Acts of God?

[bob x]

Mee: the fact is, the people in those cities WEREN'T "all" (or even mostly) destroyed.

Cyber, Quahom: don't worry about me. I have been called a lot worse than "jerk" and could hardly feel injured about it. Q, your religion seems to fill you with anger and bitterness (even worse than my own anger spasms!) but that is your problem and I refuse to make it mine.

 

[Tao_Equus]

Mee, you still not told me yet exactly when is the next "end of days". After all I want to go out owing the banks as much as possible.

Incidentally I have been looking into a little of the detailed background of the founders and leaders of your ermmm... esteemed church. Would you mind starting a thread on it so we could all discuss the merits of your particular scam...sorry I mean Church?

Tao

 

[Quahom1]

Mee: the fact is, the people in those cities WEREN'T "all" (or even mostly) destroyed.

Cyber, Quahom: don't worry about me. I have been called a lot worse than "jerk" and could hardly feel injured about it. Q, your religion seems to fill you with anger and bitterness (even worse than my own anger spasms!) but that is your problem and I refuse to make it mine.

Angry...not even close. The only one here in this conversation angry with God appears to be you...as well as angry with the citizenry, the government, and anyone who might disagree with your philosophy.

But you are right, about the people not being destroyed. The bible states the cities were destroyed, never to be rebuilt. In fact, the only death actually recorded I believe was Lot's wife...

v/r

Q

 

[Quahom1]

Incidentally I have been looking into a little of the detailed background of the founders and leaders of your ermmm... esteemed church. Would you mind starting a thread on it so we could all discuss the merits of your particular scam...sorry I mean Church?

Tao

Tao, that's not nice either. Mee didn't start the faith. Mee simply believes in it, and the message it carries today. And Mee has never posted a sarcastic post here...(doing better than most of us I believe...)

v/r

Q

 

[Quahom1]

So if I stooped to calling you a jerk, or juantoo3 an arrogant putz, then you wouldn't get your panties all bunched up claiming that I'm too personal or uncivil for doing the same thing that you do, right? Or would you gripe and I be at risk of being banned per someone's brand of civil conduct in the same way that Silas and Niranjan were banned due to someone's intolerance? It seems like we have yet to consider the ramifications of being the hypocrite. Q, I don't know if anyone ever asked you: Do you think it was good that Silas or Niranjan were banned? Did they deserve it?

Yes I know I sound like a broken record or rubber necked ducky because nobody wants to keep hearing or talking about those vile wretched uncivil people anymore. They were justly punished, right? For a while, when my wife and I were teaching one our uncivil children the golden rule she would come back with it as, "I did to her what she did to me". I saw that in your words there Q. Don't get me wrong... you can call me any name in the dictionary including 'jerk' or 'idiot' or 'arrogant putz', or even 'hypocrite' or 'snake'. I might even learn from it but if you can't receive those words then I see a problem and I'm just raising the red flag. Smells like the vinegar you personally hate.

Coming from some Cyberpi, that to me is the pot calling the kettle "black"...
I just don't try an use overly verbose and agragendized phraseology to get my point across. And mixing rudeness with refusal to adhere to CR code of conduct pertaining to proselytizing is comparing apples and oranges. The "hypocrasy" therefore is a figment of one's imagination.

As far as whether one deserves being banned, the admin determined that the CRs rules were being broken, and there was no intention of stopping the breaking of them. What good is a rule if it isn't enforced? A decision was made and consequences were met out. The aboriginies of Australia do the exact same thing within their villages. If one will not follow societal rules, then one is stating they do not want to be part of that society as it stands. Since they are in the minority, they must leave. Even Paul and others warn the early churches for example, of those intent on supplanting the established, which counters the original intent, and say remove them from the church's midst...(bannish them).

I am not concerned about whether you consider me anything Cyberpi. That is your opinion, which you are most assuredly entitled to.

And as an aside...I happen to like drinking the pickle juice, once the dills are gone. So what goes into the recycle bin is an empty jar...

v/r

Q

 

[cyberpi]

Coming from some Cyberpi, that to me is the pot calling the kettle "black"...

Why, have I banned someone for their name calling?

And mixing rudeness with refusal to adhere to CR code of conduct pertaining to proselytizing is comparing apples and oranges.

I'm not so sure about the word proselytizing, but you didn't like what someone said so you called them a jerk. Whoever banned Niranjan and Silas didn't like what they said, so they banned them. I'd say there is some definite proselytizing going on there.

