Brother Apostate

Joined

• started 11 topics
• posted 1,922 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Brother Apostate

• 
  163

  Fight Thread

  by Paralipomenon in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  .

  1. you don't talk about fight thread.. 2. you don't talk about fight thread.. 3. when someone stops posting, or stops making sense, even if he's just faking it, the thread is over.. 4. only active posters on the thread.. 5. one thread at a time.. 6. they post without google or a dictionary.. 7. it goes on as long as it has to.. 8. if this is your first view of fight thread, you have to post.. .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Brother Apostate

  Three minutes.

  This is it - ground zero.

  Would you like to say a few words to mark the occasion?
• 
  163

  Fight Thread

  by Paralipomenon in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  .

  1. you don't talk about fight thread.. 2. you don't talk about fight thread.. 3. when someone stops posting, or stops making sense, even if he's just faking it, the thread is over.. 4. only active posters on the thread.. 5. one thread at a time.. 6. they post without google or a dictionary.. 7. it goes on as long as it has to.. 8. if this is your first view of fight thread, you have to post.. .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Brother Apostate

  You have to know the answer to this question!

  If you died right now, how would you feel about your life?
• 
  163

  Fight Thread

  by Paralipomenon in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  .

  1. you don't talk about fight thread.. 2. you don't talk about fight thread.. 3. when someone stops posting, or stops making sense, even if he's just faking it, the thread is over.. 4. only active posters on the thread.. 5. one thread at a time.. 6. they post without google or a dictionary.. 7. it goes on as long as it has to.. 8. if this is your first view of fight thread, you have to post.. .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Brother Apostate

  Only after disaster can we be resurrected.
• 
  163

  Fight Thread

  by Paralipomenon in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  .

  1. you don't talk about fight thread.. 2. you don't talk about fight thread.. 3. when someone stops posting, or stops making sense, even if he's just faking it, the thread is over.. 4. only active posters on the thread.. 5. one thread at a time.. 6. they post without google or a dictionary.. 7. it goes on as long as it has to.. 8. if this is your first view of fight thread, you have to post.. .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Brother Apostate

  This is your life and it's ending one minute at a time.
• 
  54

  YOU are bound to be like God, KNOWING good and bad

  by nicolaou in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  let's assume for the moment that god decides what is good and what is bad.

  does he 'a' choose what is good because it is obviously good or 'b' is it good simply because he says so?

  if 'a' then what is good is independant of god and he has no choice but to accept it as good.. if 'b' then the definition of what is good is arbitrary - god could decide that child abuse was good and it would be because he said so.. clearly this is ridiculous because we all recognise child abuse to be a bad thing and that is why god would never label it as good.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Brother Apostate

  Heres more proof:
• 
  54

  YOU are bound to be like God, KNOWING good and bad

  by nicolaou in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  let's assume for the moment that god decides what is good and what is bad.

  does he 'a' choose what is good because it is obviously good or 'b' is it good simply because he says so?

  if 'a' then what is good is independant of god and he has no choice but to accept it as good.. if 'b' then the definition of what is good is arbitrary - god could decide that child abuse was good and it would be because he said so.. clearly this is ridiculous because we all recognise child abuse to be a bad thing and that is why god would never label it as good.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Brother Apostate

  HS,

  Here's proof- Bible prophecy fulfilled.

  I mean, prophecies concerning Babylon, Egypt, Israel, Christ, etc, etc, etc.

  They've been posted here (on JWD) before.

  Here's a site that covers many of them quite well (no, I'm not Christadelphian), enjoy your reading:
• 
  54

  YOU are bound to be like God, KNOWING good and bad

  by nicolaou in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  let's assume for the moment that god decides what is good and what is bad.

  does he 'a' choose what is good because it is obviously good or 'b' is it good simply because he says so?

  if 'a' then what is good is independant of god and he has no choice but to accept it as good.. if 'b' then the definition of what is good is arbitrary - god could decide that child abuse was good and it would be because he said so.. clearly this is ridiculous because we all recognise child abuse to be a bad thing and that is why god would never label it as good.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Brother Apostate

  B.A.

  I believe that the Bible is God-breathed, that the men who wrote the Bible were scribes who wrote God's thoughts.

  Have you ever read The Bible Unearthed by Finkelstein and Silberman? These are two eminent archaeologists who have, in my opinion, done a great job in sifting fable from fact in the Hebrew scriptures. As far as I know, their findings have never been disproved with any worthwhile contrary evidence. The book certainly puts the scriptures in a whole new light and clearly shows the scribes wrote their own thoughts.

  I'd just be interested to know your thoughts on the book.

  Sincerely,

  Ian

  Yes, I have read The Bible Unearthed. There are always at least two sides to every story, so for a balanced view of their claims, I also read differing archaeologist's and apologetic replies to the points Finkelstein and Silberman make. Have you?

