Posts by Zep

99

Australian Nazi regime?

by Norm in

jw
friends

what kind of complete bastard regime do they have in australia?.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/asia-pacific/newsid_1511000/1511903.stm.

norm

Zep

you will appreciate that the Australian coastline is vast and the task of keeping the 'borders' safe is particularly difficult. Some say that it's impossible to maintain a secure coastline as vast as ours.

We do have a large border, but most of its harsh desert, and as a nation we are still relatively isolated.

For the past few years we have become a 'popular' destination for thousands of boat people.

Nowhere near as popular as certain european countries on the mediteranean coast. Apparently they get a huge influx from Africa. Our refugee influx is relatively minor to other countries.

I see the current intransigence of our government as sending a message to others.

What, the smugglers. The people who smuggle these people in dont tell them them of the risks or that they will most likely get caught. They will still come. These people are desperate. A lot are fleaing Afghanistan...and Iraq, a country we have imposed harsh sanctions on!

What are we supposed to do. Indonesia wont take them. We have a duty of care...or we could just feed them to the sharks like some talk back idiots want to do.

99

Australian Nazi regime?

by Norm in

jw
friends

what kind of complete bastard regime do they have in australia?.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/asia-pacific/newsid_1511000/1511903.stm.

norm

Zep

you should hear talk back radio down here.

The muslim hating cranks that ring up are amazing.

They'd have you believe that if we let them in they'll overrun the country and destroy our way of life.

The Government is just playing political games. Trying to score a few political points with the looming election..Its all BS.

Last i heard the Tanker had moved into Australian territorial waters just off Christmas Island and had been boarded by SAS...

99

Australian Nazi regime?

by Norm in

jw
friends

what kind of complete bastard regime do they have in australia?.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/asia-pacific/newsid_1511000/1511903.stm.

norm

Zep

One thats hopefully going to out at the next election, only to be replaced by another bastard regime.

I think i'll vote independant or something...

36

Evolution vs Creation and spontaneous generation

by MrMoe in

jw
friends

please read it all, i know it's a bit long, but you need to read it all to see where i am coming from.

i beleive in creation in the sense that the big bang and spontaneous generation don't make logical sense to me.

i am sure funkyderek and jan will have some fun with me on this one.

Zep

To deny macro-evolution while affirming micro-evolution is equivalent to accepting that it is true (an observed fact) that a continent can drift ten centimeters in a century, while still denying that multiplication works and that a continent can drift 1 km in a million years.It is logically indefensible and absurd.

Thats is a great way of putting it Jan. The words i was looking for! I will remember this one.

36

Evolution vs Creation and spontaneous generation

by MrMoe in

jw
friends

please read it all, i know it's a bit long, but you need to read it all to see where i am coming from.

i beleive in creation in the sense that the big bang and spontaneous generation don't make logical sense to me.

i am sure funkyderek and jan will have some fun with me on this one.

Zep

Micro-evolution reflects biological variations within a species or biological kind (varieties/breeds of dogs and cats, etc...)

What is a 'biological kind' anyway? How do you define it?

Are all Cats really one 'kind'. There is a HUGE variety within the cat family you know!. You have tigers, lions, the domestic cat, puma, Sabre tooth tiger, Cheetah, Fred Hall etc.

Are all Fish one 'kind'

Are all Birds one 'kind'

Are all invertebrates one 'kind'

Are we to be grouped in the same 'kind' as chimps?

Charles Darwin assumed in his theories that because micro-evolution occurs then macro-evolution must also be possible

Why isn't that a fair assumption? Macro-evolution is just more micro-evolution

but scientific evidence only supports a possibility of natural variation.

So you assert.

119

Validity of 607 BCE date

by stevieb1 in

jw
friends

has anyone on here ever come across the tiniest shred of evidence supporting this date for the fall of jerusalem.

i understand rolf furuli is about to but something out on this subject (see elihubooks.com), however even a table of contents has been a long time in coming from this site.

if no evidence exists what can he possibly be writing about?

Zep

Failure by you to undertake this task will demonstrate to ALL your incompetence in this field.

Speak for yourself

119

Validity of 607 BCE date

by stevieb1 in

jw
friends

has anyone on here ever come across the tiniest shred of evidence supporting this date for the fall of jerusalem.

i understand rolf furuli is about to but something out on this subject (see elihubooks.com), however even a table of contents has been a long time in coming from this site.

if no evidence exists what can he possibly be writing about?

Zep

AlanF outside the 3 point zone...

He shoots!

Nothing but net!