The aboriginies of Australia do the exact same thing within their villages. If one will not follow societal rules, then one is stating they do not want to be part of that society as it stands. Since they are in the minority, they must leave.

The law of tribes. So then this is tribal CR. Rather than compare religion you want to monopolize it. Show of hands... how many people here voted on the CoC? Show of hands... how many people voted for Niranjan or Silas to be banned? Show of hands... how many people thought it was good that Niranjan and Silas were banned? I think that the tribal majority is in your dreams Q.

There was a day when people who used the word Church or Christian were a minority, and there was a day when the followers of Jesus were a minority. So playing tribal majority... or ethnocentrism... is fundamentally against the religion.

 

[Quahom1]

Why, have I banned someone for their name calling?

No, you just call names at those that "ban".

I'm not so sure about the word proselytizing, but you didn't like what someone said so you called them a jerk. Whoever banned Niranjan and Silas didn't like what they said, so they banned them. I'd say there is some definite proselytizing going on there.

No, I asked if anyone ever called him a jerk. Last time anyone else was called a jerk, it was me...by China Cat.

The law of tribes. So then this is tribal CR. Rather than compare religion you want to monopolize it. Show of hands... how many people here voted on the CoC? Show of hands... how many people voted for Niranjan or Silas to be banned? Show of hands... how many people thought it was good that Niranjan and Silas were banned? I think that the tribal majority is in your dreams Q.

No, this is CR, where everyone gets their say, and no one (not even you), gets to tell them they are mucked up. And this is not a democracy Cyberpi. You are a guest in the host's home...suggest you keep that in mind.

There was a day when people who used the word Church or Christian were a minority, and there was a day when the followers of Jesus were a minority. So playing tribal majority... or ethnocentrism... is fundamentally against the religion.

That day is gone and this is the Christian forum. Remember that my friend.

v/r

Q

 

[mee]

Mee, you still not told me yet exactly when is the next "end of days". After all I want to go out owing the banks as much as possible.



Tao

the start of the last days was 1914 , so you are now living in the last days, putting ourselves in the right place in a spiritual sense and having the right attitude will work wonders to our possibly being concealed in the day of Jehovah. spiritual treasures are more good for us than any money in the bank .

 

[mee]

Mee, you still not told me yet exactly when is the next "end of days". After all I want to go out owing the banks as much as possible.

Incidentally I have been looking into a little of the detailed background of the founders and leaders of your ermmm... esteemed church. Would you mind starting a thread on it so we could all discuss the merits of your particular scam...sorry I mean Church?

Tao

some are misled to believe that the true followers of christ are a scam . but some are not misled . the following brochure is on the official site of Jehovahs witnesses

Jehovah’s Witnesses—Who Are They? What Do They Believe?
Describes who they are, their modern development and growth, what they believe, the practical value to your community of what they preach, and their worldwide organizationFor those who are really wanting to know it is there on the web.
Jehovah's Witnesses: Watchtower Society Official Web Site

[SIZE=-1]Official web site of Watchtower Society, the legal organization in use by Jehovah's Witnesses. Authoritative source about beliefs, teachings, activities.

[/SIZE]

 

[mee]

“The great day of Jehovah is near. It is near, and there is a hurrying of it very much.”—ZEPHANIAH 1:14.
seek Jehovah, all YOU meek ones of the earth, who have practiced His own judicial decision. Seek righteousness, seek meekness. Probably YOU may be concealed in the day of Jehovah’s anger Zephaniah 2;3

 

[Tao_Equus]

Tao, that's not nice either. Mee didn't start the faith. Mee simply believes in it, and the message it carries today. And Mee has never posted a sarcastic post here...(doing better than most of us I believe...)

v/r

Q

Hi Q, and very happy to see you back on top form

Perhaps I show a lack of respect for Mee's particular denomination, and perhaps I do get a little tired of Mee's posts being 99% quotes from the re-write version of ye olde tome he prefers. But is the Christian faith and its denominations so afraid of scrutiny that it cannot allow a probing debate on its foundations? In my experience anything which has roots that are diseased and rotten is unhealthy fare.
Mee has no inhibition about posting across the threads with his, in my opinion, often facile cut and pastes. My post merely challenges him to put the veracity and integrity of his chosen Church under scrutiny for once rather than him judging others by the rhetoric of watchtower. I admit my post showed a disdain for the organisation to which he devotes his energies, but I believe my disdain to be shared by many here and is thus a valid way to create an unambiguous message.
As you can see Mee has rather than accept my challenge attempted to refer me to watchtower doctrine. A doctrine dreamt up by a man who lived a life of luxury not piety. I have issues with all "end of days" brands of faith wherever I find them. To my mind they are a key tool in knowing which denominations are cruel and manipulative brainwasher's and which might not be. I respect Mee's right to be who he is and believe whatever he wants to. But if he wishes to proselytise so shamelessly then surely he cannot expect to go unchallenged?

