Jehovah`s Witness/DW Tries To Evade, As Always
DW has a very interesting way of looking at things. Somehow, he has convinced himself that, if you keep repeating the same lie, it magically becomes truth. This was evidenced yet again, in his latest attempt to start trouble, which he is not prepared to handle.
He began by saying….“Just finally there is a so called "expert" on this forum who gave his own religious beliefs and those of all christendom an unrecoverable death blow by claiming that we get to pick and choose were to use the logical reasoning God created us with and were not too.”
Then, he made this amazing statement….“This is a pure lie”
Yes, it certainly was. So, why did he tell it, then?
Well, as always, I did what what I always have to do when DW makes something up….Ask him repeatedly for the quote where it was “said”. Now, you would think that is a reasonable request, to ask a man for a simple quote, to substantiate what he is claiming was “said”. Since DW and I do not know each other, and do not converse outside of this forum, then the ONLY place this comment could have been “said” by me, is in the forum.
But if its in the forum, then the quote should be easy to produce. So, why then does DW always have to end up REJECTING any and all requests, for said quote?
Simple…He never HAS the quote. Because it wasn’t “said”.
So, when brought face to face with his own lie, what always happens? Simple…Another JW who is no more honest than DW, will always try to come and pull him out of the quicksand., but only succeeds in falling into it themselves.
And while they are both sinking, DW tries to save face by….Finally giving the quote? Uh, no….Simply telling the same lie again. Its that “If I say it enough times, it will become true”
, mentality again.
So, after being confronted about his lying yet again, he comes completely unhinged, and writes in his “response” to me….
“Readers Derrick Holland is the biggest liar and hypocrite you will ever see.”
He claims we get to pick and choose were to use logic and were not too then he tries to deny it.”
Now, most sensible people would just laugh, at someone who has just been caught lying, claiming that someone else is the “biggest liar and hypocrite” you will ever see.
But what’s really telling, is this statement….“He claims we get to pick and choose were to use logic and were not too then he tries to deny it.”
So, after being challenged publicly to show where it was said, the only DW has left, is to just make another pitiful claim that <b>“He said it, but now denies it”
Well yeah, I denied it. Because I didn’t say it. That is why it falls to YOU, Mr. DW, to show where I DID say it. I believe that was the purpose of my challenging you. I believe that is what you failed to do.
Since DW prides himself on “logic” and “common sense”, but rarely ever uses it himself, let’s just beat him at his own game (not really hard to do). Let’s use some “common sense reasoning”….
If one person makes an accusation that someone “said” something in a public forum, and that person denies saying it or anything even close to it, and in fact, says JUST THE OPPOSITE, then it falls to the person making the accusation, to show WHERE it was “said”. I mean, how simple of a “common sense” argument does this clown need?
So DW….real simple. We have a conflict here. You claim I said it, and I deny saying it.
Do you, or do you NOT, have the statement where I said it?
Everyone….Let’s watch the forum tomorrow. DW is going to either show the statement, or be shown once again, to be a liar.
(By the way, DW, its "WHERE"
, not "WERE"
. I can excuse a typo, but when you do it over and over, I have to assume you honestly don't know which word is correct).
Futhermore, I want to also address again, this thing about DW’s statement, when he claimed….
”Now here's the truth every Bible teaching by the faithful slave is the correct one until the time they tell you otherwise"
Now, its high time that this guy be shown for his underhanded tactics, and his pride completely shown for what it is. Since he has placed himself as everyone’s judge, let’s just see if he’s up to the job. He seems to have a problem with humbling himself, and accepting responsibility for his own blunder.
Instead, he tries to make me a “hypocrite”, for not allowing him to revise his statement, but claiming that I revised mine. As usual, there are several problems with his latest rant.
First off, I am happy to allow anyone from either side, to revise a statement which was poorly worded, or gives a false impression. But for him to draw a parallel between my revising my own statement, and his complete re-wording of his ridiculous statement, simply isn’t going to work.
First off, I revised mine IMMEDIATELY, after it being brought to my attention. My statement left off ONE word, that added clarity to what I was intending to say, and I was happy to revise it right away, without delay.
