Evolution...?

[Shastafarian]

And tell me this, how in any way does evolution help humanity? I understand learning about diseases/viruses and things like that but I mean simply believing that you came from the ocean and are simply an more evolved ape?

:lol Look up bacterial resistance.

[SnakeBoy]

So you are unwilling to bother to explain.

Fair enough. Do not expect me to bother answering your questions any further.

I have no need to lash out, but it was *your* question. Most people with any decency or sense would say that the burden lies on your end to make sure that your own question is understood if you want it answered.

Your attempts to do a victory dance because "RG/atheists can't answer my question" is pretty obviously more to suit your ego, than any attempt at getting at a greater truth.

Fuck off, the grown ups are talking.

(well maybe not, Rob seems to have given up doing anything other than trying to make himself feel better too. sad.)

LOL what a childish meltdown. What question is it that you think I'm asking you that is getting you so upset?

[it's me]

its's me change your attitude and I might answer some of your questions. As for Blake quit being a faggot and I might answer some of yours.

What attitude exactly? it seems like you don't like what I ask you.

[xmas1997]

Also, if the only things we believe are those things that can be confirmed by science solely, then aren't we limiting ourselves as to what we can discover?

That would pretty much destroy the whole point of science IMHO, because science is there to provide us a way to prove things and provide useful models of reality, right?

We need to first "imagine" what those may or may not be before we can go about using scientific method to show them.

And if we then fail to show them, is that more an indictment of our ability to come up with the proper means, or that they do not exist because we failed to prove they existed?

[it's me]

Also, if the only things we believe are those things that can be confirmed by science solely, then aren't we limiting ourselves as to what we can discover?

That would pretty much destroy the whole point of science IMHO, because science is there to provide us a way to prove things and provide useful models of reality, right?

We need to first "imagine" what those may or may not be before we can go about using scientific method to show this.

You's twisting it and missing the point... Religious faith/belief is about "knowing" what happened and what is going to happen. Get the definition of faith from your own bible, it talks about certainty.

[RandomGuy]

Also, if the only things we believe are those things that can be confirmed by science solely, then aren't we limiting ourselves as to what we can discover?

That would pretty much destroy the whole point of science IMHO, because science is there to provide us a way to prove things and provide useful models of reality, right?

We need to first "imagine" what those may or may not be before we can go about using scientific method to show this.

The point at which you believe something is true is when it has been demonstrated to be true.

To do otherwise is to invite bad decisions based on believing false things.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/02/19/youve-killed-two-of-your-children-judge-seals-faith-healing-couples-fate-after-second-son-dies/#

[RandomGuy]

:lol Look up bacterial resistance.

Asking people who criticize the theory of evolution to actually learn about evolution seems to be too much to ask.

Good luck. Rob won't bother, as he isn't really interested in what is true.

[xmas1997]

The point at which you believe something is true is when it has been demonstrated to be true.

To do otherwise is to invite bad decisions based on believing false things.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/02/19/youve-killed-two-of-your-children-judge-seals-faith-healing-couples-fate-after-second-son-dies/#

I agree with that.

Yet there was a point to where you questioned it in the first place, right?

Otherwise why even try to posit a way to prove it?

That initial point came, or comes, from your imagination.

We want to arrive at a verifiable truth, correct?

That requires us to use our imaginations to posit the ways.

So then, where does our imaginations come from?

[RandomGuy]

I agree with that.

Yet there was a point to where you questioned it in the first place, right?

Otherwise why even try to posit a way to prove it?

That initial point came, or comes, from your imagination.

We want to arrive at a verifiable truth, correct?

That requires us to use our imaginations to posit the ways.

So then, where does our imaginations come from?

Imagination is a function of consciousness. Our brains.

Easy.

[SnakeBoy]

Asking people who criticize the theory of evolution to actually learn about evolution seems to be too much to ask.


Asking you to explain why you are having a temper tantrum seems to be too much to ask as well.

:cry I don't understand the question that I'm not being asked :cry

:lol

[xmas1997]

Imagination is a function of consciousness. Our brains.

Easy.

Okay, that was easy, our brains.

Then you need to ask "why" our brains are capable of imagination, don't you?

And why did that idea enter our brains initially and where did that come from to be generated in our brains?

I guess where I am going with this is the age old saying, I am, therefore I am proposition.

[Shastafarian]

Asking people who criticize the theory of evolution to actually learn about evolution seems to be too much to ask.

Good luck. Rob won't bother, as he isn't really interested in what is true.

People who criticize it yet proclaim they don't need to learn about it because they don't believe in it. Some really tragic thinking.

[xmas1997]

I believe what I am getting at is we are more able to identify "where" in our brains our imagination resides, but we still do not know "how", and most especially "why", it does.

[RandomGuy]

I believe what I am getting at is we are more able to identify "where" in our brains our imagination resides, but we still do not know "how", and most especially "why", it does.

So what?

[xmas1997]

Imagination is a function of consciousness. Our brains.

Easy.


So what?

What? I am merely trying to better understand the "what", is all I am doing, because I do not understand it, and hoping someone can illuminate it for me is all.

I am not trying to trap you or anything of that nature.

If as you say imagination is a function of consciousness within the brain, then are you telling me that some brain synapses collide, or combine, or interact, or whatever within the large cortical or subcortical network and produce ideas, images, and/or imagination?

And if that is the possible explanations of "where", and the possible explanations of "how", although I think this is still up in the air right now, then "why" do they do this?

[RD2191]

:lol Look up bacterial resistance.
I have before but I don't remember much about it.

[RD2191]

So God wants these things from us?
I believe so.

[RandomGuy]

What? I am merely trying to better understand the "what", is all I am doing, because I do not understand it, and hoping someone can illuminate it for me is all.

I am not trying to trap you or anything of that nature.

If as you say imagination is a function of consciousness within the brain, then are you telling me that some brain synapses collide, or combine, or interact, or whatever within the large cortical or subcortical network and produce ideas, images, and/or imagination?

And if that is the possible explanations of "where", and the possible explanations of "how", although I think this is still up in the air right now, then "why" do they do this?

A simple why is that imagination is part and parcel of being able to do some evolutionarily useful things. Empathy for one, i.e. imagining what others are thinking/feeling, and two, being able to think abstractly, both of which appear to be required for any kind of meaningful self-awareness.

[RandomGuy]

I believe so.

What happens if we don't do what he wants us to do?

[RD2191]

What happens if we don't do what he wants us to do?
Nothing too extreme, you just die/cease to exist.

[xmas1997]

A simple why is that imagination is part and parcel of being able to do some evolutionarily useful things. Empathy for one, i.e. imagining what others are thinking/feeling, and two, being able to think abstractly, both of which appear to be required for any kind of meaningful self-awareness.

I appreciate you attempting this explanation for me for me. It truly helps.

But isn't that just more of the "what" it does, rather than the "why" it does?

[RandomGuy]

Nothing too extreme, you just die/cease to exist.

Hmm. Would you say that is horrible? Ceasing to exist, when you could be resurrected?

[RD2191]

Hmm. Would you say that is horrible? Ceasing to exist, when you could be resurrected?
Of course not, because God gave that person a chance to repent and live their lives according to his laws/principles.

[Blake]

That is your opinion and a wrong one. If you had any knowledge of the Bible you would know that your statement is inaccurate and a lie. You do not understand anything about the Bible.

prove it's a lie

[RD2191]

prove it's a lie
I already have. I've posted scriptures before and tried to explain why it wasn't murder. He refused to believe that and still believes God is a murderer. There isn't much I can do about that. It would also be pointless seeing as he doesn't believe in God.

[RandomGuy]

LOL "free will".

"Do what I want, or I will do something horrible to you".

This is the Christian bible's explicit threat, and it is not alone in that. Cults of all types sustain themselves through such threats.

Why should anyone worship an extortionist who craves worship?



That is your opinion and a wrong one. If you had any knowledge of the Bible you would know that your statement is inaccurate and a lie. You do not understand anything about the Bible.


Then by all means correct me.

What does God require for your resurrection?



From my understanding, repentance and baptism and also following and living by his laws/principles.



So God wants these things from us?


I believe so.


What happens if we don't do what he wants us to do?



Nothing too extreme, you just die/cease to exist.



Hmm. Would you say that is horrible? Ceasing to exist, when you could be resurrected?


Of course not, because God gave that person a chance to repent and live their lives according to his laws/principles.

http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2011/034/f/5/facepalm___crying_out_loud_by_morten8035-d38q1z4.jpg

[xmas1997]

Even this article goes into the "what" of imagination, and "what is happening to it", but still skirts the issue of "why" it is.

Why We Need To Imagine The Impossible
By John H. Stevens | Thursday, June 14th, 2012 at 10:00 am

http://www.sfsignal.com/archives/2012/06/why-we-need-to-imagine-the-impossible/

“Fortunately somewhere between chance and mystery lies imagination, the only thing that protects our freedom, despite the fact that people keep trying to reduce it or kill it off altogether.” – Luis Buñuel

This week I had planned to write a response to a very intriguing article by David Graeber on America’s imagined future and its failings. But since then I’ve read some unrelated articles and arguments that have recombined in my mind, and the ideas that are bubbling up demand that I write them out, so here goes. I want to discuss why the most fabulous thing that human beings have invented is so important, not just in terms of survival but in terms are creating our world, for better and for worse, and look at some of the paradoxes in how we conceive of and use that invention.

The fabulous invention is the human imagination. The imagination is not an actual thing; it is a concept that we use to try to codify a broad process of human cognition. It is a cultural conception of how we use imagery to construct behavior and thought. The imagination is a capacity that involves most parts of the brain in some form; there is not one location where we conjure all of our imaginings, although many researchers agree that the thalamus is important to the process of imagination. As each brain is shaped by its experiences, however, so is each person’s imagination, and different types of imagining access different parts of the brain. So, this process, this capacity that we all have, is unique. And yet, we most often employ it to make sense of shared symbols and ideas, comparing what we perceive to our individual models of reality (which reside, most likely, in the frontal lobe).

What we mean when we use the term is most often to refer to the “faculty of the mind which forms and manipulates images.” It is the faculty “of forming mental images or concepts of what is not actually present to the senses. ” In its Latin roots it refers to hallucination, fancy, images not directly from your perception but created in your mind. But the imagination is not just a faculty; it is also a resource. It is simultaneously the brain functions and the results of those functions, drawing on memory and consciousness and combining them into elements that we use to interact with the world around us.

I’m telling you this because we use this term constantly (it is peppered throughout many of my own columns) as if we know exactly what we are referring to, when in fact it is a gloss for something that we do constantly and in ever-shifting ways. Eva H. T. Braun noted in The World of Imagination: Sum and Substance, some argue that “‘imagination’ is really an ‘onomatoid,” that is, a namelike word which in fact designates nothing because it signifies too broadly.” To counter this, it is often further defined with some sort of adjective such as “historical” or “scientific” or “artistic” so that it has more discernible boundaries, and this is where the first paradox emerges. In our efforts to invoke the imagination, grasp it and utilize it, we have to limit it. We have to create a point of understanding out of this unique process that we all perform. We have to focus it and also make what it does sensible to ourselves and to others.

After reading Graeber’s article I encountered a discussion on Margaret Atwood’s idea of SF which seemed to come down to the individual needs of imagination, many of which are about limiting not just one’s personal imagination but how one’s imagination is interpreted by others. As I followed the debate (which unfolded on Eleanor Arnason’s Facebook wall), I went back and read a column I wrote looking at Atwood’s “delimiting of imagination.” What occurred to me after re-reading that piece is that what another aspect of what Atwood is doing is simultaneously defending her own interpretation of the imagination while trying to argue that there is one particularly fruitful way to exercise the imagination in literary terms, which is to base it an idea of the real, of what we know humans have done and what science tells us is possible. I no sooner turned away from that conversation than I discovered that a new Center for Human Imagination was being established at USCD:

“Imagination — one of the least understood but most cherished products of the mind and brain — will become the focus of wide-ranging study at a new center jointly founded by UC San Diego and the Arthur C. Clarke Foundation.”

