^^^ So to you describing God as incomprehensible and uncaused and a conscious creator is the property of Christian theology. That is where your error lies. My paternal grandmother never set foot in a church till she passed on. She was not lettered so the Bible meant nothing to her. She believed all the above and more about God. I suggest you travel to your ancestral village, find an old fellow who never went to church all through their life and ask them to tell you about God.

Kay 17:
(a)incomprehensible nature, uncaused, intelligent, conscious creator (b)in essence a person.

Can you kindly explain how a leads to b? Thank you.

Kay 17: ^^
Or probably rational people with a rational God.

Right.

The existence of God is well attested to. I have no evidence to support anything else – Noah, talking donkeys, virgin birth, walking on water in its non-solid state, Mohammed jumping up and splitting the moon with a karate chop. These may well have happened, but there is no evidence that they did. The existence of God makes absolute sense - to me. The opposite argument does not. The existence of God is a necessity I can’t get past. Miracles and prophecies aren’t. Formal worship of God isn't. There is nothing scared or closeted about this position. Deism is not atheism. Deism is theism.
**Edited**

Kay 17:
First, the Christian concept of God was developed earlier than Deist one, just like the Christian God is a person largely with characteristics and personality of a human. Given that intelligence is a complex attribute, the goal of causality is to trace the complex down to the simplest which a Creator solves the universe's complexity, however the Creator's complexity is left unanswered.

If I were your teacher, you would get a very low score for the above. In fact, that^^^ is an F grade write-up. Assuming, without conceding, that the Christian concept of God is older than the deist one, how does that mean that deism is derived from Christianity or that it borrows from the it? That is the point you have not addressed – how deism borrows from Christianity. But maybe your position is based on the view that Christianity taught us about God ab initio, which is not the case.

“Deist” is a label that does not refer to a group of people with a uniform set of beliefs. It loosely refers to anyone who believes God exists but repudiates or doubts the reality of the interventionist God with all his human traits described in the lore of most religions as well as the necessity of formal religion. Different deists explain their deism differently. There are agnostic deists and there are Christian deists. There are deists who believe firmly in “afterlife” and there are deists who say “we don’t know” when asked about that. There are deists who dismiss every possibility of prophetic inventions and miracles and there are deists who don’t.

That said, I don’t think there is any deists who claim to have answers to the “creator’s complexity”. But, of course. That is why I am a deist. So, yeah, that is left unanswered. Deism has never been about solving any paradox. It is not about explaining the First Cause. It is about recognizing the necessity of a First Cause. I don’t claim to understand God. In fact, God is incomprehensible and unknowable. “The sum total of all that exists”. “The uncased cause”. “The eternal sovereign lord”. These are all definitions that find earth with me because they don’t limit God. And I don’t think most deists see God in human form – at least, not in the same manner as the popular religions do. You are yet to provide any backing for your claims that they do.

Your assertions that deism borrows from Christianity or that it has an anthropomorphic concept of God, therefore, have no merit. Not that there is anything necessarily wrong with having ideas similar to Christianity. You, like many others, need to jettison this idea that ideas are defined relative to Christianity. And the idea of Us versus Them.

@Image123
Thank you for your lucid exposition. I think I now understand your position – or, more accurately, I am understanding it. I have just two questions. The first one is as a result of an oversight on your part – or, perhaps, you left it for the second phase. The second one arises as a result of what I understand from your well-written article.

1. You wrote this:

Image123:
That being stated, apart from the saints/believers inheriting the new earth and NOT THIS EARTH(Like the song writer says "This world is not mine own", the Bible teaches that the believers would go to Heaven and are from Heaven. Here are scriptures like was asked for;
Mat 5:12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.

