DEBATE: Jehovah's Witnesses vs.Y'all (Note to mods inside)

Raptor 597 · Post by **Raptor 597** » 2002-10-01 09:03pm

Cyril wrote:
Because John cast the nonbelivers of Christ into Hell, or let them experience the final days

Yeah, so? I can accept that.

Soddom & that other city did happen, as historians are 95% percent sure with the exception of finding a sign saying welcome too Sodom. All Sodom was an was earthquake and possible volcanic eruption which they added the story too convince the people that God didn't hate them

So if God did kill them, so wht? I can accept that because I accept that God is inherently superior to man and thus has better judgement.

You aren't spewing bull, but the Western Church normally killed people for being "witches & heretics" because they were insane, retarded, crazy etc. Not too mention the Spainish Inquistion..

And Nigeria executed a woman for being an adultress(something that is, by the way, explicitly spat upon in the NT). Doesn't mean that Islam is a violent cult.
Islam is a violent cult no one is disproving that here. You're going on subject.
I see. So Moses never met God. No, I do not think it is natural to write one's own prejudice into a story. Ever read "Catcher in the Rye?" Clearly authors can be different from their protagonists, and even narrators.

It was back then and it happens now.

Okay, but your interpretation of the Bible and your belief is in direct contradiction with what the Bible says we're supposed to do (read: blind faith).

Quotes. From the NT, preferably.

So God, by sinning and destroying the Samaritans, also gave up his ability to pass judgement on people? WTF?

OT is inferior and overruled by NT. As I said, it was written by men.
And so is the NT.

And it was endorsed by God. What of the destructions of Saddam and Gamorah? Were they also the results of fallible, nasty, land-hungry *men*?

See above.

Oh, so now we get to pick and choose what parts of the Bible we want to believe in? How is this possible?

So you believe that the New Testament was written by God directly, and not by a man? What of the translations of the Bible? What of the translations of the translations of the Bible? What of the additions to the Bible and the apocrypha? You cannot pick and choose parts of the Bible to believe in and disregard the rest while claiming to be a Christian. If I went around murdering people while claiming that because I never once violated the other nine commandments do you think people would think I was a Christian?

I believe that all of the Bible is subject to error, but because the NT was written by men very close to God and is the younger, it is less subject to erro and overrides the OT. I regard the apocrypha and the letters as morale insights, not holy canon.

No, it isn't. There would not be an international problem Islam Army x would be destroying Islam Army x and the West would happily get there oil.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2002-10-01 09:06pm

Islam is a violent cult no one is disproving that here. You're going on subject.

No. I'm comparing the situation with Islam today with the situation of Christianity 1000 years ago.

And so is the NT.

Yes, but they had the benefit of direct guidance from God.

No, it isn't. There would not be an international problem Islam Army x would be destroying Islam Army x and the West would happily get there oil.

Can you prove that? It's conjecture.

Raptor 597 · Post by **Raptor 597** » 2002-10-01 09:12pm

Cyril wrote:
Islam is a violent cult no one is disproving that here. You're going on subject.

No. I'm comparing the situation with Islam today with the situation of Christianity 1000 years ago.
Compare all you want the fact remains the same Chhristains kill in the name of the New Testament too.

And so is the NT.

Yes, but they had the benefit of direct guidance from God.
Any proof without blind faith? Which the whole point of the argument is. You only pick the pretty & nice parts of the Bible discounting the rest. Fact is this isn't a conjecture on your art just a blind guess.

No, it isn't. There would not be an international problem Islam Army x would be destroying Islam Army x and the West would happily get there oil.

Can you prove that? It's conjecture.

No, but given the militancy of the religion & political structure it is an reasonable too asume and guess that somebody would open up a can of whopass aganist them.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2002-10-01 09:14pm

Compare all you want the fact remains the same Chhristains kill in the name of the New Testament too

Quotes.

Any proof without blind faith? Which the whole point of the argument is. You only pick the pretty & nice parts of the Bible discounting the rest. Fact is this isn't a conjecture on your art just a blind guess.