The article went on to outline what the Center might do, including possibly coming up with ways to “stimulate or enhance human imagination.” With that, Graeber’s article came to mind, with its lengthy discussion of the cultural shape of how Americans commonly imagined the future in the 20th century. One of his points is that shared ideas of what the future might hold were eroded by the channeling of our imagination in certain social, economic, and political directions. The imaginations of many Americans are, he believes, constrained by our increasingly bureaucratic society with its procedures of statisical normalization, surveillance, and passive and active controls. I realized then that part of the reasons that the imagination is “one of the least understood” is that we have stunted it, that it is inevitably stunted by our contact with and absorption of the images of the world around us.

This is the next paradox of the imagination; that it is theoretically vast and potentially unlimited, but that it is constantly being constrained, that is it truncated rather than expanded. Perhaps this is the inevitable effect of living, an unavoidable result of being humans who creates templates of reality to make sense of everything around us and inside our heads. But even as we celebrate the idea of the imagination with its untold, untapped possibilities, we strive to impose limits on it. We almost have to impose limits on it, or it does not function. Atwood’s attitude to SF seemed to reflect this thought, and it is certainly reinforced by Graeber’s conception of how elements of our capitalist economy have influenced what we think is possible and what we can actually produce as a result.

All of this troubles me because I believe in the imagination, as unstable and general as that idea is. Graeber essentially argues that Americans have allowed their imaginations to be hijacked and manipulated, and I think that to a large extent this is precisely what human societies and cultures do: create boundaries and shape our musings and conjectures. Sometimes we push against those ideas, sometimes we fall prey to them. Sometimes we improve something, while other times we create blindness in ourselves. And, in rare moments, we create something new. The fantastic, from far back beyond recorded history, was the first innovation, I think, one that as we used it changed our brains. We would not be human if we could not conceive of the fantastic and allow it to dwell within our skulls. Our very imaginations are based on it; that faculty is the engine for and most potent symbol of the fantastic.

And we limit it, constantly. perhaps necessarily. We could not function without imagination, could not relate to others, understand what goes on around us, craft ways to move through our lives. And yet, I think we all (me included) often neglect to push it. We get comfortable with our templates of reality, with the symbols we take in, and while we might make improvements, we seem to make fewer deep innovations. And although I disagree with some of his points, I do agree with Graeber that we have allowed our supposedly science-fictional contemporary world to bind our imaginations, rather than liberate them. It is, as Buñuel wrote, the only thing that protects our freedom, and our world constantly tries to limit changes and erase mysteries, and our imaginations suffer for it. We need to exceed the inhibiting of our imaginations and allow our imaginations to be richly fantastical again, to be excessive, probing, idiotic, and ferocious in the pursuit of what is-not. We need to imagine the impossible to save our imaginations, and ourselves.

[RD2191]

http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2011/034/f/5/facepalm___crying_out_loud_by_morten8035-d38q1z4.jpg
You see, you understood nothing or choose to be ignorant. Your problem not mine.

[RD2191]

As I said before, you do not understand the Bible. Or if you do you choose to remain ignorant on the subject.

[RandomGuy]

I already have. I've posted scriptures before and tried to explain why it wasn't murder. He refused to believe that and still believes God is a murderer. There isn't much I can do about that. It would also be pointless seeing as he doesn't believe in God.

You can't post scriptures that wave away the old testament, because there are new testament sections that very explicitly do not throw them away.

So you are saddled with the evil shit that God does in the old testament, as well as the evil shit Jesus said.

It is funny watching you tapdance trying to escape from that.


1) “For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV)

2) "It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." (Luke 16:17 NAB)

3) "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17 NAB)

3b) "All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness..." (2 Timothy 3:16 NAB)

3c) "Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God." (2 Peter 20-21 NAB)

4) Mark.7:9-13 "Whoever curses father or mother shall die" (Mark 7:10 NAB)

5) Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: “He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.” (Matthew 15:4-7)

6) (Jesus has a punishment even worse than his father concerning adultery: God said the act of adultery was punishable by death. Jesus says looking with lust is the same thing and you should gouge your eye out, better a part, than the whole. The punishment under Jesus is an eternity in Hell.) (Matthew 5:27)

7) Peter says that all slaves should “be subject to [their] masters with all fear,” to the bad and cruel as well as the “good and gentle.” This is merely an echo of the same slavery commands in the Old Testament. 1 Peter 2:18

8) “Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law" (John7:19) and “For the law was given by Moses,..." (John 1:17).

9) “...the scripture cannot be broken.” --Jesus Christ, John 10:35

Clearly the Old Testament is to be abided by until the end of human existence itself. None other then Jesus said so.

All of the vicious Old Testament laws will be binding forever, as Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets. He hasn't the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament, and that is obvious to anybody with any knowledge of the Bible.

Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children according to Old Testament law.

[RD2191]

God is not evil. If you believe he is then you have no understanding of the Bible.

[RandomGuy]

As I said before, you do not understand the Bible. Or if you do you choose to remain ignorant on the subject.

The Messiah must be a physical descendant of David (Romans 1:3 & Acts 2:30). Yet, how could Jesus meet this requirement since his genealogies in Matthew 1 and Luke 3 show he descended from David through Joseph, who was not his natural father because of the Virgin Birth. Hence, this prophecy could not have been fulfilled.

Maybe you could enlighten me and answer this question.

Do tell.

[xmas1997]

Albert Einstein: “Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.”

I'll start a new thread rather than this side issue. Sorry.

[RandomGuy]

God is not evil. If you believe he is then you have no understanding of the Bible.

Isaiah 7:16 seems to say that before Jesus had reached the age of maturity, both of the Jewish countries would be destroyed. Yet there is no mention of this prophecy being fulfilled in the New Testament with the coming of Jesus, hence this is another Messiah prophecy not fulfilled.

Also another question I have.

Perhaps you could share your superior knowledge with us on that one.

[RD2191]

Isaiah 7:16 seems to say that before Jesus had reached the age of maturity, both of the Jewish countries would be destroyed. Yet there is no mention of this prophecy being fulfilled in the New Testament with the coming of Jesus, hence this is another Messiah prophecy not fulfilled.

Also another question I have.

Perhaps you could share your superior knowledge with us on that one.
Why does that matter to you if you do not believe in it? And do you really want an answer or do you want something you can disagree with?

[RD2191]

We've been through this before, your mind is already made up.

[RandomGuy]

You can't post scriptures that wave away the old testament, because there are new testament sections that very explicitly do not throw them away.

So you are saddled with the evil shit that God does in the old testament, as well as the evil shit Jesus said.

It is funny watching you tapdance trying to escape from that.


1) “For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV)

2) "It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." (Luke 16:17 NAB)

3) "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17 NAB)

3b) "All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness..." (2 Timothy 3:16 NAB)

3c) "Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God." (2 Peter 20-21 NAB)

4) Mark.7:9-13 "Whoever curses father or mother shall die" (Mark 7:10 NAB)

5) Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: “He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.” (Matthew 15:4-7)

6) (Jesus has a punishment even worse than his father concerning adultery: God said the act of adultery was punishable by death. Jesus says looking with lust is the same thing and you should gouge your eye out, better a part, than the whole. The punishment under Jesus is an eternity in Hell.) (Matthew 5:27)

7) Peter says that all slaves should “be subject to [their] masters with all fear,” to the bad and cruel as well as the “good and gentle.” This is merely an echo of the same slavery commands in the Old Testament. 1 Peter 2:18

8) “Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law" (John7:19) and “For the law was given by Moses,..." (John 1:17).

9) “...the scripture cannot be broken.” --Jesus Christ, John 10:35

Clearly the Old Testament is to be abided by until the end of human existence itself. None other then Jesus said so.

All of the vicious Old Testament laws will be binding forever, as Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets. He hasn't the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament, and that is obvious to anybody with any knowledge of the Bible.

Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children according to Old Testament law.


God is not evil. If you believe he is then you have no understanding of the Bible.

Translation:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-vzgXgxkC3rw/UxokeRNYj1I/AAAAAAAACK0/SUFqTffmWEQ/s1600/wizard-behind-curtain1.jpg


You aren't explaining to me what those passages mean.

You aren't even quoting any scriptures to contradict them.

Of course.... you also claim the Bible doesn't contradict itself, so finding a scripture that contradicts 5:18 fucks you and your ignorance about the bible either way.

By all means, keep handwaving. These passages won't be going anywhere.

[Blake]

I already have. I've posted scriptures before and tried to explain why it wasn't murder. He refused to believe that and still believes God is a murderer. There isn't much I can do about that. It would also be pointless seeing as he doesn't believe in God.

God made the flood in Genesis.

No way around God not being a murderer no matter how you try to spin it.

[ohmwrecker]

It's pretty easy to ridicule the bible tbh. However, this thread is about evolution. The only reason it's turned into a "beat up on Rob" thread is because he has participated in a subject he admittedly doesn't believe in or care to learn anything about with an output that is essentially ":lol evolution".

So . . . knock it off with the ":lol bible" and get back on track.

[it's me]

The Messiah must be a physical descendant of David (Romans 1:3 & Acts 2:30). Yet, how could Jesus meet this requirement since his genealogies in Matthew 1 and Luke 3 show he descended from David through Joseph, who was not his natural father because of the Virgin Birth. Hence, this prophecy could not have been fulfilled.

Maybe you could enlighten me and answer this question.

Do tell.

One of them is in fact the line to Mary :lol the whole magic book is fucked up TBH.

[RandomGuy]

As I said before, you do not understand the Bible.


The Messiah must be a physical descendant of David (Romans 1:3 & Acts 2:30). Yet, how could Jesus meet this requirement since his genealogies in Matthew 1 and Luke 3 show he descended from David through Joseph, who was not his natural father because of the Virgin Birth. Hence, this prophecy could not have been fulfilled.

Maybe you could enlighten me and answer this question.

Do tell.


Why does that matter to you if you do not believe in it? And do you really want an answer or do you want something you can disagree with?

Not really an answer.

You said the bible has no contradictions, the prophecies in it are all fulfilled, you know it better than I do, and it has all the answers.


And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth,

I have other things to get to, ATM. Feel free to answer the question when you are done googling the excuse.

[ohmwrecker]

Start an ":lol bible" thread tbh.

[it's me]

Start an ":lol bible" thread tbh.

It'll be pretty boring TBH. It's like making fun of a retarded child.

[ohmwrecker]

It'll be pretty boring TBH. It's like making fun of a retarded child.

So pretty much like what this thread is like now?

[it's me]

We don't :lol at the bible we:lol at the morons that believe it's the infallible word of a supposed all-knowing, all-powerful... and all many other things god.

[RandomGuy]

It's pretty easy to ridicule the bible tbh. However, this thread is about evolution. The only reason it's turned into a "beat up on Rob" thread is because he has participated in a subject he admittedly doesn't believe in or care to learn anything about with an output that is essentially ":lol evolution".

So . . . knock it off with the ":lol bible" and get back on track.

Killjoy.

[RD2191]

Translation:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-vzgXgxkC3rw/UxokeRNYj1I/AAAAAAAACK0/SUFqTffmWEQ/s1600/wizard-behind-curtain1.jpg


You aren't explaining to me what those passages mean.

You aren't even quoting any scriptures to contradict them.

Of course.... you also claim the Bible doesn't contradict itself, so finding a scripture that contradicts 5:18 fucks you and your ignorance about the bible either way.

By all means, keep handwaving. These passages won't be going anywhere.
Wrong, and I have before, you simply choose to ignore them.

[SnakeBoy]

LOL RandomGuy revealing himself to be a literalist, even on parts of the bible that explicitly stated to be parables.

[silverblk mystix]

I have sought.

Seems to me if there is some god in the universe trying to get in touch with me, it could do a far better job of demonstrating its existence.

If it existed it would know exactly what it would take to convince me, but has chosen to not do that.

Why is this thing being such a dick?


Maybe it isn't being a dick - maybe you just refuse to see what is there.


You are like the little fish in the ocean that asks, "excuse me - can you tell me where I might find the ocean?"


God is all around you and you blindly refuse to open your eyes and see and even stupidly ask, "why doesn't "IT" reveal itself to me?"

[RD2191]

God made the flood in Genesis.

No way around God not being a murderer no matter how you try to spin it.
As I said before, free will, did Noah not warn other of what was going to happen?

[RD2191]

Not really an answer.

You said the bible has no contradictions, the prophecies in it are all fulfilled, you know it better than I do, and it has all the answers.



I have other things to get to, ATM. Feel free to answer the question when you are done googling the excuse.
I never once said that. Never. Keep making shit up though.

