Acts of God? - Page 3

Quahom1 · 11-12-2007, 05:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bob x

Of course there were children in that place. Of course there were children among the dead. Natural disasters back then were no more selective than they are now. It is just that back then, everyone took the ignorant attitude that disasters happen with intention, that anyone struck by lightning must, obviously, have done something to anger whichever deity they thought controlled lightning.

And of course YOU were there to witness it all, so you know everything, right Bob?

That is why you know the Bible better than everyone else and we are all screwed up except for you...because you were there, and know so much better, that is also why you are so healthy, and vibrant, and positive about life...because YOU KNOW BETTER, THAN EVERYONE ELSE, and you LIVED the GOOD LIFE...

Well, I'll take my medicocre life over your grand life, I think. Has anyone ever called you a jerk?...

Consider it done.

cyberpi · 11-12-2007, 05:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quahom1

And of course YOU were there to witness it all, so you know everything, right Bob?

That is why you know the Bible better than everyone else and we are all screwed up except for you...because you were there, and know so much better, that is also why you are so healthy, and vibrant, and positive about life...because YOU KNOW BETTER, THAN EVERYONE ELSE, and you LIVED the GOOD LIFE...

Well, I'll take my medicocre life over your grand life, I think. Has anyone ever called you a jerk?...

Consider it done.

Hmmmm... Q this post smells like vinegar.

Quahom1 · 11-12-2007, 05:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cyberpi

Hmmmm... Q that post smells like vinegar.

Better that, than tasting like sickly sweet honey...

cyberpi · 11-12-2007, 05:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Better that, than tasting like sickly sweet honey...

Maybe I am just a little concerned that bob_x is next in line to be on the same plank that Silas and Niranjan were ushered off of, being called names, stoked to return fire, and then whiskfully banned without a peep. With that modus operandi maybe we could have a scholarly analysis of terms like 'idiot' or 'jerk' before an unjust dirty deed is carried out again.

Personally I like vinegar, but Bob might not.

Quahom1 · 11-13-2007, 04:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cyberpi

Maybe I am just a little concerned that bob_x is next in line to be on the same plank that Silas and Niranjan were ushered off of, being called names, stoked to return fire, and then whiskfully banned without a peep. With that modus operandi maybe we could have a scholarly analysis of terms like 'idiot' or 'jerk' before an unjust dirty deed is carried out again.

Personally I like vinegar, but Bob might not.

There are no moderators who have even entertained the idea of Bob x departing the forum. Never crossed OUR minds, Cyberpi...

And as far as acting a "jerk" is concerned, Mr. Bob x there has delighted in calling and or alluding to others as much worse...

If he is concerned about it, he'll be sure to let me know. I'm quite certain he can handle himself very nicely...

v/r

Q

madeinrussia89 · 11-13-2007, 05:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bob x

Of course there were children in that place. Of course there were children among the dead. Natural disasters back then were no more selective than they are now. It is just that back then, everyone took the ignorant attitude that disasters happen with intention, that anyone struck by lightning must, obviously, have done something to anger whichever deity they thought controlled lightning.

Why don't you stop beating around the bush and just proclaim you don't believe in ANY of it and stop leading others into error already?

Children get heaven automatically anyway, and it probably was to prevent them from encountering something MUCH worse. God is merciful, and like I said, doesn't go around killing kids for jollies.

The Logos is truth, and I think I'll stick with that.

bob x · 11-13-2007, 05:33 AM

"And of course YOU were there to witness it all, so you know everything, right Bob?"
We were talking about what the archaeologists actually *found* at the sites traditionally named Sdom and 'Umeirah by the south end of the Dead Sea: two ruined cities, apparently destroyed by explosive sulfurous outgassing, with few dead bodies, indicating that most had time to get out-- but OF COURSE among those dead were children, why would you expect otherwise? The area is part of the Rift Valley complex from Sea of Galilee down the Jordan to the Dead Sea, on down a sharp-walled valley to the Red Sea and across eastern Africa; there is a lot of earthquake activity all up and down the Rift Valley, and as Muslimwoman correctly points out, even lava flows are not unknown south of the Dead Sea, and one of them may have been part of this particular natural disaster, which was no more selective in its victims than any other such event. There is nothing unusual about people of that time telling stories about how the victims must have been especially wicked for such a thing to happen, but I would bet that they were neither better nor worse than any other people.

mee · 11-13-2007, 10:03 AM

Comparing our “last days” to those of Lot, Luke 17:28-30 reports: “Likewise, just as it occurred in the days of Lot: they were eating, they were drinking, they were buying, they were selling, they were planting, they were building. But on the day that Lot came out of Sodom it rained fire and sulphur from heaven and destroyed them all. The same way it will be on that day when the Son of man is to be revealed.” The fate of Sodom and Gomorrah on that awesome day of Jehovah conveys a clear warning to us in this time of Jesus’ . PRESENCE The modern generation of mankind has also “committed fornication excessively and gone out after flesh for unnatural use.” (Jude 7) Moreover, the immoral sex of our times have been responsible for many of the “pestilences” foretold by Jesus for this day.—Luke 21:11.

mee · 11-13-2007, 10:04 AM

Today, we are facing another destruction—that of the present wicked system of things during the great day of Jehovah. (Luke 17:26-30; Galatians 1:4; 2 Peter 3:10) How would Abraham view the people living in this world that is soon to be destroyed? He most likely would be concerned about those who have not yet heard the “good news of the kingdom.” (Matthew 24:14)

cyberpi · 11-13-2007, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quahom1

There are no moderators who have even entertained the idea of Bob x departing the forum. Never crossed OUR minds, Cyberpi...

