It's been a while :-)

[**bustysinclaire**]

https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/watchtower-no1-2018-jan-feb/bible-guidance-relevant/

A topic that is being offered for discussion this month. Some may find it interesting xxx

[cee-dee]

Lightning takes the path of least resistance, that's usually the highest point but not always, it's based on conductivity too. None of that's a myth.

In the scenario I painted above, the chap in an open fairway with a metal golf club was not only the highest point, he was the most conductive.

[upthecreekyetagain]

http://stormhighway.com/small_metal_objects_attract_lightning_myth.php

[cee-dee]

I think I'm pretty safe stating that it's a fact that lightning always seeks the path of least resistance.

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@cee-deewrote:

I think I'm pretty safe stating that it's a fact that lightning always seeks the path of least resistance.

---

If that were the case wouldn’t lightning bolts go in a straight line rather than sometimes forking or zig zagging across the sky - and why would some bolts go up from the clouds rather than down to the ground?

An interesting subject that we still have much to learn about. 

[upthecreekyetagain]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JVXy-ZqqZ-g

[cee-dee]

That's so but it's still the line of least resistance NOT the least distance.. Were the line of least resistance straight, it'd take it.

[**bustysinclaire**]

It's taken me absolutely ages to sift through all the rubbish to find genuinely decent responses that I may or may not have already replied to. I've copied and pasted each page lol xx

I've removed such a lot but tried to keep what looks like valid points that needs a reply but hasn't had one, sorry it is so long but there has been so much to get through. CD likes to write. xx

True, but with all things there's a train of thought, a line of reasoning.

Thinking about things will give you both and the line of reasoning will lead you to accepting or denying whatever it is you're on about.

With some things, following the line of reasoning laid out by others will lead you following their drift and seeing how their conclusion was worked out and with many things you can reproduce their findings for yourself.

Other things requiring some enormous set-up are not so easy. You can follow their line of reasoning and also follow that of others who were/are able to reproduce it and produce the same results.

For instance, we can follow the line of reasoning to see how an Atom bomb is created but reproducing it is beyond us so we accept the thought process which leads up to the production and we know "it works" so the production of an Atom bomb and its effect is therefore a fact.

Some inexplicable things can be explained only so far but around them are some actual facts.

For instance, a bloke out playing golf gets struck by lightning and is killed. He happened to be a bit of a character in business and some described his death as "an act of god" and "he got his just deserts".

Others would reason that he was out on a wide open fairway and was the highest object for some distance. They reasoned that he was close to a golf buggy with an open umbrella and was holding/swinging a metal golf club too so they reasoned that he was just unfortunate (and foolish) to be out in the open during a thunderstorm and was unfortunate to get struck by a random bolt of lightning.

The facts are that he was out in the open, he was the highest object for quite some distance and he definitely was struck by lightning. Whether it was an "act of god" isn't a fact. It's conjecture and a belief by some.

Now then, believing something written by unknown authors, compiled and edited by other unknown authors is up to the person reading it? Some have faith in what they read, they want to believe it. They want others to believe it and attempt to convince others that what they believe is a fact. It isn't. It's a fact that they believe it, the truth of it isn't a fact.

As none of the many viewers has bothered to reply, I'll do so, perhaps start the ball rolling?

To start with, I have read all the pages in your link.

Now the first question comes from the title, the question being "Which Bible"? The Bible has changed down the ages.

It isn't which Bible, there is only one bible - so when I'm talking I'm talking one Bible Gods word.

There are different translations where somethings have been ommitted or changed slightly. Our translation we use now is the nearest to the Hebrew and Greek scriptures on offer. We do use others but it is mainly the New world translations.

Some of the historical "facts" are wrong, the dates ascribed to some writings are way out. The way the writer of your link puts things over seems to imply that Genesis was written first. It wasn't.

Sorry I disagree, these facts are well researched. Where do you get your dates from?

Over the millenia, the majority of people were illiterate and it's said that the many and varied "teachings" were memorised. That reminds me of the old illustration of repetition distortion. "Send reinforcements, we're going to attack, pass it on" being corrupted to "Send three and fourpence, we're going to a dance". OK, daft saying but relevant and illustrative of what I mean.

Think you will find it was "going to advance" xx lol. I think you have got your reasoning a bit scewiff there, the bible writers were literate enough to put things down in writing and they also had Gods holy spirit to guide them aswell. The Apostle Paul was very well educated. Just because these people lived many years ago it doesn't always mean they were illiterate. You assume far too much. What proof do you have of them being illiterate?

Now, is the guidance relevant today? Well, yes, a lot of it is if you ignore the blind faith. You can be a good and decent person if you "do unto others....."

Rather more in it than just doing unto others though, this is where the real need to understand it as a whole comes in.

