EmperorHarry:
I don't quite understand @bolded..

If we still don't know, don't know all, don't know everything, etcetera was it then worth the effort of eating the fruit before time, is what I am wondering and/or asking

LordReed:


There is only one question this topic asks. If you choose to be confused, you can ask I will help you out of your confusion.

Live and let live indeed. That's why you preach that your Jehovah will destroy billions of people because they don't believe?

@bolded is exactly what JWs always pray for!

In a world full of complicated ideas and conflicting teachings, honesthearted persons welcomes anyone having insight be you whatsoever you claim to be whether believer or atheist. What really matters to JWs is the wisdom found in you!

But don't forget our main objective!
You must present THEORIES along with real PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS and after seeing the BENEFITS
whoever continue arguing BLINDLY with you is no more one of Jehovah's Witnesses. That's why you hear of many being dismissed from our group!

So it's an understatement saying "ask for help" because our Master, Lord and King emphasised much on asking questions when one is confused. Matthew 7:7
And we're his Witnesses {Act 1:8} so it's hypocrisy on our part if we should object to what we ourselves claim to believe!

But regarding the destruction of billions now living, you too can present a better THEORY than the idea of exterminating intelligent creatures refusing to heed the repeated warnings during the times when there is mismanagement of our planet which has caused so much agony for it's inhabitants! Psalms 37:9-11

We are Jehovah's Witnesses, we don't just argue when you've presented something better than what we have, our believe is that if you've gotten something better then our God is about to use you to enlighten us on some of our blunders not duly observed! Galatians 2:11

So please present your
¤THEORIES!
¤PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS and don't forget the
¤BENEFITS

MuttleyLaff:
If we still don't know, don't know all, don't know everything, etcetera was it then worth the effort of eating the fruit before time, is what I am wondering and/or asking

I get you now..Well science doesn't work that way even tho people seem to think it so and even some science fanatics sometimes give off that "we have all the cards" vibe.I'm actually interested in finding out more about this discovery because it rocks the science world a bit but it's also exaggerated by media with their "shocking headlines".It would encourage a rethink about models and well known theories about the age of the universe or the stars which is a very welcome activity in the science world.
Eating the fruit before it's time is also one of my greatest fears,that peharps we string ourselves on for so long that it becomes difficult to reverse the harm it causes.For example,depletion of the ozone layer and global warming.
It's a dilemma we find ourselves in when determining when it's time for the fruit to the harvested/eaten because the fruit may just have prevented something catastrophic from happening irrespective of the due time.
I hope I actually understood what you meant tho.

Michellekabod2:

The feeling of a need to avoid conversation is A MUTUAL FEELING, our reasons however May differ; why you dread an argument with me mine is that you aren't worth my time.
I can recall only conversing with you twice; first with my former moniker "michellekabod1" on the thread "why I dumped Christianity"...as far as I can recall we had a cordial and respectful conversation. The second was on a Lord's prayer by an atheist you tagged a mockery(parody). You said something i found saucy and I replied in an uncouth manner and you cried foul..

I was a Catholic like yourself most of my life ,like you are(I stand to be corrected) . As an atheist I still hold their teachings in high esteem and if am brainwashed into being a theist then I will still go back to the church. I could have reasoned with you if you dropped points based on the teachings of the church,but I assumed you judgemental....
Well,you can have any opinion you wish of me, sadly I don't give a scarce Bleep and never will. Cheers!

We did not have much of a conversation on your thread on dumping Christianity.

As for the second incident, that was the one I actually was thinking of when I said that I tried to have a conversation with you. I think it is telling that you consider what I said on that thread saucy and here you consider an opinion I have on someone else's character to be an insult. Maybe it is your perception that is at issue. But it is not only your behavior in that conversation that informed my decision to not engage with you, it is also your behavior with other people that you have discussed with. I hardly ever form an opinion of anyone just on the basis of their interactions with me.

As for not being worth your time, sometimes I do wish that it were so that I am not worth the time of many people on this board, because when they do make time for me, it generally is an unpleasant experience. Right now, for example, I am talking with you, but I am hoping that I don't come away from this conversation ruing the time I spent on it.

As for being a Catholic, I'm not sure where you got that bit from. I am not and have never been a Roman Catholic in my life. My grandmother who died just before I turned 11 took me to Roman sacraments during my childhood, but I was born and raised in the Methodist Church. Personally, I have gone to several churches in my life and studied many "Christian" traditions, including the Roman one, but I am currently not part of any church.

