Yes, very good idea, I sometimes don't feel open to my mom at all. I actually got a bf one week ago...but I don't know how to tell my mom that because a couple nights before I got my bf she says, "So do any of you or your friends have boyfriends? Because you girls don't need boyfriends at such a young age, it'll take your mind off school." And I do't let my bf get my mind off school at all! I am still VERY focused, and I have straight A's, I just don't know how to tell my mom that I am mature enough. She's KNOWS I'm responsible, but I don't know how she'd react to me having a bf. And I feel like I need to talk to SOMEONE about it.

I was reading through the posts and got to the Aaron walks in and thanks Alisa part and that really struck me as odd. Cult is what comes to mind. "I am doing as commanded master, I am trying to convert these heatens, but my aggression got the best of me. Please do not be mad. Let me try to reign in the unknowing ones with a line of BS and a hook of lies," said the robot mutant disguised as the human. (No Ofense, I'm letting you know how I interpreted it.) It is a creepy thing!!

Cool!

No there isn't a place in my school where girls can have girl talk but fortunanetly in my church we have a women ministry where we do exactly that we have girl talk, help each other with out problems, and grow spiritualy into women of christ. (Proverbs 31 wife)

lol....

ok.

it means laughing my @$$ off....

sorry, but what does LMAO stand for? i know you probably think im really dumb for asking that, but alot of people say it, and i have no clue what it means.

Thank you captain obvious! LMAO

i do have a question. how are we supposed to know your black if we're online? just wondering. i dont know if you have a picture or something like that

pilmboythe2nd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Okay Hero, why the hell would you go out and
> delate my account,

I didn't delete your account. Another admin did. I gave you several warnings - hell, we all did - but you ignored them. Breaking the rules nets consequences.

> you are a raciest

While I'm white, most of my family is black. They'd disagree with you.

> and a narrow
> minded jerk that knows nothing about life,

My idea of a good time isn't to make a fool of myself online. What do you know about life? You have no idea what I do.

> you
> never have any good disccustions on here, and
> right when somebody from the hoods of Maine

That's funny, I didn't notice any hoods when I was spending my summers in Harrison.

> come
> on here you kick him out. IS IT BECAUSE I SPEAK
> BLACK, IS IT BECAUSE I CURSE? IS THAT WHY.

It's because you have broken every SINGLE rule posted at the bottom of these pages.....or can't you read?

> You got
> rid of all my post. How could you! You are a
> FUCKEN LIAR, you said you have never kicked
> somebody off

I didn't lie. You were the first person who needed to be kicked off.

> than you go ahead and kick me off.

I didn't kick you off; it was George. If I had the power to, I would have done it long ago.

Playing the race card? Interesting that you automatically assume your race has more influence on how people see you rather than what you have been posting. Informing people to be open minded doesn't work after you single handedly sought to offend as many people as you could on these boards. I have no problem what you say, be you of any nation, color, ethnicity, sexuality and so on. But don't try to act the victim when you have gone out of your way to verbally assault other users of the board.

How you speak is up to you. At this point it is basically your trademark.

pilmboythe2nd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Okay Hero, why the hell would you go out and
> delate my account, you are a raciest and a narrow
> minded jerk that knows nothing about life, you
> never have any good disccustions on here, and
> right when somebody from the hoods of Maine come
> on here you kick him out. IS IT BECAUSE I SPEAK
> BLACK, IS IT BECAUSE I CURSE? IS THAT WHY. You got
> rid of all my post. How could you! You are a
> FUCKEN LIAR, you said you have never kicked
> somebody off, than you go ahead and kick me off. I
> see howe it is. You are messed up and you are a
> lair. You and you little ugly girlfriend Usher can
> suck my balls. Thats prabably all you know
> anyways. So get a life, and learn how to open your
> mind and accept new people

First of all, we haven't got a problem with black people. I love black people! You are someone I cannot stand. He's a "lair"? Oh thats cute. Maybe you would've been accepted if you hadnt came on here caused and caused problems. Don't tell me to suck your balls, because I wouldnt even come near someone like you. I doubt anyone else would either. You need to grow up and stop acting like a child. and another thing, how do you know Heroes is the one who banned you? There are other mods on here that have seen your language and attitude.

im confused as to whom you are speaking to

Excuse YOU! I AM a Christian! I am not ignoarnt! Read the rules!

I agree Wingus! This is uncalled for.

All of the people participating on these boards are here to discuss their opinions. If anyone is getting on your nerves you are free to leave. This is the 5th post of yours that I have read which is flat out malicious. If it is your intention to be vindictive towards members of these boards, then you have made it more than clear. Your sardonic remarks towards individuals and biased remarks towards religious groups are obnoxious. They truly show your ignorance of religion. If you wish to keep on humiliating yourself in such an illiterate way, you are more then free to do so.

so whats your story? Do you know it all, or what?

replying to everyone! I am starting a new topic called things you cant say at school. you guys can talk all about religion cuz if you havent noticed, things arw getting really long here....so go on there.

yeah.....that is good to know. so now, yall will never quit! how lovely! lol

tinklovers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> really to me, not to get in the convo, but it all
> depends on what you believe in. me, honestly, they
> both sound like good arguements against one
> another. but since you dont believe the same
> thing......well, this could go on for forever.
> thats my opinion, though. you guys may want to
> talk aboout this on a new topic though...