[RD2191]

RG do some research on the prophecy using the Bible and you will find your answer. What exactly do you think the prophecy at Isaiah 7:16 is?

[Blake]

It's pretty easy to ridicule the bible tbh. However, this thread is about evolution. The only reason it's turned into a "beat up on Rob" thread is because he has participated in a subject he admittedly doesn't believe in or care to learn anything about with an output that is essentially ":lol evolution".

So . . . knock it off with the ":lol bible" and get back on track.

OP started the thread to "lol evolution"

[RD2191]

You either really don't not understand what you read or choose to be ignorant on the subject. And seeing as you are already making up lies I must believe you are being willfully ignorant.

[Blake]

RG do some research on the prophecy using the Bible and you will find your answer. What exactly do you think the prophecy at Isaiah 7:16 is?

You believe in the book of revelation.

So you believe in all the bat shit crazy prophecies in that book.

[RD2191]

Translation:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-vzgXgxkC3rw/UxokeRNYj1I/AAAAAAAACK0/SUFqTffmWEQ/s1600/wizard-behind-curtain1.jpg


You aren't explaining to me what those passages mean.

You aren't even quoting any scriptures to contradict them.

Of course.... you also claim the Bible doesn't contradict itself, so finding a scripture that contradicts 5:18 fucks you and your ignorance about the bible either way.

By all means, keep handwaving. These passages won't be going anywhere.
As if I'm going to explain each and every one to you. You don't even understand what you are reading. You are simply picking and choosing scripture and taking them out of context.

[RD2191]

You believe in the book of revelation.

So you believe in all the bat shit crazy prophecies in that book.
I believe in them. But not once did I say all prophecies in the Bible have been fulfilled.

[SnakeBoy]

I guess we know that if RandomGuy ever does find faith the Westboro Baptist Church will gain a new member.

[Blake]

As I said before, free will, did Noah not warn other of what was going to happen?

did he warn the children?

[it's me]

I believe in them. But not once did I say all prophecies in the Bible have been fulfilled.

Of course.... some of them have not been fulfilled YET. Right?

[ohmwrecker]

OP started the thread to "lol evolution"

correct

[RD2191]

did he warn the children?
Don't know. But according to the Bible parents are responsible for their children.

[Blake]

I believe in them. But not once did I say all prophecies in the Bible have been fulfilled.

But you believe in them.

You're arguing over something trivial.

[Blake]

Don't know. But according to the Bible parents are responsible for their children.

God killed the children.

No way around it.

[RD2191]

RG is trying to make this a contest on Bible knowledge which it isn't. Sure has he read the Bible? Maybe so. Does he understand what he is reading? Obviously not.

[RD2191]

God killed the children.

No way around it.
That is your opinion and if you want to believe that then okay.

[Blake]

Asking you to explain why you are having a temper tantrum seems to be too much to ask as well.

:cry I don't understand the question that I'm not being asked :cry

:lol

Nobody understands you. You're weird.

[it's me]

God killed the children.

No way around it.

And demanded living creatures blood to fool himself.

[Blake]

That is your opinion and if you want to believe that then okay.

It's not an opinion. If the Bible is accurate then God drowned children.

If you want to put fingers in your ears and go la la la that's your prerogative to do so.

[Blake]

And demanded living creatures blood to fool himself.

blood/death fetish

[RD2191]

It's not an opinion. If the Bible is accurate then God drowned children.

If you want to put fingers in your ears and go la la la that's your prerogative to do so.
God wasn't to blame, their parents were. If you read the Bible you would know and understand that.

[it's me]

blood/death fetish

Then makes freaks drink his own blood and eat his own flesh ..... what a sick bastard.

[RD2191]

For anyone who thinks RG is schooling me in Bible knowledge- here is a link to where he gets his ideas/beliefs from. He knows nothing of prophecy and does not understand God. He chooses to be ignorant without ever looking at the Bible and reading/discovering/learning things for himself. His above scriptures of the Bible being contradictory are not of his own research/knowledge but a direct rip off from a biased/retarded/stupid website.


http://www.evilbible.com/do_not_ignore_ot.htm

[RD2191]

So with all due respect RG, go fuck yourself and jerk off to Carl Sagan's Cosmos.

[RD2191]

I do not have all of the answers. I learn new things every day. Even the Bible says that we will never understand everything written in it. But if anyone is genuinely interested in the Bible ask me a question and I will try my best to answer it for you using scripture. It may take days or weeks, but it will be answered with genuine research and study on the scriptures.

[Blake]

God wasn't to blame, their parents were. If you read the Bible you would know and understand that.

so God drowned the children but it's the parents fault?

No. God pulled the trigger. He's a murderer.

[it's me]

I do not have all of the answers. I learn new things every day. Even the Bible says that we will never understand everything written in it. But if anyone is genuinely interested in the Bible ask me a question and I will try my best to answer it for you using scripture. It may take days or weeks, but it will be answered with genuine research and study on the scriptures.

Wow... I'm impressed. Here goes one question, What does the bible says in John 1:1?

[RD2191]

Wow... I'm impressed. Here goes one question, What does the bible says in John 1:1?
Not all that familiar with it but I do know it is used by many to confirm the existence of a trinity.

[RD2191]

so God drowned the children but it's the parents fault?

No. God pulled the trigger. He's a murderer.
Yes, it is their parents fault. Seeing as the Bible says parents are responsible for their children.

Wrong again.

[it's me]

Not all that familiar with it but I do know it is used by many to confirm the existence of a trinity.

So you are pretty much saying you don't know. How in the world you believe shit you don't even know?

[it's me]

Please read the thing and let me know what it says and what your interpretation is. Shit, you invited people to ask about the bible.

[Blake]

Yes, it is their parents fault. Seeing as the Bible says parents are responsible for their children.

Wrong again.

Bible God had the power to kill just the parents.

But he didn't. He killed innocent kids.

He's a murderer. No way around it.

But you'll try.

[RD2191]

Bible God had the power to kill just the parents.

But he didn't. He killed innocent kids.

He's a murderer. No way around it.

But you'll try.
Parents are responsible for their children. No way around it. But you'll try.

[Blake]

I do not have all of the answers. I learn new things every day. Even the Bible says that we will never understand everything written in it. But if anyone is genuinely interested in the Bible ask me a question and I will try my best to answer it for you using scripture. It may take days or weeks, but it will be answered with genuine research and study on the scriptures.

I'd like to give you credit for answering, but your answers are awful.

[Blake]

Parents are responsible for their children. No way around it. But you'll try.

sidestep.

Called it.

God wanted children blood too.

[RD2191]

Please read the thing and let me know what it says and what your interpretation is. Shit, you invited people to ask about the bible.
It is talking about Jesus and how he was the first of Gods creations.

[RD2191]

sidestep.

Called it.

God wanted children blood too.
No he didn't. People simply refused to follow his laws and therefore the parents and their children were destroyed.

[RD2191]

I'd like to give you credit for answering, but your answers are awful.
So then why ask? Or why not look for them yourself? You aren't very bright, Blake.

[it's me]

Parents are responsible for their children. No way around it. But you'll try.

Trying to hide the sun with a finger son ? .... parents are responsible of protecting and provide education to their children for them to reach adulthood and successfully survive it. Parents are in no way responsible for an eventuality such as a fat motherfucker in haven drooping giant water buckets over human kind, and only saving a later incestuous family. He killed infants according to your magic book. Undeniable.

[it's me]

It is talking about Jesus and how he was the first of Gods creations.

Some progress.... so is jesus god? or just the first creation (fuck Adam and Eve) of god?

[RD2191]

Trying to hide the sun with a finger son ? .... parents are responsible of protecting and provide education to their children for them to reach adulthood and successfully survive it. Parents are in no way responsible for an eventuality such as a fat motherfucker in haven drooping giant water buckets over human kind, and only saving a later incestuous family. He killed infants according to your magic book. Undeniable.
He killed them because their parents refused to follow Gods laws. Simple really. Also why are you changing the subject? Where were you going with John 1:1?

[RD2191]

Some progress.... so is jesus god? or just the first creation (fuck Adam and Eve) of god?
No Jesus is not God. And the Bible never makes that claim. Again, you are reading out of context and without understanding. Jesus was/is the first creation of God.

[it's me]

He killed them because their parents refused to follow Gods laws. Simple really. Also why are you changing the subject? Where were you going with John 1:1?

Did the babies refused to follow god? NO... their parents did. You just threw the free will argument down the drain.

[SnakeBoy]

He killed infants according to your magic book. Undeniable.

http://christian-bible.com/Worship/Sermons/noah.flood.htm

[Blake]

So then why ask? Or why not look for them yourself? You aren't very bright, Blake.

I'm just curious what you believe. Why are you answering my questions?

[Blake]

http://christian-bible.com/Worship/Sermons/noah.flood.htm

Lol the ol' "it wasn't literal" line

[it's me]

No Jesus is not God. And the Bible never makes that claim. Again, you are reading out of context and without understanding. Jesus was/is the first creation of God.

Ok. So what is jesus for you... just a "big brother" ? I'm assuming you are aware your JW translation of the bible is significantly different to the catholic or protestant bible in this specific txt.

[RD2191]

Did the babies refused to follow god? NO... their parents did. You just threw the free will argument down the drain.
Babies can choose to do what is right or what is wrong? I would have to answer no. Therefore, their parents chose death for them as they refused to follow Gods law.

[RD2191]

I'm just curious what you believe. Why are you answering my questions?
I enjoy it.

[Blake]

I enjoy it.

Cool. I enjoy your answers.

[it's me]

http://christian-bible.com/Worship/Sermons/noah.flood.htm

Calm down bible lover.... I agree the story is fake/fiction... but for Rob it literally happened, therefore the discussion.

[RD2191]

Ok. So what is jesus for you... just a "big brother" ? I'm assuming you are aware your JW translation of the bible is significantly different to the catholic or protestant bible in this specific txt.
Jesus is a savior, to be held at a very high regard/loved because his actions led mankind to have a chance at everlasting life. Not higher than God, though. And I am aware, I believe it is the most accurate translation though. Of course others will beg to differ so many JW's also carry the King James version for that exact reason.

[RD2191]

Cool. I enjoy your answers.
Cool.

[it's me]

Babies can choose to do what is right or what is wrong? I would have to answer no. Therefore, their parents chose death for them as they refused to follow Gods law.

So then... he killed beings incapable of understanding what's right or wrong. Pure justice.

[Blake]

Babies can choose to do what is right or what is wrong? I would have to answer no. Therefore, their parents chose death for them as they refused to follow Gods law.

God made the law. He chose death for babies.

[it's me]

Jesus is a savior, to be held at a very high regard/loved because his actions led mankind to have a chance at everlasting life. Not higher than God, though. And I am aware, I believe it is the most accurate translation though. Of course others will beg to differ so many JW's also carry the King James version for that exact reason.

Fair enough, you can believe whatever bullshit you want. Why do you think or conclude it is the "most accurate translation" ?

[Blake]

No Jesus is not God. And the Bible never makes that claim. Again, you are reading out of context and without understanding. Jesus was/is the first creation of God.

Yes, the Bible does make that claim.

[RD2191]

God made the law. He chose death for babies.
No he didn't, their parents did. You claiming otherwise won't make it not true. Parent's who were responsible for their children chose death for them. God warned them and they refused to listen. If a child was able to reason or understand and they chose not to listen then they were responsible for their death. But seeing as that was highly unlikely their parents chose for them. Do you make decisions for your daughter regarding serious matters? Or is she able to choose on her own?

[SnakeBoy]

Calm down bible lover.... I agree the story is fake/fiction... but for Rob it literally happened, therefore the discussion.

Never read it tbh. I didn't realize you were just fuckin with Rob.

[RD2191]

Yes, the Bible does make that claim.
No, people who do not understand/misinterpret the Bible do.

[SnakeBoy]

Lol the ol' "it wasn't literal" line

Do you believe the Bible is a literal book?

[it's me]

Never read it tbh. I didn't realize you were just fuckin with Rob.

:tu

[RD2191]

Fair enough, you can believe whatever bullshit you want. Why do you think or conclude it is the "most accurate translation" ?
2 reasons is that most others use the word cross instead of stake when referencing Jesus's death and another is that most leave out the name Jehovah and replace it with God.

[it's me]

2 reasons is that most others use the word cross instead of stake when referencing Jesus's death and another is that most leave out the name Jehovah and replace it with God.