Compare if you will the Sermon on the Mount to the Sermon on the Plain and the many variations? There are many and varied iterpretations so "which" one do you "accept"

It all sorts of leads on to theories and theorems. A theory has yet to be proven and in a way is just a belief. A theorem can be proven like (the best known?)  that of Pythogorus. Just try to make a right angled triangle that disproves that "The square on the hypotenuse is equal the the sum of the squares on the other two sides"?

You can theorise this that or the other about the Universe but only some things can be proven as fact. We "believe"....... proving it is harder.

Where does "belief" become "faith" and where does such faith become "blind faith"?

You can't compare, proving a mathematical theory with proving the existence of a spirit being. 

The Bible says: “Faith is being sure of the things we hope for.” (Hebrews 11:1, The New Testament in the Language of Today) Therefore, faith is founded on accurate knowledge, facts on which right decisions can be based. It requires not only belief but a reason for believing.

We believe the knowledge to be accurate fact because we have reasoned on it and have been convinced by it.

[**bustysinclaire**]

True, but with all things there's a train of thought, a line of reasoning.

Thinking about things will give you both and the line of reasoning will lead you to accepting or denying whatever it is you're on about.

With some things, following the line of reasoning laid out by others will lead you following their drift and seeing how their conclusion was worked out and with many things you can reproduce their findings for yourself.

So you have said similar, that leads me to say that we don't have a blind faith.

Other things requiring some enormous set-up are not so easy. You can follow their line of reasoning and also follow that of others who were/are able to reproduce it and produce the same results.

For instance, we can follow the line of reasoning to see how an Atom bomb is created but reproducing it is beyond us so we accept the thought process which leads up to the production and we know "it works" so the production of an Atom bomb and its effect is therefore a fact.

Some inexplicable things can be explained only so far but around them are some actual facts.

For instance, a bloke out playing golf gets struck by lightning and is killed. He happened to be a bit of a character in business and some described his death as "an act of god" and "he got his just deserts".

Others would reason that he was out on a wide open fairway and was the highest object for some distance. They reasoned that he was close to a golf buggy with an open umbrella and was holding/swinging a metal golf club too so they reasoned that he was just unfortunate (and foolish) to be out in the open during a thunderstorm and was unfortunate to get struck by a random bolt of lightning.

The facts are that he was out in the open, he was the highest object for quite some distance and he definitely was struck by lightning. Whether it was an "act of god" isn't a fact. It's conjecture and a belief by some.

Now then, believing something written by unknown authors, compiled and edited by other unknown authors is up to the person reading it? Some have faith in what they read, they want to believe it. They want others to believe it and attempt to convince others that what they believe is a fact. It isn't. It's a fact that they believe it, the truth of it isn't a fact.

How ever you try to dress it up CD you just don't want to believe. So you are trying to convince yourself and others by any means you can. The FACT is the proof part comes down to each individual by their own reasonings on whatever knowledge is put before them.

[**bustysinclaire**]

True, but with all things there's a train of thought, a line of reasoning.

Thinking about things will give you both and the line of reasoning will lead you to accepting or denying whatever it is you're on about.

With some things, following the line of reasoning laid out by others will lead you following their drift and seeing how their conclusion was worked out and with many things you can reproduce their findings for yourself.

Other things requiring some enormous set-up are not so easy. You can follow their line of reasoning and also follow that of others who were/are able to reproduce it and produce the same results.

For instance, we can follow the line of reasoning to see how an Atom bomb is created but reproducing it is beyond us so we accept the thought process which leads up to the production and we know "it works" so the production of an Atom bomb and its effect is therefore a fact.

Some inexplicable things can be explained only so far but around them are some actual facts.

For instance, a bloke out playing golf gets struck by lightning and is killed. He happened to be a bit of a character in business and some described his death as "an act of god" and "he got his just deserts".

Others would reason that he was out on a wide open fairway and was the highest object for some distance. They reasoned that he was close to a golf buggy with an open umbrella and was holding/swinging a metal golf club too so they reasoned that he was just unfortunate (and foolish) to be out in the open during a thunderstorm and was unfortunate to get struck by a random bolt of lightning.

The facts are that he was out in the open, he was the highest object for quite some distance and he definitely was struck by lightning. Whether it was an "act of god" isn't a fact. It's conjecture and a belief by some.

Now then, believing something written by unknown authors, compiled and edited by other unknown authors is up to the person reading it? Some have faith in what they read, they want to believe it. They want others to believe it and attempt to convince others that what they believe is a fact. It isn't. It's a fact that they believe it, the truth of it isn't a fact.

