and to add it also says in the Bible that Jesus was the "firstborn of all creation". If Jesus was God then that should read that "God was the firstborn of all creation" which is a statement that makes no sense at all.
Nope, im saying Jesus isnt God in any sense. Jesus is a messenger and prophet of God, like noah, moses, abraham etc.
Why does the bible state he is the son of god, would the son of god be an actually god or a part of god?
This is part of the genius of the ancient jewish languages, a son of God is not literal at all. This title was given to many others besides Jesus. Anybody who reads the bibe unbiased of pagan church doctrines can see this. Psalm 82:6 "I said, 'You are gods; you are all sons of the Most High.' Psalm 2:7 "....Jehovah had said onto me (David), thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee." Jeremiah 31:9 They will come with weeping; they will pray as I bring them back....and Ephraim is my firstborn son. Luke 3:38 ...which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God. Lets not forget that throughout the bible Jesus is referred to as the: Son of GOD Son of David Son of Man Can you spot the difference between these 2 different versions of the bible? King James Version New King James Version How can any sane person say Jesus is God? Job 25 Jesus referred to himself as Son of man, no less than 83 times and he was born of a woman!!!
That's a very vague question. If you have an Jehovah's Witnesses come to see you, feel free to ask them that particular question. However, if you can't be bothered with that, then you can get a summary from this brochure: http://watchtower.org/e/jt/index.htm No matter which one of us you talk to, you will find we are united in worship right around the globe. Even in different languages, dialects etc.. Not because was are told to by man (of which some people will mislead you into believing), because we have learned this from God's word, the Bible. The very best way to see this for yourself is to actually speak to any of us face to face. Col
You certainly have a way of twisting things. I never said it's not OK to quote from the Watchtower. After all, what is a Watchtowerite supposed to do My point was you were discounting what ssandecky said when he was pointing to the wikipedia and THEN you yourself point to it to prove your point. So it's ok for you to use but not for him. Because, eh, the wikipedia should ONLY be used when it's of use to you. Kind of like when you go door to door giving away the Awake magazine and YET you completely refuse to take a magazine from a non JW. Where's the logic??? The only answer I can come up with is the Watchtower is terrified of losing members and like it or not, other magazines may chip away from the JW faith. Will chip away NOT from faith in God, but faith in the Watchtower. You said the Watchtower is NOT infallible and they also made mistakes in the past (and false prophecies). So could it be they also got this wrong about the cross? I see you "apologised" for taking this discussion in the wrong direction and yet immediately after you jumped at the chance to talk up the Watchtower. Hmm...
This thread is about evolution. Protein, I am sure Cheapseo will agree to stop discussing his faith on this thread as long as you agree to cease raising questions about it. Agreed?
Well said, but this thread has been off topic for about 30 pages now. I wonder whats the next topic it will turn to?!
Ok, lets not make it football since the Chicago Bears blew it last weekend I get to watch them do it all over again tonight to. Anyone a Redskins fan?
Since you've been here a lot longer than I have, and you also seem to be good with statistics, maybe you can tell me how many threads (percentage wise) on dp stay 100% on topic?
It doesn't matter. Feel free to tell others to stay on topic, including, by all means, me. You are baiting Cheapseo on a thread that has nothing to do with your judgment of his faith. Create another thread to trash JW, if that is your inner need, as unchristian as it seems to me and many others. Regarding this thread, it has been requested that you stay on topic, and Cheapseo earlier readily agreed. You stand alone in wanting to continue this needling. You should stop, or if, you can't, you should leave.
Oh please. Put that finger away will you? You'll poke someone's eye out in a minute! I think he already did start a thread about us. Or was that pingpong? Bah! Can't remember. It was too long ago. I feel he is following in tbarr60's footsteps anyhow. There's like an inner push to bring everyone down. Boy was this ride bumpy! Someone really needs to fix those potholes.
WOW!!! The great dp refferee. Just watch out, you may lose your "fairness" status "Create another thread to trash JW, if that is your inner need, as unchristian as it seems to me and many others." Disagreeing with JWs is not trashing. But back on topic, here's a couple of quotes from a scientist (Richard Dawkins): "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose. ...the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker... " Interesting theory Dawkins is coming up with.
I am not claiming fairness, if fairness means I conclude you and Cheapseo are equally valid in your points and the way you make them. In your judgment of Cheapseo's faith, I think you have behaved inappropriately, but I've been up front about that from the beginning. In continuing the debate on a thread about evolution, well past when your "opponent" has said he'd like to wish you well, and move on from the argument, I believe you have again behaved inappropriately. The bottom line is that long ago, in a thread aboute evolution, Cheapseo offered an olive branch to you to live and let live and you have refused the overture since then, and the debate is clogging up a thread on another subject. It's my opinion. I am not a mod; feel free to tell me to, well, you know. Turning to now, thank you for returning to the topic. Not sure where you're going with the Dawkins excerpt. From what I know of him, he's a prick, but he's got the goods. From your excerpt, and knowing something of his writings, he's saying that there is no doubt that the complexity of life and evolution gives the appearance of some intelligence in design. The appearance. In moving from "appearance" to "concluding" that there is an intelligence there, he's saying there's nothing different in this belief from that of our ancient ancestors, who marvelled at a black skyward canopy riddled with stars. Surely, something had to put them there to look like the animals they hunted, the myths they created, the people they loved. Again, actually not sure what you were pointing up in your Dawkins quotes.
The "God Dellusion" is a fantastic book by Richard Dawkins. I've read a few pages of this thread and already see many creationism points that he destroys in the book. A must read.