The believers will inherit the new earth. Their portion is heaven. You need to reconcile these. I am ware some explanations have been proffered. For example, Joagbaje, I hope I’m recalling him correctly, is of the view that Christians will be raptured to heaven to be with Jesus for 1,000 years. Then they will come back to the earth. But they will all land at Israel where they will done Israeli army fatigues to join the beloved Jews to vanquish the Arabs and all the enemies of Israel.
What is your own explanation for this matter of going to be with Jesus in heaven and also inheriting the new earth?

2. You have apparently shown from the Bible that the present heaven and the present earth will be taken down and replaced with new ones. The other side of the argument is that it is not the literal heaven and earth but symbolic ones that those verses say will be replaced. This argument is hinged on two scriptural points.

(i) The Bible equates “the world” with the earth. In fact, this can be seen from your own post. Therefore, it is bad people, and not the physical earth that will be swept off. And equates “the heavens” with principalities and governmental authorities (See [url=http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Eph%206:12&version=NKJV]Eph 6:12[/url]). While 2 Pet 3:13 was clearly a reference to a glorious future, Isa 65:17, where the new heaven and a new earth were first prophesied, was in reference to the return of the Jews from exile in Babylon and had nothing to do with the creation of brand new heavens or earths. From the points above, it can be inferred that it is bad kings, not the physical earth, that will go. At least, that is how that argument goes.

(ii) The Bible is emphatic that the heaven and earth will last forever and will not be destroyed.
Psalm 45:6 (NKJV): Your throne, O God, is forever and ever;
A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.

The heavens are the throne of God. Any suggestion that the heavens will be replaced appear to suggest that God’s throne will be ripped off and replaced.

Psalm 115:16
New King James Version (NKJV)
16 The heaven, even the heavens, are the LORD’s; But the earth He has given to the children of men.
Thus it has been argued that “heaven and earth shall pass away” found in Luke 21:33 should be read metaphorically. That is, like Jesus saying that a camel will pass through the eye of the needle before a rich man enters the kingdom of God. In fact, here is how Matthew relates the passing away statement: Matt 5:18 (NKJV) 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.

And the earth? Here:
Ecclesiastes 1:4 (NKJV)
4 One generation passes away, and another generation comes;
But the earth abides forever.

As for the verses talking about saints in heaven and under the altars, there are quite a number of verses stating saints did not go heaven. I will cite just one:
Acts 2:34 (NKJV)
34 “For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he says himself:
‘The LORD said to my Lord,
“Sit at My right hand,

Now the question: Given the Bible’s position that the heaven and earth are going nowhere, how do you reconcile this with your view that the heaven and earth will be replaced? Don’t you think the “metaphor” explanation of the verses you cited should be allowed to stand?

I’m not disputing your arguments. Just trying to understand them and also help move the thread forward by seeing that all the arguments are examined calmly and, at least, understood by everyone. Even science has alluded to the fact that this earth will not last for too long, so you may well be on to something.

Kay 17: Deism still borrows heavily from Christian theology, the Nature of their God is anthropomorphic, nonphysical and uncaused. And doesn't still explain the paradox of the intelligent Creator.

How does deism borrow from Christian theology? How is "the nature of their God" - whatever that is - anthropomorphic? What "paradox" do you mean exactly?

kieryn:

It depends on what you want to believe in. People pick and choose what they believe in/ or what fits them, so jare!
Rev12:20 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. Acc. to this every will enter heaven to be judge.
Rev14:3 And they sang a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and the elders. No one could learn the song except the 144,000 who had been redeemed from the earth.So only 144000, to be w/christ

I'd love to ask how you came to these conclusions from these verses. But I see you "chose and picked" them "depending on what you wanted". Carry go.

LagosShia:

Your stupidity is beyond shock.so because to you sharia law is like mob justice,any mob justice becomes sharia law automatically?

Which court in iran passed such sentence on the boy?what is the name of the judge?if this story was true,the news would have being all over the world especially when the west even twist the good things about iran for propaganda.

As for the pic,it looks photoshopped.also,how do we know from the pic those people are in iran and not in mars?how do you even know they are muslims when other religions exist in iran?

