Posts by Apostate Kate

91

If Jehovah isn't the true God then who is?

by unbaptized in

if jehovah isn't the true god then who is?

if the jehovah's witnesses aren't god's people then who is?.

please let me know and i need current information, not outdated information regarding the origin of the organization.

Apostate Kate

Hello unbaptised.

I will start at the common ground you and I share. We do believe in the infallibility of the Bible. So I will answer your question using the Bible as the authority on the subject.

The God you have known, the God of the Watchtower as Jehovah is only a pale veiled version of the YHWH of Scripture. In Hebrew name=nature. God's name is His nature. He has many aspects to His nature, thus He has many names;

ELOHIM is the first name for God found in the Bible, and it's used throughout the Old Testament over 2,300 times. Elohim comes from the Hebrew root meaning "strength" or "power", and has the unusual characteristic of being plural in form. In Genesis 1:1, we read, "In the beginning Elohim created the heaven and the earth."

Elohim is combined with other words to describe certain characteristics of God; Some examples: Elohay Kedem - God of the Beginning: (Deuteronomy 33:27). Elohay Mishpat - God Of Justice: (Isaiah 30:18). Elohay Selichot - God Of Forgiveness: (Nehemiah 9:17). Elohay Marom - God Of Heights: (Micah 6:6). Elohay Mikarov - God Who Is Near: (Jeremiah 23:23). Elohay Mauzi - God Of My Strength: (Psalm 43:2). Elohay Tehilati - God Of My Praise: (Psalm 109:1). Elohay Yishi - God Of My Salvation: (Psalm 18:47, 25:5). Elohim Kedoshim - Holy God: (Leviticus 19:2, Joshua 24:19). Elohim Chaiyim - Living God: (Jeremiah 10:10). Elohay Elohim - God Of Gods: (Deuteronomy 10:17).

"EL" is another name used for God in the Bible, showing up about 200 times in the Old Testament. El is the simple form arising from Elohim, and is combined with other words for descriptive emphasis of God's nature.

El HaNe'eman - The Faithful God: (Deuteronomy 7:9). El HaGadol - The Great God: (Deuteronomy 10:17). El HaKadosh - The Holy God: (Isaiah 5:16). El Yisrael - The God Of Israel: (Psalm 68:35). El HaShamayim - The God Of The Heavens: (Psalm 136:26). El De'ot - The God Of Knowledge: (1 Samuel 2:3). El Emet - The God Of Truth: (Psalm 31:6). El Yeshuati - The God Of My Salvation: (Isaiah 12:2). El Elyon - The Most High God: (Genesis 14:18). Immanu El - God Is With Us: (Isaiah 7:14). El Olam - The God Of Eternity (Genesis 21:33). El Echad - The One God: (Malachi 2:10). "ELAH" is another name for God, used about 70 times in the Old Testament. Again, when combined with other words, we see different attributes of God. Some examples: Elah Yerush'lem - God of Jerusalem: (Ezra 7:19). Elah Yisrael - God of Israel: (Ezra 5:1). Elah Sh'maya - God of Heaven: (Ezra 7:23). Elah Sh'maya V'Arah - God of Heaven and Earth: (Ezra 5:11).

YHVH declares God's absolute being - the source of everything, without beginning and without end. "I Am Who I Am" Here are some examples of YHVH used in scripture: YHVH Elohim - LORD God: (Genesis 2:4). YHVH M'kadesh - The LORD Who Makes Holy: (Ezekiel 37:28). YHVH Yireh - The LORD Who Sees/provides: (Genesis 22:14). YHVH Nissi - The LORD My Banner: (Exodus 17:15). YHVH Shalom - The LORD Of Peace: (Judges 6:24). YHVH Tzidkaynu - The LORD Our Righteousness: (Jeremiah 33:16). YHVH O'saynu - The LORD our Maker: (Psalm 95:6).

Jesus shares the same attributes as YHVH and clearly claims to be YHVH. In John 8:56-9, Jesus presents himself as the "I AM."

Those Jewish leaders understood that Jesus was claiming to be YHVH and tried to kill him for it.

soooooooo...according to the Bible the WT has recreated the authentic YHWH and Yeshua. Jehovah is the true God, however there is so much more to Him that the WT has ever taught or believed. He does not need an organization of self righteous men to rule His sheep because He is. His son is not a recycled angel either but the great YHWH manifested as Yeshua.