Quite xx   Again you have to prove it isn't too. It is fact to the person who has been convinced, it is still very possible to be fact even if you don't want it to be and are not convinced yourself, and trying as hard as you can to prove it isn't with very little or no knowledge and so called evidence isn't working. But of course you will turn that around and direct it toward the faith. CD you have chosen not believe it fine but for some reason you feel contempt for it so you are desperate to prove it wrong. It is as if you are not quite convinced of your arguments yourself and are desperate to prove it wrong

 Where does the belief that blanking a person who decides "the cult" is no longer for them or questions "the cult" is socially acceptable taking all that has been written down the ages and really, is "the cult" itself socially acceptable all things considered and especially so regarding all that has been written? If you accept all that has been written, just where does such blanking occur in those writings without taking a couple of "references" to extremes,  completely out of context or adding to them?

Did you finish your question there? You trying very hard to get all your points in I don't think you did xxx you just want to reiterate your cult view and point out you feel the practice is extreme, don't you? Well the bible gives clear and understandable requirements so if they are not what a person feels they want to follow then their wishes are taken into account and the person no longer included in the faith and congregation. Quite simple and in my opinion acceptable. xx

[**bustysinclaire**]

You can certainly follow Christian values and not "believe". The thing is, Jesus wasn't a "Christian", he lived and died a Jew!

The word Christ means messiah CD, of course he was a christian, He was/is Gods son, yes he was a Jew too, but his mother and father were only chosen to give him the earthly family he was Gods son, spiritually.

What makes for religious disent is that all of them seem to revolve around religious "Laws" and "compulsions" under threat of dire consequences if "The Law" is not followed (religiously?).

Turn it around and look at it as a saving. Death is as a result of Sin which actually ocurred, before all the need for Gods intervention. That death was a consequence of the first sin. God then felt compassion for man kind who at the hands of Adam and Eve were suffering so God promised them a way out. So there is no extra consequences rather a chance for things to put right, wrongs righted.

I think many people are not well read and take many things out of contect.

Yes you are right there CD, but that does include you hun xxx

The gospels are conflicting and contradictory at times.

Only to those who don't want to believe so need to find something to use to back themselves up. If read completely to get the correct meaning then it is not.

John the Baptist was a Jew and he baptised Jesus. Some of the followers of J the B later followed Jesus and the sayings of JC were not written down until long after his death. How historically correct are all the writings is open to conjecture leading people to believe what part(s) they choose to believe. Other people choose to believe different parts

Again taken in context it is quite easy to understand and follow, J the B yes baptised Jesus they were cousins by the way, J the B baptised people who chose to change their course of life and follow God so it was a outward showing of their new faith. J the B questioned the baptising of Jesus saying he wasn't worthy to baptise Jesus because he new he was the messiah. But it was a slightly different baptism, it was an outward proof that Jesus was willing to do Gods will.

Read the bible in context and I don't think you will find that any different.

Another "difficulty" was that the original "sayings" were in Aramaic or Hebrew and translations in to Greek & etc were a bit conmplicated by the same or similar words having different meanings. Mix in various dialects and you've got added complications in translation.

Possibly, so the translations have to be accurate don't they before you can confidently pass the message on, that is what is done now, so much research goes into translating and getting things set down correctly.

Some of the Old Testament are/were corruptions of the Tanakh and Torah so how much was picked/chosen/discarded is anyone's guess

That is a strange argument knowing what they all are.

Look at it logically? Really, Jesus was talking to the people on many occasions but was anyone there taking notes in Greek? Why would they do that? Let's face it, they wouldn't.

At the time (very early CE) there were many who were coming out with all sorts of stuff and Jesus was just one of them so why take notes at the time?

Being generous with logic, even if the accounts were written during the first century CE, they were still written "from memory". As with everything, say something often enough and people accept it, right or wrong.

It all comes down to accepting the bible as Gods word, and the men who wrote it for God recorded what happened, one reason was for us today so we have an account as reference. Now you will tell me there it is fact that God didn't exist. Xxx Seems you ask and answer many of your own questions

[**bustysinclaire**]

Jesus lived and died a Jew so as well as Aeamaic he's have spoken Hebrew too. Whether he'd be fluent in Greek is less likely although he might have had some knowledge of it.

When he'd be addressing his "audience", who do you think he was mostly speaking to? They'd be mostly Aramaic/Hebrew speakers therefore he'd have been speaking to them in a language in which he and they were fluent.

Yes, Greek was "common" within the Roman Empire as such but.... the language of the (mostly illiterate) people was Aramaic.

Is it likely that Jesus mostly addressed Greek-fluent literate scholars? = No.

It's asking a lot to expect illiterate people of that time to have perfect recall of what was said to them unless it was just oft-said "prayers". Long and rambling "lectures" wouldn't have perfect recall but a few "important" points might be long-remembered.

All pointless assumptions - so not really sure of the point or question you are trying to make there. Jesus was able to speak with who ever he needed to speak to, and fluently whether it was crowds of ordinary people or the Sanhedrin, Sadducees and Pharisees.