If you can get a reliable link to your ridicule bring it.

And regarding sharia law,if someone is caught stealing to eat because he can't afford to eat even if the person be an adult,the person is innocent.the government and society must ensure no one goes to sleep with hungry stomach.the Prophet (sa) said:the one who let his neighbor sleep in hunger is not a believer.also in sharia law,the laws of Islam are not administered upon anyone that have not attained puberty.

What you see in the pic assuming it is real is not any law but cruelty outside the law.

Right. If the picture is real - and it doesn't look real very much - this would probably be mob justice. It has to be a court ordered punishment to qualify to be labelled as Sharia.

ijawkid:

Joe joe wad up...how u dey??:-)

I'm good. I trust you are, too.

Image123:
hey I'm fine ithink. the thread is not about a NEW earth is it? it's about going to heaven and I'm on my way dia.

Not yet. We still need you around here - who will anchor the brilliant "Today's Rhema" thread?

I'm not sure the thread is not about a new earth. Op said no heaven for the good guys and brought copious amounts of scriptures to show that instead their portion will be a new earth. I doubt you can address one without addressing the other.

@Image123
How is you doing?

The man has quoted many verses demonstrating new earth. Why are you dismissing them with one Corrinthians? What happens to the New Earth?

Mr_Anony:
My best advice to you would be to continue searching for the truth but don't write God out of it just yet.

Sound advice but he said “deist”, not atheist.

AVmonster:
Later, evolution was taught in school.. My teacher, firstly, told us it was all lies and we should not believe a word of it.. I asked, " Then, why teach it?" "It was part of the curriculum" he answered me. When he talked about fossil records he said the does fossils are all ancient Siamese twins.. I started to believe evolution after I heard his pathetic defense..

This made me laugh.

AVmonster:
When I became sixteen, I entered the
OAU and I met a deist who explained deism to me...

You are not the first said this to me - there must something about that OAU. Our Christian and Muslim friends better watch where they send their wards to!

TCD: I believe faith is a personal thing. Deist, satanist, christian, plumb, muslim it should be a personal choice. But since your mother isn't happy with your choice, to keep the peace I suggest you still go to church with her. Soon you'll finish school and be an independent man, then you can follow your heart. It's not the best of solutions, but it's the most practical.

I think this is a good piece of advice. What you believe is personal and nobody can touch your heart. There is no need to go pitching yourself against the world – your mom, your teachers, your pastors, etc - especially if you are seventeen and collecting school fees from mom. Going to church never hurt anyone - well, not ordinarily. Fortunately we are not dealing with a situation where you have converted to Islam which would demand its own exclusive devotion. You are a deist which does not demand any rites, does not see Christianity as competition, and so should not prevent you from going through the motions of church.

When you come of age, you can stop going to church. Or you may find that your views have changed and the science you have learnt does not controvert the Bible as you currently think. By the way, there are “Christian deists”.

I hold deistic views, myself, and I am reasonably comfortable at some of the church services.

Purist: It's always amusing to see someone delve into all the sciences of this world just to explain their cherished mythologies.

Lol.

Yeah, you'd have to have a heart of stone not to fall in love with that above. It's a classic.

It appears you needed a release. Anyhow, I have no desire to indulge you.

italo:
As long as I sound truthful...

A cussing machine - that's what you sound like. Find a sparring mate worthy of you.

^^^ No, you don't sound truthful. You want to play word games about MENTION and all that. I don't want to play. At least, not now. Not sure I met you before, but whatever was driving you, I hope you have let it out and will thus find some peace.

italo:
I don't see the need for further questions from you.

For you, certainly not. You may calm down.

^^^ You did not mention the Catholic Church but I knew what you meant and asked you a question based on that. Anyway, whatever rocks your boat.

