No, I'm not going to be sidetracked into playing the spoonfeeding game. The posts are on record.

(June 2, 2015 at 7:03 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote: Explain how I demonstrated that? I was pointing out your failed logic of it coming from the 1880's as some kind of proof that it can't be true. If that wasn't your point then why mention the 1880's anyway? Clearly you believe that facts and truth could come from the 19th century

Because dickhead ( I've now lost patience with you ) you don't understand that a scientific theory which has been studied extensively for 150 years has nothing in comparison with a pile of religious horseshit which is nothing more than the delusional prattling of some shithead with a bible.  Try again.

You've lost your patience? Interesting, because almost all of your posts on my threads have been presumptuous and condescending. I don't think patience is your strong quality. Your post implied that the religion starting in 1880 had some bearing on its truthfulness. You don't believe in god or the bible so why would I care what you considered horseshit. People like you get hard by talking down to people so that you can feel like a mental giant when you're really a midget. I have no use for you in my attempts to be more clear thinking my way. So if you don't like my threads then move on. If you post then answer my questions without deflecting with insults... dickhead

---

(June 3, 2015 at 11:16 pm)Stimbo Wrote: No, I'm not going to be sidetracked into playing the spoonfeeding game. The posts are on record.

Well its bullshit, I have been completely respectful in all my posts. I got one PM reprimand for changing someones text (it was clearly a joke) and I will not do that again. I am not on here looking for JW converts, I am looking for help clarifying my head. If people don't like the follow up questions or explanations I ask for, thats their problem. 

I'm new to this thread. My question is this: if you believe in God and Jesus, then why do you think the existing texts and churches were insufficient? Why do Jehovah's Witnesses need to exist?

I'm sure I'm not the first member of Staff to notice a pattern of inthread complaining about basic forum housekeeping from the more, shall we say, martyr prone members. Quite apart from the report logs, I have that PM open in front of me; and while of course it would not be de rigeur to reveal its contents here in public, I will say that it is as far from being a rebuke as it's possible to get. Please refrain from mischaracterising Staff, otherwise the polite requests may become less so.

As to the presumptions I spoke of: if you really do need a clue, one of them was that I don't read your posts. Just like I'm not doing now, apparently.

(June 3, 2015 at 11:18 pm)nicanica123 Wrote:

(June 2, 2015 at 7:03 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Because dickhead ( I've now lost patience with you ) you don't understand that a scientific theory which has been studied extensively for 150 years has nothing in comparison with a pile of religious horseshit which is nothing more than the delusional prattling of some shithead with a bible.  Try again.

You've lost your patience? Interesting, because almost all of your posts on my threads have been presumptuous and condescending. I don't think patience is your strong quality. Your post implied that the religion starting in 1880 had some bearing on its truthfulness. You don't believe in god or the bible so why would I care what you considered horseshit. People like you get hard by talking down to people so that you can feel like a mental giant when you're really a midget. I have no use for you in my attempts to be more clear thinking my way. So if you don't like my threads then move on. If you post then answer my questions without deflecting with insults... dickhead

---

(June 3, 2015 at 11:16 pm)Stimbo Wrote: No, I'm not going to be sidetracked into playing the spoonfeeding game. The posts are on record.

Well its bullshit, I have been completely respectful in all my posts. I got one PM reprimand for changing someones text (it was clearly a joke) and I will not do that again. I am not on here looking for JW converts, I am looking for help clarifying my head. If people don't like the follow up questions or explanations I ask for, thats their problem. 

You have correctly deduced that patience in not Min's strong quality. I suggest, as someone who sympathizes with your situation, that you just not reply to posts that aren't sufficiently respectful, instead of complaining about them. There's also a feature that allows you to put individuals who you don't think will ever post anything you'd want to read on ignore so you don't have to see their posts. It's easy to have the level of dialogue you're looking for, with a little filtering.

nicamerica sp? Wrote:I am not on here looking for JW converts, I am looking for help clarifying my head. If people don't like the follow up questions or explanations I ask for, thats their problem. 

That is good enough for me.  I don't envy you the road that leads out of being a JW.  I hope you hear whatever it is you need to hear to make it.  Tonus made it.  You can too.  I suspect your brain just isn't small enough to make it as a JW'er, no disrespect intended.

(June 3, 2015 at 4:29 am)ignoramus Wrote: C'mon Min, don't be shy. Tell him how you really feel!

hehe

Hey, do you feel like the Jew banging his head against the wall! (careful, do it long enough, you might become one)

There is a joke about that, you know?  Wonder if I can find it?



edit:  I found it.

Quote:A female CNN journalist heard about a very old Jewish man who had been going to the Western Wall to pray, twice a day, every day, for a long, long time.

So she went to check it out. She went to the Western Wall and there he was, walking slowly up to the holy site.
She watched him pray and after about 45 minutes, when he turned to leave, using a cane and moving very slowly, she approached him for an interview.
“Pardon me, sir, I’m Rebecca Smith from CNN. What’s your name?
“Morris Feinberg,” he replied.
“Sir, how long have you been coming to the Western Wall and praying?”
“For about 60 years.”
“60 years! That’s amazing! What do you pray for?”
“I pray for peace between the Christians, Jews and the Muslims. I pray for all the wars and all the hatred to stop. I pray for all our children to grow up safely as responsible adults, and to love their fellow man.”
“How do you feel after doing this for 60 years?”
“Like I’m talking to a fucking wall.”

Wait, wait .. I got this. Blow it out your ass!!

HAHAHAHAHAHA. (Never gets old.)

Quote:Your post implied that the religion starting in 1880 had some bearing on its truthfulness.

Right.  Just like all of these other offshoot protestant sects which grew up like weeds in the 19th century because some guy claimed to have had a "revelation" from "fucking god."  I don't give a shit if you don't like it, pal.  But what you were trying to do was set up a false equivalency between the Theory of Evolution and your silly-ass religion.  Evolution has been tested many times by scientists all over the world.  The problem with all religions is that they are not verifiable.  And if you think I'm going to take on "faith" some silly shit invented in 1880 you have another think coming.

Believe it if you like.  But don't expect to come to an Atheist Forum and not hear about it.

(June 2, 2015 at 6:21 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(June 1, 2015 at 10:38 pm)nicanica123 Wrote: Before I answer this question, do you view the bible as the complete word of god and in harmony together?

Gee, I didn't know there were any conditions to your offer to answer questions. But okay, here is how the Catechism of the Catholic Church explains it:

Sorry, I should have clarified. I just wanted context before I answered... So those scriptures that you mentioned. They are a series of scriptures that are making me doubt. Not the truth about god but rather, if the scriptures do not have divine backing then clearly its impossible for there to be singularity in the teachings. That being said, in the book of Revelation, there are obvious scriptures that are being applied to Jesus that call him the first and the last. And there is a scripture that is clearly applied to Jehovah that also uses the same moniker, "first and last." So is this like the term, "greatest of all time"? I could refer to Jack Nicklaus as the greatest of all time in golf and Muhamed Ali as the greatest of all time in boxing. No one would say that they are the same person or that the term "GOAT" has the same application. So is the first and last phrase required to mean the same application? I don't think so. So is this like a Muhammad Ali and cacious clay type of thing? Same person but different names? Maybe, but when I read the New Testament as a whole, Jesus own words imply that God is separate from him and a greater being than he is. So the few scriptures that seem to imply that they are the same should be taken with the entire context of the entire NT. 

Sorry for the delayed response. Remind me if I missed a specific point you raised