As for reasoning with you, I am never unwilling to do that with anybody, regardless what they believe, but not many people actually want to be reasoned with, and I am not willing to butter up people just to make them become Christians. I am willing to be polite, to never abuse, to even refrain from conversing with people in order to avoid giving offence, but I don't take dangerous lies lightly especially when people are telling it in public using conversation with me as an excuse to try and confuse whoever else may be reading. So, conversation with me is never a particularly pleasant experience for atheists. As you probably know, I don't believe for a second that any atheist is honest at all. It is one thing to simply refuse to believe in the Lord Jesus, maybe because one does not understand the Gospel, or maybe because one just does not want to give up a lifestyle that they like too much, but it is quite another to pretend that God does not exist. There is actually nothing more obvious than God's existence. It takes a tremendous amount of dishonesty to pretend that this isn't true. That is why while I will never abuse an atheist, I do not generally handle them lightly in conversation. Salvation is free and available to all those who want it, but I am not here to beg or cajole anyone to be saved. My job is both to tell people how to be saved IF THEY WANT TO HEAR, and to defend the faith of the believers who are weaker than me, if they will accept my help.

EmperorHarry:
I get you now..Well science doesn't work that way even tho people seem to think it so and even some science fanatics sometimes give off that "we have all the cards" vibe.I'm actually interested in finding out more about this discovery because it rocks the science world a bit but it's also exaggerated by media with their "shocking headlines".It would encourage a rethink about models and well known theories about the age of the universe or the stars which is a very welcome activity in the science world.
Eating the fruit before it's time is also one of my greatest fears,that peharps we string ourselves on for so long that it becomes difficult to reverse the harm it causes.For example,depletion of the ozone layer and global warming.
It's a dilemma we find ourselves in when determining when it's time for the fruit to the harvested/eaten because the fruit may just have prevented something catastrophic from happening irrespective of the due time.
I hope I actually understood what you meant tho.

Science that one minute will tell you the cause of something is down to mental illness then few years down the line will say, no, it's actually because of another thing. Science doesn't want to admit, it's chasing a carrot on a stretched out long stick.

The fruit would have "eventuarry" be eaten, only if they had sit it out and managed the last hour it was eaten, then we would have had all knowledge at our finger tips and NOT be doing all these second guesses and groping blindly in the dark.

Ihedinobi3:

We did not have much of a conversation on your thread on dumping Christianity.

As for the second incident, that was the one I actually was thinking of when I said that I tried to have a conversation with you. I think it is telling that you consider what I said on that thread saucy and here you consider an opinion I have on someone else's character to be an insult. Maybe it is your perception that is at issue. But it is not only your behavior in that conversation that informed my decision to not engage with you, it is also your behavior with other people that you have discussed with. I hardly ever form an opinion of anyone just on the basis of their interactions with me.

As for not being worth your time, sometimes I do wish that it were so that I am not worth the time of many people on this board, because when they do make time for me, it generally is an unpleasant experience. Right now, for example, I am talking with you, but I am hoping that I don't come away from this conversation ruing the time I spent on it.

As for being a Catholic, I'm not sure where you got that bit from. I am not and have never been a Roman Catholic in my life. My grandmother who died just before I turned 11 took me to Roman sacraments during my childhood, but I was born and raised in the Methodist Church. Personally, I have gone to several churches in my life and studied many "Christian" traditions, including the Roman one, but I am currently not part of any church.

As for reasoning with you, I am never unwilling to do that with anybody, regardless what they believe, but not many people actually want to be reasoned with, and I am not willing to butter up people just to make them become Christians. I am willing to be polite, to never abuse, to even refrain from conversing with people in order to avoid giving offence, but I don't take dangerous lies lightly especially when people are telling it in public using conversation with me as an excuse to try and confuse whoever else may be reading. So, conversation with me is never a particularly pleasant experience for atheists. As you probably know, I don't believe for a second that any atheist is honest at all. It is one thing to simply refuse to believe in the Lord Jesus, maybe because one does not understand the Gospel, or maybe because one just does not want to give up a lifestyle that they like too much, but it is quite another to pretend that God does not exist. There is actually nothing more obvious than God's existence. It takes a tremendous amount of dishonesty to pretend that this isn't true. That is why while I will never abuse an atheist, I do not generally handle them lightly in conversation. Salvation is free and available to all those who want it, but I am not here to beg or cajole anyone to be saved. My job is both to tell people how to be saved IF THEY WANT TO HEAR, and to defend the faith of the believers who are weaker than me, if they will accept my help.

My apologies for the wrong assumption that you were Catholic...
Having a myopic view of atheists being dishonest is worse than my insults. Labelling a particular sect of people that aren't seeing from your perspective dishonest is worse than me calling a theist names after having had a dialogue with him or after reading his post. At least I was patient to give him audience before coming to conclusions that he is so so and so....but you? Na!
You try to draw a margin between an insult and an accusation(I believe the later is worse off), you believe that if proofs are given as reason for your tagging of someone then it is an accusation and no longer an insult. So if I give reasons for calling someone a m0ron or other diatribes I use,am I still abusive? Am I worse of than you who tag an entire sect as dishonest?