...? The NT was written by disciples. Disciplices were close to Jesus. Jesus = God.

Raptor 597 · Post by **Raptor 597** » 2002-10-01 09:23pm

Cyril wrote:
Compare all you want the fact remains the same Chhristains kill in the name of the New Testament too
Quotes.

Any proof without blind faith? Which the whole point of the argument is. You only pick the pretty & nice parts of the Bible discounting the rest. Fact is this isn't a conjecture on your art just a blind guess.
...? The NT was written by disciples. Disciplices were close to Jesus. Jesus = God.

Ah, let me think the KKK fought under "God for God" . The same those that committed the Spainish Inquistion fought too spot Satan's spread the same Devil in Relevation where many of the information of Satan came from.

The NT is self-contradictory. Not in the chapetr's text, but the information the Church uses. Should information like the Thomas Becket Manuscript be accepted well put it this way no big Church. Also, in another books the same Jesus that said mercy & forgiveness in Relevation smite down the nonbelivers. And also I add Jesus that stated above your merciful God hates the Canannites, which many Europeans descended from. You aren't Jewish oh well.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2002-10-01 09:34pm

The NT is self-contradictory. Not in the chapetr's text, but the information the Church uses. Should information like the Thomas Becket Manuscript be accepted well put it this way no big Church.

Were you reading what I wrote? At all? For one thing, what the 'Church' says has exactly 0 bearing on my beliefs, because I am not Catholic. Futhermore, no, the Thomas Becket manuscript should NOT be accepted as canon or holy writ because it is not the word of God!

Raptor 597 · Post by **Raptor 597** » 2002-10-01 09:47pm

Cyril wrote:
The NT is self-contradictory. Not in the chapetr's text, but the information the Church uses. Should information like the Thomas Becket Manuscript be accepted well put it this way no big Church.
Were you reading what I wrote? At all? For one thing, what the 'Church' says has exactly 0 bearing on my beliefs, because I am not Catholic. Futhermore, no, the Thomas Becket manuscript should NOT be accepted as canon or holy writ because it is not the word of God!

Ah, well I apolgise. But you see it is the closest interuptation of Jesus ever beileved considering if he exists. Oh, wait so Jesus isn't the word of God just the parts you chose too believe? You can't have your cake and eat too. You chose too believe parts of the NT where other parts where he smites down & calls you dogs you refuse too believbe yet it is there. The truth is the NT is far more subtle then the religious zealots of the OT. The OT zealots were scared too write and wrote their mind using God as a shield for their balasnt racism & beliefs.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2002-10-01 09:49pm

Ah, well I apolgise. But you see it is the closest interuptation of Jesus ever beileved considering if he exists. Oh, wait so Jesus isn't the word of God just the parts you chose too believe? You can't have your cake and eat too. You chose too believe parts of the NT where other parts where he smites down & calls you dogs you refuse too believbe yet it is there. The truth is the NT is far more subtle then the religious zealots of the OT. The OT zealots were scared too write and wrote their mind using God as a shield for their balasnt racism & beliefs.

Back it up with quotes.

GrandMasterTerwynn · Post by **GrandMasterTerwynn** » 2002-10-01 10:54pm

Durandal wrote:Who cares what it was meant to be? It's an inaccurate portrayal of the creation of the universe, right from the very beginning! "Let there be light" makes no sense because photons didn't exist until 500,000 years into the universe's creation!

I always thought they did exist . . . it's just that the typical photon didn't make it very far before it was absorbed by something else.

Raptor 597 · Post by **Raptor 597** » 2002-10-01 11:11pm

Cyril wrote:
Ah, well I apolgise. But you see it is the closest interuptation of Jesus ever beileved considering if he exists. Oh, wait so Jesus isn't the word of God just the parts you chose too believe? You can't have your cake and eat too. You chose too believe parts of the NT where other parts where he smites down & calls you dogs you refuse too believbe yet it is there. The truth is the NT is far more subtle then the religious zealots of the OT. The OT zealots were scared too write and wrote their mind using God as a shield for their balasnt racism & beliefs.
Back it up with quotes.

ok, you want them here you have them. Enjoy contesting your sacred NT.

