RAF

Joined

• started 17 topics
• posted 1,170 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by RAF

• 
  35

  I cannot "unprove" every single wild-side 911 theory...

  by james_woods in

  1. social
  2. current

  here is what i received this morning from an enthusiast.... james-woods, do you remember leoleoia (wrong spelling) whom you supported vehemently on this subject?

  i've been waiting for her comments, and, still waiting.

  as for you, you've taken the course of least resistance, you decided to ignore me and not address the issue.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  RAF

  Hi Bix Tex ... Je vais bien, merci et espère que vous également.

  To be clear : Also when I say the same way of collapsing, there are major differences about where thoses 3 buildings have been touched (wich level and how for the third one) and after how many times of injuries they collapsed (all 3) for them to have the very same reason to collapse the very same way (and more over from the very top to it bases in such little peaces). So from that if you only give me one explanation I feel like it misses something ...And when a bunch ofexperts dare to give there names to support theories which varies from those accepted by the Gov, (and even risk to lose their jobs, messing up their carreers and reputations) I think that they did really pay attention to what they are talking about, "based on facts" and what they know on the subject as experts in their areas.

  With such controversary (in between experts) I can only stick to what is less incoherent to me (from all sides).
• 
  35

  I cannot "unprove" every single wild-side 911 theory...

  by james_woods in

  1. social
  2. current

  here is what i received this morning from an enthusiast.... james-woods, do you remember leoleoia (wrong spelling) whom you supported vehemently on this subject?

  i've been waiting for her comments, and, still waiting.

  as for you, you've taken the course of least resistance, you decided to ignore me and not address the issue.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  RAF

  Thousands of people watched planes filled with passengers fly into the twin towers. Have them refute that first. 9/11 conspiracy theorists have never been able to get around this basic fact.

  Also when I read something like this, I have to wonder ... what does it change really ??? Do the anti conspiracy theorists stick to that ? I hope not (what about production) Now about the precision : "thousand of people watched planes filed with passengers" is just impossible nobody saw that, a plane flies too high and to fast really !
• 
  35

  I cannot "unprove" every single wild-side 911 theory...

  by james_woods in

  1. social
  2. current

  here is what i received this morning from an enthusiast.... james-woods, do you remember leoleoia (wrong spelling) whom you supported vehemently on this subject?

  i've been waiting for her comments, and, still waiting.

  as for you, you've taken the course of least resistance, you decided to ignore me and not address the issue.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  RAF

  But but but, the probleme is that even about "why" and "how" THOSE (not only 2) buildings collapsed the very same way has differents theories also supported by EXPERTS so who is right who is wrong ? They are all experts ... are we experts to say who is right or wrong ? NOPE so we stay with a personal opinion don't we ?
• 
  44

  How to Debate an Evolutionist (if you must)

  by hooberus in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  this thread is primarily directed to biblical creationists and other non-evolutionists here (as such no or limited responses will be given to evolutionist posts here).

  please if you are a non-evolutionist attempt to refrain from debating evolutionists here on this thread, as they will likely try to derail any learning, or exposure of their tactics.

  i will try to avoid debating here but instead posting information in a series of posts.. i consider myself to be an informed biblical creationist and probably one of more experienced creation/evolution issue debaters to have been on this forum.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  RAF

  How to Debate an Evolutionist (if you must)

  Agree to desagree ... cause how will you debate to prove creation ? ... O_O !!!
  (anyway evolution do not exclude the other theory ... So ...)
• 
  5

  OY ... Did we really read them ?

  by RAF in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  did we really read them ?

  (the quotes and the gb).

  colossian 1:15.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  RAF

  hi Ty and Cameo D thanks for sharing your thoughts..

  I've introduced this thread with this question because ... after really debating (if I can tell debating with my sisters in fact against the GB arguments wich they really sticked to) Now when they read their bible and litterature they are the one who point out incoherences / non sense... it's funny somehow.

  And thought it would be cool to share them on this thread ...
• 
  6

  Was Law of Moses really necessary?

  by cameo-d in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  were people really so unfeeling and barbaric that they needed the behavioral laws of moses?.

  how do you think our civizalition would be today if we had never had those laws?.

  would people be better off to have been left to conscious and peer pressure to guide behavior?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  RAF

  (A) yeah we don't need rules to love, we just need to be sentitive to others as much are we are for ourselves.

  so in the bible that's what I read

  • one that JW supports as you have to listening to rules (OBEY) without thinking about why and when it is a good thing ... that's what's the God of the OT (immature) is asking for (as demonstration of what doesn't work because of the obvious reality = A) even overprotection from God doesn't help people to be sensitive enough to others
  • Which leads to the one the one is in charge (Christ) wich is cancelling rules for only one principle to adhere to (love others as yourself as your god = Balance in everything)
• 
  35

  I cannot "unprove" every single wild-side 911 theory...