DW, on the other hand, waited nearly a month, before re-wording his statement, from the time that I began pointing it out. The dates to the links make this obvious, and I am more than happy to provide them, if need be.
He admitted that he did this intentionally, because he supposedly wanted to see how far I would go with it? Now, if that isn’t about the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen. A man ADMITS his statement could give a wrong impression, and it isn’t his top priority to straighten things out? Instead, he pretends that he wants to see how “desperate” someone is, before re-wording it? What does that tell the readers?
Seems to me, that correcting the blunder would be more important than playing games.
But hey, that was a lie to begin with. DW was thoroughly embarrassed when I pointed out the obvious implications of his comment. It was right there for everyone to read. He was hoping that I would just let the issue die, but when he saw that I was going to show the statement for what it was, he had no choice but to address it.
In fact, I had to ask him REPEATEDLY for a re-wording, if in fact, he didn't stand behind the original statement. It was only after nearly a month of being challenged to re-word it, that he finally decided he had best do so. So, I guess he found out how far I would go with it. I tend to not forget when questions go unanswered, as I have learned the games these people play.
But again, DW puts his desire to play games, ahead of correcting a statement that he himself knows could give a very embarrassing impression.
Also, as far as my “revised” statement goes….The point I was making with it, remained the same…That JW’s interpret the “7 times” of Daniel chapter 4, to be prophetic, and that this interpretation is vital for maintaining the bogus teaching about 1914.
Where my statement needed revising and clarity, was when I said that they view the “7 times” as “prophetic, instead of a period of time in Nebuchadnezzar’s life”, when I should have said that they view the “7 times” as “prophetic, instead of JUST
a period of time in Nebuchadnezzar’s life” By adding the word “just”, it shows that Jehovah’s Witnesses do understand the “7 times” to have happened in the king’s life, but also interpret them prophetically.
I had no problem at all clarifying that point, but the bottom line….The actual point being made, was not changed in the slightest. JWs DO interpret the “times” as prophetic, and without this interpretation, the teaching on 1914 falls flat.
But now let’s look at DW’s re-wording. Funny, after we read his “revised” statement, it is a COMPLETE change from the original. The new statement, reads, and I quote….
“I can re-word my sentence for my readers "here's the truth every Bible interpretation is the current one , until the time the faithful slave say otherwise"
So now, we see that “every Bible interpretation is the current one”.
This says absolutely nothing. OF COURSE a Bible interpretation that is being taught, is the “current one”. That’s about as bright as my taking my wife to get a cheeseburger, and half-way through it, saying….“This cheeseburger I am eating is the current one, until the time I go up and order another one”
She would look at me like I was crazy. Why would you even need to state that an interpretation that IS being taught, is the “current” one?
However, this is the bad part. Instead of just admitting that DW really does believe what was in his first statement, he tries to mislead the readers into thinking that the “revised” statement is actually the idea he was trying to convey in the first place, to the person he first made the comment to.
Not so. And a simple reading of that first post where the comment was made, will show that his original intent was NOT to say that “every Bible interpretation is the current one, until the Slave says otherwise”.
It was CLEARLY to say that “every Bible teaching from the Slave is the correct one, until the time they tell you otherwise”
Here is the link to where the comment was first made….
In this link, there is no indication at all about “every teaching by the Slave being the current one” (a redundant statement, to begin with). That statement says absolutely NOTHING about whether the current teaching is CORRECT, or SCRIPTURAL, or whether it isn’t.
The entire topic under discussion with the questioner, was about how DW himself had arrived at certain interpretations BEFORE the Slave did, and how most of the time, he was wrong….because his ideas were out of harmony with the “Slave’s” CORRECT (count how many times he says "correct") teaching. Meaning, the “Slave”’s teaching was automatically the correct one, UNTIL they themselves decide it isn’t correct. Which is EXACTLY why he wrote what he did….