(Jesus speaking)
John 14:27 Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you.
Matthew 10:34 Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

This little piece of evidence means Jesus is not mecriful, but has came too bring the sword down upon nonbelivers.

(Jesus speaking)
John 5:31 If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid.
John 8:14 Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid.

Jesus again contradicts himself. His own words if we are too take the NT literally. And it is up too "God" not you, and appraently God likes too lie.

Genesis 32:30 So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, "It is because I saw God face to face, and my life was preserved."
Exodus 33:11 The Lord would speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks with his friend.
John 1:18 No one has ever seen God.

Now even if you do not take the OT literally this still means something. All the orks of Judaism the base for Christanity is self-contradicting itself. If the begining is false what justifies the end? All a Christain is a complete Jew.

Matthew 5:16 Let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your father in heaven.
Matthew 6:1 Be careful not to do your 'acts of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them.

Again this the NT contradicts the NT. Even the same book! Now which can you discount? Neither, you cannot speak for God. So the solution may the only possible IMO you can't do any righteous acts don't do any.

Matthew 1:2-6 God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind.
Exodus 32:14 Then the Lord relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.

Again the basework is flawed. THe perceptions of the NT writers & Jesus based on the past prophets. I say this because Jesus often prayed too Moses, Elijah, Eezkial, etc for guidance. If the orginial prophets are screwed up how how can new ones be valid unless they completely discount everything and anything in the OT?

2 Kings 2:11 As they were walking along and talking together, suddenly a chariot of fire and horses of fire appeared and separated the two of them, and Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind.
John 3:13 No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven--the Son of Man.

Yet again my argument of OT & NT contradictions. The NT IMO had too make up for just anybody going too heaven so they say it was closed until Jesus opened it. Then how do you account for Moses, Abraham, Noah, Elijah, and others for entering heaven?

Also may I add about Jesus's second coming:

24:29-34
[T]he sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken. ... They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. ... I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.
16:27-28
For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done. I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.

Another contradiction. If the stars fall how can anything realistically survive? If Earth has no Sun, humanity shall die. Then how can people be here too be awarded by God? Further on too the quote's own contradictions: how can those that died be here too receive rewards for they are already dead?

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2002-10-02 12:21am

Hehehehe. I've been reading this debate with interest.

I'm surprised Mike hasn't gotten further involved as he could shred through these puerile and nonsensical reasons Cyril is spewing with ease. Actually Captain Lennox is doing a pretty good job though, especially with the last quote. That's the first time I have seen many contradictory passages placed together like that. I didn't realize some were so blatant.

I'm reading this at 12:30 in the morning, so I'll refrain from getting involved at this time, but I'll keep an eye out. This is starting to get interesting.

C.S.Strowbridge · Post by **C.S.Strowbridge** » 2002-10-02 12:39am

Darth Wong wrote:
Enforcer Talen wrote:-notes this is one of the funniest topics he's seen in a while-

shall I toss in my thot that God exists, but he's a bastard trying to win a popularity contest? it should make things even more fiery.
I like that one

In other words, God is a narcissistic asshole.

Do you go mocking narcissistic assholes. We're people too.

C.S.Strowbridge · Post by **C.S.Strowbridge** » 2002-10-02 12:42am

Durran Korr wrote:
Caesar didn't seem to have a problem with Cleopatra (the real Cleopatra did not look like Elizabeth Taylor, just in case you've never seen pictures of real Egyptians), and that's pretty fucking high- profile if you ask me.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Cleopatra wasn't exactly a real Egyptian, was she? I thought she was more of Greek descent.

AFAIK, Cleopatra was from black, not arabian. (Which is how I would clasify Egyptians.)

C.S.Strowbridge · Post by **C.S.Strowbridge** » 2002-10-02 12:43am

Cyril wrote: Hosa is OT, right? Overrided, of course, by happy peace-loving NT.

Jesus said all laws of the OT must be kept. So your claims that the NT overrides the OT is pure bullshit.