7

God on Trial - #3 - Standard of Justice

by Amazing in

jw
friends

eating fruit: when eve and then adam ate the fruit, they were given the death penalty and low productivity yield from their food growing efforts.

but, they did get a nice long life, somewhere around 900-930 years.. murder: cain murdered his own brother, abel.

cain whines to jehovah about how severe his punishment is, too great to bear, and jehovah consents to put a mark on him so that no one will harm cain.

Zep

What about good old King David. I remember watching this TV show called 'turn round Australia' one morning. The guy who hosts it is a bit of a bible thumper, pretty stuck in his ways. He was telling the story of David and Bathsheba (2Samuel 11). The point he was trying to make by telling this story was that you cant go against god, he will punish you in the end for your wrong doings. So he tells the story of how David lusts after Bathsheba, has sex with her, gets her pregnant, and in the end basically murders her husband Uriah because of all this. The guy then capped the story off by saying that God went ahead and punished David and that no-one escapes Gods judgment therefore. However, he never mentioned how God actually punished David. The reason why is obvious when you read the account. God's punishment upon David, apart from taking away some of his wives, was to kill the child of David and Bathsheba. Infanticide. Some God of justice. The kid gets death for something David does.

Heres another example of Gods great sense of justice:

At 2Samuel 24, David takes a census of Israel. Apparently this was wrong in Jehovahs eyes. So God gives him 3 choices of punishment. David doesn't choose anything. Instead he prefers to fall on the mercy of Jehovah. Gods 'mercy' is to send pestilence against all of Israel and kill 70,000 people. I wonder how many would have been children?

What does David say to Jehovah after this mass slaughter?.

This:

"Here it is I that have sinned and it is I that have done wrong; but these sheep -what have they done?..."(2sam 24:17)

Good question! What did they do? David is the one who took the census.

Apparently God feels no need to follow his own laws:

"Fathers should not be put to death on account of children, and children should not be put to death on account of fathers. Each one should be put to death for his own sin" Dt.24:16

"The soul that is sinning -it itself will die. A son himself will bear nothing because of the error of the father, and a father will bear nothing because of the error of the son..." Ezek 18:20

Nah...God doesn't care about his own laws. Like he says, he is the one "...bringing punishment for the error of fathers upon sons and upon grandsons, upon the third generation and upon the fourth generation." Ex 34:7

In other words he is a sicko!

119

Validity of 607 BCE date

by stevieb1 in

jw
friends

has anyone on here ever come across the tiniest shred of evidence supporting this date for the fall of jerusalem.

i understand rolf furuli is about to but something out on this subject (see elihubooks.com), however even a table of contents has been a long time in coming from this site.

if no evidence exists what can he possibly be writing about?

Zep

This is what did it for me.

Real simple stuff:

Jeremiah 25:12

"And it must occur that when seventy years have been fulfilled I shall call to account against the king of Babylon and against that nation, 'their error'..."

Go read the writing on the wall episode in Daniel and its plain the 70 years ended in 539...not 537.

If you then want to do those little weird gentile times calculations:

539-70=609+ 7 times = 1912?????????????

Just another way of looking at it:

Jeremiah 25:11

"...and these Nations will have to serve the king of Babylon 70 years"

Jeremiah 27:7

"And all the Nations must serve even him and his son and his grandson until the time even of his own land comes and many nations and great kings must exploit him as servant"

539 is when Babylon fell

Again, the seventy years ended in 539. This fact completely destroys 1914. good night!

119

Validity of 607 BCE date

by stevieb1 in

jw
friends

has anyone on here ever come across the tiniest shred of evidence supporting this date for the fall of jerusalem.

i understand rolf furuli is about to but something out on this subject (see elihubooks.com), however even a table of contents has been a long time in coming from this site.

if no evidence exists what can he possibly be writing about?

Zep

Actually, I'm referring to a 609 date, that the Society adjusts from a known 539 date (through some historical maneuvering/manipulation, they shave off 2 years!).

The WT interprets the 70 year prophecy of Jeremiah to mean 70 years of exile in Babylon. They chose the date of 537 as being the end of that exile -when jews returned home- because it suits their nutcase prophectic ideas based around 1914.

537-70=607BC + that 7 times dribble = 1914

However, there is no reason to think 537 is correct....more likely the jews returned in 538. This is according to scholars.
The only real concrete dates are 539 and 586. Both dates are based on the same evidence. The absurdity of the WT position is that it rejects 586 but accepts 539. This is blatant hypocrisy....totally dishonest, idiotic etc etc. They use the evidence when it suits them(539 of which they derive 537 from) and then reject that same evidence when it also supports 586. In fact 586 is considered as more concrete a date than 539 by scholars....try telling the WT that.