Tao

Mee,

Slippery replies. "If you are not with me you are against me" is something said more recently by another insane individual. Whether from the Watchtower or a President such a statement is used to stifle truth and is designed to infer that dissenters are a mortal enemy with nothing valid to say. Do you believe there is nothing to be gained, that no understanding of your particular doctrine, can be made by putting its foundations under scrutiny? Or are you afraid that the tired old causes of insanity and greed might challenge your faith beyond breaking point?

Regards

Tao

 

[Quahom1]

Hi Q, and very happy to see you back on top form

Perhaps I show a lack of respect for Mee's particular denomination, and perhaps I do get a little tired of Mee's posts being 99% quotes from the re-write version of ye olde tome he prefers. But is the Christian faith and its denominations so afraid of scrutiny that it cannot allow a probing debate on its foundations? In my experience anything which has roots that are diseased and rotten is unhealthy fare.
Mee has no inhibition about posting across the threads with his, in my opinion, often facile cut and pastes. My post merely challenges him to put the veracity and integrity of his chosen Church under scrutiny for once rather than him judging others by the rhetoric of watchtower. I admit my post showed a disdain for the organisation to which he devotes his energies, but I believe my disdain to be shared by many here and is thus a valid way to create an unambiguous message.
As you can see Mee has rather than accept my challenge attempted to refer me to watchtower doctrine. A doctrine dreamt up by a man who lived a life of luxury not piety. I have issues with all "end of days" brands of faith wherever I find them. To my mind they are a key tool in knowing which denominations are cruel and manipulative brainwasher's and which might not be. I respect Mee's right to be who he is and believe whatever he wants to. But if he wishes to proselytise so shamelessly then surely he cannot expect to go unchallenged?

Tao

Mee,

Slippery replies. "If you are not with me you are against me" is something said more recently by another insane individual. Whether from the Watchtower or a President such a statement is used to stifle truth and is designed to infer that dissenters are a mortal enemy with nothing valid to say. Do you believe there is nothing to be gained, that no understanding of your particular doctrine, can be made by putting its foundations under scrutiny? Or are you afraid that the tired old causes of insanity and greed might challenge your faith beyond breaking point?

Regards

Tao

Thanks Tao. It isn't Christianity being afraid of the light of day (it is to be a lighthouse or shining beacon on the top of the hill). Scrutiny fears come from individuals who are uncertain about their own knowledge base and or their own "faith".

In my case, the irritation factor comes into play with me, because I know something, and am then told by another that I know nothing...and should I let it go, then it is chalked up to weakness...when in reality, if it weren't for the strength of my faith in Christ (in this case), I would not be a very nice person to be around (for fools). If anything, Christianity has tempered my baser nature, and gives me pause and cause to remain calm, despite the "tempest" that may be around me.

Christianity Tao, is a great equalizer in life. It takes those who are naturally "fighters" and teaches them to be lovers. It takes those who are lovers, and teaches them to be able to fight. It sets balance.

What Christianity can do nothing with is fence walkers. God can't do anything with fence walkers, except knock them off the fence, one side or the other...one must choose, yes or no.

Personally, the attack on Christianity doesn't bother me. It is an opportunity to shine. What stuns people, is that Christians can fight back, HARD...and they can hurt! It's nothing personal. It's simply the right thing to do.

Christianity reminds me of the United States Coast Guard (go figure...). Coast Guardsmen are outfitted with a rifle/pistol on one hip, and a first aid kit and life ring on the other. The preference is the using of the first aid kit and ring to help, all the time, but the gun in the hands of a Coasty is very accurate in finding its mark, if neccessary...Even the US Marines respect the Coast Guard...

Christianity is to make that same kind of impact on the world. Christianity is not a passive faith. It is a faith in action, or else it becomes no longer a living faith but rather a dead religion. But it isn't always rosy and cheerful. That is media hype, through the centuries.

People like Mee are passionate about their faith in Christ, and that upsets the status quo. Because it forces one to reveiw their own lives, and realize they are not living up the the standard beffiting them (just as a human being, let alone Child of God).

OK, getting off my box now...

v/r

Q

 

[Tao_Equus]

Hi Q and thanks for your response.