So far, I have concluded that my INSTINCTS were right for not really choosing to initiate conversations with you all the while since you hold a rather stereotype view of a particular set of humans. cheers!

EmperorHarry:
So I'm saying you should check verified sources to confirm that its not fake news.

In your last post, that's not what you said. You said it is known for a long time, which I agree and never questioned.

For the rest, other have already replied to this. If you don't want to learn, there is nothing I can do because your mind is already biased.

The fact remains that this star does not contradict the Big bang theory in any way.

LoJ:

In your last post, that's not what you said. You said it is known for a long time, which I agree and never questioned.

Your misquoting me LoJ..I said that the Methuselah has been known( as a very old star )for a long time by scientists but was only recently aged 14.5 billion years +- 800 million years.So it's not that the media just made up the whole thing up to disprove big bang in anyway.Not many scientific folks are really bothered by the news cos of the inaccuracies associated with calculation of the age of stars but it makes one raise an eyebrow about the well accepted age of the universe and models used to calculate the age of stars.

the rest, other have already replied to this. If you don't want to learn, there is nothing I can do because your mind is already biased.

Lol. You seem to be the biased one here tbh.The articles aren't facts LoJ and I should know that but you don't just discard it like it's some entertainment news of some sort.

The fact remains that this star does not contradict the Big bang theory in any way.

It actually wouldn't be news(at all) if it didn't create a stir even the tiniest bit to the astronomical world.It is unlike a scientific mind not to be open to change which seems to be the vibe your giving.

MuttleyLaff:
Science that one minute will tell you the cause of something is down to mental illness then few years down the line will say, no, it's actually because of another thing. Science doesn't want to admit, it's chasing a carrot on a stretched out long stick.

The fruit would have "eventuarry" be eaten, only if they had sit it out and managed the last hour it was eaten, then we would have had all knowledge at our finger tips and be doing all these second guesses and groping blindly in the dark.

Lol I did get you . I believe science is hinged on curiosity which is the progress/death of any being.The fact is that science usually doesn't really have any facts but theories which can be applied to a large extent with as much success rate as something considered a fact.People who see science as a supreme source of knowledge are the ones distorting the purpose of science which is just curiosity about the natural world until we reach omniscience(we may never get there).

Michellekabod2:

My apologies for the wrong assumption that you were Catholic...
Having a myopic view of atheists being dishonest is worse than my insults. Labelling a particular sect of people that aren't seeing from your perspective dishonest is worse than me calling a theist names after having had a dialogue with him or after reading his post. At least I was patient to give him audience before coming to conclusions that he is so so and so....but you? Na!
You try to draw a margin between an insult and an accusation(I believe the later is worse off), you believe that if proofs are given as reason for your tagging of someone then it is an accusation and no longer an insult. So if I give reasons for calling someone a m0ron or other diatribes I use,am I still abusive? Am I worse of than you who tag an entire sect as dishonest?

So far, I have concluded that my INSTINCTS were right for not really choosing to initiate conversations with you all the while since you hold a rather stereotype view of a particular set of humans. cheers!

I don't consider the assumption an accusation or any kind of insult, and I'm not offended.

I wonder why you call my view of atheists myopic. I am only judging the adherents of a philosophy by the philosophy that they adhere to. Atheism is a dishonest philosophy, therefore, all those who choose to become atheists are necessarily dishonest. That's all. It's not much different from how you hold that LordReed cannot expect a sane response from theists to his thread here. Of course, that only means that you think that theism is pretty insane. Now, whether you change your mind about this view or not is rather unimportant. I'm using it for illustrative purposes. My point is only that when people deliberately choose to follow a given way of looking at life, then they are the same as that perspective that they adopt. Thus, if atheism is a lie, as I believe that it is, then atheists are liars.

As for giving atheists an audience, even on the thread where you got quite insulting and abusive toward me, I explained my general modus operandi: even though I hold atheism is a lie, I allow for the possibility that this atheist I am discussing with for the first time does not really know what atheism is about, so I don't instantly label him as dishonest until he starts to act that way. I even did that with one of the atheists I discussed with on that very thread. But I have not met an honest atheist yet, in spite of all the slack I cut you people.

As for giving reasons for calling people names, LordReed went to the Urban Dictionary online to find the following reasons for calling me a piece of shit:

1. I'm irritating

2. I'm slow

3. I'm annoying.

Now, are these reasons? Are they accusations of some kind of moral infringement or breach of some kind of social contract? No. Irritation is a reaction that people have to things or other people. There are a few people who enjoy my company and love to read what I write. According to LordReed, he isn't one of them, but the fact that he isn't does not then make me irritating, slow, or annoying. It just means that he does not like me.