You don't sound very much like an adult, though.

italo:

If you look at my post again, you'll see that I didn't mention the Catholic Church, its you who thinks that my description of the Church founded by Christ fits the Catholic Church. So I shouldn't be the one proving anything to you, it should be the other way round.

Ah. So you didn't mean the Catholic Church? Ok.

So how do we identify this "one that was founded by Jesus Christ with Peter as its head"?

true2god: I think religion is about individual commitment to his spirituality, beyond this earthly realm i dnt think there is any organized religios setting. I stand to be correted. We can only be remeberd, after our earthly sourjourn, on the impact we make on pple's life (in a positiv way) and not on our religios affiliation.

Well put.

italo:

The only church there is. The one that was founded by Jesus Christ with Peter as its head. The church that has maintained the doctrine and tradition as passed down from the apostles through an unbroken line of apostolic succession to the present day.

There is only one church founded by Jesus Christ. All those other shops are just businesses founded by men.

Interesting. But what evidence - Biblical and otherwise - is there that Peter was ever the head of the Roman Catholic Church?

true2god: Myjoe im surprised that u r still takin time exchanging post with someone that can never learn nor be corrected. The more u keep exchangin post with truthislight the more u become irritated. After couple of exchange i expected u to have knwn his level of rationality and simply quit this cat and mouse game, he enjoyed it a lot. There is no longer spirituality and morallity on the thread, so its better u use ur quality time on something or someone else.

I agree, but it became important to deal with this here. Problem is he wouldn't limit himself to this thread. He would follow me everywhere and do what he does best - maliciously twist what I write. We've come a fairly long way with me skipping his lies and simply ignoring him.

truthislight:
^^^
""lieing"" is that french?
usually i dont find fault with people spelling and passing judgement because
that is being rash.

but you can learn here that when you bend down To look at other people behind you end up exposing your arse.

Actually, i really do sympathise with your conditions cause it seems as though it is getting worst.

Peace though.

(Friend why not try "LYING" instead)

Here, people type on their phone, in traffic, at work, in class and everywhere. So minor errors tend to abound in posts. Still some try to write clean and well punctuated sentences. But not everyone has that patience. For other, however, it is not a matter of patience - it is a matter of their abilities. For these reasons, sensible posters, including some very fine writers of the the language found here, refrain from making fun of people's English.

There is a level to which, when foolishness is compounded, the individual simply lacks the capacity to look in a mirror or to see anything if you thrust one in front of his nose. I think the problem with a low-life fool of your calibre is that he thinks he is wise. There are quite a number of people I know whose English is as bad as yours but there is none of them who would be the first to try to make fun of someone's writing because he happened to spot a "lieing". Because they realise their own limitations. But not you. You had to go that route - because you don't think! And you had to spice it up and remind everyone you are the lying Mr truthislight by adding that line about looking at another's bottom to create the false impression that I had ever made fun of your writing. You ought to be taken to the Olympics if they make an event of stupidity or spiritual blindness.

If you pick any paragraph at random from your own writing and ask someone smart to help you mark it for "lieing", you will begin to realise the depth of your psycho-spiritual problem because the way you spotted "lieing" here is the way you spot others' minor spiritual issues while completely oblivious of your own Augean stables. It's a shame!

truthislight:
^^^
is this that "myjoe" that is all over NL all rational and polished?

What went over him?

Wonders they say shall never end!

You finally managed a couple of lines without lieing against me.

But your attempts at wittiness are as ghastly as your idiotic posts all over NL, all irrational and coarse.

And I notice you took your time to think - even read my old posts - before responding. It may be that you are starting to learn the matter of thinking.

**Edited**

charlsecy4:

Change is correct, not balance!

Thank you.

I doubt Acid has travelled abroad because oyinbos also ask for change. In fact, if you hear someone ask for their "balance" when they want their change abroad, you know he is a Nigerian and has been patronising one of em thrashy "good English" pamhletes sold inside molues and under the bridge in Lagos or he has been listening to someone who does and won't use a dictionary.

