Originally posted by Rajk999Both you and RC preach from the Bible - your interpretation from *your version* of the Bible is that RC is evil; RC on the other hand reading *his version* of the Bible sees no such justification for your definition.
Did you read his question to me? I must explain to him my claim that the JWs publish lies or preach lies but I must do it without using the Bible.
My question was on target...you need only have paused for a moment to that your version of the Bible isn't the only version in town before posting your silly response.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
1 edit
Originally posted by Rajk999Ah I did read the question, which is why I was interested to know if you were serious or just trying to make a
Did you read his question to me? I must explain to him my claim that the JWs publish lies or preach lies but I must do it without using the Bible.
point.
Pity it was the latter, nm.
It wasn't that he was saying you couldn't use the bible, its more subtle than that.
I suspect it would be best if Agerg elaborated on what he meant as I don't think I would do it justice.
But I don't think you have quite grasped what he means, which is understandable as I think in this instance he
sacrificed a bit of comprehensibility for brevity.
[EDIT: sorry Agerg, but I do think in this instance you needed to spell it out more clearly]
However If you would like to understand evolution I would be happy to explain it... I can probably even demonstrate
it must be true without reference to science papers, although some knowledge like the fact of DNA would have to be
taken as granted.
Originally posted by AgergYou need to study some religion for yourself and then comeback and discuss this matter.
Both you and RC preach from the Bible - your interpretation from *your version* of the Bible is that RC is evil; RC on the other hand reading *his version* of the Bible sees no such justification for your definition.
My question was on target...you need only have paused for a moment to that your version of the Bible isn't the only version in town before posting your silly response.
Originally posted by googlefudgeIt was the latter sorry.
Ah I did read the question, which is why I was interested to know if you were serious or just trying to make a
point.
Pity it was the latter, nm.
It wasn't that he was saying you couldn't use the bible, its more subtle than that.
I suspect it would be best if Agerg elaborated on what he meant as I don't think I would do it justice.
But I don' ...[text shortened]... ce papers, although some knowledge like the fact of DNA would have to be
taken as granted.
I dont get involved in whether or not God exists.
I dont get involved in arguing whether or not the Bible is true.
Neither would I get involved in whether or not evolution is true. Evolution as a theory has some truth to it becuse its a fact that animals can and do evolve.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by Rajk999No problem.
It was the latter sorry.
I dont get involved in whether or not God exists.
I dont get involved in arguing whether or not the Bible is true.
Neither would I get involved in whether or not evolution is true. Evolution as a theory has some truth to it becuse its a fact that animals can and do evolve.
If you accept evolution does occur then I'm happy as a cloud... Although quite why people think clouds are happy is beyond me...
3 edits
Originally posted by Rajk999I dont get involved in whether or not God exists.
It was the latter sorry.
I dont get involved in whether or not God exists.
I dont get involved in arguing whether or not the Bible is true.
Neither would I get involved in whether or not evolution is true. Evolution as a theory has some truth to it becuse its a fact that animals can and do evolve.
I dont get involved in arguing whether or not the Bible is true.
The point behind my previous questions to you is that behind the scenes (and it is something you don't acknowledge) the position you're actually coming from is one where:
you don't get involved in whether or not [your particular notion of] God exists.
you don't get involved in arguing whether or not [a particular variant of] the Bible[namely the one you favour] is true.
See as far as Robbie is concerned, when he sees your charge that he is spreading lies, he (should he take you seriously) would ask himself the question "do I genuinely believe that what I am telling others about my faith is untrue?" and he would most assuredly convince himself that he is not. As such I request information from yourself to dissuade me from my belief he isn't lying. I.e. convince me that Robbie Carrobie really is trying to deceive you as opposed to simply making a mistake perhaps (again charitably assuming, ONLY for the sake of argument, that you are more correct in your faith than Robbie Carrobie).