I'm talking about John 1:1 not the whole thing.... do you care what the oldest manuscripts say? do you even want to know, or are you happy concluding your translation is good because of two words?

[RD2191]

I'm talking about John 1:1 not the whole thing.... do you care what the oldest manuscripts say? do you even want to know, or are you happy concluding your translation is good because of two words?
Well you should of made your question more clear. You were talking about the Bible, not John 1:1. And of course I do. And I have done research on the subject. It is my conclusion that the translation of John 1:1 according to the Bible that the JW's use is the most accurate.

[Blake]

Do you believe the Bible is a literal book?

No

[Avante]

What's funny is I can usually get a feel for what will work. I thought, nay, it's been done too much......WRONG!!!!!!!

I need 41 pages to set my ...most page thread...record, so keep the bullshit flowing guys.

[Blake]

No, people who do not understand/misinterpret the Bible do.

right.


John 10:30Young's Literal Translation (YLT)

30*I and the Father are one.'

There's no way around it.

But you'll try again. And fail again.

[it's me]

Well you should of made your question more clear. You were talking about the Bible, not John 1:1. And of course I do. And I have done research on the subject. It is my conclusion that the translation of John 1:1 according to the Bible that the JW's use is the most accurate.

I originally asked you about John 1:1 when you invited people to ask you bible questions. Anyways, would you mind sharing your research on the subject, what sources did you use? did you analyze papyrus-66 or other manuscripts? Do you know what textual criticism is?

[Blake]

What's funny is I can usually get a feel for what will work. I thought, nay, it's been done too much......WRONG!!!!!!!

I need 41 pages to set my ...most page thread...record, so keep the bullshit flowing guys.

Attention whore

[it's me]

Attention whore

Indeed :lmao

[RD2191]

I originally asked you about John 1:1 when you invited people to ask you bible questions. Anyways, would you mind sharing your research on the subject, what sources did you use? did you analyze papyrus-66 or other manuscripts? Do you know what textual criticism is?
Yes, and then you asked why I though the Bible translation written by the JW's was the most accurate.
I haven't done much research on the subject. I got some information from various books written by the Watchtower and tract Society and Jehovah's Witnesses. I would have to look them up again seeing as I did that when I was 14-15. No I did not. Where do you get your direct translations from?

[RD2191]

right.



There's no way around it.

But you'll try again. And fail again.
No one noticed that you completely ignored my other questions. :lol

[RD2191]

Was the word "God" or "a god"?

"THAT question has to be considered when Bible translators handle the first verse of the Gospel of John. In the New World Translation, the verse is rendered: “In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.” (John 1:1 (http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/john/1/#v43001001)) Some other translations render the last part of the verse to convey the thought that the Word was “divine,” or something similar. (A New Translation of the Bible, by James Moffatt; The New English Bible) Many translations, however, render the last part of John 1:1 (http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/john/1/#v43001001): “And the Word was God.”—The Holy Bible—New International Version; The Jerusalem Bible.
Greek grammar and the context strongly indicate that theNew World Translation rendering is correct and that “the Word” should not be identified as the “God” referred to earlier in the verse. Nevertheless, the fact that the Greek language of the first century did not have an indefinite article (“a” or “an”) leaves the matter open to question in some minds. It is for this reason that a Bible translation in a language that was spoken in the earliest centuries of our Common Era is very interesting.
The language is the Sahidic dialect of Coptic. The Coptic language was spoken in Egypt in the centuries immediately following Jesus’ earthly ministry, and the Sahidic dialect was an early literary form of the language. Regarding the earliest Coptic translations of the Bible, The Anchor Bible Dictionary says: “Since the [Septuagint] and the [Christian Greek Scriptures] were being translated into Coptic during the 3d century C.E., the Coptic version is based on [Greek manuscripts] which are significantly older than the vast majority of extant witnesses.”
The Sahidic Coptic text is especially interesting for two reasons. First, as indicated above, it reflects an understanding of Scripture dating from before the fourth century, which was when the Trinity became official doctrine. Second, Coptic grammar is relatively close to English grammar in one important aspect. The earliest translations of the Christian Greek Scriptures were into Syriac, Latin, and Coptic. Syriac and Latin, like the Greek of those days, do not have an indefinite article. Coptic, however, does. Moreover, scholar Thomas O. Lambdin, in his work Introduction to Sahidic Coptic, says: “The use of the Coptic articles, both definite and indefinite, corresponds closely to the use of the articles in English.”
Hence, the Coptic translation supplies interesting evidence as to how John 1:1 (http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/john/1/#v43001001) would have been understood back then. What do we find? The Sahidic Coptic translation uses an indefinite article with the word “god” in the final part ofJohn 1:1 (http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/john/1/#v43001001). Thus, when rendered into modern English, the translation reads: “And the Word was a god.” Evidently, those ancient translators realized that John’s words recorded at John 1:1 (http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/john/1/#v43001001) did not mean that Jesus was to be identified as Almighty God. The Word was a god, not Almighty God."

[RD2191]

The text of John 1:1 has a sordid past and a myriad of interpretations. With the Greek alone, we can create empathic, orthodox, creed-like statements, or we can commit pure and unadulterated heresy. From the point of view of early church history, heresy develops when a misunderstanding arises concerning Greek articles, the predicate nominative, and grammatical word order. The early church heresy of Sabellianism understood John 1:1c to read, "and the Word was the God." The early church heresy of Arianism understood it to read, "and the word was a God."

— David A. Reed

[RD2191]

Many interpretations, so I'm not going to sit here and say that I have vast knowledge on Greek or original translations. As I said before, I accept that the JW's teach the truth so it is by faith that I accept their translation to be the most accurate. It is very interesting though and I am now doing a bit of research online.

[RD2191]

Is Jesus God?




MANY people view the Trinity as “the central doctrine of the Christian religion.” According to this teaching, the Father, Son, and holy spirit are three persons in one God. Cardinal John O’Connor stated about the Trinity: “We know that it is a very profound mystery, which we don’t begin to understand.” Why is the Trinity so difficult to understand?
The Illustrated Bible Dictionary gives one reason. Speaking of the Trinity, this publication admits: “It is not a biblical doctrine in the sense that any formulation of it can be found in the Bible.” Because the Trinity is “not a biblical doctrine,” Trinitarians have been desperately looking for Bible texts—even twisting them—to find support for their teaching.


A Text That Teaches the Trinity?One example of a Bible verse that is often misused is John 1:1 (http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/john/1/#v43001001). In the King James Version, that verse reads: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God [Greek, ton the·on′], and the Word was God [the·os′].” This verse contains two forms of the Greek noun the·os′ (god). The first is preceded by ton (the), a form of the Greek definite article, and in this case the word the·on′ refers to Almighty God. In the second instance, however, the·os′ has no definite article. Was the article mistakenly left out?
Why is the Trinity doctrine so difficult to understand?

The Gospel of John was written in Koine, or common Greek, which has specific rules regarding the use of the definite article. Bible scholar A. T. Robertson recognizes that if both subject and predicate have articles, “both are definite, treated as identical, one and the same, and interchangeable.” Robertson considers as an exampleMatthew 13:38 (http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/matthew/13/#v40013038), which reads: “The field [Greek, ho a·gros′] is the world [Greek, ho ko′smos].” The grammar enables us to understand that the world is also the field.
What, though, if the subject has a definite article but the predicate does not, as in John 1:1 (http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/john/1/#v43001001)? Citing that verse as an example, scholar James Allen Hewett emphasizes: “In such a construction the subject and predicate are not the same, equal, identical, or anything of the sort.”
To illustrate, Hewett uses 1 John 1:5 (http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/1-john/1/#v62001005), which says: “God is light.” In Greek, “God” is ho the·os′ and therefore has a definite article. But phos for “light” is not preceded by any article. Hewett points out: “One can always . . . say of God He is characterized by light; one cannot always say of light that it is God.” Similar examples are found at John 4:24 (http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/john/4/#v43004024), “God is a Spirit,” and at 1 John 4:16 (http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/1-john/4/#v62004016), “God is love.” In both of these verses, the subjects have definite articles but the predicates, “Spirit” and “love,” do not. So the subjects and predicates are not interchangeable. These verses cannot mean that “Spirit is God” or “love is God.”


Identity of “the Word”?Many Greek scholars and Bible translators acknowledge that John 1:1 (http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/john/1/#v43001001) highlights, not the identity, but a quality of “the Word.” Says Bible translator William Barclay: “Because [the apostle John] has no definite article in front of theos it becomes a description . . . John is not here identifying the Word with God. To put it very simply, he does not say that Jesus was God.” Scholar Jason David BeDuhn likewise says: “In Greek, if you leave off the article from theos in a sentence like the one in John 1:1c (http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/john/1/#v43001001), then your readers will assume you mean ‘a god.’ . . . Its absence makes theosquite different than the definite ho theos, as different as ‘a god’ is from ‘God’ in English.” BeDuhn adds: “In John 1:1 (http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/john/1/#v43001001), the Word is not the one-and-only God, but is a god, or divine being.” Or to put it in the words of Joseph Henry Thayer, a scholar who worked on the American Standard Version: “The Logos [or, Word] was divine, not the divine Being himself.”
Jesus made a clear distinction between him and his Father

Does the identity of God have to be “a very profound mystery”? It did not seem so to Jesus. In his prayer to his Father, Jesus made a clear distinction between him and his Father when he said: “This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ.” (John 17:3 (http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/john/17/#v43017003)) If we believe Jesus and understand the plain teaching of the Bible, we will respect him as the divine Son of God that he is. We will also worship Jehovah as “the only true God.”

[it's me]

Yes, and then you asked why I though the Bible translation written by the JW's was the most accurate.
I haven't done much research on the subject. I got some information from various books written by the Watchtower and tract Society and Jehovah's Witnesses. I would have to look them up again seeing as I did that when I was 14-15. No I did not. Where do you get your direct translations from?

It explains a lot..... bottom line, we all fuck around here, but seriously if you really care or are curious about the origins of the bible and religion go study the thing. My opinion, not trying to be offensive here... it is in fact my sincere opinion, you believe tons of bullshit, but if you're happy and stay away from the dangerous crap like no blood transfusion and such, don't even bother, live your life as you want. The search for the truth is a long journey, and when you think you are reaching the bottom you realize you're just touching the surface. I even have (had) ministry license for a christian denomination I'm ain't disclosing here. never satisfied got into textual biblical criticism, history of religion and many other things. Humans are capable of believing tons of bullshit.

[RD2191]

It explains a lot..... bottom line, we all fuck around here, but seriously if you really care or are curious about the origins of the bible and religion go study the thing. My opinion, not trying to be offensive here... it is in fact my sincere opinion, you believe tons of bullshit, but if you're happy and stay away from the dangerous crap like no blood transfusion and such, don't even bother, live your life as you want. The search for the truth is a long journey, and when you think you are reaching the bottom you realize you're just touching the surface. I even have (had) ministry license for a christian denomination I'm ain't disclosing here. never satisfied got into textual biblical criticism, history of religion and many other things. Humans are capable of believing tons of bullshit.
And I agree. Which is why I have always stated that I am learning new things every day. I have done prior research on different translations before but never deep or extensive. As I said, I accept their translation by faith. Your questions bring up even more interesting questions however, so I will be doing more research on the subject.

[RD2191]

I would also like to add that I am not yet a JW but one day would like to be. Just in case anyone was wondering why I curse/call people faggots etc etc. I have a long way to go before I can feel comfortable and truthful calling myself a Christian.

[it's me]

I would also like to add that I am not yet a JW but one day would like to be. Just in case anyone was wondering why I curse/call people faggots etc etc. I have a long way to go before I can feel comfortable and truthful calling myself a Christian.

Just FYI.... JW are not christians similar to how mormons are not exactly christians. All believe some bullshit and have the bible as one or only holly book, but have different and many times opposite doctrines.

[Avante]

The first giraffe?

[mouse]

39 pages and still no proof of Evolution

[Avante]

39 pages and still no proof of Evolution

There will never be any "stonecold absolute" proof of evolution.

[silverblk mystix]

I would also like to add that I am not yet a JW but one day would like to be. Just in case anyone was wondering why I curse/call people faggots etc etc. I have a long way to go before I can feel comfortable and truthful calling myself a Christian.


...but why?

Why aspire to any label?

If you are a true person with true and decent actions - why not just accept this as enough?