As to the long anticipated arrival of a Messiah, well, is it any different from the long proclaimed end of the World? Say it often enough and it'll get believed? The end of the World is coming...... but it's a long time off yet.

Not if you believe in it no xx

But now we can safely say (believing in the bible and of god of course) the Messiah came to earth when expected and filled fullfilled one prophesy, he died an earthly death and was resurrected to heaven fullfilling another prophesy and he has taken his rightful place as King of Gods heavenly kingdom/government in 1914 fullfilling another prophesy.

The bible interpretations and predictions are not logical, most are completely illogical.

Logical if God existed.

Take a look at rock formations. Many show distinct layers. "Oh God made them like that." Not so, they were formed like that by being laid down over millions of years from sediments, ash & etc.

Can't deny that one, they could very well have formed from sediments etc and settled down like that over the years.

By your teachings, we are told that things were created in 7 days. Which things and when? Which 7 days? "In the beginning......" When was that?

 Give or take a few million years, this particular planet along with it's nearest star and it's accompanying collection of planets, moons, asteroids and associated debris were "formed" around 4.5 billion years ago.

Looking out at the night sky (at night because things are more easily visible to the naked eye), there are billions of stars, many of which have planets orbiting them. Many of those objects that we can see are much older than our little corner of the Universe. Use a telescope and you'll see much more. Use a large astronomical telescope and you'll see a great deal more. We can only see "so far". We don't know just how far the Universe extends.

God doesn't actually state a specific date so I can't answer that. In the beginning seems a good enough way to describe it. I couldn't actually state how many thousands/millions of years but the bible wouldn't actually say anything different to what you have said there.  The 7 day is talking of the creation of mankind and making the planet earth habitable, the universe and all it's planets stars etc were made long before mankind. Jesus being the first of Gods creation by the way, then Jesus made everything else for God.

Just a little thing you may not know, The whole universe is set in motion with planets and stars etc all in their purposed place. Nothing random about it at all.  It most definitely has design.

I also agree we don't know how far the Universe Extends.

You are making good statements about the universe CD, nothing there is actually denying God.

Science claims things were created in "The Big Bang". They say that was around 14 billion years ago.

Again, the bible doesn't say how God chose to create all his wonderous things it could perhaps have been described as a Big Bang. It just states he did. And with the creation of mankind it just states words like "let there be light" so there was light. xx

The people being "preached to" at the beginning of the CE had absolutely no knowledge of any of that. When things couldn't be explained, they were never told "we don't know". Explanations always fell back on "God".

Of course it did, there is no other. They were so much nearer to God and to perfection back then. They had no need to question creation because so much truth was told back then. Eye witness accounts and visible signs like miracles were seen and believed.

It was Satan's influence that grew and started putting doubts in their minds.

[**bustysinclaire**]

The known Universe is vast, we know very little really. Just looking at our own Galaxy (The Milky Way), there are only guesses as to how many stars there are in the whole galaxy and they vary from 100 billion to 400 billion. So did God create all those? Did God create the whole Universe? Ah-ha, I suppose the explanation that things were created in 7 days will now be interpreted as the absolute beginning (just after the big bang)????

At the beginning of the CE if some bright spark had dared to speak out and say that they thought there were 100 billion stars and each one was similar to our sun in that it was a How does your "teachings" explain that everything in the Universe over a certain size (about 250 miles) is spherical? "Ours is not to reason why"? "It's God's will"?

I could go on of course but I know it's a waste of time...........

Answered above, Yes he created the universe as is, nothing to do with 7 days.

The thing is CD because people don't want to believe some are not capable of taking in a concept like God being so vast. because they are not conscious of a spiritual need. It was difficult for me at first but you have to be able to accept the concept of A vast almighty spirit being, with intelligence and capable of anything. He had no beginning he has no end.

You look at the universe and you can just about imagine it continuing beyond what you can see. Well try and imagine an intelligent being just going on and on.

Going back to the rock formations, when the issue of the dinosaur fossils was raised on here some years back, another person who "had faith" said that the dinosaurs never walked the Earth, those rock layers and the dinosaur fossils were there because God put them there and that the Earth was only 8.000 years old.

I suppose because the length of the "day" in those ancient writings is open to a bit of "reasoned lengthening", the "years" referred to is also open to the same lengthening?

The bible doesn't give a specific account of the dinosaurs, they were animals so we take it that they were created like all the others.

I don't think the fossils of those creatures have ever been denied either. As I have already explained the day for a year etc, I won't again. God would have no need just to place something somewhere just to be found, how ludicrous.

Now it's said that Noahs Flood covered the Earth. Impossible. There's not enough water to cover the Earth and if there was, where did it go? Where did it come from? Oh God sent it and made it soak in to the Earth? If you melted all the ice on Earth there wouldn't be enough water to cover the Earth. Oh yes, there WAS a flood. In fact there were many floods.