Thought you might want a bit of a history lesson..... (U may already know this, and it wouldnt shock me)

The dispute over religion, whose right and who isn't has been going on for over 2,000 years. So yes it's going to go on forever.

wingus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Alisa, Ushersgirl . . . does either name matter? I
> understand the devotion you have to your religion.
> That's cool. But please stop subjecting everyone
> to your forceful invasion of their beliefs.
> Telling them what is “truth” and
> self-proclaiming your religion, and yours alone as
> the only true one. What I mean by that is it is
> fine to say what you believe, but not okay to
> correct what others believe. It is not your place.
> It is offensive when you try to correct the
> opinions and of others and declare your religion
> as the only true one, and that all others by
> comparison are false or mislead.
>
> Alisa said (or Ushersgirl): I am trying to let the
> truth be known, as are other Witnesses. I think
> being able to know the truth is a most wonderful
> thing. I do get very aggressive sometimes, as
> others cannot see whats right and what isn't.
>
> To you it is truth. And I respect your beliefs and
> understand that they are yours alone. Yet there
> are other religions throughout the world whose own
> truth should be respected.

Call me either or, (name wise) Okay I will do something....I apologize, I'm sorry. But I am trying to do what my religion tells me to do.

Alisa, Ushersgirl . . . does either name matter? I understand the devotion you have to your religion. That's cool. But please stop subjecting everyone to your forceful invasion of their beliefs. Telling them what is “truth” and self-proclaiming your religion, and yours alone as the only true one. What I mean by that is it is fine to say what you believe, but not okay to correct what others believe. It is not your place. It is offensive when you try to correct the opinions and of others and declare your religion as the only true one, and that all others by comparison are false or mislead.

Alisa said (or Ushersgirl): I am trying to let the truth be known, as are other Witnesses. I think being able to know the truth is a most wonderful thing. I do get very aggressive sometimes, as others cannot see whats right and what isn't.

To you it is truth. And I respect your beliefs and understand that they are yours alone. Yet there are other religions throughout the world whose own truth should be respected.

really to me, not to get in the convo, but it all depends on what you believe in. me, honestly, they both sound like good arguements against one another. but since you dont believe the same thing......well, this could go on for forever. thats my opinion, though. you guys may want to talk aboout this on a new topic though...

faith hope love14 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ushergirl, in all due respect, you're ignoring
> what we're saying. We're presenting HISTORICAL
> evidence, and you seem to be ignoring it.
>
> You said: BUT his name is Jehovah God. Another
> thing, yes the Bibles are translated from Hebrew
> and Greek. Let me ask you something: Dont you
> think that someone who were translating the Bible
> from another language could possibly mistake its
> meaning and get it wrong, therefore put something
> untrue in there, and it be false? A great example
> of false religion is (oh geez I know I'm going to
> offend alot of ppl...) the ones who believe in the
> Holy Spirit and the Trinity. This isnt true!!!
>
> I say: Umm...these people study for DECADES just
> to translate the Bible. They do it in teams, and
> it takes several years. I doubt that they would
> mess up. Even if they're off by a couple of
> words, the MAIN point gets across. And the
> Trinity is a main point. It's in the Bible,
> though not the New World Translation, I think. It
> is in MOST other translations, recent and older.
> Take example in Genesis 1:26, "And then God said,
> 'Let us make man in our image.'" That indicates
> there is more than one person in God's nature.
> In the accounts of the pentacost: (Acts 2:1-4)
> "1When the day of Pentecost came, they were all
> together in one place. 2Suddenly a sound like the
> blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and
> filled the whole house where they were sitting.
> 3They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that
> separated and came to rest on each of them. 4All
> of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began
> to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled
> them. "
>
> I have just proved that the Holy Spirit does
> exist, unless you are doubting the account of Luke
> and the writers of Genesis. You must figure into
> the equation that people who translate these
> accounts are much smarter than you or I and know
> exactly what they're doing. You could learn greek
> yourself and translate the Bible and find the
> Spirit, the Father, and the Son all seen as equal,
> and of one nature. When you say something isn't
> true, prove it. Point to me evidence from the
> Bible that suggests the Trinity and the Holy
> Spirit does not exist.

First of all Sparx, my name is Alisa.

Now as for my reply: You want me to prove it? Okay fine: first of all, Yes you are correct in the fact that it does say in the Bible Genesis 1:26, "And then God said,
> 'Let us make man in our image.'"

If you read on, you will know he is talking about creating the first HUMAN, which of course was Adam.

Another thing, proof that Jesus, and God arent the same person. Look up Matthews 6:9-10, Which was Jesus' prayer to Our heavenly Father, which means it was his heavenly father as well. If God and Jesus are the same person, then why would Jesus pray to himself? Think about that one. I'd love to hear your response that this one.....As for the holy spirit, I will be on soon with a response for that one.

there is no reason to copy my entire post. Just mention you are responding to my last one.

It is is impossible to please everyone. That is why we all must get along and LEARN to live with eachother and compramise.