[Blake]

No one noticed that you completely ignored my other questions. :lol

They were dumb questions, tbh.

1. If Jesus Christ walks up on the street and shoots my daughter, I'm not the one going to jail.

2. If I murder someone, it's not both me and my daughter that get the death penalty. Just me.

It's a very simple concept.

[Blake]

...but why?

Why aspire to any label?

If you are a true person with true and decent actions - why not just accept this as enough?

Says the voyeur that spits out labels in almost every post.

[Blake]

Was the word "God" or "a god"?

"THAT question has to be considered when Bible translators handle the first verse of the Gospel of John. In the New World Translation, the verse is rendered: “In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.” (John 1:1 (http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/john/1/#v43001001)) Some other translations render the last part of the verse to convey the thought that the Word was “divine,” or something similar. (A New Translation of the Bible, by James Moffatt; The New English Bible) Many translations, however, render the last part of John 1:1 (http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/john/1/#v43001001): “And the Word was God.”—The Holy Bible—New International Version; The Jerusalem Bible.
Greek grammar and the context strongly indicate that theNew World Translation rendering is correct and that “the Word” should not be identified as the “God” referred to earlier in the verse. Nevertheless, the fact that the Greek language of the first century did not have an indefinite article (“a” or “an”) leaves the matter open to question in some minds. It is for this reason that a Bible translation in a language that was spoken in the earliest centuries of our Common Era is very interesting.
The language is the Sahidic dialect of Coptic. The Coptic language was spoken in Egypt in the centuries immediately following Jesus’ earthly ministry, and the Sahidic dialect was an early literary form of the language. Regarding the earliest Coptic translations of the Bible, The Anchor Bible Dictionary says: “Since the [Septuagint] and the [Christian Greek Scriptures] were being translated into Coptic during the 3d century C.E., the Coptic version is based on [Greek manuscripts] which are significantly older than the vast majority of extant witnesses.”
The Sahidic Coptic text is especially interesting for two reasons. First, as indicated above, it reflects an understanding of Scripture dating from before the fourth century, which was when the Trinity became official doctrine. Second, Coptic grammar is relatively close to English grammar in one important aspect. The earliest translations of the Christian Greek Scriptures were into Syriac, Latin, and Coptic. Syriac and Latin, like the Greek of those days, do not have an indefinite article. Coptic, however, does. Moreover, scholar Thomas O. Lambdin, in his work Introduction to Sahidic Coptic, says: “The use of the Coptic articles, both definite and indefinite, corresponds closely to the use of the articles in English.”
Hence, the Coptic translation supplies interesting evidence as to how John 1:1 (http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/john/1/#v43001001) would have been understood back then. What do we find? The Sahidic Coptic translation uses an indefinite article with the word “god” in the final part ofJohn 1:1 (http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/john/1/#v43001001). Thus, when rendered into modern English, the translation reads: “And the Word was a god.” Evidently, those ancient translators realized that John’s words recorded at John 1:1 (http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/john/1/#v43001001) did not mean that Jesus was to be identified as Almighty God. The Word was a god, not Almighty God."

You'd think a smart loving God would clear that all up.

[silverblk mystix]

Says the voyeur that spits out labels in almost every post after some idiot does it to him first



fify


In the interest of accuracy

[silverblk mystix]

You'd think a smart loving God would clear that all up.


You'd think a semi-intelligent person would understand that the problem is not in this "god" - nor in the message - but in himself and his wrong interpretations.

...but they never think this...

[xmas1997]

You'd think a semi-intelligent person would understand that the problem is not in this "god" - nor in the message - but in himself and his wrong interpretations.

...but they never think this...

That is probably because it is the most obvious reason.

We all tend to overlook or miss that which is the most obvious.

We can't see the forest for the trees.

[xmas1997]

Scientists discover that atheists might not exist, and that’s not a joke
By Nury Vittachi | July 6th 2014 08:03 PM

Metaphysical thought processes are more deeply wired than hitherto suspected

WHILE MILITANT ATHEISTS like Richard Dawkins may be convinced God doesn’t exist, God, if he is around, may be amused to find that atheists might not exist.

Cognitive scientists are becoming increasingly aware that a metaphysical outlook may be so deeply ingrained in human thought processes that it cannot be expunged.

While this idea may seem outlandish—after all, it seems easy to decide not to believe in God—evidence from several disciplines indicates that what you actually believe is not a decision you make for yourself. Your fundamental beliefs are decided by much deeper levels of consciousness, and some may well be more or less set in stone.

This line of thought has led to some scientists claiming that “atheism is psychologically impossible because of the way humans think,” says Graham Lawton, an avowed atheist himself, writing in the New Scientist. “They point to studies showing, for example, that even people who claim to be committed atheists tacitly hold religious beliefs, such as the existence of an immortal soul.”

This shouldn’t come as a surprise, since we are born believers, not atheists, scientists say. Humans are pattern-seekers from birth, with a belief in karma, or cosmic justice, as our default setting. “A slew of cognitive traits predisposes us to faith,” writes Pascal Boyer in Nature, the science journal, adding that people “are only aware of some of their religious ideas”.

http://www.science20.com/writer_on_the_edge/blog/scientists_discover_that_atheists_might_not_exist_ and_thats_not_a_joke-139982
For the whole article.

[xmas1997]

How Christianity Created Science
(and Why Atheism Wouldn’t Have)

http://www.str.org/blog/how-christianity-created-science-and-why-atheism-wouldn%E2%80%99t-have#.U_d37KONq71

It takes some imagination to grasp how radically different ancient worldviews were from our Western perspective. Much of what we now take for granted as being common sense was not actually common throughout human history. Rather, our particular worldview was built over time on a foundation of unique ideas, and Rodney Stark, author of How the West Won, argued in a recent radio interview that it’s the Western view of God that made the biggest difference for us:

It’s pretty obvious…that the Judeo-Christian concept of God held the key to the rise of the West, and that is the belief in a rational Creator God, because that had the implication, then, that the creation was itself rational—that is to say, it obeys rules. The rules are reasonable, rational. Consequently, since humans have the ability to reason, it might be possible to discover the rules of the creation. And that was the whole basis of science.

Science only happened in the West. And the reason it happened [is] because only in the West was science plausible. Elsewhere, it was thought that the universe was eternal, that it was mystical, that it was beyond understanding and human comprehension. We could meditate on it, but we couldn’t try to discover the rules that made it work.

People like Newton believed that there were rules to be discovered, and the marvelous thing, of course, is there were rules that could be discovered.

So in one sense, the greatest scientific theory of all is that the universe is rational. And it’s been tested again and again, as people have discovered these rational rules by which everything works. That’s the key to the whole rise of the West.

Very often, atheists will lump all ancient religions together, imagining that any belief in the supernatural necessarily conjures up a chaotic, unpredictable universe in the minds of the believers. But it was actually the opposite with Christianity. It was only a belief in the biblical God that rescued people from a chaotic-universe mindset.

Atheists need to use their imaginations to strip away what our culture has unreflectively absorbed from Christianity and think about how they would see the world if Christianity had never existed.

Imagine if at the beginning of human history every human being had a naturalistic understanding of the universe—everything was thought to have come together randomly, as atoms happened to bump into atoms, with no reason for its existence. No design, no purpose to the way the universe developed. That foundational idea would have invoked not the view of today’s naturalist scientist (whose view grew out of our culture’s ancient Christian belief in an ordered universe), but a worldview every bit as chaotic as any that rested on capricious gods. Who, in a culture developing under a belief in a meaningless, random universe where something might at any moment come out of nothing, would have thought to search for rational, predictable natural laws?

An atheistic understanding of the universe does not naturally lead to the pursuit of science, nor does a supernatural view automatically lead there. Only in a culture with a belief in a rational, orderly, sovereign Creator—where it’s believed a reasonable mind is behind things—would science be likely to appear. And a look at world history backs up that conclusion.

Now let’s take this one step further: No worldview other than one with a Creator would likely have brought people to science, and yet it turns out that science is an accurate way of discovering truth about our world—that is, the scientific laws predicted by a worldview with a biblical concept of God, and unexpected in any other worldview, actually exist.

Why is that?

[Blake]

fify


In the interest of accuracy

Doesn't matter who does it first.

You hate labels but you use them any way.

[RD2191]

They were dumb questions, tbh.

1. If Jesus Christ walks up on the street and shoots my daughter, I'm not the one going to jail.

2. If I murder someone, it's not both me and my daughter that get the death penalty. Just me.

It's a very simple concept.
ROFL, you don't even know what you're talking about. Are you being ignorant on purpose? Who is responsible for your daughter? Who works so she can have clothes? Who provides her shelter? Who provides her transportation? Who decides what doctor she goes to? Who chooses which party she can attend? Who does she come to when something is wrong? Who makes important life decisions for her assuming she is still a child? Thank you. A parent is responsible for their child. Case closed.

[spurraider21]

am i considered an atheist? because if so i debunked xmas' article

[Blake]

You'd think a semi-intelligent person would understand that the problem is not in this "god" - nor in the message - but in himself and his wrong interpretations.

...but they never think this...

The fully intelligent person understands the flaw is in the god.

[Blake]

ROFL, you don't even know what you're talking about. Are you being ignorant on purpose? Who is responsible for your daughter? Who works so she can have clothes? Who provides her shelter? Who provides her transportation? Who decides what doctor she goes to? Who chooses which party she can attend? Who does she come to when something is wrong? Who makes important life decisions for her assuming she is still a child? Thank you. A parent is responsible for their child. Case closed.

Who killed the children in the flood?

A. Parent
B. God

only you are stupid enough to answer A.

It's a ridiculously simple concept.

God's a murderer. Period.

[Blake]

am i considered an atheist? because if so i debunked xmas' article

It was tldr, but it had the look of an easily debunkable article

[RD2191]

Who killed the children in the flood?

A. Parent
B. God

only you are stupid enough to answer A.

It's a ridiculously simple concept.

God's a murderer. Period.
Who is responsible for their child? It's a ridiculously simple concept. Unless your daughter bosses you around which tbh I could def see happening.

[spurraider21]

It was tldr, but it had the look of an easily debunkable article
again, it depends on how one defines me views. i don't believe in a god at all. i'm also not going to make the claim that it doesn't exist.

[silverblk mystix]

The fully intelligent person understands the flaw is in the god.



The fully intelligent person understands that the word "god" has nothing at all to do with what a "real" god would be and also understands that it (whatever the real god is) is a mystery incomprehensible to the human mind.

[silverblk mystix]

Who is responsible for their child? It's a ridiculously simple concept. Unless your daughter bosses you around which tbh I could def see happening.


His child said;

"daddy, why are we sitting here eating Count Chocula while mommy is screaming in the next room?"



:lmao:lmao

[RD2191]

His child said;

"daddy, why are we sitting here eating Count Chocula while mommy is screaming in the next room?"



:lmao:lmao
:lmao

[silverblk mystix]

Doesn't matter who does it first.

You hate labels but you use them any way.


It absolutely matters who does it first -

you don't see me disrespecting Xmas or Rob do you?


Because they are respectable posters.

You are a little pussy troll in hiding who will never dare show up to a gtg because you know you would get your pussy ass smoked if you disrespected ANYONE there.

Pussy.

[silverblk mystix]

:lmao


:rollin:rollin

[Avante]

Being this close to a NEW RECORD I need ClipperNation, Chump and Blake. yep...my posse, to bring it on home. Nothing gurantees two more pages like....DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Blake]

Pussy.

None of that has anything to do with how you hate labels but use them any way.

[mouse]

His child said;
"daddy, why are we sitting here eating Count Cuckcula while mommy is screaming in the next room?"

:lmao:lmao

[Blake]

Who is responsible for their child? It's a ridiculously simple concept. Unless your daughter bosses you around which tbh I could def see happening.

based on your logic, God is the worst father ever

[xmas1997]

It was tldr, but it had the look of an easily debunkable article


Two scientific articles.

I guess you don't believe in science after all then.

Denies God, and now denies science. Then denies matrimony and women!

What is left, politicians, gay politicians, failed husbands, gay failed husbands?

Case closed.

:lol

[xmas1997]

am i considered an atheist? because if so i debunked xmas' article

What do you consider yourself?

What exactly are your beliefs?

No disrespect intended.

[silverblk mystix]

^ cuckula ^



:lmao:lmao:lmao

[Blake]

Two scientific articles.