38

Do you know what your last name means and where it comes from...?

by Justahuman24 in

i have always been interested in what last names mean and where they come from and if someone famous in the past is related to us because of the same last name.

my last name comes from greek but my family is not greek.

it dates back to the year 700ce and it was around the time in europe when people were starting to get last names - i'm talking about the general people not monarchs.

Apostate Kate

Mine are Scottish regional and clan names on both sides for quite a ways back but for one name that I don't mind posting. This name was thought to be German but in my research I found it to be Jewish; Zeller or Zellers.

They were German Jews that migrated from Berlin Ghetto. It was fun learning this since my mother told me stories of a cousin not being allowed in a movie theater for being Jewish, but the children did not know they were Jewish. They had adopted Christianity and did not practice as Jews. I guess there was anti-Semitism even in America. There are German recipes handed down but the language was verboten to speak.

One branch of the Scots were a family of 5 brothers that moved to Virginia after the Highland clearances. They had fought to defend Edinburgh from the Brits but had to leave or die.

Genetically my DNA comes from the Vikings. So it was traced from the far nothern Europeans downward to Ireland, through Scotland a brief stint in Germany on the Zellers side to America. I often think I should go back to Scotland, at least to visit. Especially in the summer when I am suffering in the desert heat. My blond hair and fair skinned soul was never meant to roast out here. I need the foggy heather draped cool green hills of Scotland.

178

Need Some Education On EVOLUTION? Start Here! Perry & Axal take note!

by Seeker4 in

perry started a thread on evolution/atheism, which from his very first post showed an incredible ignorance of evolution and natural selection.

axal's comments on the thread were just asinine - how all the atheists in his area were at the strip clubs fighting over women and fornicating!

i have to say that i live in a small town and have been here for half a century, and i couldn't name five people that i know here who are atheist.

Apostate Kate

I can't spend the time I would like to since hubby is home. I will just post my thoughts on the skull fossils briefly and be back in a few days. Tomorrow is Valentines Day at the nursing homes.

My opinion on the different skulls are that they all were either simian or human. When I was a child I was taught and believed that Neanderthal was a hairy ape man. Then later I learned that they buried their dead with flowers and other information was unearthed.

Neanderthal now is believed to have been fully human and intermarried with people from other regions that did not have the pronounced brow ridge. Some scientists think that apes and man interbred. That is stupid to me. It can't happen today, it did not happen then.

If that were even possible there would be sick people doing it today and we would have hybrid humans.

I still have not heard the logical explanation for the Human Genome Project tracing human DNA back to the first humans and ending there with a tribe in Africa. Wouldn't DNA be traceable all the way back to chimps?

There are gaps, big gaps that cannot be explained away with, "look at the similarities they prove we evolved" bunk. Where is the DNA trail? I have heard theories to explain the gap such as "the gaps are in the missing link's DNA" which opens up a whole new set of questions. If macro evolution works then how and why did entire species die off? gaps gaps gaps....

In order for macro evolution to work we would see transitional species today.

178

Need Some Education On EVOLUTION? Start Here! Perry & Axal take note!

by Seeker4 in

perry started a thread on evolution/atheism, which from his very first post showed an incredible ignorance of evolution and natural selection.

axal's comments on the thread were just asinine - how all the atheists in his area were at the strip clubs fighting over women and fornicating!

i have to say that i live in a small town and have been here for half a century, and i couldn't name five people that i know here who are atheist.

Apostate Kate

My friend Apostate Kate,
Finally, we have some things to discuss.
The BOLD is yours
"Someone said that in these discussions science dominates blah blah blah and theists dominate the tone. What I have learned is presenting science here as a theist will only result in any scientific facts being swiftly negated by someone parroting information they learned from Talk Origens. "

I promise you that unlike your 2 gigs of cut and paste regarding the Dr's that no longer believe in Evolution I WILL NOT parrot a thing from talk origins as long as you promise to discontinue the old cut and paste from answersingenesis. AGREED???

I have not done that unless the list came from there. I have had that for years as a resource. I don't as a rule read Christian creation sites when doing scientific research. I don't want biased information from either side.

I WILL however attempt to swiftly refute you since that is what a debate is.