That is what an insult is: something that you say or do to cause an offence to someone else.

An accusation may be offensive, but it is necessarily rooted in reason. If someone robs me and I call him a thief, he may be offended, but I have not insulted him. I have simply accused him of robbery. That is a moral infringement on his part and a breach of common sense social contract. Likewise, if I call someone a liar because they lied, I'm not being myopic or offensive, I am accusing them of the moral breach that we call dishonesty. That's it.

If you call someone a slowpoke, however, even if they were, in what way is that a moral infraction on their part? It isn't evil for someone to be a slowpoke or any of your other self-admitted diatribes; it is merely an unfortunate condition that they either are born with or have come to bear. For this reason, people may not mention these conditions to the sufferer's face so that they do not feel bad in addition to having to bear life the way that they already do.

But what would be the point of calling someone who is a slowpoke a slowpoke? Usually, the effect sought is one of offence and displeasure, so typically you call someone a slowpoke because you know that they can understand you and feel bad that you have such a low opinion of their intellect. Those who fear that your perception may be true would be troubled by what you say, but others might not be bothered at all. They may, however, choose to avoid you because of your viciousness.

As for having good instincts, I can't fault you on that. Your instincts are yours. However, it would have made more sense if you didn't seek me out for this conversation too. As it is, I talk with atheists because I know that human beings can change, do change, can be deceived, and are often deceived, so one may be deceived into believing atheism and may change if given an opportunity. So, I try to give the benefit of the doubt even while keeping in mind how extreme atheism is, such that it is near impossible to find anyone in atheism who isn't in it because they want to escape a reality that they know only too well.

Double post.

EmperorHarry:
Your misquoting me LoJ..I said that the Methuselah has been known( as a very old star )for a long time by scientists but was only recently aged 14.5 billion years +- 800 million years.So it's not that the media just made up the whole thing up to disprove big bang in anyway.

What I considered fake news was not that the star exists! That is not what I called fake news.

The fake news in that article is that, they pretend the Star is older than the universe which is not scientifically established.

They fail to indicate the margin of error, but rather claim directly that the Star is older than the universe. THAT, MY FRIEND, IS FAKE AND DECEITFUL. and that is what I called fake news.

Now, are you claiming the specific article in question, did not provide total information and was deceitful?

Ihedinobi3:

I don't consider the assumption an accusation or any kind of insult, and I'm not offended.

I wonder why you call my view of atheists myopic. I am only judging the adherents of a philosophy by the philosophy that they adhere to. Atheism is a dishonest philosophy, therefore, all those who choose to become atheists are necessarily dishonest. That's all. It's not much different from how you hold that LordReed cannot expect a sane response from theists to his thread here. Of course, that only means that you think that theism is pretty insane. Now, whether you change your mind about this view or not is rather unimportant. I'm using it for illustrative purposes. My point is only that when people deliberately choose to follow a given way of looking at life, then they are the same as that perspective that they adopt. Thus, if atheism is a lie, as I believe that it is, then atheists are liars.

As for giving atheists an audience, even on the thread where you got quite insulting and abusive toward me, I explained my general modus operandi: even though I hold atheism is a lie, I allow for the possibility that this atheist I am discussing with for the first time does not really know what atheism is about, so I don't instantly label him as dishonest until he starts to act that way. I even did that with one of the atheists I discussed with on that very thread. But I have not met an honest atheist yet, in spite of all the slack I cut you people.

As for giving reasons for calling people names, LordReed went to the Urban Dictionary online to find the following reasons for calling me a piece of shit:

1. I'm irritating

2. I'm slow

3. I'm annoying.

Now, are these reasons? Are they accusations of some kind of moral infringement or breach of some kind of social contract? No. Irritation is a reaction that people have to things or other people. There are a few people who enjoy my company and love to read what I write. According to LordReed, he isn't one of them, but the fact that he isn't does not then make me irritating, slow, or annoying. It just means that he does not like me.

That is what an insult is: something that you say or do to cause an offence to someone else.

An accusation may be offensive, but it is necessarily rooted in reason. If someone robs me and I call him a thief, he may be offended, but I have not insulted him. I have simply accused him of robbery. That is a moral infringement on his part and a breach of common sense social contract. Likewise, if I call someone a liar because they lied, I'm not being myopic or offensive, I am accusing them of the moral breach that we call dishonesty. That's it.

If you call someone a slowpoke, however, even if they were, in what way is that a moral infraction on their part? It isn't evil for someone to be a slowpoke or any of your other self-admitted diatribes; it is merely an unfortunate condition that they either are born with or have come to bear. For this reason, people may not mention these conditions to the sufferer's face so that they do not feel bad in addition to having to bear life the way that they already do.

