22 Feb 10
7 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieManny: THE LEADERS OF JEHOVAHS WITNESSES ARE GREEDY AND CORRUPT
Jehovahs Witnesses against a alcohol consumption, where did you read that lie? certainly it was not of your own originality, for you as yet have failed to produce one original thought, and like your friend Raj seem content to regurgitate the lying accusations of others,
(Psalm 104:15) . . .And wine that makes the heart of mortal man rejoice, To make the face shine with oil,. . .
Evidence: NONE
Evaluation: SLANDERER AND A LIAR
Raj: CHARLES RUSSELL MADE ILLICIT PROFIT FROM THE SALE OF SO CALLED 'MIRACLE WHEAT',
Evidence: NONE
Evaluation: SLANDERER AND LIAR
If they can produce one ounce of evidence to substantiate their claims, i publicly challenge them to do so, otherwise let it be known, that they are slanderers and liars, have engaged in nothing more than character assassination, vile accusations from third party sources and unsubstantiated libellous claims. They are not to be trusted.
ALL they need to do is tell the forum, How much the leaders of Jehovahs Witnesses personally made from their respective positions and how much Charles Russell made from the sale of some bags of wheat ages ago, if they please. (yes i know this latter point is hard to believe, it being so long ago, but its all they can fabricate against the personality of brother Russell)
If they fail to produce any evidence to substantiate their claims they should henceforth be known as Manny the slanderer who canny produce nothing but lies and Raj the devious liar.
22 Feb 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThese two guys are trying like many in the past who have never proved anything as they say and they never will because nothing like that as ever happened.
Manny: THE LEADERS OF JEHOVAHS WITNESSES ARE GREEDY AND CORRUPT
EVIDENCE: NONE
EVALUATION: SLANDERER AND A LIAR
RAJ: CHARLES RUSSELL MADE ILLICIT PROFIT FROM THE SALE OF SO CALLED 'MIRACLE WHEAT',
EVIDENCE: NONE
EVALUATION: SLANDERER AND LIAR
If they can produce one ounce of evidence to substantiate their claims, i publicly ch ...[text shortened]... be known as Manny the slanderer who canny produce nothing but lies and Raj the devious liar.
But Manny seems to stand up for the Catholics who protect there child loving priest. And it is something that has gone on for decades and would still be going on if they hadn't been caught. Then these child molesters just get moved around to hide them instead of disfellowshippping them and kicking them out of the churches and prosecuting them with the laws of the land.
Just doesn't make any sence.....
22 Feb 10
Originally posted by galveston75Yes i know, the fact of the matter is, as is now self evident from their failure to produce anything, yes my friend, anything other than third hand lies from the 1800s is proof that they are not to be trusted for they walk in the unprofitableness of their minds, while they are in darkness mentally, and alienated from the life that belongs to God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the insensibility of their hearts. (Ephesians 4:17-18)
These two guys are trying like many in the past who have never proved anything as they say and they never will because nothing like that as ever happened.
But Manny seems to stand up for the Catholics who protect there child loving priest. And it is something that has gone on for decades and would still be going on if they hadn't been caught. Then thes ...[text shortened]... he churches and prosecuting them with the laws of the land.
Just doesn't make any sence.....
22 Feb 10
1 edit
This is stuff from your very own literature. How can I make it up? There are scanned images of old publications. If nothing else the Watchtower falls just under the weight of failed predictions alone. False Prophets for sure no doubt. As far as regurgitations that's all you guys can do is regurgitate from your Watch Tower Better not have an original thought of your own might get put on a shun list! That will get sent to Brooklyn and kept forever. Do you guys make your quotas? I'm not a Catholic either already stated as much G75.
Manny
22 Feb 10
1 edit
Originally posted by menace71Which part of this dont you understand?
This is stuff from your very own literature. How can I make it up? There are scanned images of old publications. If nothing else the Watchtower falls just under the weight of failed predictions alone. False Prophets for sure no doubt. As far as regurgitations that's all you guys can do is regurgitate from your Watch Tower Better not have an original though ...[text shortened]... guys make your quotas? I'm not a Catholic either already stated as much G75.
Manny
Manny: THE LEADERS OF JEHOVAHS WITNESSES ARE GREEDY AND CORRUPT
Evidence: NONE
Evaluation: SLANDERER AND A LIAR
Raj: CHARLES RUSSELL MADE ILLICIT PROFIT FROM THE SALE OF SO CALLED 'MIRACLE WHEAT',
Evidence: NONE
Evaluation: SLANDERER AND LIAR
If they can produce one ounce of evidence to substantiate their claims, i publicly challenge them to do so, otherwise let it be known, that they are slanderers and liars, have engaged in nothing more than character assassination, vile accusations from third party sources and unsubstantiated libellous claims. They are not to be trusted.
