06 Feb 10
Originally posted by wolfgang59ohh touchy touchy touchy!
[b]firstly there is no confusion except for the uninitiated
So only those that know, know?
That really isn't helping much!
http://www.dictionary.net/initiated
And how does one get 'initiated'?[/b]
what is it about the sequence of creative days you do not understand, God knows i have made them plain enough. Your insistence that the events relating to the creation of humans happens at some other time than the sixth day is based on what? that is correct, a superficial reading of the ancient text. The assertion that there is also two creation accounts is also based on what? Nothing but a superficial reading of the text.
As for being initiated, are you unaware that those who deny the divine and thus try to understand scripture without the help of Gods spirit cannot indeed come to an accurate knowledge of these things? why is that? because it is the folly of the rationalist to evaluate spiritual things from a merely human standpoint, indeed, in doing so they perceive these spiritual values as foolishness. Please consider the text.
(1 Corinthians 1:18-25) For the speech about the torture stake is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is Gods power. For it is written: “I will make the wisdom of the wise men perish, and the intelligence of the intellectual men I will shove aside.” Where is the wise man? Where the scribe? Where the debater of this system of things? Did not God make the wisdom of the world foolish? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through its wisdom did not get to know God, God saw good through the foolishness of what is preached to save those believing. For both the Jews ask for signs and the Greeks look for wisdom; but we preach Christ impaled, to the Jews a cause for stumbling but to the nations foolishness; however, to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because a foolish thing of God is wiser than men, and a weak thing of God is stronger than men.
09 Feb 10
Originally posted by wolfgang59accept the teachings of the carrobie of course.
[b]firstly there is no confusion except for the uninitiated
So only those that know, know?
That really isn't helping much!
http://www.dictionary.net/initiated
And how does one get 'initiated'?[/b]
i love this way of "debating". one makes a claim, but says he cannot support his claim because we are too stupid to understand. once we accept his claim as true we will see that his claim is true.
awesome. is good for any subject too.
09 Feb 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieso if one would indeed be possesed by the spirit of god that certain someone, upon reading the bible, would inevitably come to the same conclusions as you do, right?
ohh touchy touchy touchy!
what is it about the sequence of creative days you do not understand, God knows i have made them plain enough. Your insistence that the events relating to the creation of humans happens at some other time than the sixth day is based on what? that is correct, a superficial reading of the ancient text. The assertion that ...[text shortened]... Because a foolish thing of God is wiser than men, and a weak thing of God is stronger than men.
09 Feb 10
Originally posted by Zahlanziplease state where i said that you are too stupid?
accept the teachings of the carrobie of course.
i love this way of "debating". one makes a claim, but says he cannot support his claim because we are too stupid to understand. once we accept his claim as true we will see that his claim is true.
awesome. is good for any subject too.
09 Feb 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieoh i am sorry. you said we are unable to understand the word of god because we are not possesed by the spirit of god. when we will accept his spirit we will understand the word. but accepting the spirit of god means in your view that we are accepting his word.
please state where i said that you are too stupid?
see a problem here?
most beginer students of logic would.
09 Feb 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Zahlanziso i never termed you stupid, thank you for that. your assumption is of course fatally flawed, and lets not mince words here, for that's all it is, an assumption, because it assumes that all that is necessary is to have Gods spirit, which of course is not true, for it is only one aspect. for example you may have Gods spirit, but if you do no research and try to ascertain what his word is stating, how can you come to an accurate knowledge? It cannot be done, therefore dear Zapansy, by ascribing to me propositions that i do not make and drawing assumptions on those propositions and then ascribing to me values based on those assumptions is not good for you, for you end up becoming undone.
oh i am sorry. you said we are unable to understand the word of god because we are not possesed by the spirit of god. when we will accept his spirit we will understand the word. but accepting the spirit of god means in your view that we are accepting his word.
see a problem here?
most beginer students of logic would.
10 Feb 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobiethats exactly it.
so i never termed you stupid, thank you for that. your assumption is of course fatally flawed, and lets not mince words here, for that's all it is, an assumption, because it assumes that all that is necessary is to have Gods spirit, which of course is not true, for it is only one aspect. for example you may have Gods spirit, but if you do no resear ...[text shortened]... ng to me values based on those assumptions is not good for you, for you end up becoming undone.
i did research. i read the flood story for example. i found it illogical. i got evidence, freely available on the internet, that disproves the flood. i have found evidence to prove woodmorappe wrong. i have read the bible and came to a different conclusion than you. yet i am wrong and you are right. why is that? why is your interpretation better than mine? why are you right and the catholics for example are wrong? what makes you so special?
it can't be that you do research and i don't. because i proved to you i do. and so does proper knob, and fabian, and twhite. and so many others. wouldn't it be logical to attack then the claims and not the person? have you ever given an evidence to disprove my claims? have you always addressed my(or ours) claims instead of ignoring them or making attacks and accusations?
i don't ever expect you to understand this. it is who you are. maybe you are a troll, whose only purpose is to spark lengthy conversations and outrage the community with your blatant display of ignorance.
or maybe this is the real you in which case i pity you. fools should be pitied.