But what would be the point of calling someone who is a slowpoke a slowpoke? Usually, the effect sought is one of offence and displeasure, so typically you call someone a slowpoke because you know that they can understand you and feel bad that you have such a low opinion of their intellect. Those who fear that your perception may be true would be troubled by what you say, but others might not be bothered at all. They may, however, choose to avoid you because of your viciousness.

As for having good instincts, I can't fault you on that. Your instincts are yours. However, it would have made more sense if you didn't seek me out for this conversation too. As it is, I talk with atheists because I know that human beings can change, do change, can be deceived, and are often deceived, so one may be deceived into believing atheism and may change if given an opportunity. So, I try to give the benefit of the doubt even while keeping in mind how extreme atheism is, such that it is near impossible to find anyone in atheism who isn't in it because they want to escape a reality that they know only too well.

ihedinobi3, bye!

Ihedinobi3:

As you probably know, I don't believe for a second that any atheist is honest at all.

There is actually nothing more obvious than God's existence. It takes a tremendous amount of dishonesty to pretend that this isn't true.

Pity you would not consider they might not be being dishonest but just not be as capable as you at seeing the evidence. Pitier is that you seem to place little value on that which is in you that makes God's existence obvious to you. There is, after all, a reason Christ went around curing blindness.

My Lordreed. See that there is an equivalent to your view from the other side.

EmperorHarry:
Lol I did get you . I believe science is hinged on curiosity which is the progress/death of any being.The fact is that science usually doesn't really have any facts but theories which can be applied to a large extent with as much success rate as something considered a fact.People who see science as a supreme source of knowledge are the ones distorting the purpose of science which is just curiosity about the natural world until we reach omniscience(we may never get there).

We’re all, in this in world of a dark room, with an unknown Creator. Some dont give a fairk about his world of a dark room and its unknown Creator. Some want to understand this world of a dark room, and know more about with its unknown Creator. Some, very hard with torch/flash lights of some sort try to see in to unknown Creator and world of a dark room. Some others, look towards, very unusual and/or remarkable means to help them see in to unknown Creator and world of a dark room, while another others (e.g. science) thinks, fairk that extraodinary shenanigans stuff, that they, all and just by themselves, will figure out what's about the unknown Creator and whats with all this world of a dark room of ours is about.

budaatum:

Pity you would not consider they might not be being dishonest but just not be as capable as you at seeing the evidence. Pitier is that you seem to place little value on that which is in you that makes God's existence obvious to you. There is, after all, a reason Christ went around curing blindness.

My Lordreed. See that there is an equivalent to your view from the other side.

Not even in the same ballpark my dear buda.

LordReed:


Not even in the same ballpark my dear buda.

I beg to differ. Look closer.

budaatum:

I beg to differ. Look closer.

Conjectures are not facts my dear buda, not even when they are fueled by intuition.

MuttleyLaff:
We’re all, in this in world of a dark room, with an unknown Creator.

I beg to differ with you too, we are not all "in this world of a dark room with an unknown Creator"!

Some of us brought lamps, and a jar with extra oil!

budaatum:
I beg to differ with you too, we are not all "in this world of a dark room with an unknown Creator"!

Some of us brought lamps, and a jar with extra oil!

"... Some dont give a fairk about his world of a dark room and its unknown Creator. Some want to understand this world of a dark room, and know more about with its unknown Creator. Some, very hard with torch/flash lights of some sort try to see in to unknown Creator and world of a dark room. Some others, look towards, very unusual and/or remarkable means to help them see in to unknown Creator and world of a dark room, while another others (e.g. science) thinks, fairk that extraodinary shenanigans stuff, that they, all and just by themselves, will figure out what's about the unknown Creator and whats with all this world of a dark room of ours is about ..."
- Re: Life From Life? by MuttleyLaff: 3:47pm ©

Notice from above inverted commas that, I did mention some of you, very hard with torch/flash lights of some sort try to see in to the unknown Creator and world of a dark room.

Please next time, don't be in too much of a haste to respond just for the fun of it

LoJ:

What I considered fake news was not that the star exists! That is not what I called fake news.

The fake news in that article is that, they pretend the Star is older than the universe which is not scientifically established.

They fail to indicate the margin of error, but rather claim directly that the Star is older than the universe. THAT, MY FRIEND, IS FAKE AND DECEITFUL. and that is what I called fake news.

Their failure to indicate the possible errors in measurement is kinda shitty I admit but that doesn't mean it(this discovery) doesn't put the big bang theory under the microscope with/without the give and take.It doesn't mean the entire article is fake but poor journalism/exaggeration for effect maybe.

