well, we survived the first month at least!
yes, the new forum is now 1 month old.. of course there have been some issues and i'm grateful that people have been patient while i worked on them.
a big thank-you to everyone who's been patient, have provided useful feedback or just been willing to adapt to something new during the transition.. i've also made some improvements along the way and am fairly happy with how things are from a basic functionality and performance perspective so it's time to start looking at some of the new features i've been planning.
"Island Man, that'll only appear when you hover over the picture/avatar."
Yes, but so does the yellow banner displaying the useful information. Why have a yellow banner with useful information appear when you hover over an avatar only to have some of that useful information obscured by a redundant tool tip giving information already shown in the said yellow banner? The tool tip is negating some of the usefulness of the yellow banner.
well, we survived the first month at least!
yes, the new forum is now 1 month old.. of course there have been some issues and i'm grateful that people have been patient while i worked on them.
a big thank-you to everyone who's been patient, have provided useful feedback or just been willing to adapt to something new during the transition.. i've also made some improvements along the way and am fairly happy with how things are from a basic functionality and performance perspective so it's time to start looking at some of the new features i've been planning.
hanks for all your hard work Simon!
There is one small issue that I've recently noticed and I'm not sure if anyone else has drawn it to your attention:
Whenever I mouse over a poster's avatar, the yellow banner appears telling you the poster's screen name, how long ago the poster joined and how many posts he made along with an icon to send a message. That's all great.
The problem is that a small, secondary tool tip displaying only the poster's name also appears on top of that yellow banner and often hides the number of posts information in the yellow banner. (see the example image below where the redundant tool tip saying "Crisis of Conscience" obscures the number of posts displayed in the banner.)
I want to suggest that this tool tip feature be eliminated altogether as it provides redundant information already displayed in the yellow banner and serves only as an annoyance when it hides the number of posts info in the yellow banner.
"if anyone makes the statement: i love god, and yet is hating his brother, he is a liar.
for he who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot be loving god, whom he has not seen" - 1 john 4:20. here the bible implies that it is far easier to love a visible person than an invisible one.
therefore if one lacks love for a visible person, how much more so he must lack love for the invisible god.
Another point is this: Christ's ancestress, Ruth, displayed an attitude that is contrary to Jesus' words at Matthew 10:37. Ruth's words reveal that she had greater love for Naomi than for God.
"And Ruth proceeded to say: “Do not plead with me to abandon you, to turn back from accompanying you; for where you go I shall go, and where you spend the night I shall spend the night. Your people will be my people, and your God my God." - Ruth 1:16
Uppermost on Ruth's mind was, not worshipping the correct God in the correct way, but maintaining her strong attachment to her mother-in-law. Her very strong unequivocal words demonstrate that she was a woman who was more devoted to her mother-in-law than anyone or anything else. What if Naomi had decided to go live with the Amalekites and worship their god(s)? What would Ruth have done then? "Where you go I shall go ... your people will be my people, and your God my God"!! Ruth only became a worshipper of God because her mother-in-law Naomi, was. Whichever God Naomi decided to worship, Ruth would have followed suit.
"if anyone makes the statement: i love god, and yet is hating his brother, he is a liar.
for he who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot be loving god, whom he has not seen" - 1 john 4:20. here the bible implies that it is far easier to love a visible person than an invisible one.
therefore if one lacks love for a visible person, how much more so he must lack love for the invisible god.
"In your first quote Christ is talking about loving God almighty, not himself. It therefore has no bearing on the second quote."
That technical detail about it being a reference to loving God and not loving Christ, is irrelevant. What is relevant - as brought out in the first quote - is contrasting the claimed love for an invisible person with lack of love for a visible person. Both God and Christ are invisible so the point of 1 John 4:20 holds equally true for anyone claiming to love the invisible Jesus while despising his visible brother.
identical twin studies show there is a strong inheritable component to religiosity.
thomas bouchard studied identical and fraternal twins raised apart and tested them on religious attitudes.. the correlation for the former turned out to be 62% compared to just 2% for the latter.
his colleague.
This should not be surprising. Certain personalities/mindsets are obviously more prone to religiosity than others. Consider, as an example, the fact that women tend to have a different mindset/personality than men and that this fact may largely be responsible for the disproportionately larger percentage of women than men in christian denominations.
And since our genes play a big part in determining our personality/mindset - of course, our environment and life experience also play a big part - it is to be expected that there will be some genetic correlation to religiosity. Only, I don't think the correlation is direct - as in there are specific genes directly related to religiosity. I think it's a case of genes influencing certain personality traits and those personality traits, in turn, making one more susceptible to religiosity, among other things.