Ushergirl wrote:
Yes I understand we're having a logical discussion here. I have a copy of the New World Translation Bible, BTW as I got my new Bible in 2002. Yes language has changed over the years, and will continue to change. If you think I am speaking falsely (not saying you do, but I'm saying IF you do) about my religion, ask Aaron, (smallcoins) maybe he can get my points across much better about what we believe. Yahweh is the hebrew word FOR Jehovah, meaning thats how they pronounced Jehovah back then, because of it being hebrew. (Probably didnt make any sense, so I'll translate if needed)

You're not listening. We've told you several times that it's the opposite. Jehovah is the english/german pronuniciation of YHWH. YHWH existed long before Jehovah did, in terms of age of the word. So, technically, it's the opposite, because how could people thousands of years ago know a word that wasn't uttered until millenia later, translate that word into their own language? Maybe you meant the other way around: Jehovah is a form of the Hebrew word YHWH. =/

wingus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> faith hope love 14:
> IN GENERAL, White people don't like Uncle Toms
> cabin, Luthrens dislike Catholics, Muslims don't
> approve of the Bible, Christians don't approve of
> the Quran (I think that's what it's called. I need
> to study it more)...it all leads to seem like we
> can't agree on anything. If we defend every group,
> we work against ourselves. Everyone can't be
> pleased at once.
>
> I don't believe the actions of a minority group of
> people should be taken as the beliefs of the
> majority. What I mean by that is yes maybe some
> "white" people don't like books about slavery but
> the majority of people I know, of every skin color
> dislike slavery and advocate books such as Uncle
> Tom's Cabin because it sheds light on such a
> serious topic instead of casting it in the dark.
>
> I detest generalizations such as this race hates
> that and this religion hates that religion. To me
> they are outdated and not true, except for a small
> minority.
>
> I think if we defend every group we will be best
> able to understand the root of conflicts. I am not
> a fan of political correctness but I do strongly
> believe in definding the minority. Who for most
> part don't have a voice.
> Most of the time we really can't agree on
> anything, but the important thing is to sort out
> the differences and learn to live side by side in
> harmony. Reguardless of what may seperate us.

Yes, I find it important that the minorities have a voice, for what they're saying may be true. But I also think that it is impossible to please everybody: there are to many conflictions that are completely opposite of each other. Why are there few death cults around anymore? Because they did not blend well with governments and societies. In a similar manner, not all political and religious views can exist in perfect harmony.

Ushergirl, in all due respect, you're ignoring what we're saying. We're presenting HISTORICAL evidence, and you seem to be ignoring it.

You said: BUT his name is Jehovah God. Another thing, yes the Bibles are translated from Hebrew and Greek. Let me ask you something: Dont you think that someone who were translating the Bible from another language could possibly mistake its meaning and get it wrong, therefore put something untrue in there, and it be false? A great example of false religion is (oh geez I know I'm going to offend alot of ppl...) the ones who believe in the Holy Spirit and the Trinity. This isnt true!!!

I say: Umm...these people study for DECADES just to translate the Bible. They do it in teams, and it takes several years. I doubt that they would mess up. Even if they're off by a couple of words, the MAIN point gets across. And the Trinity is a main point. It's in the Bible, though not the New World Translation, I think. It is in MOST other translations, recent and older. Take example in Genesis 1:26, "And then God said, 'Let us make man in our image.'" That indicates there is more than one person in God's nature. In the accounts of the pentacost: (Acts 2:1-4) "1When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place. 2Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. 4All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues[a] as the Spirit enabled them. "

I have just proved that the Holy Spirit does exist, unless you are doubting the account of Luke and the writers of Genesis. You must figure into the equation that people who translate these accounts are much smarter than you or I and know exactly what they're doing. You could learn greek yourself and translate the Bible and find the Spirit, the Father, and the Son all seen as equal, and of one nature. When you say something isn't true, prove it. Point to me evidence from the Bible that suggests the Trinity and the Holy Spirit does not exist.

smallcoins Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hi Alisa,
>
> Just want to drop a note and thank you for your
> encouragement. Your strong feelings about the
> truth are very evident, and it is beautiful to see
> how you earnestly seek to share our hope with
> others. Keep applying yourself to reasoning from
> the Scriptures and you will continue doing well.
>
> Thank you everyone, for that matter.
> Communication is vital in these stressed and
> divided days. Let our talk be always progressive
> towards understanding the truth in this world.
> Without truth there's no justice.
>
> Without justice there's no peace. Without peace
> there is no purpose.
>
> I see a future of peace. What do you see?

Hi Aaron,

Thanks for your note, it really brightened my day! I am trying to let the truth be known, as are other Witnesses. I think being able to know the truth is a most wonderful thing. I do get very aggressive sometimes, as others cannot see whats right and what isn't. I too see a future of peace, and cannot wait for it. I too want to thank you for your encouragement and for backing me up with everything. You've really helped me alot. Thanks so much and I cannot wait to hear more from you!

Keep in touch,

Alisa

faith hope love 14:
IN GENERAL, White people don't like Uncle Toms cabin, Luthrens dislike Catholics, Muslims don't approve of the Bible, Christians don't approve of the Quran (I think that's what it's called. I need to study it more)...it all leads to seem like we can't agree on anything. If we defend every group, we work against ourselves. Everyone can't be pleased at once.