With the exception of the time Jesus purportedly overturned the tables of the moneylenders in the synagogue I have always considered the lesson Jesus attempted to preach was pacifist. Even then that appears to me to be more an act of outrage than violence. Yet far from the propaganda you may think many are influenced by I do not in fact see the history of Christianity as one of peaceful intent. Christianity has on the whole showed little but intolerance throughout most of its history.

There have been several commentators on the Christian message that have rejected affiliation to any denomination and by and large it tends to be those that, IMHO, come closest to realising the facts in the Christ teachings. People such as Nikos Kazantakis and Kahil Gibran manage to humanise rather than deify Christ and in the doing I believe they to be the true disciples of Christ's cause.

Charles Taze Russell however was a schizophrenic and a paranoid who's apocalyptic visions are all too common in any mental health hospital. He was however industrious in gathering people to him and Nelson Barbour was only too willing to capitalise and profit from Russell's endeavours. And so started what would become The Watchtower. To this day its only real purpose is raising revenues.

I am not a 'Christian' and I have nothing against Christianity in itself. I consider myself to live largely by basic Christian values. And so I do not feel it right to sit back and let organisations that at the root are anything but Christian to fool, brainwash and coerce people into what amounts to funding a racket. Especially when these rackets are willing to destroy the lives of so many, even murder. So I may not be a Christian, but I am Christ-like in my approach to humanity. And so I feel justified to speak my mind on such issues. The doom-mongers that promise salvation for a price, in this case earnings and individuality, should have no hiding place from rational reproach.

When Mee comes here and does his cut and pastes he is not here in the spirit of genuine dialogue but as a salesperson for a corrupt organisation. He has openly declared himself here to proselytise for the organisation he supports. Last time i checked this was against the COC but I have no issue with that and do not want him banned. Rather I would like to see his own self gradually manifest its way into his thinking and posting. It may never happen....but would it not be a triumph for CR for that to happen?

Tao

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

Very well said Tao!

However,... In the context of an interfaith forum such as this, or any kind of truly open forum, whatever you can get from the Jehovah's Witnesses is a bonus. Really, in my experience, the same is true of Jews and Muslims. At least "mainstream" Christians will argue semi-coherently. We are more fortunate here than most forums, so I would say that if nothing else, one can enjoy the small exhibits and use them for whatever they're worth.

Chris

 

[Quahom1]

Hi Q and thanks for your response.

With the exception of the time Jesus purportedly overturned the tables of the moneylenders in the synagogue I have always considered the lesson Jesus attempted to preach was pacifist. Even then that appears to me to be more an act of outrage than violence. Yet far from the propaganda you may think many are influenced by I do not in fact see the history of Christianity as one of peaceful intent. Christianity has on the whole showed little but intolerance throughout most of its history.

There have been several commentators on the Christian message that have rejected affiliation to any denomination and by and large it tends to be those that, IMHO, come closest to realising the facts in the Christ teachings. People such as Nikos Kazantakis and Kahil Gibran manage to humanise rather than deify Christ and in the doing I believe they to be the true disciples of Christ's cause.

Charles Taze Russell however was a schizophrenic and a paranoid who's apocalyptic visions are all too common in any mental health hospital. He was however industrious in gathering people to him and Nelson Barbour was only too willing to capitalise and profit from Russell's endeavours. And so started what would become The Watchtower. To this day its only real purpose is raising revenues.

I am not a 'Christian' and I have nothing against Christianity in itself. I consider myself to live largely by basic Christian values. And so I do not feel it right to sit back and let organisations that at the root are anything but Christian to fool, brainwash and coerce people into what amounts to funding a racket. Especially when these rackets are willing to destroy the lives of so many, even murder. So I may not be a Christian, but I am Christ-like in my approach to humanity. And so I feel justified to speak my mind on such issues. The doom-mongers that promise salvation for a price, in this case earnings and individuality, should have no hiding place from rational reproach.

When Mee comes here and does his cut and pastes he is not here in the spirit of genuine dialogue but as a salesperson for a corrupt organisation. He has openly declared himself here to proselytise for the organisation he supports. Last time i checked this was against the COC but I have no issue with that and do not want him banned. Rather I would like to see his own self gradually manifest its way into his thinking and posting. It may never happen....but would it not be a triumph for CR for that to happen?

Tao

Indeed Tao, but then, you have not read "Revelation" which is specific about Jesus' return. It will not be a pretty sight by the time He is finished...