Thinking about ancient times, how much of the Earth did those people know? = Not a lot. How far could they travel? = Not far. They could walk, ride a camel or horse, use a boat but how far could they go, know and come back? = Not very far. For all they knew, the earth just went on and on and when their "world" was flooded, the whole world was flooded. What that really means is their bit of the World was flooded so if their bit was all flooded, as far as they were concerned all of "The World" was flooded.

Around the World there are many stories of a flood. That doesn't mean everywhere was flooded all at the same time.

Now Noah is supposed to have built an Ark (in record time too) big enough to accommodate a pair of all the animals of the world. Cobblers. Have you any idea how big such a vessel would be? Where'd the wood come from in such a quantity in such a time as to be able to build such a thing?

It is possible that an Ark was built and accommodated a pair of all the creatures they knew about in their bit of their world but certainly not the whole World.

Ever heard of "The Epic of Gilgamesh"? You should read it.

I have answered that about the flood I think, but yes If God existed he was quite capable of assisting Noah and his family build and collect every single animal, as it was mentioned by someone else, the building took many many years. Everything is logical if he is credited with his position as the Almighty.

So it is again, you can't believe and don't want to

[**bustysinclaire**]

Now, I'm going to mention a word that might induce some groans from old-hand readers. SUMER.

Now then, there's a subject? As old-hands will know, I've written about the Sumerians many times. Now they did write things down at the time and a huge abount has survived to this day. Does that make all that they wrote true? No it doesn't.

All that stuff about beings coming here from "out there" seems a bit far fetched but you really have to ask "Why did they write it?" They say those people "told" them this, that and the other but in actual fact we're still using some of the things that they developed so a lot of what the Sumerians wrote at the time has more likelihood of being true than Biblical things which were only written on later heresay?

Lost me there CD sorry xx have no clue what you are talking about.

In conclusion (for now?) I'll just say that if there's anything inexplicable, impossible or even unlikely, all you need do to "explain" it is to smply say that "God" made it happen (or some beings from outer space?).

There is nothing that cannot be explained.

Hey, this is stretching credulity a bit much.

Sarcasm got a bit much too, I've deleted loads.

Our board spreaders of the word seem to go with creation having taken place around 6,000 years ago but how do they explain the existence of skeletal remains of various species of humanoids which are tens of thousands of years old and even a human skeleton found in the UK which is 10,000 years old? Ah, God put them there?

All the remains tell us is that certain animals with two legs lived at certain times then died.

I think that if you read the ancient texts having removed the rose tinted glasses, it all might, just might start to raise questions far beyond accepting things as a fact and "having faith".

Mine are purple actually, just had new ones. Xxx

Now how much of the Bible was written by a woman? Doesn't it all come over as a "Man thing"? It's all male biased. That continues through to the present day to a greater extent in some religions and a lesser extent in others but it's still there. Men were the "educated" ones. Most were illiterate but a few could read and write so I suppose from that point of view it'd be logical to assume that the writers would be men.

Women were (and still are) regarded as inferior to men and the Bible perpetuates it.

Rubbish, Not true, that is just how you wish to interpret it. Women are honoured and cherished.

Eve was made as a helper companion. Many good righteous women are mentioned in the bible, and given credit for good and righteous works.

Very well put. Well said.

I'd say to BS that I wouldn't mind betting (not that I'm a betting man) that over the years I've been in more churches and met more "Men of the Cloth" than she has. OK, so most have been Protestant of one persuasion or another and I've been to some Catholic churches too but I've never set foot near Kingdom Hall or discussed anything with any elders. Also, I've never knowingly met people of any of "the other" beliefs but I have read extensively.

I think I can agree then, it certainly explains why you spout out a load of stuff contrary to the truth of the bible. Your ideas and so called knowledge makes me laugh at times, you call it logic, not really sure what I would call it. xx

[**bustysinclaire**]

Now what's come through to me is that the thinking is the wealthy are "bad" and the poor people are "good". Also, what's come through to me is that the religions were all about control. Make the masses believe what "they" say under threat if dire retribution "in the end". Also, make them believe that "one day" they'll "go to a better place" where everything is absolutely wonderful.

Again you are mixing religions

Some of those "Men of the Cloth" are thoroughy unpleasant people to deal with and I'd go so far as to say, just plain nasty. You couldn't discuss anything with them, if you mention anything that doesn't conforn to what they say and they'll get really unpleasant.

I did agree with you on that.

What experience I have had with JWs is exactly what's been displayed on here. = Won't discuss anything properly, just endlessly spout/quote this, that or the other.

Maybe that is down to what I have found with you CD, not open to any discussion except what you believe to be wrong and not open to respectful sarcasm free exchange of views.