I don't believe the actions of a minority group of people should be taken as the beliefs of the majority. What I mean by that is yes maybe some "white" people don't like books about slavery but the majority of people I know, of every skin color dislike slavery and advocate books such as Uncle Tom's Cabin because it sheds light on such a serious topic instead of casting it in the dark.

I detest generalizations such as this race hates that and this religion hates that religion. To me they are outdated and not true, except for a small minority.

I think if we defend every group we will be best able to understand the root of conflicts. I am not a fan of political correctness but I do strongly believe in definding the minority. Who for most part don't have a voice.
Most of the time we really can't agree on anything, but the important thing is to sort out the differences and learn to live side by side in harmony. Reguardless of what may seperate us.

Hi Alisa,

Just want to drop a note and thank you for your encouragement. Your strong feelings about the truth are very evident, and it is beautiful to see how you earnestly seek to share our hope with others. Keep applying yourself to reasoning from the Scriptures and you will continue doing well.

Thank you everyone, for that matter. Communication is vital in these stressed and divided days. Let our talk be always progressive towards understanding the truth in this world. Without truth there's no justice.

Without justice there's no peace. Without peace there is no purpose.

I see a future of peace. What do you see?

Religion seems to be the main topic these days, so thats very unlikely that its going to end. (the conversation I mean)

for you guys to stop talking so heavily about religion

tinklovers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> it doesnt hurt to ask right?

ask what?

heroesdoexist07 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ushersgirl, faithlovehope, wingus.....could I ask
> you to cut down on the quotes a little bit? Maybe
> quote just the latest thing, instead of a whole
> chain of posts dating back to the pre-Cambrian
> era....lol.
>
> Tinklovers, no one is forcing you to stay on this
> subject. However, this subject is a very intense
> and interesting one, and asking OTHERS to stop
> talking about it doesn't seem to me like a good
> idea.
>
> Ushersgirl, we are having a frank and logical
> discussion here. There are many facts you state
> that we would ask you to explain and prove. Saying
> that you know it's true, asking us to trust you,
> and saying that what you know is true because
> you're a Jehovah's Witness are not productive
> posts.
>
> The whole 'His name is Jehovah God' deal is a
> prime example. Faithhopelove and I have both
> explained, in seperate posts, that Jehovah is an
> old translation of the Hebrow word YHWH. The
> ancient Hebrew language had no vowels, and the
> consonants are pronounced differently. I think it
> was German theologians who translated YHWH into
> Jehovah. Modern scholars believe that that
> interpretation is innaccurate; most now believe
> that the proper word is Yahweh.
>
> In either case, YHWH was not printed in the
> original bible. 'Adonai', or Lord, was. (I can
> only speculate that Adonai was spelled DN!) Any
> bible, then, that says 'Lord' instead of 'Jehovah'
> would be more reverent and accurate, if you want
> to talk about what the 'true' bible would say.
>
> Yes, Ushersgirl, it's possible for the bible to be
> translated falsely - especially by the scholars
> who wrote the King James bible, since they
> translated it from Latin, which was translated
> from Greek, which was translated from Hebrew text
> hundreds of years ago. The King James version
> itself is 4 or 5 centuries old, and both English
> and the science of linguistics have changed since
> then.
>
> There are innumerable projects to translate the
> original bible as accurately as possible. We are
> able to do this NOW, since we have the original
> text - the Dead Sea Scrolls. The King James
> scholars didn't. The most modern bibles are the
> most correct possible - the 'New World' bible, I
> would guess, being one of them.
>
> Also, please refrain from calling anyone a
> 'sinner' here....we're all friends, and shouldn't
> accuse each other in religious terms.

(Quoted latest post

Yes I understand we're having a logical discussion here. I have a copy of the New World Translation Bible, BTW as I got my new Bible in 2002. Yes language has changed over the years, and will continue to change. If you think I am speaking falsely (not saying you do, but I'm saying IF you do) about my religion, ask Aaron, (smallcoins) maybe he can get my points across much better about what we believe. Yahweh is the hebrew word FOR Jehovah, meaning thats how they pronounced Jehovah back then, because of it being hebrew. (Probably didnt make any sense, so I'll translate if needed)

> In either case, YHWH was not printed in the
> original bible. 'Adonai', or Lord, was. (I can
> only speculate that Adonai was spelled DN!) Any
> bible, then, that says 'Lord' instead of 'Jehovah'
> would be more reverent and accurate, if you want
> to talk about what the 'true' bible would say.
>

heroes, thank you for your emphasis on speaking factually and proving by references.

The terms Adonai and Theos (Lord and God, respectively) were used by some translators as substitutes for the four Hebrew consonants YHWH when translating the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek. (The Septuagint.)

YHWH was indeed in the original Hebrew scriptures. Further, in the Greek Septuagint, YHWH has been found in the earliest fragmentary copies, dated back to the 1st century B.C.E. (Listed as P. Fouad Inventory No. 266--from the book of Deuteronomy)

YHWH was INDEED printed in the original Scriptures.