This is not a debate board but a discussion board and it is good that we can keep it respectful. Why do you feel the need to refute someone anyway? Why not a calm respectful discussion?

"Someone once actually stated that the Second Law of thermodynamics was not a physical law at all and the law of entropy does not apply to evolution. I disagree."

No one that I ever heard of has said that the Second law is not a physical law??!? I think you are trying to tie two arguments together. ID proponents led by Stuart Pullen have retreated to the origin of the first cellular "life" as the battle line against Evolution. He has tried to use the Entropy argument against the CURRENT abiogenesis hypothesis (hypothesis--read NO EVEDENCE) (the idea that the basic building blocks of life came together in a primordial soup, NOT the spontaneous appearance of maggots as you try to confuse the issue with) The only similarity between the two is the word abiogenesis and presenting the two together is intellectually dishonest.

I have been told by an evolutionist that the 2nd Law of thermodynamics was not a law. What I posted was from Wikipedia as the description of biogenesis, then I pointed out that sometimes current scientific theory's have been wrong. The former belief that maggots spontaneously appeared as a result of abiogenesis is just an example I used to show that sometimes current "theories" are later found to have been wrong.

The Second Law applies to matter but its application to LIFE is slightly different. Life, contrary to the general tendency dictated by the Second Law decreases or maintains its entropy by feeding on Negative Entropy. In this direction, although life's dynamics may be argued to go against the tendency of second law, which states that the entropy of an isolated system tends to increase, it does not in any way conflict or invalidate this law, because the principle that entropy can only increase or remain constant applies only to a isolated or closed system. The Earth is NOT a closed system (sunlight etc..). Whenever a system can exchange either heat or matter with its environment, an entropy decrease of that system is entirely compatible with the second law. Google the newer Gibbs free energy theories or negative entropy.

So negative entropy means that this computer I am using at some point may not need electricity to power itself and may even self evolve into a better machine. Wishful thinking. Closed system or not the 2nd law is functioning on earth as is entropy.

"They claim to have proof that adaptation to the environment can create a higher more complex life form yet fail to show legible proof published by qualified scientists."
Who is "they"? What "proof" would you like to debate? Please present a link or proof and we can begin.

If you believe in evolution I think you would have that proof right? Do you base your beliefs on fantasy or concrete proof? I believe in biogenesis, life comes from life. Not in evolution, life comes as an accident from nothing, then evolves into higher more complex life forms.

"If adaptation otherwise known as survival of the fittest created higher life forms then why is the fossil record full of extinct species?"
The way you present the question would have readers think that "higher" means final and that there is some creation "occurring." Evolution is best thought of as adaptation. I know it’s a semantic thing but it is an important detail. We are never in the FINAL HIGHEST FORM. We are changing all the time. A species can die out for many reasons, among them, disease, natural geological events, climate changes, hunters etc. Above all, a sudden change in environment could make them unfit for living in the new world and evolution does not happen fast enough for the critters to change. The must migrate or die. Why do you perceive this is evidence against evolution

If evolution is dependent on a living organism adapting to its environment into a higher more complex organism then the fossil record needs to be changed. It is full of extinct species, get it, extinct species. Species that did not adapt. Today we have humans riddled with diseases and getting sicker and sicker with more fatal mutations occurring not less. Evolution if a true scientific law would be evident across the board, all living things would be subject to it. Instead it is common sense that says all life is subject to the 2nd law, entropy and will die. Small adaptations can be seen such as in e coli becoming more antobiotic resistant, but it is still e coli. The adaptation did not cause it to evolve into a higher life form.

Did you confuse the anti biogenesis argument and try to use it against the entire theory of evolution? Not sure what entropy would have to do with extinctions. Anyway, See above.

Entropy as a law, as a whole is as simple as it is complex. This computer will turn to dust, it will not evolve into a higher organism. You will die. I will die and turn to dust. The only way life continues is by biogenesis, not abiogenesis. Dust will never turn into life, but all life turns into dust.

You are neither ignorant nor pathetic for presenting them

Thank you. Sorry for the large type and all the red. I tried to make the font smaller and for some reason, entropy I'm sure, I could not.

Sincerely,

Kate

57

Jesus Christ, Michael the Archangel does it really matter?

by unbaptized in

jesus christ, michael the archangel does it really matter?.

because at the end of the day he's still our lord and saviour.

he died on a stake for our sins.