It seems to me that over time they've been indoctrinated completely in to the narrow-minded thinking of the cult so that they're unable to grasp anything else.

That reminds me of how religious beliefs were (still are in some places) rammed home by making young people endlessly recite passages from their "book" and beat the heck out of them when/if they made a mistake or couldn't remember a "verse". In the end, all those unfortunates could do was trot out the same old, same old garbage as they became just another member of the flock to go out indoctrinating more and more of the weak and gullible. In effect, they'd been brainwashed! Same goes for JWs.

Just attempting to be-little all the time, nothing of a discussion there, as you can't really find much in the way of defence of you not believing you have to take the derogatory stance.

Putting things simply, if there was a thread on here about motor boats and out of the Blue someone started "talking" about cultivating, harvesting and consuming Oranges, that would be introducing something completel unconnected with the subject.

Your beliefs are yours. You believe in what you do, the majority don't. Your belief doesn't make you any more right than those who believe the World is flat!

My Father was in the RAF. He always mentioned the following when something cropped up which was different to the regular thinking of everyone else:-

At the passing out parade, the Flight Sergeant was calling out "Left-Right-left-right-left-right,,,,,,," and all the erks were in step but as he said "Left", they went right, as he said "Right" they went left. They were all in step except one and as that erk marched past his parents he called out "Look Mam, they're all out of step except me

Continuing the theme..........:-

Just spiteful remarks really CD

I think your theme is lets bash the bible bashers eh CD xx

It's been said that Adam lived for over 900 years (!!??) and also many of the early people named in the Bible lived to great ages. Some researchers who've spent much time on the subject noted that as time went on, the later people seemed to have lived for less and less years.

We've read (at least I hope you have) that Cain begat himself a wife..... and many have asked where she popped up from? In obscure writings we're told that Adam & Eve had "other children" but not many get mentioned. Seth gets a mention but there's notta lotta detail is there?

Now, again I (and others?) have mentioned that there were many ancient scripts that were compiled (over time) to make up the Bible as we know it today but there were many other ancient writings that didn't make it. One such is "The Book of Jubilees". In there it said that Cain married his sister, Awan. (!!!)

Think I answered that one,

Laws for not marrying family members came in much later when there were many on the earth and the people were far further away from perfection, so there would be more deformities etc.

Now going back to the subject of longevity, if we take what was written as a fact, is it not clear from the reduced life span of later descendents and that there must have been some in-breeding, that such in-breeding caused some genetic mutations which reduced the life span of the people? That is, IF you take what was written as a fact!

Mankind no longer had Jehovah's life sustaining force (not really sure what word best describes that) Mankind at one time was given the ability to keep rejuvenating to never grow old, Jehovah removed that. Because of Adams sin. So as mankind got further from perfection so life got shorter.

I could go on of course........ but some don't like what I write because they only like what they write themselves and claim it as fact.

Lol, think you have done most of it CD xx

[**bustysinclaire**]

That snipe "were you there?" was uncalled for in a discussion. I could throw it back at you and say the same regarding what you say is "true".

I suppose all your sarcasm and unkind remarks were then CD? xx

In the context of the wider world, you are a "small group". You say shunning and disfellowship is not wrong. Of course it's wrong. Your minority cult thinks it's not wrong, the rest of the community do.

You have to look at the why it is done. Also how.

You don't know the real facts about it.

Do you choose to socialise with drug takers, thieves, murderers and serious crime committers?

I don't think toy do. Why? You choose not to socialise with JW's why? Probably because of similar reasons to the disfellowshipping. Only the hope is that it will make the person think about the wrongs and repent and come back into the congregation, back to the people that love them.

It is only done as a last resort, for serous sins and wrong doing of ones who have been baptised which was like a promise to uphold Gods laws.

The congregation has to be kept clean and holy, but by ones committing serous sins they are harming that status.

If nothing is done then it is like condoning wrong doing.

 Babylon, a source of many ancient things and beliefs. However, as with the rest of the world when it existed without writing, things would have been said, some things wou;d have been repeated, most would be forgotten except by those taking up a belief in something and they would have repeated and repeated things BUT, I'd challenge anyone to repeat word for word something that was said without referring to something written. On that score, like  Chinese whispers, things would get changed, altered, distorted. That's how the different versions of the stories came about. Was I there? NO, were you?

Not really sure what point you are trying to make there CD xx

I suppose considering that you accept some of those early writings as "true"" (or partly so) you'll say they were right about some things but wrong about others? On that score you're picking and choosing things which fit in with your belief and discarding the bits that don't "fit"? Of writings of old, you mention or quote something then put your own twist on it, much taken completely out of context or taken far too literally.

Your beliefs are therefore "your opinion".

I believe in all the writings in the Bible, Jehovah states not to change, leave out or add anything.