Now, are you claiming the specific article in question, did not provide total information and was deceitful?

I agree that author of the article wasn't entirely honest with the numbers but it doesn't invalidate the article.A personal research(essential) would provide one with the +-0.8 billion years not included which only supports the current age of the universe at -0.5 to 0.8 billion years which is a thin gap really,so its actually huge.Here's another article still pointing in the same direction,the author was also quoted by the "fake source" in the "fake article".Read the text below the first image.

Take note of the credentials of the author at the end of the article

MuttleyLaff:
We’re all, in this in world of a dark room, with an unknown Creator. Some dont give a fairk about his world of a dark room and its unknown Creator. Some want to understand this world of a dark room, and know more about with its unknown Creator. Some, very hard with torch/flash lights of some sort try to see in to unknown Creator and world of a dark room. Some others, look towards, very unusual and/or remarkable means to help them see in to unknown Creator and world of a dark room, while another others (e.g. science) thinks, fairk that extraodinary shenanigans stuff, that they, all and just by themselves, will figure out what's about the unknown Creator and whats with all this world of a dark room of ours is about.

It's disappointing we have people lots of folks who are apathetic towards curiosity of things that don't primaryly affect them.A global warming crisis is brewing and some nigerians still think the high rainfall and floods is cos God is angry with the world like in the days of Noah(true story).Developed countries are already transitioning into the age of electric cars and some Nigerians don't even know electric cars exist.Curiosity is what makes/kills a man and should be entertained regardless of the outcome.Science currently doesn't believe in a creator due to lack of scientifically verifiable evidence and science starts from knowledge 0 and hopes to build and organize till level 70-100,regardless of the eons it may take to achieve this. Modern science is what shook the foundations of religion&dogma and imbibing the scientific culture in currently religious countries would also shake the foundations of religion&dogma in such countries(hopefully Nigeria is one of them).

Simply put,science aims to shake tables and shatter glasses,if it has to

MuttleyLaff:

Notice from above inverted commas that, I did mention some of you, very hard with torch/flash lights of some sort try to see in to the unknown Creator and world of a dark room.

Please next time, don't be in too much of a haste to respond just for the fun of it

No muttley, it is you who perhaps should be less hasty! Not everyone is in your "world of a dark room, with an unknown Creator"!

You mentioned the blind, and did not mention those who have eyes that work and have been to the Jesustician and got jesusglases and know what mountain to climb up to look.

Professor LordReed Sir, i'm still waiting for your helpful explanations on the topic with regards to the theory, practical application and benefits

Maximus69:


@bolded is exactly what JWs always pray for!

In a world full of complicated ideas and conflicting teachings, honesthearted persons welcomes anyone having insight be you whatsoever you claim to be whether believer or atheist. What really matters to JWs is the wisdom found in you!

But don't forget our main objective!
You must present THEORIES along with real PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS and after seeing the BENEFITS
whoever continue arguing BLINDLY with you is no more one of Jehovah's Witnesses. That's why you hear of many being dismissed from our group!

So it's an understatement saying "ask for help" because our Master, Lord and King emphasised much on asking questions when one is confused. Matthew 7:7
And we're his Witnesses {Act 1:8} so it's hypocrisy on our part if we should object to what we ourselves claim to believe!

But regarding the destruction of billions now living, you too can present a better THEORY than the idea of exterminating intelligent creatures refusing to heed the repeated warnings during the times when there is mismanagement of our planet which has caused so much agony for it's inhabitants! Psalms 37:9-11

We are Jehovah's Witnesses, we don't just argue when you've presented something better than what we have, our believe is that if you've gotten something better then our God is about to use you to enlighten us on some of our blunders not duly observed! Galatians 2:11

So please present your
¤THEORIES!
¤PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS and don't forget the
¤BENEFITS

Maximus69:
Professor LordReed Sir, i'm still waiting for your helpful explanations on the topic with regards to the theory, practical application and benefits

The topic does not deal with those issues.

LordReed:


The topic does not deal with those issues.

I thought as much!

Please i'm one of the true Christians {Jehovah's Witnesses}

We don't just talk for the fun of it Sir!

We always make sure of the more important things {Philippians 1:10} so please next time when you're inviting people into your thread, try to consider what is beneficial as in profitable {1Timothy 4:8} before including me because as true Christians, we just don't argue but we have reasons for whatever we do! Philippians 4:8

Thanks Sir!

budaatum:
No muttley, it is you who perhaps should be less hasty! Not everyone is in your "world of a dark room, with an unknown Creator"!

