28 Jun '10 20:07>
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIt's curious how you say that my presentation is so badly lacking in clarity; and yet you say "by your comments, it is perfectly obvious that you know not what you are saying". If you are really having so much trouble understanding my points (despite your saying that it's already "perfectly obvious" to you that my points are mistaken), you can refer to the comments of Conrau K, who already stated the basic idea in clear language (reread his post that directly precedes my first post in this thread).
I'm quite sure your considerations have nothing to do with whether or not it can reasonably be considered an adulteration - lemony yellow
i see you are now able to discern the intentions and motivations of the heart, do you also read minds with a mind ray from a laboratory somewhere in the hills? whether you are sure or otherwise is neither here ...[text shortened]... air of waders and wade through superfluous use of language. It also helps to dispel ambiguity.
This is just another page from the comprehensive JW book of nonsense. Your superstitions regarding the cross are silly and needlessly divisive. If you want to present evidential considerations regarding whether or not Jesus died on some other implement (vice the cross), that is just fine. But quit pretending that the faith of others is polluted by symbolic rendering of the cross. Your argument is particularly asinine in light of the fact that the past pagan significance you talk about is basically completely irrelevant to what these persons today take the cross to stand for and why they take it to be meaningful.