Maximus85:

Mr Joe, this is the first time I'm responding to your post. We have just a little above 7million baptized JWs in the world and if you can judge all of them based on the misbehavior of just 0.1% of them, then I must say you are man of true justice. And with ur sense of judgment can we conclude that all Nigerians are criminals?

This is not the issue, try live by the words u find in the bible. Ask questions that only leads to the light not creating problems.

You need to read thread again. Because:

1. No, this is not the first time you are responding to my post.

2. No, I have not used the actions of 0.1% to judge anyone. When you read again (my own posts, not jaundiced summaries or inferences made of them by others), you will find that I have been careful not to do that and may even have warned others not to. (One of your comrades who happens to see the world only through a prism of alliances, even falsely accused me of praising your church to "high heavens" for stating the FACT that they don't normally condone such things as child abuse when proven.) You will also see that I have not labelled your church but have stuck to facts.

BARRISTERS:
oga Myjoe, read it over and over again,before you comment, pls dont tell me why im celebrating these up there, because you will come with explanation that will not hold a water! you can start putting them together oya now!

Is highlighted meant to disable anything I might write before I write it? You don’t want me to reply you, then? I doubt you don’t. So I will reply you. But I seem to have lost track of your argument, as I can’t get what your point is any more. I don’t even know whether you accept that an affiliation took place or not. So please answer the following questions so I can reply you.

1. In 1991, did Watchtower become affiliated with the UN as an associate NGO?

2. “i dont see the relevance of stephen bates here other than trying to be relevant, …, but to mee he is like a pooo! a liar and an attention seeker”
Do you say the above of Mr Bates because you have reasons to believe he is of a disreputable character or because he wrote something that appears not to favour the JW?

Thank you.

truthislight:

so so petty.

yea, you are right.

How true this statement is?

Or are all your conclusions arrived on base on this premise?

Hmmm!

At Least it is an inprovemet from the F word you love using

You are a goat. Now, read well, if you can. I have never used what you call “the F word” in Nairaland. Liar is your middle name. If not, show us where I have. And, read well, again. Using profanities does not, on its own, make someone a bad person. Not using them does not, on its own, make someone a good person. It is only a blind bat with a robot mind, one who is barely literate, like you that will see the non-use of “the F word” as conferring some spiritual superiority on you. You put down people for using “the F word”, but you were the first to insult on this thread, according the owner of the thread. What does that make you?

actually i dont ever deceived myself that you will like my person.

From your words it seems you see me as going round and opening up your real intent on this forum and i can understand why you will not like that.

So, dont even imagine i expect any thing different from you aside from what you do best.

Cheers and peace

There is only one person you remind me of. Boxer in Animal Farm.

But it’s hard to imagine you bent over a piece of prose that isn’t The Watchtower or related literature. So you may have to find someone to ask who or what Animal Farm is.

BARRISTERS:
can you see the bolded up there, these are sympathies that i told you that i dont need from you, dont help me decide what watchtower should have done,

No, I don’t see the sympathy or helping you decide what they should do. You sure you didn't read in a hurry, again?

and on the other issue that you make a statement to de-convert people here on the tread, it is a fact, and maybe you dont like how the seeming motive was made public, but sorry, that tells you how you need to be carefull, there is no denial to that, telling me that you are responding to what i said thats why you wrote it are afterthought, but cannot be altered again!

The time you made an honest mistake on this matter is over. Now you are all about maintaining that you still have a point. What point? I don’t know. I doubt you do. Sorry, what was the "afterthought" again?

truthislight:
i also want to believe that you wish to say that you did not notice the false accusations label against the JW.

List the false accusations made against the JW on this thread.

