for those claiming that- how much thought or research have you done?.
objective or non-objective?.
ever read the other books claiming to be from god?
Those of you ridiculing Genesis believe we made OURSELVES (i.e. 'evoliution'), don't know what OTHER religions claimed was our origin, and dismiss the FACT that the account is backed up by science....from THOUSANDS of years ago, before "science" existed.
How unimpressive.
for those claiming that- how much thought or research have you done?.
objective or non-objective?.
ever read the other books claiming to be from god?
Dub: Lol, Genesis has a literal talking snake and figurative creative days. It also has a God so stupid that he can't see that man needs a companion. I believe that the plants were created before the sun....
Q: Don't parrots, porpoise, and whales talk? Proudly displaying your ignorance is tragilarious!
some go back to churchianity!.
and that, to me, indicates they never had real faith in god- but it was in men.....
MadJW was anointed?
for those claiming that- how much thought or research have you done?.
objective or non-objective?.
ever read the other books claiming to be from god?
Example 1- the Genesis account is the ONLY sensible explanation (going along with science) of how we got here; other religions have comic-book fables, then science has blind chance (secret identity: 'Natural' Selection) making us, the ecosystems, the Earth and the Universe, denying a Maker. Yet they frantically copy what they see in creation, and refer to the Brain as "the Most Complex MECHANISM" in the Universe".
for those claiming that- how much thought or research have you done?.
objective or non-objective?.
ever read the other books claiming to be from god?
Sillian.
some go back to churchianity!.
and that, to me, indicates they never had real faith in god- but it was in men.....
Well, I'm new here and never read 'em. But, alas, it WAS a goofy rule.
the most ridiculous of all dogmas anywhere in the universe is the very foundation of churchianity.....thus, all their other claims are just blah, blah!.
.
Aroq: Who are YOU to determine what others consider respectful?
Q: So much babble in one reply! If one LIES about another it is NOT repectful....except maybe to YOU.
Aroq: If one (singular or plural) feels not worthy of uttering God's name, who are you to condemn that?
Q: It's HIDING it that is.
Aroq: The wt claims that the Jews distorted the Bible by not including God's name.
Q: Jewish writings do.
Aroq: Who wrote it in the first place? JEWS!
Q; REAL Jews, those inspired by God. Jew= Praiser of Jehovah (Yahweh)
Aroq: Talk about distortion, "Jehovah" was NEVER in ANY Greek manuscript of the New Testament, NEVER! That is the insertion by uneducated wt writers from a name created by a Catholic Monk in 1287.
Q: Here we go again with Word Games. YHWH/Yahweh is "Jehovah" in English, regardless of how it was coined.
the most ridiculous of all dogmas anywhere in the universe is the very foundation of churchianity.....thus, all their other claims are just blah, blah!.
.
Steel: Explain to us the physical manifestion of god in the old testament called the lord of the lord and how that relates to the new testament ?
Where does it say THAT? Psalms: "Jehovah said to my Lord..."?
Aroq: The hypocrisy is the wt themselves. They make claims against other "churches" that they themselves do. Example: Child abuse/pedophilia from among their clergy and the cover up of it to save face. They loved it when the Catholics got caught, but now they're dealing with the SAME thing.
The claims are against their Slander of God and Christ- and EVERY group- religious, political, and business- has the Pedophile problem. They / we NEVER "loved it" when the situation in the RCC was revealed, sicko.
for those claiming that- how much thought or research have you done?.
objective or non-objective?.
ever read the other books claiming to be from god?
Evidence of WHAT?
for those claiming that- how much thought or research have you done?.
objective or non-objective?.
ever read the other books claiming to be from god?
Stillin: David Jay is referring to something that is also called "confirmation bias." Personal research is good but it's almost impossible to keep one's self neutral. Denial kicks in, cognitive dissonance kicks in. And results get skewed.
Q: No. Sincerity and honesty prevent that.
Stillin: The problem is that if the Bible is from God, He didn't really give us enough for us to be able to, without controversy, conclude that it is His Perfect Word.
Q: He has, its clear you have NEVER studied its background.
Stillin: Look at all of the flip-flops that just one Bible-believing Organization has had in only a few years.
Q; Whose opinions never "flip-flop' from time to time?
Stillin: And consider how many controversial subjects are discussed between the myriad of scholars and believers. Sincere, searching believers...It's sad.
Q: What's sad is most will believe only what they WANT to believe- facts be damned....