I guess you don't believe in science after all then.

Denies God, and now denies science. Then denies matrimony and women!

What is left, politicians, gay politicians, failed husbands, gay failed husbands?

Case closed.

:lol

I don't like reading every bit of spam you throw out.

Sorry.

[Blake]

^ cuckula ^



:lmao:lmao:lmao

more labels

smh

[xmas1997]

I don't like reading every bit of spam you throw out.

Sorry.

First you hate articles that illumine you to God.

And now you hate articles that are scientific.

You are a hateful little cuss, aren't you?

:lmao

[Blake]

First you hate articles that illumine you to God.

And now you hate articles that are scientific.

You are a hateful little cuss, aren't you?

:lmao

No, I don't like reading spam that is irrelevant to the conversation.

you apparently don't know how to pick out relevant parts.

[TeyshaBlue]

How Christianity Created Science
(and Why Atheism Wouldn’t Have)

http://www.str.org/blog/how-christia...e#.U_Z6DqONq70


Dead link. I would much prefer to read the whole article rather than an excerpt.
However ever, this is somewhat telling from the dead page template:
"Equipping Christian Ambassadors with Knowledge, Wisdom, and Character"

[leemajors]

Dead link. I would much prefer to read the whole article rather than an excerpt.
However ever, this is somewhat telling from the dead page template:
"Equipping Christian Ambassadors with Knowledge, Wisdom, and Character"

you might need to get the STR mobile app then.

[RandomGuy]

Wrong, and I have before, you simply choose to ignore them.

Not really.

To explain away the evil barbarity of the old testament, you ignored the multiple places in the new testament where it was pretty clear about keeping the old testament, and decided that you wanted to only believe in the part that made you feel all warm and fuzzy.

Not only that, you have, in your mind, blamed the victims of the violence for the violence.

The bible is, in essence, part chronicle and lionization of bronze age barbarism, and part mythology.

You have, for your reasons, chosen to ignore the bad, not unlike a child hiding under the covers.

Rob, I understand.

Death is scary. No one like to think about their own death.

It is nice to believe that your death isn't really the end of your existence, and you aren't alone in hoping that it isn't.

Humans have been making up fairy tales about what happens "after" since there have been humans.

We have progressed, however, far enough in our understanding of the universe to realize that, no, there isn't anything after that. The fairy tales, while comforting, are false.

That is why you ignore all the problems in the bible. You want so desperately for those fairy tales to be true, because it helps make something terrifying less so.

I don't think I would care so much about your belief in the after death fantasy, if it didn't make you abdicate your ability to apply reason and knowledge to other things.

You are right about beliefs having consequences, though. What you are blind to is that it is *your* beliefs that are leading you to bad decisions and a false picture of our reality.

Your desire for a happily ever after forces you to think that "evolution is a lie" despite the overwhelming amount of evidence showing it is, a fact, and about as true as anything we have discovered about our universe.

That is where you and I will butt heads. Keep your fairy tales, but don't let that blind you to reality.

[RandomGuy]

I never once said that. Never. Keep making shit up though.

My apologies then. I try very hard not to misrepresent anyone's views. That is dishonest.

If I get it wrong, then please say so, and I will be happy to take anything back.

You did not say all the bible prophecies were all fulfilled.

You have, though, stated that some bible prophecies have (which is completely wrong), if my memory is correct. I don't feel like finding the exact quote, but can if you want.

[RandomGuy]

Maybe it isn't being a dick - maybe you just refuse to see what is there.


You are like the little fish in the ocean that asks, "excuse me - can you tell me where I might find the ocean?"


God is all around you and you blindly refuse to open your eyes and see and even stupidly ask, "why doesn't "IT" reveal itself to me?"

Seems appropriately childish, as most attempts to poof "god" into existence tend to be.

Define "God". I bet you can't.

[RandomGuy]

So with all due respect RG, go fuck yourself and jerk off to Carl Sagan's Cosmos.

You and your evil sick bible God can go fuck yourselves.

It takes a special kind of moral reprobate to make excuses for the mass slaughter of infants and children.

Whatever you say, I will always be morally superior to your Bible God. I would never do that, and would never make excuses for someone who did.

All the tapdancing, childish fits, and mental gymnastics will not change that.

At some level that bugs the shit out of you, and that is what I find funny.

Of course for all your fucktarded excuses about blaming the victim, you missed this one:


29 And it came to pass, that at midnight the Lord smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle.

Of course, your dumb ass would say "but, but but t was really Pharoh's fault, he MADE God do it.

To which, I would say BULLSHIT MOTHERFUCKER.


13 And the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart, that he hearkened not unto them; as the Lord had said.

So basically, the bloodthirsty petty fuck you worship, caused Pharoh to say no, and then murdered tens of thousand of infants, when the Lord could have just as easily softened Pharohs heart. Your God wanted to kill babies, and he did.

And you make excuses for it, making you just as bad, if not worse.

I have little doubt that if Jesus asked you to hack kids to death you would, just so you could be resurrected.

Coward.

[SnakeBoy]

You and your evil sick bible God can go fuck yourselves.

It takes a special kind of moral reprobate to make excuses for the mass slaughter of infants and children.

Whatever you say, I will always be morally superior to your Bible God. I would never do that, and would never make excuses for someone who did.

All the tapdancing, childish fits, and mental gymnastics will not change that.

At some level that bugs the shit out of you, and that is what I find funny.

Of course for all your fucktarded excuses about blaming the victim, you missed this one:



Of course, your dumb ass would say "but, but but t was really Pharoh's fault, he MADE God do it.

To which, I would say BULLSHIT MOTHERFUCKER.



So basically, the bloodthirsty petty fuck you worship, caused Pharoh to say no, and then murdered tens of thousand of infants, when the Lord could have just as easily softened Pharohs heart. Your God wanted to kill babies, and he did.

And you make excuses for it, making you just as bad, if not worse.

I have little doubt that if Jesus asked you to hack kids to death you would, just so you could be resurrected.

Coward.

Given your propensity for angry outbursts on this forum, I doubt you're the wonderful human being you claim to be.

[Blake]

Given your propensity for angry outbursts on this forum, I doubt you're the wonderful human being you claim to be.

and I bet the "believers" in this thread are just swell humans as well

[SnakeBoy]

and I bet the "believers" in this thread are just swell humans as well

probably not, we all seem to be pretty flawed.

[Blake]

probably not, we all seem to be pretty flawed.

Pretty much.

So why single out RG? I've never seen him claim to be wonderful.

I've seen xmas claim to be a decent person though. I've also seen very angry posts from him.

[xmas1997]

Dead link. I would much prefer to read the whole article rather than an excerpt.
However ever, this is somewhat telling from the dead page template:
"Equipping Christian Ambassadors with Knowledge, Wisdom, and Character"

I think I fixed both links for you in my posts, but just in case here they are again.

http://www.science20.com/writer_on_the_edge/blog/scientists_discover_that_atheists_might_not_exist_ and_thats_not_a_joke-139982

http://www.str.org/blog/how-christianity-created-science-and-why-atheism-wouldn%E2%80%99t-have#.U_d37KONq71

[SnakeBoy]

Pretty much.

So why single out RG? I've never seen him claim to be wonderful.

I've seen xmas claim to be a decent person though. I've also seen very angry posts from him.

xmas never directed an angry outburst at me.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKGPvul8FXc

[TeyshaBlue]

The article seems to focus on poor suppositions. Hank writes about an"affinity for the unknown", which humans seem to possess, yet conflates this with a belief in supernatural without one shred of work behind this.
That the article breaks down into metaphysics absolutely writes it off as a source of anything approaching instrumental rationality. When we venture into the world of epistemological metaphysics, then the rational debate is over as the framework cannot support instrumental rationality.
To perform a touchdown dance upon anything drawn from epistemological rationality is ludicrous for a multitude of reasons. But in the world of methaphysics, reasons are irrelative.

[RandomGuy]

There will never be any "stonecold absolute" proof of evolution.

That would be easier to believe, if you had not ignored all the posts I gave you concerning the rats.

You, like so many others, really don't care what is true.

That much is obvious.

[RandomGuy]

Pretty much.

So why single out RG? I've never seen him claim to be wonderful.

I've seen xmas claim to be a decent person though. I've also seen very angry posts from him.

I would claim to be a generally decent human being. I try. Not perfect, by any stretch, but I do take ethics fairly seriously.

I would also claim to be morally superior to bible God, but that isn't a very high bar to clear.

I will also freely admit that I do get pissed occasionally. Lying tends to do that.

So many lie when it comes to debates like this, it is almost second nature so much that they don't even notice when they are doing it.

(edit-additional thought)
Snakeboy's "you are pretending this question doesn't exist" schtick falls into that category.

He asked a question, then when he didn't get the answer he wanted, lied about not getting an answer at all.

That is the kind of dishonesty I am talking about. Once someone is not only willing to ignore what you say, but lie to your face about what you said, that is pretty much time to revoke their "attention from you" card.

[SnakeBoy]

I would claim to be a generally decent human being. I try. Not perfect, by any stretch, but I do take ethics fairly seriously.

I would also claim to be morally superior to bible God, but that isn't a very high bar to clear.

I will also freely admit that I do get pissed occasionally. Lying tends to do that.

So many lie when it comes to debates like this, it is almost second nature so much that they don't even notice when they are doing it.



So you point out all the occasions that religion has dictated ethics and reacted angrily to anyone violates those ethics yet you've set your own rigid ethics and react angrily to anyone who violates those ethics in your eyes. Pot meet kettle.



(edit-additional thought)
Snakeboy's "you are pretending this question doesn't exist" schtick falls into that category.

He asked a question, then when he didn't get the answer he wanted, lied about not getting an answer at all.

That is the kind of dishonesty I am talking about. Once someone is not only willing to ignore what you say, but lie to your face about what you said, that is pretty much time to revoke their "attention from you" card.

What question do you think I was asking you?

[xmas1997]

You and your evil sick bible God can go fuck yourselves.
It takes a special kind of moral reprobate to make excuses for the mass slaughter of infants and children.
Whatever you say, I will always be morally superior to your Bible God. I would never do that, and would never make excuses for someone who did.
All the tapdancing, childish fits, and mental gymnastics will not change that.
At some level that bugs the shit out of you, and that is what I find funny.
Of course for all your fucktarded excuses about blaming the victim, you missed this one:
Of course, your dumb ass would say "but, but but t was really Pharoh's fault, he MADE God do it.
To which, I would say BULLSHIT MOTHERFUCKER.
So basically, the bloodthirsty petty fuck you worship, caused Pharoh to say no, and then murdered tens of thousand of infants, when the Lord could have just as easily softened Pharohs heart. Your God wanted to kill babies, and he did.
And you make excuses for it, making you just as bad, if not worse.
I have little doubt that if Jesus asked you to hack kids to death you would, just so you could be resurrected.
Coward.

Aren't you being a bit harsh?
And being judgmental concerning all of Christianity?
Plus you are taking only a partial Biblical worldview and applying it to all of Christianity as if we all believe this way.
I can assure you that most of Christianity does not take the bible LITERALLY, which is what you are doing in your critiques.
From what I have read in the past of some of your beliefs and of your wife's beliefs, it is hard to know which side of the fence you are on.
I thought you were more intelligent than that and could differentiate the differences of the denominations.
The VAST majority of Christianity does not interpret the bible literally and the bible isn't even dogma to them, but rather various doctrines particular to certain sects.
And as you said, there are many books of God.
What you are doing is reacting like the typical unhappy hostile unreasonable atheists here on ST.

[xmas1997]

xmas never directed an angry outburst at me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKGPvul8FXc

Blake likes to lie a lot and over exaggerate in order to appease his fragile ego. To me, it is the epitome of stupidity to get over emotional on a sports message board, I did that already arguing with SBM about Pop and all it did was make me look and feel like a fool.
I learned my lesson quickly and never made it again.
I do get frustrated with certain posters and especially the trolls on here and tell them to go fuck off, but frustration is a hell of a lot different than being "angry" at them because I have nothing against them, they are what they are, trolls.
I give respect where respect is due and never attack or insult until I am insulted first, plus I always try to give the benefit of the doubt.
And you are a decent respectful poster IMHO with insights that I might not have and can learn from.