BARRISTERS: @johnck
i think that you have the belief that two rules must operate here, one is for some people who are deemed to be insulted,and that should be the normal way to treat them,and another rule prohibits those ones being insulted to reply with an insult , if not i cant believe that you breezed through the whole paragraphs and pick on words that i did not use on this tread leaving these below! which someone used insulting barristers,see bolded;

I hope you realise you will have a tough time proving that those statements of mine you posted are insults. But I doubt you can see why.

even some who are christians joined with Known aetheists against the jws, it just unacceptable.

I see you still don’t get it. Smh.

well forget what i might have learned from observing the jws, i choose to use that when i become there full member, thanks anyway!

Yeah, you said so. You are not a JW so you are FREE.

truthislight:
^^^^ hypocrite.

You answered two person on one post so that your lies on JW house to house preaching will pass unnotice.

Anytime you put your finger to the keyboard you manifest what an unparalleled fool you are.

So, when according to you, when jesus sent the twelve and then the seventy (70) he ask them to go to a particular person house and eat their food since they are not to move from house to how.

According to me? Why don’t you post Luke 10 here?

BARRISTERS: @ Myjoe, to you it looks childish with the bold letters, isn'nt it? but for a purpose, thats the way your answers will be treated from now!

Well, I guess I can’t argue with you about it being for some purpose. But passing off an ingrained pattern of behaviour as having anything to do with MyJoe or “for now” doesn’t fly. There is a function in Nairaland that enables you to see your old posts. Use it. You will find that is how you post normally. You are right to say it’s childish, but I wasn’t going to say so. I don’t recall having called these screaming large fonts of yours childish. We get all sorts in NL and we get used to them.

BARRISTERS: @Myjoe
All i still want to say on the matter is that,

IN YOUR ''STATEMENT OF CLAIM HERE'',YOU WERE VERY CERTAIN AND SPECIFIC TO YOUR WORDS (IN BOLD)BELOW;

The two things that stood out here, is that, 'ever' have you said anything about ''de-converting''!
A,(2) that I ever said anything about converting or "de-converting" you or any other person on this forum.
B,But since Barristers claims I wrote something in a thread, he should be able to find the thread and the post and reclaim some credibility.
you went as far as daring me to extend my search to other tread where you did say that,

NOW, MY DEFENCE TO YOUR DENIAL;



here is your response below after you have been faced in your own words what you denied ever saying,below;



Now, what is an issue here? the issue is that you myjoe said;

that you never say anything, ''so A repudiation of an intention [/b]to de-convert''(bolded)is not an issue here, but [b]that you did mention something like that is the issue, and not ''why you mention that word'' because all these [b]''A repudiation of [b]an intention to de-convert equals a threat to do so'' [/b]that you are trying to 'repudiate an intention to de-convert''are after thoughts, and not in anyway an issue here, but that have you 'ever' say such? then what you mean will follow, dont be unfairly claiming the mandates of objective readers who have their own right to decide,and so you allow people to express their own judjement on this denial that you have made,and not 'you' authomatically becoming your own judge in your case,by telling them what you mean,but they should aknowledge that you mention something that you denied ever saying.

You are playing tricks, Barristers, and one can see through it. My response that I have never said anything about converting or de-converting you was not addressed to empty space. It was a response to your statement that I had threatened to de-convert you – in another thread. Separating the comment from the statement it was written in response to and then cleverly claiming that what I said was saying ANYTHING at all about de-converting is sheer wayo.

''that I ever said anything about converting or "de-converting"

How can you separate the above and ask people to judge it? Anyway, it doesn’t matter. Not for anyone who has been reading the thread and following with a modicum of understanding.

in summary, it is been proven to you,with your own word [size=14pt]that you have made mention of ''de-converting'' someone from his faith, is a proven statement of fact that cannot be denied but could be seen in black and white,[/size] trying to ridicule ones understanding amounted to 'a threat to force one into submiting' to your after thought.

"Made mention of de-converting" in a post. That your point, now?