Now, YOU prove to me that you'll go to "heaven"? You believe that at armageddon 144,000 people will be resurrected and "go to heaven" to rule over Earth and the rest of you would live on a paradise Earth? Cobblers. How was that worked out? Prove it. No, I can't prove that won't happen.

I know I won't go to heaven, I'm not one of the 144,000, I understand and accept what I believe has been written in the bible about who does and who is given everlasting life on earth.

Belief isn't proof. Some things cannot be proved beyond doubt. I picked on the Ark story because that can be worked out logically as I've said way above in the thread.

I mentioned "he" above also because it seems to me that all things revolving around religion are male dominated. Adam was supposed to have been "made" first from the dust of the Earth? Eve was "made" from a rib from Adam? It was Eve who corrupted Adam?

It is wholesome headship CD, the head of Christ is God, Head of Mankind is Christ, and head of the Family arrangement is the Man. Women is not held as a lesser person. It is just a wholesome righteous arrangement that works well and gives honour in rightful places.

It was Noah's Ark? Noah and family were saved? So, when the flood subsided there was only Noah and family to "breed" from? Only one pair of animals of the world to breed from? A lot of inbreeding going on there?

Yes, but that has been explained.

Have I posted links to articles, scientific papers or referred to unsubstantiated rants by others? No, I've posted my own words and my own reasoning. Is it too much to ask for you to do the same?

Noted and trying to just that. But it does come down to the point of the bible and the Existance of God which I believe to be fact reasoning on the knowledge put before me as evidence

So you believe what you're told in the Bible? The Bible was written by later Man and Adam had nothing to do with it. As established, Man was on the planet long before the time when theologians claim the World began.

The writing by men has been explained. Many times.

Explain how your "god" spoke to people who wrote that stuff? They might have believed they'd been spoken to by their god but so do all the other religions. You can't all be right so explain why you are right and everyone else is wrong?

Man was inspired by God's Holy Spirit, he also caused some to have dreams. We believe we are right because we follow all Gods Laws and proved to ourselves that other religions are found to be lacking in obedience, interpreting Gods word incorrectly. Denying many things that God has explained to be true.

Religion should have its own schools eh?

So the idea is the have a totally featureless place, devoid of any nice architecture, having nothing on the walls inside, nothing in the windows, the only things in there are chairs, the idea being to have nothing to distract the gathering from the rantings of those speaking so that those being indoctrinated in to the beliefs of the cult will be nicely brainwashed after having it rammed in to their heads for ages.

Welcome to kingdom hall.

You have said yourself you haven't been inside one, so how can you know what one is like inside.

I feel it is your contempt showing through again, as you have nothing else to offer as a decent opposite view you resort to derogatory rantings.

Dear oh dear, it's getting worse. Fancy being given a perfectly good brain and allowing it to be addled by such nonsense?

Same old "We believe in the Bible". How can you believe in it when the cotradictions are there before you? Ah, it's that selective thing again. Pick and choose, cherry-pick?

So, we have "In the beginnig, god created the heavens and the earth" and then we have "In the beginning was the word"........... There's a simple contradiction?

Is there? In what way? you haven't included the continuation of each passage of scripture.

Now what convinces you that your god is male? Also, you can't believe your god is the creator if you don't accept that we, along with other things evolved.

The bible doesn't state that God is Jesus mother for one. Lol  xx The whole bible is written in the masculine.

Strange reasoning,  can you explain?

Now how would people from the days of the Bible have explained the existence of the dinosaurs and the other fossilised creatures? "There wasn't any need?" You mean they hadn't found any or they would have been explained away somehow?

You're wrong about getting something from something non-living. The one thing you CAN get from something not living is DNA. You can't get it from a fossil because the DNA is gone. OK, so you said it was impossible to get something "living" from something non-living but DNA can prove how things evolved if you can find enough specimens.

We have been talking about the beginning of life. On that basis I believe life could not have begun from non living matter, some have described as inanimate objects I think.

I have not denied you can extract DNA from old bones etc.

What I do dispute what I know of DNA and genetics is that there is no proof at all that you can get on species evolving into another species. There is no proof of sea creatures turning into or developing and producing land creatures over thousands of years. There are variations between each species yes but not one turning into another.

Well now, I did what I suggested you do and I read the whole thread again from start to now.

What has shone through is that BS believes and has faith in a cobbled together collection of ancient stories which have been collated by unknown writers who've claimed that their collection of selective stories are the word of some all-powerful male being who is the creator of everything.

Also, attempts to discuss the practicality of things at "the beginning" or before, during and after the new beginning of "the flood" have been completely ignored.

The conclusion seems to be that all the inexplicables are "explained" away by the claim that "it's the work/word of god".

Also, I see that the OP dosn't seem to know what "the last word" is? Stange that?