The article seems to focus on poor suppositions. Hank writes about an"affinity for the unknown", which humans seem to possess, yet conflates this with a belief in supernatural without one shred of work behind this.
That the article breaks down into metaphysics absolutely writes it off as a source of anything approaching instrumental rationality. When we venture into the world of epistemological metaphysics, then the rational debate is over as the framework cannot support instrumental rationality.
To perform a touchdown dance upon anything drawn from epistemological rationality is ludicrous for a multitude of reasons. But in the world of methaphysics, reasons are irrelative.

By the way, what I just wrote to snakeboy also applies to you.
I understand your criticism of the article, it is somewhat the same as mine.
I am glad you seem to have a working knowledge of metaphysics however, that helps.
I am glad I was finally able to share the article with you though because as we all know, there are kernels of truth in most everything.

[silverblk mystix]

Seems appropriately childish, as most attempts to poof "god" into existence tend to be.

Define "God". I bet you can't.


Correct. I cannot.

No one else can either.


Yet people argue to the death on something that no one can define.


Sounds like lunacy doesn't it?


Welcome to the lunatic world - run by lunatics - as I have stated since day 1.

[RD2191]

I'm not reading any of your garbage. When you can from your own opinion on the Bible without getting your info/beliefs from evilbible.com then I will discuss the Bible with you.

[xmas1997]

Correct. I cannot.
No one else can either.
Yet people argue to the death on something that no one can define.
Sounds like lunacy doesn't it?
Welcome to the lunatic world - run by lunatics - as I have stated since day 1.


I used to report on here, although blake will spin his usual lie that I am complaining, that this site is a microcosmic sampling of the macrocosmic world, but I need to amend that description.
This site is an aberration of the outside world tbqh.
No other site that I know of on the internet, nor anything in the outside world, comes even close to having the inanity this one does.
I think that is part of it's appeal, it is one hell of an interesting and bizarre social aberration.
:lol

[RandomGuy]

Correct. I cannot.

No one else can either.


Yet people argue to the death on something that no one can define.


Sounds like lunacy doesn't it?


Welcome to the lunatic world - run by lunatics - as I have stated since day 1.

I don't need to argue anything. I make no claims about "God", other than to say I see no evidence for such a thing.

I will point out flaws in others reasoning though. That is fun.

[xmas1997]

I'm not reading any of your garbage. When you can from your own opinion on the Bible without getting your info/beliefs from evilbible.com then I will discuss the Bible with you.

Rob, you do realize that "discussing" the Bible is not their intention, don't you?

All they really want is an excuse to get all their years and years of frustrations with life out and attributing it to being the fault of God and or the Bible, when the real truth is that it is all of their own doing, and they need a scapegoat other than themselves.

:lol

[Blake]

I'm not reading any of your garbage. When you can from your own opinion on the Bible without getting your info/beliefs from evilbible.com then I will discuss the Bible with you.

It won't matter. You'll claim "wrong" regardless.

[debo]

It would be wonderful if atheist assholes go to hell, bible thumpers get buried in the ground and just rot, and all the genuinely good people who live their lives based on humane morals get whatever they want from an afterlife (or non afterlife).

[RandomGuy]

So you point out all the occasions that religion has dictated ethics and reacted angrily to anyone violates those ethics yet you've set your own rigid ethics and react angrily to anyone who violates those ethics in your eyes. Pot meet kettle.


LOL "rigid standard of ethics"

Is the mass slaughter of children evil?

It is an easy question to answer, for those with even the most basic standards of ethics.

[Blake]

Rob, you do realize that "discussing" the Bible is not their intention, don't you?

All they really want is an excuse to get all their years and years of frustrations with life out and attributing it to being that fault of God and the Bible, when the real truth is that it is all of their own doing, and they need a scapegoat other than themselves.

:lol

^ another lie

[Blake]

It would be wonderful if atheist assholes go to hell, bible thumpers get buried in the ground and just rot, and all the genuinely good people who live their lives based on humane morals get whatever they want from an afterlife (or non afterlife).

How does someone get what they want from a non-afterlife

[RandomGuy]

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH

More importantly, even if you don't want to have your nose rubbed in the dogshit, you should ask yourself:


"why should I have to lie so hard to defend my faith"?

[xmas1997]

^ another lie

^Case in point^.
Still can't get over what a predictable puppet you are and that you were fooled into posting your troll posts in threads designed just for you trolls to make classic fools of yourself.
:lmao

[debo]

How does someone get what they want from a non-afterlife

Perhaps an individual is fine with just being buried and not having their soul or conscience live on in an afterlife. So by not being subjected to one when they die, they are getting what they wanted.

[xmas1997]

It would be wonderful if atheist assholes go to hell, bible thumpers get buried in the ground and just rot, and all the genuinely good people who live their lives based on humane morals get whatever they want from an afterlife (or non afterlife).

Glad to read an objective but mildly ironic point of view for a change.


Perhaps an individual is fine with just being buried and not having their soul or conscience live on in an afterlife. So by not being subjected to one when they die, they are getting what they wanted.

Blake will love having the worms and maggots crawl all through him, probably fantasizes about it everyday.
:lmao

[RandomGuy]

What question do you think I was asking you?


I went back and re-read till I found it.

"Why do we exist"

Because the universe happened. It happened in such a way as to cause life to arise, as improbable things will do, given enough time and space.

As I noted before, you are attempting to fit in "God" into the gaps in our knowledge, i.e. the argument from ignorance.

What you are driving at, ultimately, is "what caused the universe".

To be honest: I don't know.

The problem with asserting "God caused it", is that it involves problems of infinite regression, and even more unsupported assertions.

Again, an argument from ignorance.

You have inserted your favorite fairy story, as humans have always done, into the gaps in what is known. e.g. "What causes the sun to rise?" "A magic man in a flaming chariot".

As for my "outburst":

GMAFB.

I realize you are probably from a generation of cell-phone text addled intellectual midgets who generally have problems stringing together coherent, correctly-spelled sentences, but I assure you, there are people out there who can, and do, communicate through writing.

Communication of multiple, or complex ideas requires something your lazy ass can't do.

I don't think you have put together a post with more than a few sentences the entire time you have been here.

No wonder you think anything that might challenge the attention span of a pre-schooler is an "outburst".

[Blake]

^Case in point^.
Still can't get over what a predictable puppet you are and that you were fooled into posting your troll posts in threads designed just for you trolls to make classic fools of yourself.
:lmao

^ another lie

[Blake]

Perhaps an individual is fine with just being buried and not having their soul or conscience live on in an afterlife. So by not being subjected to one when they die, they are getting what they wanted.

An afterlife where I get everything I want sounds great.

But I've accepted that our fate is probably an eternal dirt nap.

[Blake]

Blake will love having the worms and maggots crawl all through him, probably fantasizes about it everyday.
:lmao

You're doing all the fantasizing here, liar.

[SnakeBoy]

LOL "rigid standard of ethics"

Is the mass slaughter of children evil?

It is an easy question to answer, for those with even the most basic standards of ethics.

It's not if it is just a story in a book.

[SnakeBoy]

I went back and re-read till I found it.

"Why do we exist"

Because the universe happened. It happened in such a way as to cause life to arise, as improbable things will do, given enough time and space.

As I noted before, you are attempting to fit in "God" into the gaps in our knowledge, i.e. the argument from ignorance.

What you are driving at, ultimately, is "what caused the universe".

To be honest: I don't know.

The problem with asserting "God caused it", is that it involves problems of infinite regression, and even more unsupported assertions.

Again, an argument from ignorance.

You have inserted your favorite fairy story, as humans have always done, into the gaps in what is known. e.g. "What causes the sun to rise?" "A magic man in a flaming chariot".

As for my "outburst":

GMAFB.

I realize you are probably from a generation of cell-phone text addled intellectual midgets who generally have problems stringing together coherent, correctly-spelled sentences, but I assure you, there are people out there who can, and do, communicate through writing.

Communication of multiple, or complex ideas requires something your lazy ass can't do.

I don't think you have put together a post with more than a few sentences the entire time you have been here.

No wonder you think anything that might challenge the attention span of a pre-schooler is an "outburst".

I'm 47 and your still salty. I never asked you why do we exist.

[RandomGuy]

It's not if it is just a story in a book.

I didn't specify whether it was a story in a book or not.

In principle, is it evil to conduct a mass slaughter of children and infants?

Yes or no. Easy. Two or three letters, and a half a second of moral calculus.

[SnakeBoy]

I didn't specify whether it was a story in a book or not.

In principle, is it evil to conduct a mass slaughter of children and infants?

Yes or no. Easy. Two or three letters, and a half a second of moral calculus.

Yes I think it is evil to mass slaughter children and infants.

[RD2191]

Rob, you do realize that "discussing" the Bible is not their intention, don't you?

All they really want is an excuse to get all their years and years of frustrations with life out and attributing it to being the fault of God and or the Bible, when the real truth is that it is all of their own doing, and they need a scapegoat other than themselves.

:lol
Very well put and I would have to agree. At least when I read about evoltion I look at biased/non biased sites for info. Some from PBS/UC Berkeley and sites like that. Other times I do look at more non mainstream sites but they have valuable information. evilbible.com is now being passed off as a legit site. :lol

[RandomGuy]

I'm 47 and your still salty. I never asked you why do we exist.

What about my salty? :lmao

Ok, you fooled me then. You aren't of the generation of text-addled youth that can't put together more than one or two coherent, correctly spelled sentences.

You just communicate like them.

I stand corrected.

[RandomGuy]

Yes I think it is evil to mass slaughter children and infants.

Thank you. An honest, easy answer, to what should be an easy question.

[RD2191]

It won't matter. You'll claim "wrong" regardless.
Not really, but unless he gets his information from the Bible himself and can post scriptures of his own knowledge I won't take him seriously. Many scriptures can be taken out of context as "proof" that God is evil or contradictory but that is simply not true.

[RD2191]

God never murdered children, their parents were responsible for their deaths. Very easy concept to understand.

[RD2191]

Very simple question, Is a parent responsible for their children? Yes. When they no longer are they are considered adults and can make their own choices. Simple.

[RandomGuy]

I'm 47 and your still salty. I never asked you why do we exist.


So you are disregarding the question of why. I'm fine with that.

Blake is doing the same thing but he doesn't want anyone to point it out.

You lumped me in as "pretending" the question doesn't exist, when I attempted in good faith to answer the question, and you didn't get the answer you wanted.

Which is, as noted, a lie.

[RandomGuy]

God never murdered children, their parents were responsible for their deaths. Very easy concept to understand.


29 And it came to pass, that at midnight the Lord smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle.

Bullshit motherfucker.

[RD2191]

Bullshit motherfucker.
Umm, yeah. Their parents had the Israelites captive. DERP DERP DERP HERP

[RandomGuy]

Very simple question, Is a parent responsible for their children? Yes. When they no longer are they are considered adults and can make their own choices. Simple.

So, if I point a gun at a kid, and ask the parent, "give me all your money or I will shoot your child", and they choose not to give me their money, the parent gets prosecuted for murder if I shoot them?

What a fucking joke.

Are you even reading what you type, dipshit?

[RD2191]

:lolFucking tard, seriously.

[RD2191]

So, if I point a gun at a kid, and ask the parent, "give me all your money or I will shoot your child", and they choose not to give me their money, the parent gets prosecuted for murder?

What a fucking joke.

Are you even reading what you type, dipshit?
Are you responsible for your children? Very simple yes or no question.

[RD2191]

ROFL, you don't even know what you're talking about. Are you being ignorant on purpose? Who is responsible for your daughter? Who works so she can have clothes? Who provides her shelter? Who provides her transportation? Who decides what doctor she goes to? Who chooses which party she can attend? Who does she come to when something is wrong? Who makes important life decisions for her assuming she is still a child? Thank you. A parent is responsible for their child. Case closed.
:wakeup

[RandomGuy]

Umm, yeah. Their parents had the Israelites captive. DERP DERP DERP HERP


More excuses.

If the being you want so hard to believe in was worth worshipping, you wouldn't have to lie so hard.

Why does your faith require you to be so dishonest?

[RD2191]

:sleep

[RandomGuy]

Are you responsible for your children? Very simple yes or no question.

Yes.

See how easy that is?

[xmas1997]

^ another lie


You're doing all the fantasizing here, liar.

Wow, three lies in a row! You're OUT!

Now tell another lie about me, that is all you do, all you ever do.
:lmao

[RD2191]

More excuses.