It is true that the correct pronuciation is lost, and that Yahweh may be a more accurate pronoucement. Again, the most important thing is the identity referred to by the name. Please consider the following quote from the book "Insight on the Scriptures," published by Jehovah's Witnesses:

"Since certainty of pronunciation is not now attainable, there seems to be no reason for abandoning in English the well-known form “Jehovah” in favor of some other suggested pronunciation. If such a change were made, then, to be consistent, changes should be made in the spelling and pronunciation of a host of other names found in the Scriptures: Jeremiah would be changed to Yir·meyah′, Isaiah would become Yesha‛·ya′hu, and Jesus would be either Yehoh·shu′a‛ (as in Hebrew) or I·e·sous′ (as in Greek). The purpose of words is to transmit thoughts; in English the name Jehovah identifies the true God, transmitting this thought more satisfactorily today than any of the suggested substitutes.

it doesnt hurt to ask right?

Ushersgirl, faithlovehope, wingus.....could I ask you to cut down on the quotes a little bit? Maybe quote just the latest thing, instead of a whole chain of posts dating back to the pre-Cambrian era....lol.

Tinklovers, no one is forcing you to stay on this subject. However, this subject is a very intense and interesting one, and asking OTHERS to stop talking about it doesn't seem to me like a good idea.

Ushersgirl, we are having a frank and logical discussion here. There are many facts you state that we would ask you to explain and prove. Saying that you know it's true, asking us to trust you, and saying that what you know is true because you're a Jehovah's Witness are not productive posts.

The whole 'His name is Jehovah God' deal is a prime example. Faithhopelove and I have both explained, in seperate posts, that Jehovah is an old translation of the Hebrow word YHWH. The ancient Hebrew language had no vowels, and the consonants are pronounced differently. I think it was German theologians who translated YHWH into Jehovah. Modern scholars believe that that interpretation is innaccurate; most now believe that the proper word is Yahweh.

In either case, YHWH was not printed in the original bible. 'Adonai', or Lord, was. (I can only speculate that Adonai was spelled DN!) Any bible, then, that says 'Lord' instead of 'Jehovah' would be more reverent and accurate, if you want to talk about what the 'true' bible would say.

Yes, Ushersgirl, it's possible for the bible to be translated falsely - especially by the scholars who wrote the King James bible, since they translated it from Latin, which was translated from Greek, which was translated from Hebrew text hundreds of years ago. The King James version itself is 4 or 5 centuries old, and both English and the science of linguistics have changed since then.

There are innumerable projects to translate the original bible as accurately as possible. We are able to do this NOW, since we have the original text - the Dead Sea Scrolls. The King James scholars didn't. The most modern bibles are the most correct possible - the 'New World' bible, I would guess, being one of them.

Also, please refrain from calling anyone a 'sinner' here....we're all friends, and shouldn't accuse each other in religious terms.

ok, so i dont consider religion crap, but i was mad. but, i really dont want to stay on this subject anymore

faith hope love14 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ushersgirl_06 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > faith hope love14 Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Ushersgirl_06 Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > omg they took his name out of the
> > > > Bible!!!!!!!!!!!!! UGH!!!!!!!!!!! Its
> > supposed
> > > to
> > > > say: and I quote "That people may know you
> > > whose
> > > > name is Jehovah. His name is JEHOVAH not
> > "lord"
> > >
> > > > Trust me, they take his name out of most
> > > Bibles.
> > > > This is what I mean. False religion. See
> this
> > > is
> > > > crazy. Anyways I need to get going, I need
> to
> > > get
> > > > dinner fixed. Please go and check out
> > > > watchtower.org and let me know what you
> find
> > > > out!!!!!!!! Post me a new message cuz this
> is
> > > > getting 2 long. Also ask any questions
> that
> > > you
> > > > have. I'll be on later to check.
> > >
> > > Umm,...no, Jehovah's wittnesses use the new
> > world
> > > translation of the bible. Translated,
> jehovah
> > > means "I am," yahweh, which is a word so holy
> > that
> > > the isrealites did not say it (or write it,
> > save
> > > one time), they said "adonai" which
> translates
> > > directly into "lord." So, they don't take
> > > "jehovah" out of most Bibles. The New World
> > > Translation of the Bible is just translated
> > > differently. So no, it isn't false religion
> > > either.
> >
> >
> >
> > Um first of all, being a Jehovah's Witness,
> dont
> > you think I'd know what we believe? His name
> being
> > taken out of the Bible, means that there was
> > things put in there that werent originally
> said.
> > So Yes it is a false religion.
> >
> >
> > Ushersgirl_06 Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > No I'm not saying that, all I'm saying is you
>
> > > arent following the Bible, God's true word,
> > doesnt
> > > mean you're a bad Christian, or even a bad
> > person.
> >
> > I tend to disagree. Yes, you're not following
> the
> > Bible. Does that make you a bad Christian?
> Well,
> > if bad Christian is defined as not following
> the
> > doctrine that you believe in, then yes. As far
> as
> > bad people go...we're all bad people. We all
> sin,
> > which makes us sinners.
> >
> > Definition of a Christian: one who follows
> Christ.
> > If Christ was perfect, then would he obey all
> of
> > God's laws? Like, yea. But, in order to be a
> > CHRISTIAN, we must believe in his ressurection.
> To
> > be a Saint, I would argue that one must act
> like
> > Christ.
> >
> >
> >
> > I tend to disagree with you as well. Jesus
> Christ
> > DID follow all of Jehovah's laws. Are you saying
> I
> > dont follow the Bible? Okay well actually its
> YOU
> > who doesnt follow the Bible. Yes we are all
> > sinners, because of Adam and Eve sinning
> against
> > Jehovah by eating from the tree that Jehovah
> asked
> > them not to in the garden of Eden.
>
> Once again, major misunderstandings here. I
> really need to clarify what I say...my bad.
>
> Yes, I believe that Jesus DID follow God's laws,
> and I never said otherwise. I never said you
> didn't follow the Bible, I was referring to
> homosexuals. You have no proof to point at me
> that I do not follow the doctrines laid down in
> the Bible. That was just a hasty angry statement,
> and I did not mean to make you angry. I'm
> challenging you, and if you know what you're
> doing, you'll be able to respond to my challenges
> with logic, and without invalidities. You might
> want to look those words up, cuz I use them a lot.
> "Do not let the sun go down on your anger..." In
> reality, we all sin. We all slip up every once in
> a while.
>
> As far as you're first paragraph, I was not
> accusing you of anything. You know what you
> believe, and I know what you believe, so I'm
> holding you accountable. I'm making sure you know
> what you believe, because if you know what you
> believe, people will listen to what you have to
> say. If you make false claims without proof,
> however...people will push away. As far as the
> false religion goes...if what you say is true,
> than the only true bible is the collection of
> original books written in Greek and Hebrew. All
> Bibles are translated from those originals, so
> they must be true, if they were translated
> correctly. It is NOT false religion when there is
> another name like Lord, because you know what that
> is? That's where the Hebrews and Greeks wrote the
> word "Adonai" because the word "YHWH" was too holy
> to be written; the WRITERS of the bible didn't
> write YHWH because it was too holy. The Bibles
> are translated just fine. Besides, like I pointed
> out before, Jehovah is a minpronunciation of YHWH,
> so there's no use in putting it in a Bible anyway.
> I don't know how the origins of the word Jehovah
> are so offensive, I was just saying historical
> fact. It's also why they put Lord instead of
> Jehovah in newer translations of the Bible: for
> one, it means the same thing and two, Jehovah is
> probably not how YHWH is pronounced, so it is
> historically inaccurate.

