Posts by Viviane

118

"In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth . ."

by nicolaou in

so where did god exist before he created the heavens?

Viviane

All that has been shown on this thread is that what those who chose to address the topic contributed (on this small exJW forum) was not, in your opinion, close to being sufficient. That though is not evidence there is no answer that would be sufficient for you. Looking for answers to big fish questions in a small fishbowl ensures no satisfactory answer will be found

No one has provided any answer that doesn't immediately contradict either itself or reality.

In truth, Biblical questions seem to be considered entertainment here not adult discussions. I would recommend all those who believe in God and the Bible to seek other venues for their Bible discussions.

The Bible is entertainment and contains plenty of adult topics, such as tips for menstruating and pooping in hole to properly raping and taking ownership of a woman.

If you want a conversation where everyone feels fantastic at the end because it's little more than a self-referential masturbatory congratulation session with no depth or examination of beliefs as held against reality that culminates in an orgy of prayer, then yes, this forum may not quite fit the bill for that discussion type.

118

"In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth . ."

by nicolaou in

so where did god exist before he created the heavens?

Viviane

Try using your brain before claiming you nose. In other words, use a skinny ruler before opening your mouth.

His opening post never said what you claimed. To support your lie, you decided to use insults. You truly are a perfect Christian.

118

"In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth . ."

by nicolaou in

so where did god exist before he created the heavens?

Viviane

It is obvious that you assume too much and you conclude too much from what you read.

Of course none of that is true. Don't be ridiculous, silly bear!

You know know of cellular activity because of science (from your link on life's process where you tried to avoid defining what you meant). You then tried to use the knowledge gained from science in an argument arguing for an unscientific view. Your conclusion would undermine the evidence used to get to your conclusion. It doesn't logically work.

Besides that, it is a fact that there is an obvious difference between a living creature and something inanimate, but that difference only describes a living organism, it does not explain nor does it invalidate "an unscientific view" of what life is and what animates a living creature, as the "Bible" explains, which is also in the context of this thread. This topic is about what the Bible says, in terms of the Bible and not in terms of the scientific process (method).

Describe the obvious difference, please, upon which you base this statement. Specifically, the thread is about the illogic of the Bible. No one in the OP set the terms you describe, nor are you able to set them. You chose to discuss life, you don't now get to try to avoid the conversation by making up non-existent requirements for posting in this thread. It may be helpful for you to review this thread:

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/166820003/why-do-religious-people-make-claims-then-refuse-back-them-up

I have already responded to the OP. I will repeat. According to the Bible, God is not dependent. That means that He does not need a place to exist.

So then he doesn't exist is the inescapable conclusion of that logic. Also, the Bible doesn't say that.

22

is this still a belief? no 'marraige' after being resurected?

by sowhatnow in

i was having a discussion with my sister yesterday, and she said to me,'mom told me that if dad dies at armageddon, she cant get remarried in the new system' .

i told he i have never heard such a thing, but i do recall that it was believed that anyone who dies now, cannot be married in the 'new world' because they are to be as angels in heaven.. she said , so why be resurrected if yiu cant live your dream of having a loving mate and perfect children?

god is still dictating to you how you will live.

Viviane

No, this always applied to people who had the earthly hope, until a QFR article last year. They also covered it in the last talk of the assembly last year - that now this was apparently only talking about people in heaven, and we can't say for sure what people on earth will be allowed.

Hence, "as far as I know" :)

I've been out six years, so I have, thankfully, forgotten a lot of that nonsense.

48

Evidence based folks: what is your stance on GMO's and why?

by cappytan in

jw
friends

so, the anti-gmo movement scored another victory today.

chipotle has opted to only use non-gmo food items.. hooray for them.

i'm pretty neutral on the subject, mostly because, other than questionable treatment of farmers, i have seen no evidence to avoid gmo's for health reasons.. basically, my neutrality boils down to the stance that i'll buy non-gmo, so long as the price is reasonable.

Viviane

Because evolution, everything is genetically modified. There is zero evidence that GMO food is better or worse than non GMO

22

is this still a belief? no 'marraige' after being resurected?

by sowhatnow in

i was having a discussion with my sister yesterday, and she said to me,'mom told me that if dad dies at armageddon, she cant get remarried in the new system' .

i told he i have never heard such a thing, but i do recall that it was believed that anyone who dies now, cannot be married in the 'new world' because they are to be as angels in heaven.. she said , so why be resurrected if yiu cant live your dream of having a loving mate and perfect children?

god is still dictating to you how you will live.

Viviane

That was, as far as I know, never a belief regarding living forever on the earth and only for the anointed.

118

"In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth . ."

by nicolaou in

so where did god exist before he created the heavens?

Viviane

The comfort zone for atheists would be increased if it is certain that there is nothing, no feature, outside the observable universe.

You don't speak for atheists and have no idea what their, each being unique individuals, comfort zone is.

But the "where" question is broader if we are to accept the theorists that work with the dark energy of the void, energy that becomes part of the universe as it expands, the theory that there are other universes, in other space than ours, or the hyperspace that we are expanding into , moving into the future too.

That doesn't even begin to approach the concept of making sense.

to quote: "define nothing"-- how are thinly veiled ad hominem remarks helpful, compared to refuting specific assertions?

Thinly veiled? Interesting concept. Irrelevant and untrue, but interesting.

You've mentioned nothing. Please define that and give an example of "nothing".

118

"In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth . ."

by nicolaou in

so where did god exist before he created the heavens?

Viviane

Even some atheist believers in pre-beginning virtual fluctuations to start the beginning, assume that there was time and energy, possibly eternally. What if the creator just existed, having all the ur-exo-space and eternal time with him, all the energy*?

There is no "beginning" if there is "eternal". Being an atheist has nothing to do with believing contradictory things. Also, what if the creator is my dog, having gone back in time? Asking ridiculous questions makes them no less ridiculous simply because you couch them in pseudo-scientific and religious terms.

118

"In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth . ."

by nicolaou in

so where did god exist before he created the heavens?

Viviane

http://www.passmyexams.co.uk/GCSE/biology/life-processes.html
"I scored above 98%"

Yes yes, good for you. What are YOU defining as life's processes? You can't turn to science to explain an unscientific view. Everything on that list can apply to a rock.

False, if the organism dies, the machines cannot keep it alive. Even with the machines, at some point the organism will die. If the only thing keeping it alive was the machines, it would never die as long as the machines were the only thing keeping it alive. Think about it.

You can't claim "falsw" until you tell me what this substance is that animates life. Everything that's every lived has died, so you've actually equated the machine with this mysterious substance.

118

"In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth . ."

by nicolaou in

so where did god exist before he created the heavens?

Viviane

You don't know.

Fisherman, you said there was a "substance" that animates living things. What is this substance?

Besides that, it is true that living organisms carry out the processes of life but they must be alive to do so. It is also true that dead things (including rocks) do not carry out life's processes. Nor has it been shown that processes induce the state of life.

Define, specifically, what these "life's processes" are and what, exactly, is a "state of life", please.