ALL they need to do is tell the forum, How much the leaders of Jehovahs Witnesses personally made from their respective positions and how much Charles Russell made from the sale of some bags of wheat ages ago, if they please. (yes i know this latter point is hard to believe, it being so long ago, but its all they can fabricate against the personality of brother Russell)
If they fail to produce any evidence to substantiate their claims they should henceforth be known as Manny the slanderer who canny produce nothing but lies and Raj the devious liar.
22 Feb 10
Originally posted by menace71You have to understand Manny, how ashamed they are of their failed, ridiculous prophesies. Give the guys a break ... 🙂
This is stuff from your very own literature. How can I make it up? There are scanned images of old publications. If nothing else the Watchtower falls just under the weight of failed predictions alone. False Prophets for sure no doubt. As far as regurgitations that's all you guys can do is regurgitate from your Watch Tower Better not have an original though ...[text shortened]... guys make your quotas? I'm not a Catholic either already stated as much G75.
Manny
22 Feb 10
1 edit
http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/apl/jw/jehwit34.txt
I looking for the court transcripts. Would make a good movie.
The Eagle first made public the facts about this new venture of
the Russellites and it published a cartoon picturing the "Pastor"
and his "Miracle Wheat" in such a way that "Pastor" Russell brought
suit for libel, asking $100,000 damges. Government departments
investigated the wheat for which $1.00 a pound was asked, and agents
of the Government were important witnesses at the trial of the libel
suit in January, 1913. The "Miracle Wheat" was low in the
Government tests, they said. The Eagle won the suit.
Prior to entering the court the Eagle had said,
The Eagle goes even further and declares that at the trial it
will show that "Pastor" Russell's religious cult is nothing more
than a money-making scheme.
The court's decision vindicated the Eagle's statement and proved its
reliability.
Basically Russell was angered by the cartoon it sounds like.
Manny
Manny
22 Feb 10
3 edits
Originally posted by menace71Let me repeat your lie for you, here it is.
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9D0CE3D81531E233A25750C2A96F9C946096D6CF
This shows that proceeds from the wheat went to the Watch Tower society ok fine. Russell owned like 99% of the shares of the Watch Tower so actually the money did go to Russell.
Manny
'the leaders of Jehovahs Witnesses are greedy and corrupt',
your evidence amounts to some wheat, that was sold in the eighteen hundreds?? Is that what you slanderers and liars are seriously trying to tell the forum? You are really the most pathetic liars and slanderers there are, you have got nothing, let me repeat that, nothing, for nothing either remotely resembling greed nor corruption has ever existed nor ever taken place.
How does it feel to be a liar and a slanderer?
(Proverbs 6:16-19) . . .There are six things that Jehovah does hate; yes, seven are things detestable to his soul: lofty eyes, a false tongue, and hands that are shedding innocent blood, a heart fabricating hurtful schemes, feet that are in a hurry to run to badness, a false witness that launches forth lies, and anyone sending forth contentions among brothers.
i myself will refer to you simply as the slanderer and the liar,
(Proverbs 20:19) He that is going about as a slanderer is uncovering confidential talk; and with one that is enticed with his lips you must have no fellowship
It shall also be noted that the very same tactics of slander and ridicule were used against brother Russell that are being employed by the slanderers and liars on this forum
In their desperate efforts to kill the influence of C. T. Russell and his associates, the clergy belittled the claim that he was a Christian minister. For similar reasons, the Jewish religious leaders in the first century treated the apostles Peter and John as “men unlettered and ordinary.”—Acts 4:13.
Brother Russell had not graduated from one of Christendom’s theological schools. But he boldly said: “We challenge [the clergy] to prove that they ever had a Divine ordination or that they ever think of it. They merely think of a sectarian ordination, or authorization, each from his own sect or party. . . . God’s ordination, or authorization, of any man to preach is by the impartation of the Holy Spirit to him. Whoever has received the Holy Spirit has received the power and authority to teach and to preach in the name of God. Whoever has not received the Holy Spirit has no Divine authority or sanction to his preaching.”—Isa. 61:1, 2.
In order to impugn his reputation, some of the clergy preached and published gross falsehoods about him. One that they frequently employed—and still do—involves the marital situation of Brother Russell. The impression that they have sought to convey is that Russell was immoral. What are the facts?
In 1879, Charles Taze Russell married Maria Frances Ackley. They had a good relationship for 13 years. Then flattery of Maria and appeals to pride on her part by others began to undermine that relationship; but when their objective became clear, she seemed to regain her balance. After a former associate had spread falsehoods about Brother Russell, she even asked her husband’s permission to visit a number of congregations to answer the charges, since it had been alleged that he mistreated her. However, the fine reception she was given on that trip in 1894 evidently contributed to a gradual change in her opinion of herself. She sought to secure for herself a stronger voice in directing what would appear in the Watch Tower. When she realized that nothing that she wrote would be published unless her husband, the editor of the magazine, agreed with its contents (on the basis of its consistency with the Scriptures), she became greatly disturbed. He put forth earnest effort to help her, but in November 1897 she left him. Nevertheless, he provided her with a place to live and means of maintenance. Years later, after court proceedings that had been initiated by her in 1903, she was awarded, in 1908, a judgment, not of absolute divorce, but of divorce from bed and board, with alimony.