Never said I was angry. If you'd like to challenge me then go right ahead! I can back up what I say with the Bible, it would just take me ages to look up everything and type it in here, but if thats what it takes than oh well. Yes it is true that he is the Lord. BUT his name is Jehovah God. Another thing, yes the Bibles are translated from Hebrew and Greek. Let me ask you something: Dont you think that someone who were translating the Bible from another language could possibly mistake its meaning and get it wrong, therefore put something untrue in there, and it be false? A great example of false religion is (oh geez I know I'm going to offend alot of ppl...) the ones who believe in the Holy Spirit and the Trinity. This isnt true!!!

Ushersgirl_06 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> faith hope love14 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Ushersgirl_06 Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > omg they took his name out of the
> > > Bible!!!!!!!!!!!!! UGH!!!!!!!!!!! Its
> supposed
> > to
> > > say: and I quote "That people may know you
> > whose
> > > name is Jehovah. His name is JEHOVAH not
> "lord"
> >
> > > Trust me, they take his name out of most
> > Bibles.
> > > This is what I mean. False religion. See this
> > is
> > > crazy. Anyways I need to get going, I need to
> > get
> > > dinner fixed. Please go and check out
> > > watchtower.org and let me know what you find
> > > out!!!!!!!! Post me a new message cuz this is
> > > getting 2 long. Also ask any questions that
> > you
> > > have. I'll be on later to check.
> >
> > Umm,...no, Jehovah's wittnesses use the new
> world
> > translation of the bible. Translated, jehovah
> > means "I am," yahweh, which is a word so holy
> that
> > the isrealites did not say it (or write it,
> save
> > one time), they said "adonai" which translates
> > directly into "lord." So, they don't take
> > "jehovah" out of most Bibles. The New World
> > Translation of the Bible is just translated
> > differently. So no, it isn't false religion
> > either.
>
>
>
> Um first of all, being a Jehovah's Witness, dont
> you think I'd know what we believe? His name being
> taken out of the Bible, means that there was
> things put in there that werent originally said.
> So Yes it is a false religion.
>
>
> Ushersgirl_06 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > No I'm not saying that, all I'm saying is you
> > arent following the Bible, God's true word,
> doesnt
> > mean you're a bad Christian, or even a bad
> person.
>
> I tend to disagree. Yes, you're not following the
> Bible. Does that make you a bad Christian? Well,
> if bad Christian is defined as not following the
> doctrine that you believe in, then yes. As far as
> bad people go...we're all bad people. We all sin,
> which makes us sinners.
>
> Definition of a Christian: one who follows Christ.
> If Christ was perfect, then would he obey all of
> God's laws? Like, yea. But, in order to be a
> CHRISTIAN, we must believe in his ressurection. To
> be a Saint, I would argue that one must act like
> Christ.
>
>
>
> I tend to disagree with you as well. Jesus Christ
> DID follow all of Jehovah's laws. Are you saying I
> dont follow the Bible? Okay well actually its YOU
> who doesnt follow the Bible. Yes we are all
> sinners, because of Adam and Eve sinning against
> Jehovah by eating from the tree that Jehovah asked
> them not to in the garden of Eden.