If the being you want so hard to believe in was worth worshipping, you wouldn't have to lie so hard.

Why does your faith require you to be so dishonest?
No excuse, just the truth. Children died because their parents had Gods chosen people captive. That is it and that is all. How many times did Moses warn Pharaoh? Huh? So we can also blame the Pharaoh in this case. Simple, really.

[RD2191]

Yes.

See how easy that is?
Very easy. In Bible times parents were also responsible for their children. They chose death for their children by refusing to follow Gods laws/commandments. Very easy to understand.

[RandomGuy]

No excuse, just the truth. Children died because their parents had Gods chosen people captive. That is it and that is all. How many times did Moses warn Pharaoh? Huh? So we can also blame the Pharaoh in this case. Simple, really.


13 And the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart, that he hearkened not unto them; as the Lord had said.

BULLSHIT MOTHERFUCKER.

[RandomGuy]

As I said, Rob, I know it is the fear of death that makes you cling to these fairy tales so hard.

You want the santa claus afterlife of a resurrection.

I didn't really want to rub your nose so hard in your own delusions, but it seems your fear overcomes your common sense, and your decency.

That said, I will leave you to your delusions. I realize that I can only show you the truth, the way out of the cult, and nothing but yourself can get you out of the trap.

I can only hope that you use your delusion constructively.

Good luck.

[RD2191]

BULLSHIT MOTHERFUCKER.
:lolYeah keep saying that, first you were defending the parents and now you've moved on to Pharaoh.

[xmas1997]

War is never neat and orderly, in fact it is terrible.

Women and children suffer the most, and everyone justifies it as collateral damage.

But unfortunately it happens in every war.

Take for example what happened to Japan in WWII when the two atomic bombs were dropped.

[RD2191]

As I said, Rob, I know it is the fear of death that makes you cling to these fairy tales so hard.

You want the santa claus afterlife of a resurrection.

I didn't really want to rub your nose so hard in your own delusions, but it seems your fear overcomes your common sense, and your decency.

That said, I will leave you to your delusions. I realize that I can only show you the truth, the way out of the cult, and nothing but yourself can get you out of the trap.

I can only hope that you use your delusion constructively.

Good luck.
I don't fear death. Good luck with evilbible.com

[RD2191]

And if you read the beginning of Exodus you will see that God "allowed" Pharaohs heart to become heartened. Why is this important? Because it goes back to free will. God could of intervened to make Pharaoh listen but as Pharaoh had free will he simply allowed it to happen. God knew before hand that Pharaoh would not listen so he had already told that to Moses and Aaron.

7 (http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/exodus/7/#v2007001) Jehovah then said to Moses: “See, I have made you like God* (http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/exodus/7/#fn8888609) to Phar′aoh, and Aaron your own brother will become your prophet.+ (http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/mcr/8888588/) 2 (http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/exodus/7/#v2007002) You are to repeat everything that I will command you, and Aaron your brother will speak to Phar′aoh, and he will send the Israelites away from his land. 3 (http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/exodus/7/#v2007003) As for me, I will allow Phar′aoh’s heart to become obstinate,+ (http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/mcr/8888664/) and I will multiply my signs and my miracles in the land of Egypt.+ (http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/mcr/8888696/) 4 (http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/exodus/7/#v2007004) But Phar′aoh will not listen to you, and I will lay my hand upon Egypt and bring my multitudes,* (http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/exodus/7/#fn8888759) my people, the Israelites, out of the land of Egypt with great judgments.

[RD2191]

Exodus 4:21 (http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/exodus/4/#v2004021)21 Then Jehovah said to Moses: “After you have returned to Egypt, see that you perform before Phar′aoh all the miracles that I have empowered you to do.But I will allow his heart to become obstinate, and he will not send the people away.
Exodus 7:13 (http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/exodus/7/#v2007013)13 Still, Phar′aoh’s heart became obstinate, and he did not listen to them, just as Jehovah had said.




Exodus 7:22 (http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/exodus/7/#v2007022)22 Nevertheless, the magic-practicing priests of Egypt did the same thing with their secret arts, so that Phar′aoh’s heart continued to be obstinate, and he did not listen to them, just as Jehovah had said.
Exodus 8:15 (http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/exodus/8/#v2008015)15 When Phar′aoh saw that there was relief, he hardened his heart and he refused to listen to them, just as Jehovah had said.


Exodus 8:19 (http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/exodus/8/#v2008019)19 So the magic-practicing priests said to Phar′aoh: “It is the finger of God!” But Phar′aoh’s heart continued to be obstinate, and he did not listen to them, just as Jehovah had said.
Exodus 9:12 (http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/exodus/9/#v2009012)12 But Jehovah allowed Phar′aoh’s heart to become obstinate, and he did not listen to them, just as Jehovah had told Moses.



Exodus 9:35 (http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/exodus/9/#v2009035)35 And Phar′aoh’s heart continued obstinate, and he did not send the Israelites away, just as Jehovah had stated through Moses.
Exodus 10:20 (http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/exodus/10/#v2010020)20 However, Jehovah allowed Phar′aoh’s heart to become obstinate, and he did not send the Israelites away.
Exodus 10:27 (http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/exodus/10/#v2010027)27 So Jehovah allowed Phar′aoh’s heart to become obstinate, and he did not consent to send them away.
Exodus 11:10 (http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/exodus/11/#v2011010)10 Moses and Aaron performed all these miracles before Phar′aoh, but Jehovah allowed Phar′aoh’s heart to become obstinate, so that he did not send the Israelites away from his land.


Exodus 14:8 (http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/exodus/14/#v2014008)8 Thus Jehovah allowed the heart of Phar′aoh king of Egypt to become obstinate, and he chased after the Israelites, while the Israelites were going out with confidence.
Romans 9:17, 18 (http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/romans/9/#v45009017-v45009018)17 For the scripture says to Phar′aoh: “For this very reason I have let you remain: to show my power in connection with you and to have my name declared in all the earth.” 18 So, then, he has mercy on whomever he wishes, but he lets whomever he wishes become obstinate.

[Blake]

Not really

Yes you will

[RandomGuy]

Yes you will

8Eam-z1bwrk

Interesting take on how religion and authoritarian beliefs make children out of their believers.

Just thought you might find it interesting.

[RD2191]

More Youtube videos. Any more interesting links from evilbible.com?:lol

[SnakeBoy]

You lumped me in as "pretending" the question doesn't exist, when I attempted in good faith to answer the question, and you didn't get the answer you wanted.

Which is, as noted, a lie.

How could I want a certain answer from you if I never asked you the question. I was making a point to Blake that the question exists and no matter what his answer was it only proved the question existed. Then you jumped in not understanding the conversation and started trying to answer a question I never asked you. I even told you I was not asking you a question, yet you kept flailing about trying to answer a question you weren't being asked until you had a temper tantrum. Now you're lying about it and calling me a liar...your so ethical.

[RandomGuy]

but, but, but,

syNVg8V4EQU

Whatever makes you feel better.

[RandomGuy]

your so ethical.

What about my ethical?

[RandomGuy]

More Youtube videos. Any more interesting links from evilbible.com?:lol

RB3g6mXLEKk

[RD2191]

Your videos have nothing to do with me schooling on you on who is responsible for their children. If you wanna keep posting YouTube links that have nothing to do with the subject at hand then go right ahead.

[RD2191]

:lolgets his beliefs from youtube calls me ignorant for not studying evolution. Atheists ladies and gents. I provided answer using only the Bible with my own research. Keep it going bud.

[RD2191]

So we all agree, parents are responsible for their children.

[RandomGuy]

Your videos have nothing to do with me schooling on you on who is responsible for their children. If you wanna keep posting YouTube links that have nothing to do with the subject at hand then go right ahead.

PK7P7uZFf5o

This pretty much hits your arguments directly.

I am going to guess you will be too scared to watch it.

[RD2191]

There is no argument here. Seeing as you lost, like always, you are bringing something entirely different into the debate. Parents are responsible for their children. There is nothing difficult about it.

[RD2191]

Same thing you're doing to SnakeBoy, you keep getting your ass handed to you and when you realize you're wrong you start bringing other shit into the debate. We can all see that. Also, your videos have nothing to do with the Bible seeing as I am using only the Bible to defend my stance. Just because you are more educated than me and have a more diverse vocabulary doesn't mean anything. You're wrong and I am right.

[xmas1997]

Same thing you're doing to SnakeBoy, you keep getting your ass handed to you and when you realize you're wrong you start bringing other shit into the debate. We can all see that. Also, your videos have nothing to do with the Bible seeing as I am using only the Bible to defend my stance. Just because you are more educated than me and have a more diverse vocabulary doesn't mean anything. You're wrong and I am right.

What happened to chump?
He was in here arguing nonsense with me like a crazed man for a while.

[RD2191]

Lets make this easy, you're driving in a car with your child, sign says "bomb ahead", you keep driving, "bomb ahead-stop", you keep going, "boom." Now, who was responsible for the death of their child because they refused to listen?

[RD2191]

What happened to chump?
He was in here arguing nonsense with me like a crazed man for a while.
He disappears for a few days every now and then. Who knows what that creep is up to.

[RandomGuy]

Exodus 4:21 (http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/exodus/4/#v2004021)21 Then Jehovah said to Moses: “After you have returned to Egypt, see that you perform before Phar′aoh all the miracles that I have empowered you to do.But I will allow his heart to become obstinate, and he will not send the people away.
Exodus 7:13 (http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/exodus/7/#v2007013)13 Still, Phar′aoh’s heart became obstinate, and he did not listen to them, just as Jehovah had said.




Exodus 7:22 (http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/exodus/7/#v2007022)22 Nevertheless, the magic-practicing priests of Egypt did the same thing with their secret arts, so that Phar′aoh’s heart continued to be obstinate, and he did not listen to them, just as Jehovah had said.
Exodus 8:15 (http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/exodus/8/#v2008015)15 When Phar′aoh saw that there was relief, he hardened his heart and he refused to listen to them, just as Jehovah had said.


Exodus 8:19 (http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/exodus/8/#v2008019)19 So the magic-practicing priests said to Phar′aoh: “It is the finger of God!” But Phar′aoh’s heart continued to be obstinate, and he did not listen to them, just as Jehovah had said.
Exodus 9:12 (http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/exodus/9/#v2009012)12 But Jehovah allowed Phar′aoh’s heart to become obstinate, and he did not listen to them, just as Jehovah had told Moses.



Exodus 9:35 (http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/exodus/9/#v2009035)35 And Phar′aoh’s heart continued obstinate, and he did not send the Israelites away, just as Jehovah had stated through Moses.
Exodus 10:20 (http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/exodus/10/#v2010020)20 However, Jehovah allowed Phar′aoh’s heart to become obstinate, and he did not send the Israelites away.
Exodus 10:27 (http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/exodus/10/#v2010027)27 So Jehovah allowed Phar′aoh’s heart to become obstinate, and he did not consent to send them away.
Exodus 11:10 (http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/exodus/11/#v2011010)10 Moses and Aaron performed all these miracles before Phar′aoh, but Jehovah allowed Phar′aoh’s heart to become obstinate, so that he did not send the Israelites away from his land.


Exodus 14:8 (http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/exodus/14/#v2014008)8 Thus Jehovah allowed the heart of Phar′aoh king of Egypt to become obstinate, and he chased after the Israelites, while the Israelites were going out with confidence.
Romans 9:17, 18 (http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/romans/9/#v45009017-v45009018)17 For the scripture says to Phar′aoh: “For this very reason I have let you remain: to show my power in connection with you and to have my name declared in all the earth.” 18 So, then, he has mercy on whomever he wishes, but he lets whomever he wishes become obstinate.





God never murdered children, their parents were responsible for their deaths. Very easy concept to understand.


Moses then said: “This is what JJehovah has said, ‘About midnight I am going out into the midst of Egypt,+ 5 and every firstborn in the land of Egypt will die,+ from the firstborn of Phar′aoh who is sitting on his throne to the firstborn of the slave girl who is working at the hand mill, and every firstborn of the livestock.+ 6 Throughout all the land of Egypt, there will be a great outcry such as has never occurred nor will ever occur again.+ 7 But not even a dog will bark* at the Israelites, at the men or their livestock, so that you may know that Jehovah can make a distinction between the Egyptians and the Israelites.’

http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/exodus/11/