"If you think I will slap you because of your provocations, you are mistaken".
Now, once you can find "I will slap you" in that statement made by someone you have proven, in his own words, that he "made mention of slapping someone", and that means your initial allegation that he threatened to slap someone is also justified, right? Once you can find "there is no God" in the Bible, you have proven, in the Bile's own words, that the Bible made mention of there being no God and you are justified to say the Bible says there is no God, right?

This gets tiresome, Barristers.

Anyway, the fact that you write the purple highlight shows me that you have seen your error even though you keep punching to save your face. It is not necessary. I make mistakes too and when they are pointed out I accept them and move on. But it’s your call. Calling anything I wrote an afterthought is a lie on your part. And the line about being a judge in your own case doesn’t cut anything. I was telling my side of the story, so where does being a judge come in?

Well, this is a stark summary of it:
* I made a statement about you speculating about imaginary motive I have to de-convert you.
* Misunderstanding the statement, you said I threatened to de-convert you.
* I denied ever saying anything about de-converting anyone.
* You produce the above statement of mine.
* I accuse you of lying. I later realise you may not be but that you probably honestly misunderstood me. I explain things, in a rather harsh tone in line with the tone the thread had taken.
* Now, you come back saying I am guilty of after-thought and whatever and that you have been vindicated since you have proven in black and white that the word “de-covert” did appear on my post and that that is the issue!

**Sigh** This gets tiresome.

And then you add this as your closing line:

Maybe that is responsible for your attack on jws is left for forumites to decide. but denying it is laughable as tons of write-ups cannot exonerate you.

I have never said anything about de-converting anyone in Nairaland, Barristers. If you don’t or can’t understand that in the context of your accusation that it was written in response to, I’m not sure it’s worth it further discussing the matter. But, yeah, like you said, let people decide for themselves. I really don’t give a hoot, but it’s better than prolonging the matter.

And I challenge you again to prove that I have attacked the JW. That I have said anything about the JW that was not a response to a misunderstanding or a lie expressed by someone. That I made blanket statements condemning your people.

BARRISTERS: @Myjoe
Goodboy, the renewal form rests solely on the original application that does not carry the signature in the first place,and that is to be able to have a continued usage of the library, but note, you dont need to agree with me!you have right to your opinion,and if you wait until i satisfy you on this matter,its not going to be possible,because you have made up your mind,all i need to do here is to provide sound basis for other forumites of which you cannot claim their mandate here to represent but you are just 'one' person,and that the signature thing does not bother is your opinion but leggally it signaled huge aknowledgement to a primary document expecially,and untill you provide a primary document where jws signed in accepting political UN affiliation house-filled insults will amount to nothing.

Sorry, but you are going round in circles, round and round, as Nigerians say. That^^^ is no better than what you wrote on signatures earlier. I honestly don’t know what point is to be gleaned from whether there is a signature on the application form or not. That the JW didn’t affiliate or what? Again, what does it matter when the names of top Watchtower officials, including that of a Governing Body member, appear in the UN registry?

you have started using insultive words now and you will say 'where are the insults?' you want me to 'accept your insultive response' as normal? never,you can programme others brain to accept it,but me? never,you even hates when someone directs your attention to insults, and i have only given you this grace not to insult you back on only on this post,but will resume next if you persist.

So, you, Barristers, are complaining about insults, ehn? Hum.

Why didn't you wait for me to say “where are the insults” before attempting to force them on me? Nowhere have I denied saying anything I did, is there? You failed to prove your claim about insult in the other thread when I challenged you to. The only place you pointed out an inappropriate word I used, I apologized. Other places you complained I asked you to substitute the words even while expressing my opinion that you were being petty. Yes, I have used words I don’t normally use here. Improper, but they were called for. Deal with it. I only used words in describing you within the context of the debate as well as your responses and conduct in this thread. I mean, when I called you dense (an improper word to use, normally) I only did so in the context of the fact you did not understand something I thought you did. And when I said you had a dirty mind (also improper, normally) I did so in the context of saying that you find faults and accuse people of things they never thought of.