Once again, major misunderstandings here. I really need to clarify what I say...my bad.

Yes, I believe that Jesus DID follow God's laws, and I never said otherwise. I never said you didn't follow the Bible, I was referring to homosexuals. You have no proof to point at me that I do not follow the doctrines laid down in the Bible. That was just a hasty angry statement, and I did not mean to make you angry. I'm challenging you, and if you know what you're doing, you'll be able to respond to my challenges with logic, and without invalidities. You might want to look those words up, cuz I use them a lot. "Do not let the sun go down on your anger..." In reality, we all sin. We all slip up every once in a while.

As far as you're first paragraph, I was not accusing you of anything. You know what you believe, and I know what you believe, so I'm holding you accountable. I'm making sure you know what you believe, because if you know what you believe, people will listen to what you have to say. If you make false claims without proof, however...people will push away. As far as the false religion goes...if what you say is true, than the only true bible is the collection of original books written in Greek and Hebrew. All Bibles are translated from those originals, so they must be true, if they were translated correctly. It is NOT false religion when there is another name like Lord, because you know what that is? That's where the Hebrews and Greeks wrote the word "Adonai" because the word "YHWH" was too holy to be written; the WRITERS of the bible didn't write YHWH because it was too holy. The Bibles are translated just fine. Besides, like I pointed out before, Jehovah is a minpronunciation of YHWH, so there's no use in putting it in a Bible anyway. I don't know how the origins of the word Jehovah are so offensive, I was just saying historical fact. It's also why they put Lord instead of Jehovah in newer translations of the Bible: for one, it means the same thing and two, Jehovah is probably not how YHWH is pronounced, so it is historically inaccurate.

wingus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I personally do not find Islam to be any more
> violent then Christianity. But that is besides the
> point since both religions preach peace.
> Extremists of any religion are the ones who make
> their religion appear violent.
>
> faith hope love14:
> The frightening thing is that the most devout
> islams is that that's how they translate their
> holy laws: they'd do it again in a heartbeat. Most
> Christians are ashamed of what the crusades did,
> because it completely contradicts the doctrine.
>
> There is no such thing as "devout Islams". The
> correct terminology for a follower of Islam is
> Muslim. Many of my friends who are Muslim would be
> happy to correct your translation of their holy
> laws. Do you know all Muslims? Is it fair to
> suppose that they are eager to engage in religious
> wars and not seek peace? The 5 Pillars in no way,
> shape or form preach such religious intolerance
> and violence.
>
My bad with the whole Islam/Muslim thing. I was typing fast and should have re-read my post. The correct term is "devout Muslims." What I mean my that is that some of the Muslims, mainly in the middle east, tend to be violent. Does that mean all muslims are evil? Of course not! There have been instances, however. Take the terrorists attacks on America. It would be foolish to point to those and say "all Muslims are violent," as well. I guess my premise of "islam is a violent religion" is invalid: the better way to put it would be "some followers if islam are violent." It isn't very dramatic, but it's true. Some Muslims read the first pillar, "testifying that there is no deity except Allah and Muhammad is his messenger," and add a little spin to it: that if the people that they wish to convert don't, they have no use and must be disposed of. This interpretation justified the Jehad, or the holy wars.
> faith hope love 14:
> So no, it isn't unfair to Muslims. If anyone is
> going to find truth, accusations must be made, and
> offence must be taken. Views challenged, doctrines
> explored...no is going anywhere by trying to
> protect all of the social classes, there is no way
> to protect all of the minorities.
>
> Even if the accusations are heavily biased? With
> no provided evidence? I am also not sure what you
> mean by not protecting minorities. I am trying to
> provide a different p.o.v. that supports Islam
> instead of constantly throwing negativity upon it.
> Islam is one of the most misunderstood religions
> especially since after Sept 11th. On the boards
> there is a heavy population of Christians, but
> Muslims from my observation are few, if any. So I
> think it is unfair to attack a religion without
> members of that said religion being there to
> defend their beliefs.

Have you ever read the book Farenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury? It's a good book. You should. I don't believe that accusations should be biased. On the contrary, that would work against what we're trying to achieve: unity and truth. To obtain truth, evidence must be provided, challenged, and evaluated. Yes, I agree with Muslims being misunderstood. That's why I changed my premise. It would be nice to have Muslims here to defend their beliefs, but in their absense, research might have to suffice for the time being. We learn new things every day, here is a good place to put them to use.

As far as protecting the minorities, I believe that protecting them leads to conflict, all because of discrimination. This is where Farenheit 451 comes in. IN GENERAL, White people don't like Uncle Toms cabin, Luthrens dislike Catholics, Muslims don't approve of the Bible, Christians don't approve of the Quran (I think that's what it's called. I need to study it more)...it all leads to seem like we can't agree on anything. If we defend every group, we work against ourselves. Everyone can't be pleased at once.
>
> faith hope love 14:
> Also, I have, indeed, studied many religions in
> depth: (I know I'm a nerd) buddhism, taoism (which
> Star Wars is based off of), polytheism,
> christianity (and some of it's many
> denomonations), judaism, hinduism, islam,
> jehovah's wittnesses (yes, I've researched it and
> put it in it's own catagory), wicca (yes, it is a
> religion, which I wrote a 5000 word essay
> on)...would you like to hear more? The fact that
> I've researched religion doesn't give me the right
> to do anything, it just proves that what I say
> doesn't come off of the top of my head.
>
> While I think that is great I am not sure what
> point exactly you are trying to get across. I
> never claimed that all religions were violent.
> Please do not try to put words into my mouth.
>
> Maybe you missed the part of my post which clearly
> stated my belief that religions are not violent,
> but however extremists are. Here is that part of
> my post incase you missed it:
> I have to disagree with your statement and
> instead say that extremists in any religion are
> very aggressive, instead of saying that the
> religion itself is.