"¹⁹Then they took him to the high council of the city. “Come and tell us about this new teaching,” they said.
²⁰“You are saying some rather strange things, and we want to know what it’s all about.”
²¹(It should be explained that all the Athenians as well as the foreigners in Athens seemed to spend all their time discussing the latest ideas.)
²²So Paul, standing before the council,e addressed them as follows:
“Men of Athens, I notice that you are very religious in every way,
²³for as I was walking along I saw your many shrines.
And one of your altars had this inscription on it: ‘To an Unknown God.’ (i.e. unknown Creator)
This God, whom you worship without knowing, is the one I’m telling you about."
- Acts 17:19-23

buddatum, though I never did say that but apparently those in Athens at least were anyway

budaatum:
You mentioned the blind, and did not mention those who have eyes that work and have been to the Jesustician and got jesusglases and know what mountain to climb up to look

"Some others, look towards, very unusual and/or remarkable means to help them see in to unknown Creator and world of a dark room, while another others (e.g. science) thinks, fairk that extraodinary shenanigans stuff, that they, all and just by themselves, will figure out what's about the unknown Creator and whats with all this world of a dark room of ours is about."
- Re: Life From Life? by MuttleyLaff: 3:47pm ©

You this my budaatum friend man, do I always have to be redirecting you huh? I never anywhere mentioned any blind, you must be seeing double or things. You do know that, not seeing in the dark, doesnt necessarily mean one is a registered blind person.

About those who have eyes, well they are using extraordinary means of seeing in the dark, by way of remarkable means, took advantage of the Jesustician. They didnt even need Jesusglasses, because all Jesus did was spit into mud and rub it on their eyes, so they now see men clearly and no more see men as like trees etcetera.

EmperorHarry:
It's disappointing we have people lots of folks who are apathetic towards curiosity of things that don't primaryly affect them. A global warming crisis is brewing and some nigerians still think the high rainfall and floods is cos God is angry with the world like in the days of Noah(true story). Developed countries are already transitioning into the age of electric cars and some Nigerians don't even know electric cars exist. Curiosity is what makes/kills a man and should be entertained regardless of the outcome.

"Then God said,
“Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness, to rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, and over all the earth itself and every creature that crawls upon it."
- Genesis 1:26

It is disappointing that man generally and as a whole, let's excuse Naija for now from all this, struggles to prove he is powerful enough to tame, control, abate and/or harness the earth or superior enough to arrest the challenges thereof the earth.

The thing about Naija, is that almost every other country have long time ago, have left the starting blocks, dashed out. Naija is running after others, chasing them and trying to catch up, but everytime Naija thinks its caught up, it finds out that, when it gets round the blocks, others are not there and are no where in sight. Naija is an oxymoron, if not, how can a nation, richly blessed with so much, be extremely poor, have so little and lacking the means to provide things considered to be essential to make life easier and more pleasant for itself.

Are you aware of an environmental campaign group called "Extinction Rebellion", the antics they've been up to and why they do what they do, hmm?

EmperorHarry:
Science currently doesn't believe in a creator due to lack of scientifically verifiable evidence and science starts from knowledge 0 and hopes to build and organize till level 70-100, regardless of the eons it may take to achieve this. Modern science is what shook the foundations of religion & dogma and imbibing the scientific culture in currently religious countries would also shake the foundations of religion & dogma in such countries (hopefully Nigeria is one of them).

I beg to differ that science doesn't believe in a creator because it was Thomas Aquinas, the same person that considered theology to be a science because it encounters special and general revelation, who said: "To one who has faith, no explanation (i.e. of a creator God) is necessary. To one without faith, no amount of expanation is necessary"

EmperorHarry:
Simply put, science aims to shake tables and shatter glasses,if it has to

I dont mind science shaking and rocking tables or shatterring glass celings, all I am bothered about, is that science should make sure, that it itself, is standing on firm and/or solid ground, when being a table shaker. Science is good, science is useful, science is needed for explaining things, but science at times is meddling. Science should learn that some muddy waters are best cleared, by leaving them alone

MuttleyLaff:

About those who have eyes, well they are using extraordinary means of seeing in the dark, by way of remarkable means, took advantage of the Jesustician. They didnt even need Jesusglasses, because all Jesus did was spit into mud and rub it on their eyes, so they now see men clearly and no more see men as like trees etcetera.

There is nothing extraordinary about our means muttley. The definition of Jesusglasses is "spit on mud". "Take advantage" of a pair at the Jesustician and you too will understand what it is that you see.

budaatum:
There is nothing extraordinary about our means muttley.

If Jesus can say to Peter that flesh and blood has not revealed to Peter what he said, then there is something extraordinary in the means of how Peter got that revelation

budaatum, intelligence, is a gift from God, but when it is perverted by pride, it turns into intellectual pride and becomes a barrier between the person and God, because focus then shifts on to the perverted gift than the Giver of the original and/or unperverted gift

budaatum:
The definition of Jesusglasses is "spit on mud".