  Their findings (opinions) can't be disproved, because they are opinions. However, there are numerous rebuttals to their opinions on apologetic websites, as well as differing interpretations by other prominent archaeologists (Cathey, Deven, Dothan, Ussishkin, Herzog, Ben-Tor, Mazar, etc) all over the internet. Archaeological evidence is interpreted by both minimalists and maximilists. If you don't read both sides, you come away with a skewed viewpoint. The book does provide a different perspective on the scriptures, but as far as the conclusions reached, these have been rebutted, and continue to be rebutted.

  Finkelstein and Silberman's opinions shows the scribes wrote their own thoughts? They are their opinions, with many dissenting viewpoints on how archaological evidence is best interpreted.

  In other words, you'll find among archaeologists a contuum of belief from minimalist to maximilist, and all points in between. There is black and white, and there are shades of grey all along the continuum of these extremes.I am absolutely convinced that most who left the jws never get this point. You must learn at some point in your life that what you readily accept as "fact" is in reality nothing more than an interpretation, an opinion, and these always change with time. Finkelstein and Silberman have crossed the line in their book numerous times where they state as fact what is only opinion, and they have many, or even most, who currently (or will in time) disagree with their "findings".

  Here is a sampling of viewpoints on Finkelstein and Silberman :

  Quote: "As a working archaeologist ... I can attest that Finklestein et al. have based their conclusions upon "selected" data. You can’t hold "one" archaeologist [Finkelstein] up as the paragon of the field and expect the scholars to bow to him. I would direct your readers to Mazar’s recent articles (over fifteen) that dispute the findings in this work. Likewise I would also direct your readers to articles and monographs by Ben-Tor, and even Dothan and Dever. They all will agree on one thing - the data does not support a lowering of the chronology nor the dates he adduces". -Joe Cathey

  Quote: "I was one of the student volunteer diggers for Yadin on the 1971 excavation that found the Solomonic Gate at Gezer. Four of us Dug like crazy for four weeks just shoveling dirt as fast as we could to get down to the Gate. Trust me no one dug it up and rolled rocks down the hill before we got there as some have suggested. We had to dig down though twenty feet of dirt, often having to USE A PICK AXE TO LOOSEN THE ROCKS AND SOIL just to get to it. In the adjoining area burned debris was present above the floor. Assuming this was Shishak's destruction of 930 BC then that pretty much clinches the story, without even getting into the casemate wall issue or the pottery...Finkelstein's argument however, is absurd. You have three identical Heavy Gates all below the Shishak destruction. Call him Solomon or Call him Jerry, the same leader was obviously responsible and the timing is right, so objectively speaking.... whats the problem? ...
  The instant attraction of the minimalist argument/low chronology has less to do with archaeology than with theology and politics I suspect. ...But to let that blind you to the wonders of the text is to poke your own eye out because what you see offends you. The Gates are Solomonic and there is more to the mystery than most are comfortable with. It is the fear of the very real mystery of God which foments fundamentalism, and blinds the minds eye. Don't let fundamentalism blind your objectivity toward science nor toward God." - Daniel Pride www.kingsolomonsgate.com

  Quote: "Even without the above-mentioned archaeological finds (which to the unbiased examiner prove that camels were domesticated in the time of Abraham), it only seems reasonable to conclude that since wild camels have been known since the Creation, "there is no credible reason why such an indispensable animal in desert and semi-arid lands should not have been sporadically domesticated in patriarchal times and even earlier" ("Animal Kingdom," 1988). The truth is, all of the available evidence points to one conclusion—the limited use of domesticated camels during and before the time of Abraham did occur. The supposed "anachronism" of domesticated camels during the time of the patriarchs is, in fact, an actual historical reference to the use of these animals at that time. Those who reject this conclusion cannot give one piece of solid archaeological evidence on their behalf. They simply argue from the "silence" of archaeology…which is silent no more!" -Eric Lyons- http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1781

  more:

  http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/13

  http://www.tektonics.org/af/bibleunrvw2.html

  BA- In short, my take is- Some people can't get enough of revisionism ad nauseum.

  PS- It seems these days it's ok to be a skeptic of the Bible, but not ok to be a skeptic of what it's detractors write.
• 
  54

  YOU are bound to be like God, KNOWING good and bad

  by nicolaou in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  let's assume for the moment that god decides what is good and what is bad.

  does he 'a' choose what is good because it is obviously good or 'b' is it good simply because he says so?

  if 'a' then what is good is independant of god and he has no choice but to accept it as good.. if 'b' then the definition of what is good is arbitrary - god could decide that child abuse was good and it would be because he said so.. clearly this is ridiculous because we all recognise child abuse to be a bad thing and that is why god would never label it as good.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Brother Apostate

  BA, I/we would be very interested in your understanding of "God-breathed."