Raptor 597 · Post by **Raptor 597** » 2002-10-02 01:11am

Justforfun000 wrote:Hehehehe. I've been reading this debate with interest.

I'm surprised Mike hasn't gotten further involved as he could shred through these puerile and nonsensical reasons Cyril is spewing with ease. Actually Captain Lennox is doing a pretty good job though, especially with the last quote. That's the first time I have seen many contradictory passages placed together like that. I didn't realize some were so blatant.

I'm reading this at 12:30 in the morning, so I'll refrain from getting involved at this time, but I'll keep an eye out. This is starting to get interesting.

Oo, thanks. Always keep your trusted parent's fundamentalist Bible and Google nearby

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2002-10-02 07:19am

Jesus said all laws of the OT must be kept. So your claims that the NT overrides the OT is pure bullshit.

I'm sure you are right, but quotes, please.

I'll reply when I get back from school

Faram · Post by **Faram** » 2002-10-02 07:50am

Cyril wrote:
Jesus said all laws of the OT must be kept. So your claims that the NT overrides the OT is pure bullshit.
I'm sure you are right, but quotes, please.

I'll reply when I get back from school

Perhaps this one:

Luke 24:44 wrote: And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

Faram · Post by **Faram** » 2002-10-02 08:18am

Christ's Use of the Old Testament. The way Christ used the Old Testament showed that He considered it to be the authoritative Word of God.

He Accepted Its History. Jesus regarded the Old Testament record as a straightforward presentation of fact. In teaching or in conversation, He referred to the following people, confirming their existence:

* Abel (Luke 11:51)
* Noah (Matt. 24:37-39)
* Abraham (John 8:56)
* Lot (Luke 17:28-32)
* Elijah (Luke 4:25)
* Elisha (Luke 4:27)
* Jonah (Matt. 12:9-41)

He Accepted Its Authority. When in controversy with the religious leaders of Israel--the Pharisees (Matt. 23:2,3) and the Sadducees (Matt. 22:29)--Christ turned to the Old Testament as His final court of appeal.

He Used It as an Ethical Guide. Jesus used the Old Testament as authoritative in telling people how to live Examples are the rich young ruler (Matt. 19:16-22) and the lawyer who asked about the greatest commandment (Matt. 22:35-40).

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2002-10-02 09:27am

Contraditions?

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/
The most useful website for battling the forces of the Christian, Right, Left and those in between

salm · Post by **salm** » 2002-10-02 11:23am

wow, this debate went on for quite a while... and in a completely different direction.

sorry M.o.O. for not replying but i had to go to bed due to my pre deploma exams in "Gebaeudetechnik".
and i cant reply properly now cause i´m drunk.
cya tomorow

Australopithicus · Post by **Australopithicus** » 2002-10-02 01:31pm

That'll teach me to be in a different time zone...I go to bed with 2 replies,one of them being my own, and when I get back on the computer, there are 69 replies. Hmm...

Point about the Bible laws: Do you actually UNDERSTAND these laws, or are you just dismissing them because there are too many ancient and long words for you? For instance, do you understand why the act of circumcision was to be carried out on the 8th day of a childs' life specifically, or have you all skipped that bit without understanding? Cause I sure understand. And for you, that would be a first.

"Jesus isn't the word of God just the parts you chose too believe? You can't have your cake and eat too. "

Jesus isn't God, therefore his words would not be the same. So shove that cake in your oversized gob, Lennox. Jesus and God are 2 completely different entities, so they thusly have 2 different outlooks on life. The trinity does not exist. God is eternal, absolute, perfect, immortal etc. Jesus is as well, though to a lesser degree does he share God's awe - inspiring power, which is used through the holy spirit. Therefore, it's more of a duo - uno combo there, rather than an absurd notion of a trinity that isn't even supported by the Bible.

"It's an inaccurate portrayal of the creation of the universe, right from the very beginning! "Let there be light" makes no sense because photons didn't exist until 500,000 years into the universe's creation!"