You, on the other hand, have sought to insult far more than you have been insulted and most of yours insults are gratuitous and unrelated to the subject – Hitler pictures, “sadists”, “immoral”, “living with criminals”. I have done or said nothing of the sort to you, have I? Sounds a lot like the other thread where you remonstrated with me for calling the impulsive Mr truthislight a fool for his behaviour whereas you had been calling someone same simply for holding a viewpoint different from yours. Doesn’t this sound hypocritical to you?

Your gratuitous insults weren’t helping your case. Now you seem to have realised that and want a decent discussion of the issues, I am here. You said something about bringing back the insults, like you threatened in the other thread. Nobody is afraid of you. For all you know, I speak more languages than you do, but I will leave you to continue the boasting as you have. But I really do wonder how an adult can fail to realise that when you curse someone in a language she doesn’t understand the curse is for the curser since the other person doesn’t understand the words. You can’t get more childish than to do this and then boast about it! You seriously think anyone will go looking for an interpreter to know what the curses cursed in five languages by Barristers of Nairaland in Nairaland mean?

you are just very funny,''did the conditions for [color=#770077]affiliation change''[/color] why are the opposers not specific by saying ''did the condition of applications of NGO-DPI(Non gov org,Dept. of Information)changed?

He he. Please answer - were they applying afresh or were they already affiliated? In 2001, did the Watchtower simply decline to put in another application or they withdrew their AFFILIATION?

Obviously thats a BIG HOLE you need to fill there,using a blanket statement (NGO) is often nullified when specific details are not discussed.

The way you pluck “big holes” out your hat has always been marvelous.

Unfortunately you ignore this;from the conversation;

“Question: What is an NGO and how does it relate to the UN?
Answer: [size=18pt]NGOs have no status and are not part of the UN.”

[/size]

Who cares? Of course NGOs are not part of the UN. They are affiliates. AFFILIATES.

Was the Watchtower affiliated with the UN as an NGO? Yes. And Watchtower has admitted it. That is the issue. Nobody ever accused Watchtower of sitting on the Security Council or the General Assembly or of having an office in the secretariat.

Now, Watchtower says in its defence that it joined to access a library. People say, no, you don’t need to affiliate as an NGO to assess a library. The UN agrees. (That is not a good defence for Watchtower, anyway. If affiliation was actually needed to use a library, or to use it beyond a certain point as you spin it, certainly Watchtower could have put up with such minor inconvenience and avoid affiliation with the seven-headed beast to maintain “Christian neutrality”.) On why it withdrew, Watchtower says it withdrew because the conditions for affiliation changed. UN says no, they didn’t. People say they withdrew because the affiliation was exposed, since the facts say they withdrew a day after the exposure by a London newspaper. These are the facts. You have ignored the fact of the date the exposé was made and withdrawal date which is the major plank the argument about reason for withdrawal rests on, but you quickly accuse me of ignoring an irrelevant point – that NGOs are not part of the UN.

"Devil's advocate" is just a phrase he picked up from the Adeboye thread. It's clear he doesn't know what it means.

truthislight:

hahaha. Lol.

My friend why are you desending so low naa?

You know i would not join you.

But, have you notice that the real you have come out?

You fool. The real me was never hidden. I have been posting here long before you. Just adapted to deal with a pest such as you. Say you wouldn't join me, but you fool no one. You were the first to insult in the other thread opened by your brother - he said so. Your hypocrisy does not fool anyone.

Imagine the indecency that is criticising JW?

Imagine!
Talking to your kind is a let down to me.

Pls. Upgrade so that you can be worthy of a reply.

Peace

You have nothing to reply. Hiding behind lies doesn't help you. I know you don't feel any embarrassment since you don't think, but you are an embarrassment to whatever group you belong to.