Apostate Kate

I do not disagree that Jesus created all things, But he did not create himself. The Almighty God created Jesus and all other things through Jesus.
That's understandable.

Understandable by you but that does not make it true. The Bible does not say God the Father ever created the Son. The son is the Logos of God, which can not be created. Please show me the Greek words that prove your position.

Jesus and Almighty God are not equal in anyway! Almighty God gave Jesus the ability to create all things. Jesus who will not lie said in John 14:28, that his Father was greater. He told his discples that there are things that he(Jesus the son) nor the angels (other sons')did not know, but the Father knows. Mark 13:31-33.

Jesus was equel to God in nature, but willingly subordinant in function. For example Jesus willingly gave up His life (John 10:17)

On John 14:28 Jesus said his Father was greater meaning in location and function at that moment in time. The object of Jesus here is not to compare his nature with that of the Father, but his condition. In other words; You would rejoice that I am to leave this state of suffering and humiliation, and resume that glory which I had with the Father before the world was. You ought to rejoice at my exaltation to bliss and glory with the Father

Jesus shared the same nature as the Father. Omniscience, omnipotence, all knowing and unconditionally loving. No angel could ever have that nature. Matthew 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there I am in the midst of them." Can an angel be everywhere at once? No. Absolutly not. Was Jesus lieing here?

Jesus was bound with the Father in a way that no other life could but for God himself. Jesus was incapable of not doing the will of God. And you know full well the Scripture "I am my Father are one" There is no [in union with] but they are One.

John 5 Jesus for the second time was in danger because the words he used in Hebrew equated himself with God. The WT said that the Jews wanted to kill him because they misunderstood him? Jesus; "I tell you, the Son can do nothing of himself, but what he sees the Father doing. For whatever things he does, these the Son also does likewise."

An angel is capable of sin even an archangel. Jesus was not.

178

Need Some Education On EVOLUTION? Start Here! Perry & Axal take note!

by Seeker4 in

perry started a thread on evolution/atheism, which from his very first post showed an incredible ignorance of evolution and natural selection.

axal's comments on the thread were just asinine - how all the atheists in his area were at the strip clubs fighting over women and fornicating!

i have to say that i live in a small town and have been here for half a century, and i couldn't name five people that i know here who are atheist.

Apostate Kate

:Very poor speeling by the way
OMFG.. bwahahaha.
GBL

You evolving folks have got to loosen up, speel was a joke. I speeled it that way to show that I was not trying to be mean and we all make mistakes.

And thanks for the compliment, Kate - intellectually superior godman, indeed! And you hardly know me! Okay, whose been talking??

It must be the superior way you win friends and influence enemies. I always feel so special after you have slung your negative adjectives around.

Someone said that in these discussions science dominates blah blah blah and theists dominate the tone. What I have learned is presenting science here as a theist will only result in any scientific facts being swiftly negated by someone parroting information they learned from Talk Origens. Someone once actually stated that the Second Law of thermodynamics was not a physical law at all and the law of entropy does not apply to evolution. I disagree. They claim to have proof that adaptation to the environment can create a higher more complex life form yet fail to show legible proof published by qualified scientists. If adaptation otherwise known as survival of the fittest created higher life forms then why is the fossel record full of extinct species? Is entropy at work here? Do you know how many species have become extinct in the last decade alone? How does survival of the fittest, adaptation fit in here? Sorry but it looks like entropy at work to me. These are legitamate questions but instead of being answered and addressed will most likely be dismissed and I will be called pathetic and ignorant for presenting them. There have been many scientific theories that have been scrapped. Example; Biogenesis

Biogenesis is the process of lifeforms producing other lifeforms, e.g. a spider lays eggs, which form into spiders.

The term is also used for the assertion that life can only be passed on by living things, in contrast to abiogenesis, which holds that life can arise from non-life under suitable circumstances, although these circumstances still remain unknown.

Until the 19th century, it was commonly believed that life frequently arose from non-life under certain circumstances, a process known as spontaneous generation. This belief was due to the common observation that maggots or mould appeared to arise spontaneously when organic matter was left exposed. It was later discovered that under all these circumstances commonly observed, life only arises from life.