  Would you now? Rather than reinvent the wheel, here's a definition of God Breathed for you:

  God-Breathed; Breathed Out By God; theopneustos
  James R. White

  In our working on the key text in 2 Timothy 3:16-17, we wish to add in this second week the Greek term qeo,pneustoj (theopneustos, thay-AH-noo-stos, or, if you are really picky and like spitting on folks, thay-AHP-noo-stos). I highly recommend memorizing the term so that you can explain why it does not, in fact, mean "inspired" in the common usage of that term. Here is what I mean.
  "Inspired" comes from a Latin term that means "to breathe into." This is specifically not what Paul is talking about. He is not saying that the Scriptures are human words into which God has "breathed" something special, something "beyond" the norm. Neither is he saying that God did something special to the writers of Scripture, though this is a common usage of the term today as well. We all have slipped once in a while and said, "Paul was inspired to write..." or something like that. While all of that is true (holy men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Spirit, 2 Pet. 1:21), that is not the meaning of the term here. As the NIV and ESV rightly handle the term, it means "God breathed" or "breathed out by God." As Warfield concluded in the article I linked last week:
  

  The traditional translation of the word by the Latin inspiratus a Deo is no doubt also discredited, it we are to take it at the foot of the letter. It does not express a breathing into the Scriptures by God. But the ordinary conception attached to it, whether among the Fathers or the Dognaticians, is in general vindicated. What it affirms is that the Scriptures owe their origin to an activity of God the Holy Ghost and are in the highest and truest sense His creation. It is on this foundation of Divine origin that all the high attributes of Scripture are built.

  And this is why I have so strongly emphasized this passage, for every single apologetic concern I have ever engaged has, in its final analysis, come down to this issue: has God spoken, and has He spoken with clarity? The number of those who continue to believe what Paul said here without qualification is relatively small, as far as I can tell, today. He is right, however, to say that "all the high attributes of Scripture are built" upon this divine truth, one reflected in the views of Jesus and His apostles. How odd it is that so many who claim to be following "apostolic authority" do not follow the Apostles' example in their view of Scripture; further, so many who claim to follow Christ seem to think they know better than He when it comes to the nature of the Word. How very odd indeed.
  So I would suggest presenting this information in this fashion; upon citing the passage, you quickly add, "Now, it is common for folks to misunderstand what Paul is saying here, as if he is simply saying that the Scriptures exist on a slightly higher plane than the 'normal' words of men; that is not what he taught. He used the Greek term theopneustos, which means 'God-breathed' or 'breathed out by God,' and this tells us that the very Scriptures themselves are the creation of God, reflecting His very breath, His very speaking."
  
  SOURCE: http://aomin.org/index.php?itemid=1193&catid=18
• 
  82

  What's Right about "Right?"

  by Farkel in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  hang on, folks.

  if a) is true then god is arbitrary: anything he says is right, is right.

  so you admit that gods decisions are purely arbitrary?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Brother Apostate

  Well, this must be a record.

  In the past fifteen posts, eight people have posted. Seven of them have concluded that BA is dumb as a post, at least one of these posters concluded this from his very first post on JWD. The eighth poster is BA himself, who despite embarrassing himself with some of the most inane logic ever presented to this Board with a serious intent, is now claiming victory in this "debate".

  I think it is time to award BA with the "Knocked Out Boxer Proclaims Victory" award and in this joins our Board "Scholar", another deluded JW.

  Streuth, what a simpleton.

  HS

  HS is so egotistical yet vapid that he doesn't get it- he proposes an Argumentum_ad_populum and thinks he's made a positive point.

  BA- My final post on this thread, not arguing with morons.

  PS- You can go back in your corner now, HS, sit on your stool with your pointy cap, it suits you well.
• 
  82

  What's Right about "Right?"

  by Farkel in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  hang on, folks.

  if a) is true then god is arbitrary: anything he says is right, is right.

  so you admit that gods decisions are purely arbitrary?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Brother Apostate

  1- Farkel's original post that started this thread was answered, and proven false. Anyone who has reading comprehension can see this.

  2- Farkel's original post that started this thread is a FALSE_DILEMMA , so his argument is logically fallacious.

  3- Farkel's inability to show that he can comprehend what he reads is apparent not only in his refusal to address JWD posters by their screen name, but by his missing the fact that his most recent post on this thread was already answered in my last post. I'm not repeating myself to someone who behaves like a snotty nosed child throwing a tantrum.

  Farkel's latest post in this thread demonstrates that he has the behavior and reading comprehension of a child.

  BA- My last post on this thread. Farkel's questions have been answered as well as proven fallacious.

  PS- hillary_step and onacruise, get a room already.