“>”Now here's the truth every Bible teaching by the faithful slave is the correct one until the time they tell you otherwise"
That was the entire point of the answer he was giving. IN FACT, just read the TITLE of the answer. He was issuing a “correction”, because he had advanced an idea that was not in harmony with the “Slave”’s teaching, so he had to make clear the “Slave”’s teaching was correct....Not merely "current". That part goes without saying. The issue was, that the Slave's current teaching is CORRECT, until they decide something ELSE is "correct". There is no way to read that link, and deny that is what his intent was at the time.
In fact, after making the above statement about how “every Bible teaching by the faithful slave is the correct one, until the time they tell you otherwise”
, his VERY NEXT statement to the questioner was this amazing admission….
“The mistake I made with you was not checking the teaching I gave you was the correct interpretation from the faithful slave,when I saw the question I just immediately jumped in with both feet and told you what I never should have. What I actually told you is an INTERESTING FUTURE POSSIBILITY which I was meant to keep to myself and rightly so.”
Now, right there are the man’s own words. Not a paraphrase, not my own ideas, but a direct quote from him.
DW, for a guy who feels free to invent and paraphrase, you don’t mind if I QUOTE you and comment on your QUOTE, do you? Thanks, Buddy! I appreciate that.
Then, he says….“Now this is actually the correct teaching coming up and I'll give a little Bible lesson at the end “
Now why did he call the statement “coming up”, the “correct” teaching? Simple….Because it was the current teaching of the Slave, and their “current Bible teaching” is always correct….that is, until they tell you otherwise. And when they tell you otherwise, then the previous “Bible teaching” is no longer correct like it used to be "correct", and now, whatever they tell you the NEW "correct" teaching is, well, that is the "correct" one.
Furthermore, another questioner named Adam, wrote to DW right after he made that comment, and DW ADMITTED that some people would have trouble with the statement as it was written.
But NOT ONCE did he offer to “revise” it then, or say “Hey, I see how that comment looks…let me clarify what I really meant, so as not to give the wrong impression”
Nope…no such willingness. In fact, he knew that the statement would not be received by many people, yet he never offered to correct, revise, or explain it. Basically, we were told that if we didn’t like the statement, then we had a “problem” with the way Jehovah does things. Anyone who didn’t accept this statement, was either “proud”
, “lacked understanding”
, or wasn’t “taking notice of Jehovah”
But now, all of a sudden, when the statement is broken down and displayed for the ridiculous comment that it is, he wants to say that really isn’t what he meant, and is suddenly ready to “revise”it.
Not gonna work, DW. This is not even close to my adding one word to clarify a statement, while leaving the main point exactly the same. Not even close.
But I am personally very curious as to how DW really believes. He objects when someone says he is brainwashed. He calls that a “satanic attack”. Earlier this year, I asked DW a couple of simple questions, to which his answer would reveal whether he really believes his original statement as it was written, or his newly “revised” statement that says nothing.
He did not attempt to answer the simple questions, as I recall. But they were valid questions. I will post them again, to allow him another chance to clarify his beliefs on the “Slave”, and the “current teaching” thing.
The questions were, and I quote them exactly as they were asked of him….
DW, if the “current interpretation of the Slave” happens to conflict with the Bible, then what do we do? Do we….
1. Go with the Bible, and be accused of “pushing ahead” of the “Slave”, and being prideful as if we aren‘t submitting to “Jehovah‘s way of doing things“?
2. Go with the “Slave”, and be unscriptural, but at least we are “in step” with the Organization? I mean, hey, we might be unscriptural, but at least we are all unscriptural together. That’s a good thing, right?
What say you, DW? The Slave, or the Bible?
And you have no choice now, but to admit that this is a possibility, for the following reasons:
1. Your statement implies that the “interpretation” can change when the Slave says so. However, the CORRECT meaning of the Scripture, will not ever change….Meaning, the Slave’s current interpretation might, at any given time, be INCORRECT.
2. If you don’t acknowledge the point above, then you have to conversely believe that the Bible itself changes in meaning.
DW, could you please clarify your true stance, once and for all?
And while you’re at it, would you please provide the quotes for all these ridiculous claims that you dream up, and claim that I said?