Second Response to Surfari

SURFARI’S COMMENT (FULL TEXT)

**The original comment was in response to this previously written article:

http://tearsofoberon.blogspot.com/2009/10/response-to-surfari_08.html

 awww. just for me? i didn't think you cared.

ok there's lots to pick on here, and it'll take a few posts, so bear with.

that's if you even approve the comments.

who's this billy graham? vaguely heard the name. he the one doing the illuminati hand signs on stage? well, i agree, if your quotes are authentic, that his makes him a false prophet and not to be trusted. and i'm impressed that you do actually know deut 18. wow. don't have to post it meself.

how come you can see it for billy graham but think the watchtower can get away with it by claiming new light? because this is the exact same criteria that i use to dismiss joseph smith, nelson barbour, muhammad ibn abdullah, ellen g white, mary eddy baker, william miller etc...this is the crowd that the watchtower stands amongst. not the bible prophets.

anyhoo. looking at your no no yes no list seems a perfect example of the new light doctrine. the watchtower appears to be confused as to whether or not it is a prophet. and this is not the full extent of the claims. you should know as you have the big library. i use internet archive to check. but i'll have to get back on that one.

regardless of how often they repeat it, the claim stands. you may deny, but there it is in black and white. i can read. your interpretation is at odds with what is written.

ciao for now

REPLY FROM TEARS OF OBERON

"awww. just for me?"

Yes, just for you, because you are my first and favorite Anon :).

"that's if you even approve the comments."

You are imputing bad motives to dear old Tears. The only reason that I moderate my comments is to prevent crazies from spamming my posts with hate speech, cursing and porn links (and yes, I've seen it happen to some religious blogs). As long as the comments are respectful and ON TOPIC, I allow free speech and free discussion.

"how come you can see it for billy graham but think the watchtower can get away with it by claiming new light?"

You show that you didn't actually bother to read my full response. I never stated that I believe that Billy Graham is a false prophet - I was making a point through sarcasm and absurdity.

Additionally, Billy Graham is one of the most famous and beloved preachers of Protestant Christianity of the 20th century. That is why I used him - because the bulk of Christianity is quick to embrace him in spite of his claim, and yet they are just as quick to condemn others because of perfectly parallel claims.

And incidentally, the bulk of Christianity is also quick to embrace Martin Luther, John Wesley, Joseph Wolff and hundreds, if not thousands, of other respected theologians, even though they've made similar predictions. Do you condemn all of them too? Who would you be left with if you did?

But that was the point of my post now wasn't it? Guessing based on prophecy already given by others is NOT the same as generating inspired utterances directly from God.

"looking at your no no yes no list seems a perfect example of the new light doctrine. the watchtower appears to be confused as to whether or not it is a prophet."

This is another example of you not reading. I stated that I DO NOT agree with the single "Yes" entry in the list. That list is what YOU and other opposers want people to believe, even though it makes no sense.

"you should know as you have the big library. i use internet archive to check."

You should know also, because my big library came from the internet archive that you gave me :). And so I should really thank you for it - I would have never had such unrivaled access to old publications if it were not for you :).

"regardless of how often they repeat it, the claim stands. you may deny, but there it is in black and white. i can read. your interpretation is at odds with what is written."

I not only denied it, I REFUTED it with evidence and sound logic. It is right there in black and white. Additionally, just stating your own general objection to what I have written is not the same as PROVING what I have written to be wrong.

Aga'pe,

TOOPOO