Mmm - hm. And you can tell me without doubt with absolute evidence that photons didn't exist then? Were you there? No. So how exactly can you know? Need I remind you that God is omnipotent and his power is beyond your puny IQ's (yes Mike, even 140 is puny to god. And probably to another million people on this planet as well, but that's not the point) and also beyond the laws of physics? If you create a law, what is there to provent you from braking it? It's YOUR law. YOU made it.

Now I'm going to do my HWK, so behave and play nice, kiddies.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2002-10-02 01:47pm

Australopithicus wrote:"Jesus isn't the word of God just the parts you chose too believe? You can't have your cake and eat too. "

Jesus isn't God, therefore his words would not be the same. So shove that cake in your oversized gob, Lennox. Jesus and God are 2 completely different entities, so they thusly have 2 different outlooks on life. The trinity does not exist. God is eternal, absolute, perfect, immortal etc. Jesus is as well, though to a lesser degree does he share God's awe - inspiring power, which is used through the holy spirit. Therefore, it's more of a duo - uno combo there, rather than an absurd notion of a trinity that isn't even supported by the Bible.

Yes, He is (well, not really, but you know what I mean.) Jesus and God are the same entity, but are also considered to be seperate. That's the basic concept of the Holy Trinity, you dolt. It seems you don't know shit about Catholicism.

And don't bring up any post-Reformation bullshit. All of those denominations are fucking cults, and I will automatically dismiss their garbage. Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox are the only true Christian religions, but RC will be delt with here: no post-Reformation junk.

Faram · Post by **Faram** » 2002-10-02 02:23pm

Australopithicus wrote:That'll teach me to be in a different time zone...I go to bed with 2 replies,one of them being my own, and when I get back on the computer, there are 69 replies. Hmm...

Point about the Bible laws: Do you actually UNDERSTAND these laws, or are you just dismissing them because there are too many ancient and long words for you? For instance, do you understand why the act of circumcision was to be carried out on the 8th day of a childs' life specifically, or have you all skipped that bit without understanding? Cause I sure understand. And for you, that would be a first.

"Jesus isn't the word of God just the parts you chose too believe? You can't have your cake and eat too. "

Jesus isn't God, therefore his words would not be the same. So shove that cake in your oversized gob, Lennox. Jesus and God are 2 completely different entities, so they thusly have 2 different outlooks on life. The trinity does not exist. God is eternal, absolute, perfect, immortal etc. Jesus is as well, though to a lesser degree does he share God's awe - inspiring power, which is used through the holy spirit. Therefore, it's more of a duo - uno combo there, rather than an absurd notion of a trinity that isn't even supported by the Bible.

"It's an inaccurate portrayal of the creation of the universe, right from the very beginning! "Let there be light" makes no sense because photons didn't exist until 500,000 years into the universe's creation!"

Mmm - hm. And you can tell me without doubt with absolute evidence that photons didn't exist then? Were you there? No. So how exactly can you know? Need I remind you that God is omnipotent and his power is beyond your puny IQ's (yes Mike, even 140 is puny to god. And probably to another million people on this planet as well, but that's not the point) and also beyond the laws of physics? If you create a law, what is there to provent you from braking it? It's YOUR law. YOU made it.

Now I'm going to do my HWK, so behave and play nice, kiddies.

Repost:
God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day

Genesis 1,14 - 1,18
1:14
And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
1:15
And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
1:16
And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
1:17
And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
1:18
And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

Now how can this be?

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2002-10-02 02:26pm

So, the NT is the word of god! Was he on the guest list at Niccia (not sure on the spelling), you know 300 years or so after Christ, when the Roman emperor, Consitine and a bunch of then independent Christian priests determined what was going in the NT and what was not going in the NT. When they came up with the increadibly complex and unworkable idea of the Trinity, when they decided on what manuscripts and letters of the Apostles were going to be accepted as gospel. When through the power of the Roman empire, they pulled together a bunch of wide spread cults together into one large goverment supported cult.

Oh yeah, he just inspired these people.

Raptor 597 · Post by **Raptor 597** » 2002-10-02 02:37pm

Have fun guys. I would be smacking him down, but I'm too busy.