"if anyone makes the statement: i love god, and yet is hating his brother, he is a liar.
for he who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot be loving god, whom he has not seen" - 1 john 4:20. here the bible implies that it is far easier to love a visible person than an invisible one.
therefore if one lacks love for a visible person, how much more so he must lack love for the invisible god.
"If anyone makes the statement: “I love God,” and yet is hating his brother, he is a liar. For he who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot be loving God, whom he has not seen" - 1 John 4:20
Here the Bible implies that it is far easier to love a visible person than an invisible one. Therefore if one lacks love for a visible person, how much more so he must lack love for the invisible God. Keeping this principle in mind note what Jesus says at Luke 14:26 and Matthew 10:37:
But according to the logical principle implicit at 1 John 4:20 wouldn't it be impossible for a modern day disciple to hate his visible relatives and yet love the invisible Christ? Wouldn't it be impossible for modern disciples to love the invisible Jesus more than their visible relatives? And so Jesus' words at Luke 14:26 and Matthew 10:37 implicitly refutes the logic underpinning 1 John 4:20. For the words of 1 John 4:20 implies that it is impossible for someone to love their visible fellow human less and claim to love the invisible God more."“If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own soul, he cannot be my disciple." - Luke 14:26
"He that has greater affection for father or mother than for me is not worthy of me; and he that has greater affection for son or daughter than for me is not worthy of me." - Matthew 10:37
And by the way, what kind of loving God would require his worshippers to have greater love for him than for their family - to sacrifice their family relationships for him? Why should a loving God put a father through the emotional agony of having to sacrifice his son to Him? What practical purpose does such devotion serve? Is God afraid that humans having more love for each other than for him would mean that they're likely to conspire together and overthrow him? Does he need something from us that he can only get if we love him more than our own relatives? These can't be because God is almighty and is not in need of anything from us. It's nothing but petty jealousy and ego. For a God that is almighty and not in need of anything, the God of the Bible is obscenely egocentric and selfish - much like the dictatorial kings who reigned in the ancient times the Bible was written in. I'm willing to bet that that's exactly who the Bible writers modeled the personality of Bible God after.
before i get the "no it was not, because god does not exist and this is a writing of man", i am directing this discussion to those that either still believe, or need as many tools as possible to talk to a family member still in.. the purpose of my posting is to discuss what i believe to be a mistake on this book or, in the other hand, be corrected if i am not getting the entire picture.. in the book, chapter 19 "god's wisdon in a sacred secret", paragraph 10, it reads.... 10 second, the law thoroughly demonstrated mankinds need for a ransom.
a perfect law, it exposed the inability of sinful humans to adhere to it fully.
compare this with hebrews 7:11-12. jesus a priest like melchizedek11now if perfection was through the levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the people received the law), what further need was there for another priest to arise according to the order of melchizedek, and not be designated according to the order of aaron?
The Law was not perfect. In fact, there is even a passage of scripture where the Law had to be amended because the original manner in which it was written debarred women from getting family property if they had no male relatives. (Numbers 27:1-11)
Also, the Law condoned slavery and treated women like second-class citizens, denying them many of the rights that were granted to men. For example, a man could bring his wife before the priest if he suspected her of adultery. But there is no provision in the Law for a women to do likewise if she suspected her husband of adultery.
at least i have this forum.
is there a shorthand for referring to this website?
saying jehovahs-witness.com seems like a long winded way..
justin bieber has beliebers.
benedict cumberbatch has cumberbitches.
surely the ego-stroking gb worshipping fans deserve a name.. gbsters?
~ The Faith-fooled slaves
~ The Grovelling bodies.
~ The Paragraph underliners (lol)
~ The Watchtower regurgitators.
~ The Watchtower sheep
i'm looking for some clever comebacks.
i really don't care that i am an apostate, but would like to deliver a quick comeback or two to perhaps make the other person think.
any suggestions most welcome.
~ "The hypocritical Jewish religious leaders also considered the apostle Paul to be an apostate. And I bet they also considered Jesus to be an apostate."
~ "Is that how you deal with the unpleasant fact that you can't refute what I'm saying - by resorting to childish name-calling?"
~ "An apostate is one who leaves true christianity - that would include one who despises what the bible actually says to follow a hierarchical man-made organization spreading falsehoods and lording it over the sheep."
~ "No I'm just following the advice of 2 Timothy 3:5 which helped me realize that I should turn away from hypocritical religious organizations."