As far as Mee...well harmless is harmless, no?

v/r

Q

 

[Quahom1]

Very well said Tao!

However,... In the context of an interfaith forum such as this, or any kind of truly open forum, whatever you can get from the Jehovah's Witnesses is a bonus. Really, in my experience, the same is true of Jews and Muslims. At least "mainstream" Christians will argue semi-coherently. We are more fortunate here than most forums, so I would say that if nothing else, one can enjoy the small exhibits and use them for whatever they're worth.

Chris

Well said (I think). Could you pass the Crisco please? Chris, every once in awhile you start to expand upon yourself...this is one of those times. Who do you think you are putting in their place? Christians? Hardly. Irritating folk, is that your intention?

This is not a democracy Chris. And your predjudice is showing up loud and clear...and it is not enlightened.

Before you try to slam me, try re-reading what you posted...then we'll talk.

v/r

Q

 

[mee]

I admit my post showed a disdain for the organisation to which he devotes his energies, but I believe my disdain to be shared by many here

Tao

In fact, all those desiring to live with godly devotion in association with Christ Jesus will also be persecuted
2 timothy 2;12......................
And the dragon grew wrathful at the woman, and went off to wage war with the remaining ones of her seed, who observe the commandments of God and have the work of bearing witness to Jesus.revelation 12;17


now when the dragon saw that it was hurled down to the earth, it persecuted the woman that gave birth to the male child. revelation 12;13

many people are misled by this dragon ,who is the one in opposition to the true God and his purpose. knowing just what the woman and the male child are leads to great understanding especially in this time of the last days .

 

[mee]

I would like to see his own self gradually manifest its way into his thinking and posting.

would you not agree that putting ourselves inline with the God of the bible would be more beneficial to all of us .?
Wise words from God (in the bible)will keep us moving in the right way, and if we stray into wicked ways they will prick our conscience and cause us to change our course. for me staying close to Gods words in the bible is most benefical.
Jesus Christ, our Model Teacher, said: “I do nothing of my own initiative; but just as the Father taught me I speak these things.” (John 8:28) As a perfect man of God he also was taught by the then written Word of God.

 

[Tao_Equus]

Indeed Tao, but then, you have not read "Revelation" which is specific about Jesus' return. It will not be a pretty sight by the time He is finished...

As far as Mee...well harmless is harmless, no?

v/r

Q

Hi Q, you must be on leave!! Its really nice to see you posting regularly again

You are quite wrong I have indeed read revelations. I also read a few Stephen King and James Herbert books too. Bet you Ye Olde Prophets of Doom in the old Church wish they had had writers of that calibre when they were inventing the fiction of revelations. The fact is such an insertion into Christianity is nothing more than a cynical play to primitive superstition. That it helps the establishment by creating a rod with which to whip the flock is no mistake at all, but a deliberate device. The carrot being eternal bliss (pass me a sick bag).
Revelations has been studied by many scholars and there is a unanimous conclusion that it is a hodge-podge collection of ravings from multiple sources. You wanna believe in it....ok.. I cannot but dismiss it as utter nonsense.

Regards

Tao


Hi Mee,

When I see a platoon of fiery dragons looping the loop over Edinburgh Castle I will rush off and repent ...ok?

Tao

 

[Quahom1]

Hi Q, you must be on leave!! Its really nice to see you posting regularly again

You are quite wrong I have indeed read revelations. I also read a few Stephen King and James Herbert books too. Bet you Ye Olde Prophets of Doom in the old Church wish they had had writers of that calibre when they were inventing the fiction of revelations. The fact is such an insertion into Christianity is nothing more than a cynical play to primitive superstition. That it helps the establishment by creating a rod with which to whip the flock is no mistake at all, but a deliberate device. The carrot being eternal bliss (pass me a sick bag).
Revelations has been studied by many scholars and there is a unanimous conclusion that it is a hodge-podge collection of ravings from multiple sources. You wanna believe in it....ok.. I cannot but dismiss it as utter nonsense.

Regards

Tao


Hi Mee,

When I see a platoon of fiery dragons looping the loop over Edinburgh Castle I will rush off and repent ...ok?

Tao

During the counsel, the vote for including Revelation came up. The bottom line is that it passed by 1 vote...so you see, I don't have much concern about the end of days...

There was a chair that George Washington sat in, that had a sun at the horizon egraved on the back of it. When asked whether this was a setting sun, or a rising sun, he replied that to him, it was the beginning, and he had no time for endings, and neither did the United States.

Tao, today is the beginning...

v/r

Q