  by james_woods in

  1. social
  2. current

  here is what i received this morning from an enthusiast.... james-woods, do you remember leoleoia (wrong spelling) whom you supported vehemently on this subject?

  i've been waiting for her comments, and, still waiting.

  as for you, you've taken the course of least resistance, you decided to ignore me and not address the issue.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  RAF

  There are enough experts to support both therories (cause there are at least 2 to 3 SOLID theories, the third being the 2 in one)

  1. conspiracy as an attack from saoudi arabians - against who nobody has retaliate ... O_O !!! - there was no alkaida before IT - but now there's alkaida everywhere O_O !!! and since it means against occidentals (somehow) it might be true now, morevore if most of arabians feels that you are againsts them all
  2. conspiracy as a strategy to support war for oil (and at the same time revange against Sadam for not being the american puppet - Not against OBL ! the famous Oussama)
  3. and even both conspiracies could have worked together (they know - but they help it to happened - in an even worst way )

  You want to support one of it in saying that experts says this, or no proof about that and that, you'll probably stay on your belief relatively to what matches your opinion ... And my opinion is that the course of events from before to after supports 2 or 3 ... voilà ... that's my opinion ... why ? Because there's no real arguments to support 1 (regarding to who the gov decided to retaliate against) and the GOD'VERNEMENT experts and puppets do not have any exclusivity in my attention.

  Then of course we can call whoever stupid to believe wathever, but what do any of us really sur of ? Time may tell ...
• 
  28

  ADAM HAD 8 PIGMENTION GENES IN HIS CELLS!

  by badboy in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i understand that someone once asked why if adam was the first human,where all the different human skin colours come from, so the jw said that adam had 8 different pigmentions in his cells.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  RAF

  Who is adam exactly ? (sorry) ... Who can tell ?... but what can we see ?
• 
  5

  OY ... Did we really read them ?

  by RAF in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  did we really read them ?

  (the quotes and the gb).

  colossian 1:15.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  RAF

  Ooop the last verse is I Corinthian 3:4 (Sorry) and the end of this chapter talks too
• 
  5

  OY ... Did we really read them ?

  by RAF in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  did we really read them ?

  (the quotes and the gb).

  colossian 1:15.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  RAF

  Did we really read them ? (the quotes and the GB)

  Colossian 1:15

  15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation

  When the Governing Body tells that GOD is YHWH translated in Jehovah : do they really know what this tetragram means to say (I make to become) in being written Y for Yod, H for He, W for Wav and H for He (which is actually a concept)

  Yod : potential = father / He : in action in this place = fecondity / Wav : résulte = son / He in action in this place = creator. (resume essence by fecondity leads to the son = god in action) = CREATION (makes to become)

  and that's exactly what the bible says : whithout him (Christ) NUTS ! (John 1:1-5) so what is YOD exactly if not essence of everything (even biblicaly talking - since we can read in it that Wav is the God in action in God by fecondidity at maturity) I mean it's about every possible kind of evolution here NO ?

  Now skip the brakets in the quote : John 14:6-9 (when does a translator use brakets if not when "he" supposed that what is written is not precise enough to be understood the way he wants it to be understood) :

  6 Jesus said to him: “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7 If YOU men had known me, YOU would have known my Father also; from this moment on YOU know him and have seen him.”

  8 Philip said to him: “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.”

  9 Jesus said to him: “Have I been with YOU men so long a time, and yet, Philip, you have not come to know me? He that has seen me has seen the Father [also]. How is it you say, ‘Show us the Father’?

  It's seems like more we want to see God big and less we can see how big "IT" IS (even biblically talking)
  Ephesian 4: 6 "one God and Father of all [persons], who is over all and through all and in all." (ESSENCE)

  Really the GB is a joke !

  Do you have other examples ? (poste them) : got plenty ... O_O !!! ... (but ain't got the time to put them all here) it made me sick when I realised how much those Jokers mystaken all my familly ... and I'm juste glad that now at least 3 of us are free.

  search and you'll find - well NOT in JWLAND ... (false love , false propheties ... poor believers, no "grace" but : check the incoherence in : James 4:6

  6 However, the undeserved kindness which he gives is greater. Hence it says: “God opposes the haughty ones, but he gives undeserved kindness to the humble ones.

  OY OY OY ... do we really want to follow/study with any GB which can't understand what "grace" means and absolutly needs to translate it as "undeserved kindness" (does that talk about love : underserved kindness ??? !!! GIZZZZZZZZZZ - Really just follow your heart GOD, is problably there ("in all" Ephésian 4:6) to answer your question with understanding (by sincerity). but if you really feel like to belong and follow the blinds and moreover humans remember :

  I Corinthians 6:4

  4 For when one says: “I belong to Paul,” but another says: “I to A·pol´los,” are YOU not simply men?