And as far as acting a "jerk" is concerned, Mr. Bob x there has delighted in calling and or alluding to others as much worse...

If he is concerned about it, he'll be sure to let me know. I'm quite certain he can handle himself very nicely...

v/r

Q

So if I stooped to calling you a jerk, or juantoo3 an arrogant putz, then you wouldn't get your panties all bunched up claiming that I'm too personal or uncivil for doing the same thing that you do, right? Or would you gripe and I be at risk of being banned per someone's brand of civil conduct in the same way that Silas and Niranjan were banned due to someone's intolerance? It seems like we have yet to consider the ramifications of being the hypocrite. Q, I don't know if anyone ever asked you: Do you think it was good that Silas or Niranjan were banned? Did they deserve it?

Yes I know I sound like a broken record or rubber necked ducky because nobody wants to keep hearing or talking about those vile wretched uncivil people anymore. They were justly punished, right? For a while, when my wife and I were teaching one our uncivil children the golden rule she would come back with it as, "I did to her what she did to me". I saw that in your words there Q. Don't get me wrong... you can call me any name in the dictionary including 'jerk' or 'idiot' or 'arrogant putz', or even 'hypocrite' or 'snake'. I might even learn from it but if you can't receive those words then I see a problem and I'm just raising the red flag. Smells like the vinegar you personally hate.

bob x · 11-13-2007, 06:11 PM

Mee: the fact is, the people in those cities WEREN'T "all" (or even mostly) destroyed.

Cyber, Quahom: don't worry about me. I have been called a lot worse than "jerk" and could hardly feel injured about it. Q, your religion seems to fill you with anger and bitterness (even worse than my own anger spasms!) but that is your problem and I refuse to make it mine.

Tao_Equus · 11-13-2007, 06:40 PM

Mee, you still not told me yet exactly when is the next "end of days". After all I want to go out owing the banks as much as possible.

Incidentally I have been looking into a little of the detailed background of the founders and leaders of your ermmm... esteemed church. Would you mind starting a thread on it so we could all discuss the merits of your particular scam...sorry I mean Church?

Tao

Quahom1 · 11-14-2007, 01:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bob x

Mee: the fact is, the people in those cities WEREN'T "all" (or even mostly) destroyed.

Cyber, Quahom: don't worry about me. I have been called a lot worse than "jerk" and could hardly feel injured about it. Q, your religion seems to fill you with anger and bitterness (even worse than my own anger spasms!) but that is your problem and I refuse to make it mine.

Angry...not even close. The only one here in this conversation angry with God appears to be you...as well as angry with the citizenry, the government, and anyone who might disagree with your philosophy.

But you are right, about the people not being destroyed. The bible states the cities were destroyed, never to be rebuilt. In fact, the only death actually recorded I believe was Lot's wife...

v/r

Q

Quahom1 · 11-14-2007, 01:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Incidentally I have been looking into a little of the detailed background of the founders and leaders of your ermmm... esteemed church. Would you mind starting a thread on it so we could all discuss the merits of your particular scam...sorry I mean Church?

Tao

Tao, that's not nice either. Mee didn't start the faith. Mee simply believes in it, and the message it carries today. And Mee has never posted a sarcastic post here...(doing better than most of us I believe...)

v/r

Q

Quahom1 · 11-14-2007, 02:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cyberpi

So if I stooped to calling you a jerk, or juantoo3 an arrogant putz, then you wouldn't get your panties all bunched up claiming that I'm too personal or uncivil for doing the same thing that you do, right? Or would you gripe and I be at risk of being banned per someone's brand of civil conduct in the same way that Silas and Niranjan were banned due to someone's intolerance? It seems like we have yet to consider the ramifications of being the hypocrite. Q, I don't know if anyone ever asked you: Do you think it was good that Silas or Niranjan were banned? Did they deserve it?

Yes I know I sound like a broken record or rubber necked ducky because nobody wants to keep hearing or talking about those vile wretched uncivil people anymore. They were justly punished, right? For a while, when my wife and I were teaching one our uncivil children the golden rule she would come back with it as, "I did to her what she did to me". I saw that in your words there Q. Don't get me wrong... you can call me any name in the dictionary including 'jerk' or 'idiot' or 'arrogant putz', or even 'hypocrite' or 'snake'. I might even learn from it but if you can't receive those words then I see a problem and I'm just raising the red flag. Smells like the vinegar you personally hate.

Coming from some Cyberpi, that to me is the pot calling the kettle "black"...
I just don't try an use overly verbose and agragendized phraseology to get my point across. And mixing rudeness with refusal to adhere to CR code of conduct pertaining to proselytizing is comparing apples and oranges. The "hypocrasy" therefore is a figment of one's imagination.

As far as whether one deserves being banned, the admin determined that the CRs rules were being broken, and there was no intention of stopping the breaking of them. What good is a rule if it isn't enforced? A decision was made and consequences were met out. The aboriginies of Australia do the exact same thing within their villages. If one will not follow societal rules, then one is stating they do not want to be part of that society as it stands. Since they are in the minority, they must leave. Even Paul and others warn the early churches for example, of those intent on supplanting the established, which counters the original intent, and say remove them from the church's midst...(bannish them).

I am not concerned about whether you consider me anything Cyberpi. That is your opinion, which you are most assuredly entitled to.

And as an aside...I happen to like drinking the pickle juice, once the dills are gone. So what goes into the recycle bin is an empty jar...

v/r

Q