn’t get the answer you wanted, so you just ignored it, and continued to tell the same lie.
That’s not a “personal attack”, Ed…That is simply the fact of what you did. Its documented, and proven. No disputing it. You weren’t honest. That is not my fault…that is your fault. Pointing out a dishonest tactic when it actually happens, is not a “personal attack”. You should know that.
Furthermore, you did not address even a single one of the proofs that were listed, that leave no doubt that you have a less-than-elementary understanding of the Trinity.
My pointing that fact out, is not a personal attack, either. It is just like I said….You are a sensitive chap, and when someone tells you that you don’t know what you’re talking about, you DO take it personally. Thank you for illustrating that fact for us once again, in your comment. I point out numerous reason that prove you don't understand the Trinity, and you scream "personal attack". Richard tells you that you don't understand it in the most polite, and nicest way possible, and you get upset and "trash" it.
You need to grow up, my friend.
However, I called your statement not only a lie, but also “hypocritical”. Here is why….You guys have been the ones posting the personal attacks. We have been called “schizophrenic”, “demonic”, “Wormwood”, “liars”, etc. We have been accused of deceiving people, and attacking Jehovah God. But when we show documented, and indisputable proof that your understanding of the Trinity is lacking, then you immediately scream about "personal attacks".
That's just not going to work for you, Eddie.
And you have the gall, to tell me that what I typed was a “personal attack”? Stop being so hypocritical, Eddie. If there was a “personal attack” against you, then post it, and let us see it.
Now, your little diversionary tactic and attempt to change the subject aside, let’s get back to the original point of my post. You ask why I have not answered your “Scriptural questions”. Uhm, you haven’t SENT me any…that’s why. The way this board works, Eddie, is that if you have a question for me, then you send it to me, and I answer it. You’re a former volunteer here….You should know how it works. I am not obligated to address anything that you write to Rando, unless I choose to. I have enough of my own questions to deal with, without having to read your posts to Rando and answer questions that you ask to him. If you want to ask me or Richard a “Scriptural question”, then do it the way this board is designed for it to be done…Send it to one, or both, of us.
Otherwise, it is my discretion as to what, if anything, I wish to address from someone else’s questions/answers. And the point of my post, was to address your FALSE claim, that you “understand” the Trinity. And I proved beyond all doubt, that you do not. And as usual, you felt the heat and knew you had to make SOME SORT of “reply”, but it was feeble and weak, and obviously an attempt at changing the subject. It did nothing to show that you actually understand the Trinity.
Now, I listed several statements from Rando, which constitute lies about the Trinity teaching. And I asked you SPECIFICALLY, if you believe those statements are accurate representations of our belief. And you are fully aware of the implications to that question, no matter which way you answer it…So you didn’t answer it at all.
If you say “yes”, that they ARE accurate summarizations of our belief, then you have proven for everyone that your claim to “understand” the Trinity, is bogus. If you say “no”, that you do NOT think they are accurate, then you have to explain why you have chosen to partner with a liar, and lend credence to statements that you know are false, and even commend the guy making the statements that you know are false.
Tough predicament there, Eddie. I do believe you have painted yourself into a corner. I would hate to be in your position right now. I don’t envy you.
Truthfully, your actions make no logical sense, unless you too do not value honesty any more than Rando does. You have the option of several honest and decent JWs here, yet you choose the one who lies intentionally, and makes a complete mockery of true Christianity, and yes, even your own religion, on a regular basis. Let me give you an example, to illustrate what I am saying....
Let's just say that I went to the "Baptist" board (you've been there, and are familiar with at least 2 of the Experts, yourself...:D), and read the profiles of all the Experts. Okay, I see 3 or 4 of them, who seem very polite and knowledgeable in their answers. I have some things I want to say to the board, and I want an Expert who would also have something of value to add to my questions, in his/her reply. So, I have 3 or 4 GOOD options, but then, for whatever logic-defying reason, I scroll down further and find the name "Fred Phelps", and choose him as my "go-to" Guy. Would you think that would be a wise move? What do you say, Eddie? Of all the good and decent Witnesses here, you go to the "Fred Phelps" of the JW religion.
Not real bright, Eddie.
But since you did this to yourself, would you mind answering the questions from my previous post, which show you don’t understand the Trinity?
Of course, if you want to re-activate your profile and become a volunteer here again, then I will be more than happy to do it the correct way, and SEND them to you. But until you do that, I am forced to do it this way.
Again, Eddie….Do you believe the quotes in my previous writing, from both you and Rando, constitute an accurate description of the Trinity teaching?
Also, you have some of your own contradictory statements to explain, which I also pointed out, and which points you didn’t address.
In fact, you really didn’t address anything at all. Instead, you desperately tried to dismiss it as nothing, when it in fact, showed your claim to “understand” the Trinity, was completely bogus.
And furthermore, would you please explain your dishonest methods during our previous discussion regarding the cross/stake, and why you conveniently chose not to mention that you were proven wrong in regards to us worshipping the cross?
I really want to see how you can justify your actions here, and why you support statements from Rando about the Trinity, which anyone with even average understanding of the teaching, would immediately recognize as complete distortions.
Its getting interesting, watching you squirm.