10 Feb 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Zahlanziif you did not expect me to understand it, why did you post it? i never started the flood thread, i hardly ever start any threads, therefore your assertions of being a troll and that i post to simply outrage people are unfounded, i would be pleased if you shall retract them.
thats exactly it.
i did research. i read the flood story for example. i found it illogical. i got evidence, freely available on the internet, that disproves the flood. i have found evidence to prove woodmorappe wrong. i have read the bible and came to a different conclusion than you. yet i am wrong and you are right. why is that? why is your interpretati ignorance.
or maybe this is the real you in which case i pity you. fools should be pitied.
10 Feb 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieagain you fail to read the whole post. if you did you would have seen that i claim you to be a troll because such stupidity, ego and non-logic are hard to be seen in a normal human being.
if you did not expect me to understand it, why did you post it? i never started the flood thread, i hardly ever start any threads, therefore your assertions of being a troll and that i post to simply outrage people are unfounded, i would be pleased if you shall retract them.
as such, i gave you the presumtion of innocence and called you insincere in all the crap you have posted in the spirituality forum so far
10 Feb 10
Originally posted by Zahlanzii am really trying hard to be nice to you Zapansy, it is not easy when you post things like this.
again you fail to read the whole post. if you did you would have seen that i claim you to be a troll because such stupidity, ego and non-logic are hard to be seen in a normal human being.
as such, i gave you the presumtion of innocence and called you insincere in all the crap you have posted in the spirituality forum so far
13 Feb 10
These 6 pages are fascinating. So many questions have I...
1. Just what is the watchtower?
2. People are STILL arguing over the "two creation stories controversy"? Really?
3. Some people actually believe there was NOT some sort of cataclysmic flood in the distant past? Geez Louise...
4. Why do some branches of Christendom get to be called denominations while others get branded with the "cult" word? Surely there's a bottom-line, bare bones miniumum requirement--a least-common denominator---that ALL Christians believe. And I should hope it's shorter than the Nicene (or any other) creed. How 'bout "Jesus died and saved the world from sin: Take it or leave it."? I think that's pretty concise.
15 Feb 10
Originally posted by PinkFloydBut what do you mean by Jesus died and saved the world from sin
These 6 pages are fascinating. So many questions have I...
1. Just what is the watchtower?
2. People are STILL arguing over the "two creation stories controversy"? Really?
3. Some people actually believe there was NOT some sort of cataclysmic flood in the distant past? Geez Louise...
4. Why do some branches of Christendom get to be call ...[text shortened]... and saved the world from sin: Take it or leave it."? I think that's pretty concise.
Who was Jesus? Did he exist? Was Jesus a woman?
What do you mean by 'died'? Did he die?
What do you mean by 'saved'? From what?
'the world'? Is that the known world at the time, the world we know now or the universe? (How are the heathens around Alpha Centauri coping until we send missionaries there?)
'sin' - whats that? Is there any consensus?
OK ... I'll take my tongue out of my cheek now! 😛
15 Feb 10
3 edits
Originally posted by PinkFloydhi, the watchtower is a publication that is used by Jehovahs witnesses to disseminate Bible truth (it is also a song by Bob Dylan famously covered by Jimi Hendrix, but thats beside the point).
These 6 pages are fascinating. So many questions have I...
1. Just what is the watchtower?
2. People are STILL arguing over the "two creation stories controversy"? Really?
3. Some people actually believe there was NOT some sort of cataclysmic flood in the distant past? Geez Louise...
4. Why do some branches of Christendom get to be call and saved the world from sin: Take it or leave it."? I think that's pretty concise.
Is is not in any way to be considered inspired, nor has it ever claimed to be. It is printed in 392 languages. (wikipedia states 180 languages but then again its not that a reliable source) Here is the rather impressive list.
http://www.watchtower.org/languages.htm
it provides a universal teaching program for Jehovahs witnesses and those who are interested, this what Galvo shall study in his congregation in America, i shall study the same material in the U.K. as will the brothers in Russia, Africa, China and everywhere throughout the earth, from the steppes of Mongolia to the hills of Colorado.
It is available without charge to anyone who is interested in reading it. It covers many areas of Christian life.
you may find the latest editions online at watchtower.org the only official website of Jehovahs witnesses.
As for the other stuff floyd, you shall just need to accept that there are some who remain oblivious to the dark side of the moon and who as yet, have not attained enlightenment. 🙂
15 Feb 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe songs not called 'Watchtower', it's called 'All Along the Watchtower'.
hi, the watchtower is a publication that is used by Jehovahs witnesses to disseminate Bible truth (it is also a song by Bob Dylan famously covered by Jimi Hendrix, but thats beside the point).
Is is not in any way to be considered inspired, nor has it ever claimed to be. It is printed in 392 languages. (wikipedia states 180 languages but then aga ...[text shortened]... emain oblivious to the dark side of the moon and who as yet, have not attained enlightenment. 🙂
You can't drop half of the title song title just to make it fit?!