In conclusion the simple fact is I do explain points raised but you raise the same points over and over again. Dismissing the fact I have answered because I don't actually say Oh yes CD you are right and I am wrong.

All the explanations are based on the existance of God and if you follow them with that in mind then everything is very logical indeed. As has been said before you either believe in god or you don't it is as simple as that.

Answers of CD to creeky I Believe

I read your link fully.

I think we're back to the old thing about when someone is unable to explain something, it therefore has to be the work of some wonderous being with supernatural powers?

How did life begin, that is the question. Up to now, no-one's been able to conclusively prove how it did.

Scientists suspect that initially a "right" combination of constituent chemicals found on this planet caused a very primitive form of life to form which gradually evolved from then on.

Up to now, they've not managed to find either the "right" chemicals or the "right" mixture......

Some people think (oh no, we're back to believe?) that meteorite or asteroid collision with the Earth brought the "right" mixture of amino acids allowing the formation of such a primitive form of life to begin from which everything else evolved.

Is either of the above scenarios a likely "explanation"? The answer is that logic dictates that it is possible. The proof of either hasn't happened yet.

Your tone has definitely changed CD now you are discussing with creeky, I wonder why that is?

I know I may not be so articulate as some but that isn't a terrible affliction is it? lol

Further to my post at #202......:-

On the subject of life beginning with a mix of Earth-bound chemicals, Darwin theorised that life began in "warm ponds" on a very early Earth and over eons of tme, all life evolved.

It seems he might not have been far from the truth. Current thinking is that the earliest form of life (microscopic bacteria?) began over three billion years ago.

Scientist have been trying to replicate what they think happened but although they've made progress, life hasn't yet been created. However, they have managed to create some of the "building blocks" of life.

We've all (????) heard of Deoxyribonecleic acid (DNA) but how many have heard of RNA, PNA, TNA and GNA?

Sooner or later (?) they will manage to create a form of life from chemical constituents which would have been found on Earth. From that, All life evolved

Wishful thinking CD?

The way you write that seems you assume only you and a few others are educated on the subject.

DNA and others whether real or synthethic won't prove transitions from species to species.

What seems more logical with such comlex life as the human body It was designed and created by an intelligence or it just accidentally happened from just one or two bits of the building blocks

[cee-dee]

Absolutely flabbergasted!!!!!!!!!!!! Was there any need for all that repetitive C & P?

On a quick read, I will agree on one thing, you are quite right, it is "going to advance".

On a quick read, you're still saying "the Bible" is god's word. It isn't, it's the word of man and the one you claim you use is an edited version, bits added, bits left out.

The end result is you have faith, you believe, but were you arguing your case, your "evidence" is only heresay.

It's time for tea......

[**bustysinclaire**]

enjoy your tea CD xx mine too xx

[astrologica]

"One of the things that is wrong with religion, is that it teaches us to be satisfied with answers that are not really answers at all"

Richard Dawkins.

[**bustysinclaire**]

I hope you enjoyed your tea CD. xx

Just a bit of research.  

Is evolution really scientific?

The “scientific method” is as follows: Observe what happens; based on those observations, form a theory as to what may be true; test the theory by further observations and by experiments; and watch to see if the predictions based on the theory are fulfilled. Is this the method followed by those who believe in and teach evolution?

Astronomer Robert Jastrow says: “To their chagrin [scientists] have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature’s experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter. Scientists do not know how that happened.”—The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (New York, 1981), p. 19.

Evolutionist Loren Eiseley acknowledged: “After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past.”—The Immense Journey (New York, 1957), p. 199.

According to New Scientist: “An increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists . . . argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all. . . . Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials.”—June 25, 1981, p. 828.

Physicist H. S. Lipson said: “The only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.” (Italics added.)—Physics Bulletin, 1980, Vol. 31, p. 138.

Are those who advocate evolution in agreement? How do these facts make you feel about what they teach?

The introduction to the centennial edition of Darwin’s Origin of Species (London, 1956) says: “As we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the causes of evolution but even about the actual process. This divergence exists because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion. It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution.”—By W. R. Thompson, then director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, Ottawa, Canada.

“A century after Darwin’s death, we still have not the slightest demonstrable or even plausible idea of how evolution really took place—and in recent years this has led to an extraordinary series of battles over the whole question. . . . A state of almost open war exists among the evolutionists themselves, with every kind of [evolutionary] sect urging some new modification.”—C. Booker (London Times writer), The Star, (Johannesburg), April 20, 1982, p. 19.

The scientific magazine Discover said: “Evolution . . . is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is growing dissent.”—October 1980, p. 88

[**bustysinclaire**]

---

@astrologicawrote:

"One of the things that is wrong with religion, is that it teaches us to be satisfied with answers that are not really answers at all"

Richard Dawkins.

---

Here here xxx