A second, obsolete meaning of biogenesis was given by the French Jesuit priest, scientist and philosopher Pierre Teilhard de Chardin to mean the origin of life itself — now usually referred to as abiogenesis — reflecting the modern belief that the origin of life was from non-life

So we go from abiogenesis theory because scientists believed maggots spontaneously appeared, to biogenesis as a fact, life comes from life, now back to abiogenesis theory to support the idea that life began as an accident from nothing.

Sorry but in my pathetic ignorant mind nothing plus nothing equels nothing. I've studied abiogenesis in depth as an amateur and I find the reasoning behind it pathetically ignorant.

16

Who are following Jesus' and the Apostles' teachings today...?

by Justahuman24 in

please, this question is for those who are christians and believe in the bible.

no need for those who are not christians, don't believe in the bible or mock religion/the bible/god/jesus to respond, especially if the response is going to be nasty or offensive.

what christian group do you guys think is following in the footsteps of jesus and the apostles?

Apostate Kate

Individuals and groups of individuals;

Matthew 25:34-40

We follow by doing. We "preach" by feeding the hungry and sheltering the homeless in the name of Jesus Christ.

57

Jesus Christ, Michael the Archangel does it really matter?

by unbaptized in

jesus christ, michael the archangel does it really matter?.

because at the end of the day he's still our lord and saviour.

he died on a stake for our sins.

Apostate Kate

unbaptised if you already responded to this question and I missed it I apologize.

My question regarding if it matters is this;

The Bible says that all things were created by through and for Jesus (Eph 3:9, Col 1:16)

Then is says in Rev 4:11 that the 24 elders worshipped the Lord who created all things.

So my question is if the Bible says Jesus created all things, and if Jesus could be Michael a created angel, wouldn't Jesus have had to create himself?

"For oti by en him autoV were ktizw all things paV created ktizw,"

As I posted the word ktizw in Greek was never used in reference to Jesus. But that Jesus ktizw all things.

soooooooo....if he was created....and all things were created by Jesus...see the problem here?

19

I had a bad night saturday...

by megsmomma in

jw
friends

i have an 8 yr old living with her jw dad and step mom.

my worst fear is that they won't let us talk.

i call her every couple days and i hadn't talked to her for a couple weeks.

Apostate Kate

Megs are you sure you have no chance of winning custody? In California the biological parents keep rights and can fight for them. Especially with these types of circumstances. It may be worth speaking confidentially to a family law attorney just to make sure. If not custody then maybe regular visitation rights?

I'm so glad that you have made it so far. Try not to look back at what you coulda or shoulda...it will only tear you down.

You did the best that you could, period. Forgive yourself and look ahead.

You are a true survivor.

178

Need Some Education On EVOLUTION? Start Here! Perry & Axal take note!

by Seeker4 in

perry started a thread on evolution/atheism, which from his very first post showed an incredible ignorance of evolution and natural selection.

axal's comments on the thread were just asinine - how all the atheists in his area were at the strip clubs fighting over women and fornicating!

i have to say that i live in a small town and have been here for half a century, and i couldn't name five people that i know here who are atheist.

Apostate Kate

My god, woman, you're intellecutally pathetic,

I will refrain from copying and pasting all the other attemps to denigrate non evolutionists on this thread since I have already done it once. You can lead an evolutionists to see cultic thinking but you can't make them stop doing it.

RAF evolutionists believe that evolution is a theory AND a fact. They will apply adaptation and claim that there is proof that this sytem will create a higher functioning, more complex life form. Though there is no proof of this happening.

They will point to the fossil record yet the facts are that there are periods of teeming life, and periods of die offs. The Cambrian explosian is but one. The lack of transitional fossils is another problem they will overlook.

I am not oppsed to the theory as I used to believe it. Learning more about science lead me to a different conclusion but we are not supposed to actually discuss it as we are considered "intellecutally pathetic." Very poor speeling by the way you intellectually superior godman you.

All I'm saying bruthaaaahs is give peace a chance...uosay ancay avehay allay ethay ectretsay eetingsay uouyay antay otay...

Just don't be so cultic that you have to be so mean and hateful about these threads. It is very cultic....

Come on everybody sing it with me....all weeee are saaaying is give peace a chaaaaaaaaance....

doncha feel good now?

{{{{{{{{{evolutionists}}}}}}}}} love you guys..no really I do..