Jesusglasses is closely associated with or is suggestive of opticians/ optometrists/Jesustician, giving out glasses to correct and improve vision with it while ophthalmologist/Jesus is closely associated with or suggestive of "spit on mud and rub it on eyes" to correct the defect, whether its cataracts, nearsightedness, farsightedness or whatnot

budaatum:
"Take advantage" of a pair at the Jesustician and you too will understand what it is that you see.

People do not need an ophthalmologist to carry out surgery on their eyes nor Jesus to spit into mud and rub it on their eyes, if they already are seeing men clearly for what really they are and not seeing men as trees. Ever since the surgery on my eyes by the ophthalmologist, I had no more use for daily glasses except the reading glasses ones.

MuttleyLaff:
"Then God said,
“Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness, to rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, and over all the earth itself and every creature that crawls upon it."
- Genesis 1:26

It is disappointing that man generally and as a whole, let's excuse Naija for now from all this, struggles to prove he is powerful enough to tame, control, abate and/or harness the earth or superior enough to arrest the challenges thereof the earth.

The thing about Naija, is that almost every other country have long time ago, have left the starting blocks, dashed out. Naija is running after others, chasing them and trying to catch up, but everytime Naija thinks its caught up, it finds out that, when it gets round the blocks, others are not there and are no where in sight. Naija is an oxymoron, if not, how can a nation, richly blessed with so much, be extremely poor, have so little and lacking the means to provide things considered to be essential to make life easier and more pleasant for itself.

I wish Nigeria was trying to catch up Muttley..We wouldn't be in this chaotic state if we were playing catch up.We have instead,brought out a relaxing chair,sun glasses,an umbrella,an stack of vogue magazines and we've kicked back and relaxed.Countries like North Korea which has been held back for decades by dictators from truly reaching their full potential in this cooperative era we're in,yet they boast of Nuclear weapons that are made by themselves,not imported.What are we producing in this country Muttley? Cassava?..I don't even want to delve into the pitiful situation we find ourselves in this country.

Are you aware of an environmental campaign group called "Extinction Rebellion", the antics they've been up to and why they do what they do, hmm?

I didn't until now.I've read their manifesto and it's pretty legit

I beg to differ that science doesn't believe in a creator because it was Thomas Aquinas, the same person that considered theology to be a science because it encounters special and general revelation, who said: "To one who has faith, no explanation (i.e. of a creator God) is necessary. To one without faith, no amount of expanation is necessary"

The science Aquinas knew has evolved.Modern science demands verifiable evidence that can be tested multiple times by different people.Even as creationists and ID proponents are finding it hard to have their work labeled scientific.

I dont mind science shaking and rocking tables or shatterring glass celings, all I am bothered about, is that science should make sure, that it itself, is standing on firm and/or solid ground, when being a table shaker

Very valid point here Muttley.I made a research based on my scepticism "Is science in a hurry to have all the answers that it leaps before it looks intently?" "Can a scientist in a bid to seal a discovery he/she has been working on before death comes knocking,ignore a seemingly insignificant at the time yet huge detail?". I only got one or two articles bringing it up on the internet and I'm thinking it's either I'm being ignorant/science doesn't think about this questions much.

Science is good, science is useful, science is needed for explaining things, but science at times is meddling. Science should learn that some muddy waters are best cleared, by leaving them alone

Science should be meddling and science is everyone's duty.To be scientific is for the educated and uneducated,not only folks with college degrees in scientific fields.The waters of this universe may seem calm and pleasant at one moment but the next moment,a tsunami is upon you.The dinosaurs wouldn't be extinct if the knew the meteorites and asteroids were plunging towards earth(not a valid theory but trying to make a point) and global warming wouldn't have accelerated if crude oil wasn't discovered. It's a dilemma we face Muttley and we aren't and can't be patient enough to leave waters to clear by itself.

MuttleyLaff:

budaatum, intelligence, is a gift from God, but when it is perverted by pride, it turns into intellectual pride and becomes a barrier between the person and God, because focus then shifts on to the perverted gift than the Giver of the original and/or unperverted gift

I don't know where you get your definition of pride from muttley, that makes you think it's a bad thing. Are you one of the manna people who wait for intelligence to fall on you from heaven? I wonder, by the way, if your yadayada isn't a pride thing. It would be typical of those who pervert their gift.

Do know that If we derived our pride from being stupid, we might have asked for that instead, but we value and derive immense pride and satisfaction from intelligence that we ask God for it always and God forbid we be not proud that the Lord God Almighty would one day answer our prayers.

As to our perversions. By our fruits, they say, shall we be known.