Having failed to force her husband to acquiesce to her demands, she put forth great effort after she left him to bring his name into disrepute. In 1903 she published a tract filled, not with Scriptural truths, but with gross misrepresentations of Brother Russell. She sought to enlist ministers of various denominations to distribute them where the Bible Students were holding special meetings. To their credit not many at that time were willing to be used in that way. However, other clergymen since then have shown a different spirit.
Earlier, Maria Russell had condemned, verbally and in writing, those who charged Brother Russell with the sort of misconduct that she herself now alleged. Using certain unsubstantiated statements made during court proceedings in 1906 (and which statements were struck from the record by order of the court), some religious opposers of Brother Russell have published charges designed to make it appear that he was an immoral man and hence unfit to be a minister of God. However, the court record is clear that such charges are false. Her own lawyer asked Mrs. Russell whether she believed her husband was guilty of adultery. She answered: “No.” It is also noteworthy that when a committee of Christian elders listened to Mrs. Russell’s charges against her husband in 1897, she made no mention of the things that she later stated in court in order to persuade the jury that a divorce should be granted, though these alleged incidents occurred prior to that meeting.
Nine years after Mrs. Russell first brought the case to court, Judge James Macfarlane wrote a letter of reply to a man who was seeking a copy of the court record so that one of his associates could expose Russell. The judge frankly told him that what he wanted would be a waste of time and money. His letter stated: “The ground for her application and of the decree entered upon the verdict of the jury was ‘indignities’ and not adultery and the testimony, as I understand, does not show that Russell was living ‘an adulterous life with a co-respondent.’ In fact there was no co-respondent.”
Maria Russell’s own belated acknowledgment came at the time of Brother Russell’s funeral at Carnegie Hall in Pittsburgh in 1916. Wearing a veil, she walked down the aisle to the casket and laid there a bunch of lilies of the valley. Attached to them was a ribbon bearing the words, “To My Beloved Husband.”
It is evident that the clergy have used the same sort of tactics that were employed by their first-century counterparts. Back then, they endeavored to kill Jesus’ reputation by charging that he ate with sinners and that he himself was a sinner and a blasphemer. (Matt. 9:11; John 9:16-24; 10:33-37) Such charges did not change the truth about Jesus, but they did expose those who resorted to such slander—and they expose those who resort to like tactics today—as having as their spiritual father the Devil, which name means “Slanderer.”—John 8:44.
22 Feb 10
2 edits
Originally posted by menace71then where is your evidence slanderer and liar? you have been asked numerous times to produce it, you have produced nothing, why because you are a slanderer and a liar, that is why. where i the evidence that the leaders of Jehovahs witnesses are greedy and corrupt?
I could not make this stuff up even if I wanted.
Greed to the utmost RC the founder of the JW's was Greedy and Corrupt.
There is Micro film on some of these court cases so it's public record.
Manny
22 Feb 10
In June, 1912, the Reverend J.J. Ross, pastor of the James Street
Baptist Church, Hamilton, Ontario, published a pamphlet entitled, "Some
facts about the Self-Styled 'Pastor' Charles T. Russell" which minced no
words in its denunciation of Russell, his qualifications as a minister,
or his moral example as a "Pastor." Russell promptly sued Ross for
"defamatory libel" in an effort to silence the courageous minister
before the pamphlet could gain wide circulation and expose his true
character and the errors of his theolgy. Mr. Ross, however, was
unimpressed by Russell's action and eagerly seized upon the opportunity
as a means of exposing Russell for the graud he was. In his pamphlet,
Ross assailed Russell's teachings as revealed in "Studies in the
Scriptures" as "the destructive doctrines of one man who is neither a
scholar nor a theologian" (page 7). Mr. Ross scathingly denounced
Russell's whole system as "anti-rational, anti-scientific, anti-
Biblical, anti-Christian, and a deplorable perversion of the gospel of
God's Dear Son" (page 7).
Why did Russell sue this man??
Manny
22 Feb 10
1 edit
Originally posted by menace71where is the evidence that the leaders of Jehovahs witnesses are greedy and corrupt? you are not getting away with it, you are a slanderer and a liar and i want people to know that, where is the evidence?
In June, 1912, the Reverend J.J. Ross, pastor of the James Street
Baptist Church, Hamilton, Ontario, published a pamphlet entitled, "Some
facts about the Self-Styled 'Pastor' Charles T. Russell" which minced no
words in its denunciation of Russell, his qualifications as a minister,
or his moral example as a "Pastor." Russell promptly sued Ross for pel of
God's Dear Son" (page 7).
Why did Russell sue this man??
Manny