When you call Robbie Carrobie evil, especially when you define evil as that which is counter to the will of [your] Bible-"God" then from Robbie's perspective your charge doesn't make sense. Indeed from his perspective he is acting in accordance with the will of [his] Bible-"God" and so couldn't possibly see himself as being evil if he defines the word similarly to yourself. If you can really demonstrate that he is evil by alluding to some universally agreed component of the word's definition (irrespective of religious denomination) then I'm all ears. Merely saying that your Bible implies he's evil on the other hand doesn't cut it since he would just ignore your definition of the word. For that reason using your bible in this instance serves no purpose
Originally posted by AgergThis discussion with the JWs have been ongoing for over 4 years now. Mr Johnny-come-lately wont understand all that has happend beofre so he wont understand now.
[b]I dont get involved in whether or not God exists.
I dont get involved in arguing whether or not the Bible is true.
The point behind my previous questions to you is that behind the scenes (and it is something you don't acknowledge) the position you're actually coming from is one where:
[i]you don't get involved in whether or not [your particular n ...[text shortened]... the word. For that reason using your bible in this instance serves no purpose[/b]
Originally posted by googlefudgeEspecially cloud 9 .. whats so speical about 9 .. maybe cloud 69 !.
No problem.
If you accept evolution does occur then I'm happy as a cloud... Although quite why people think clouds are happy is beyond me...
People resist the idea of evolution becuase it takes away from the literal interpretation of a 6 day creation ie 6 conssecutive 24 hour periods. I personally dont believe in that. God created the heavens and the earth in his own good time and it must have took millions of years. Evolution and creation when interpreted that way seem to be less at loggerheads with each other.
1 edit
Originally posted by Rajk999Still failing to acknowledge my points I see - it's as if (gasp) you cannot open your mind even slightly to the notion that there isn't a universal consensus on which Bible is most representative of Christian "God".
This discussion with the JWs have been ongoing for over 4 years now. Mr Johnny-come-lately wont understand all that has happend beofre so he wont understand now.
3 edits
Originally posted by googlefudgeIf you'll notice his response to my slightly lengthier post you may perhaps appreciate my reluctance, in general, to being verbose with hardcore fundamentalists such as RBHILL, RJHinds, Rajk999, and so on...
Ah I did read the question, which is why I was interested to know if you were serious or just trying to make a
point.
Pity it was the latter, nm.
It wasn't that he was saying you couldn't use the bible, its more subtle than that.
I suspect it would be best if Agerg elaborated on what he meant as I don't think I would do it justice.
But I don' ...[text shortened]... ce papers, although some knowledge like the fact of DNA would have to be
taken as granted.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by AgergI understand completely...
If you'll notice his response to my slightly lengthier post you may perhaps appreciate my reluctance, in general, to being verbose with hardcore fundamentalists such as RBHILL, RJHinds, Rajk999, and so on...
I just felt (and you have subsequently remedied this) that in this particular instance you
were not quite clear enough.
There is always a battle between brevity and clarity, I quite enjoy your posts so this isn't a
general complaint against you, I just felt that in this particular instance brevity was favoured
over clarity a mite to much.
I admit however that my own posts could probably do with a bit more clarity and brevity, it's
something I am working on.
1 edit
Originally posted by galveston75No .. Christ said we have to look out for false prophets and HE TOLD US HOW TO SPOT THEM ..HE SAID THEIR PROPHESIES WILL NOT BEAR FRUIT... So clearly we have to judge that for outselves.
You also said that Jesus is the only one to judge and it seems your doing gobs it it as we speak.
Now the JWs have made hundreds of prophesies which TIME [the ultimate judge of prophesies] has proved false. So Christ told us to judge for ourselves when it comes to false prophets like the JWs. Everyone on this site has already judged that JWS are false prophets.
As for the other statement Christ made about those who follow is Fathers will .. that is the one that only Christ will know therefore only he can judge.
Its JWs that constantly claim that nobody is following Christ except the JWs.