> I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth. I was getting a bit aggrevated, and became a bit...haughty. Will you forgive me? Yes, I did missinterpret the part where you said extremists of any religion are aggressive, and I agree. Before, I was commiting the fallacy of hasty generalization. My bad =)

> As we say in my history class, motivations of
> exploration can be summed up in the 3 G's. God,
> Greed, and Glory.
>
> You are incorrect when you state gold as a main
> motive for exploration. While in the very
> beginning yes, very soon after the Americas became
> known for the more lucrative and booming silver
> mining industry fueled by China's silver
> obsession. So gold is misconstrued as a motive for
> settlement and exploitation of resources in the
> Americas.
>
I don't recall saying that I said gold is the main motive for exploration. If I did, I meant one of the main motives, along with religion.
> faith hope love 14:
> Also, (sorry if I sound pugnacious) Though the
> book "Things Fall Apart" is a good example of
> violent christians, keep in mind that the
> exploration of the new world was not entirely
> religiously motivated.
>
> What I did say was:
> Another example of the aggressive Christian
> missionary efforts in Africa can be read in the
> book Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe.
>
> I never said that the Christians were violent. I
> did however say that their missionary efforts
> were violent. Just to clarify Things Fall Apart is
> based in Africa, not the new world.

Once again, my mistake.

faith hope love14 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ushersgirl_06 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > omg they took his name out of the
> > Bible!!!!!!!!!!!!! UGH!!!!!!!!!!! Its supposed
> to
> > say: and I quote "That people may know you
> whose
> > name is Jehovah. His name is JEHOVAH not "lord"
>
> > Trust me, they take his name out of most
> Bibles.
> > This is what I mean. False religion. See this
> is
> > crazy. Anyways I need to get going, I need to
> get
> > dinner fixed. Please go and check out
> > watchtower.org and let me know what you find
> > out!!!!!!!! Post me a new message cuz this is
> > getting 2 long. Also ask any questions that
> you
> > have. I'll be on later to check.
>
> Umm,...no, Jehovah's wittnesses use the new world
> translation of the bible. Translated, jehovah
> means "I am," yahweh, which is a word so holy that
> the isrealites did not say it (or write it, save
> one time), they said "adonai" which translates
> directly into "lord." So, they don't take
> "jehovah" out of most Bibles. The New World
> Translation of the Bible is just translated
> differently. So no, it isn't false religion
> either.

Um first of all, being a Jehovah's Witness, dont you think I'd know what we believe? His name being taken out of the Bible, means that there was things put in there that werent originally said. So Yes it is a false religion.

Ushersgirl_06 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No I'm not saying that, all I'm saying is you
> arent following the Bible, God's true word, doesnt
> mean you're a bad Christian, or even a bad person.

I tend to disagree. Yes, you're not following the Bible. Does that make you a bad Christian? Well, if bad Christian is defined as not following the doctrine that you believe in, then yes. As far as bad people go...we're all bad people. We all sin, which makes us sinners.

Definition of a Christian: one who follows Christ. If Christ was perfect, then would he obey all of God's laws? Like, yea. But, in order to be a CHRISTIAN, we must believe in his ressurection. To be a Saint, I would argue that one must act like Christ.

I tend to disagree with you as well. Jesus Christ DID follow all of Jehovah's laws. Are you saying I dont follow the Bible? Okay well actually its YOU who doesnt follow the Bible. Yes we are all sinners, because of Adam and Eve sinning against Jehovah by eating from the tree that Jehovah asked them not to in the garden of Eden.

I guess you must be misinterpreting what I was saying. Personally I doubt you believe religion is crap, due to your curiosity about the subject. I know I do not consider religion to be crap. You should not be afraid of discussing religion or of peoples opinions.

I am confused as to why you might feel like I am pinpointing you in my posts. I am truly not. You apologized, I accepted. Are we cool now?

I am not right and you are not wrong. No I don't give up, I am pretty tenacious and am known to be argumentative. Just my nature, I am greek/irish. What do you expect? jp.

then, could we talk about it elsewhere? because, this one is getting pretty full! i happen to have my history book with me

Enough with all of this religion crap okay? Gosh, I mean I said I was sorry and didnt intend to offend you! What more do you want!? Your right! Im wrong! Jeez, you just dont quit do you?

faith hope love14 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yea, sorry if I explained it vaguely. Thanks for
> having an open mind to what I have to say.
>
> For one, the Bible says so, so the homosexuality
> is perfectly fine, unless you believe in the
> doctrine of the Bible. I do, so to me, I find
> homosexuality immoral. Males and Females were
> meant to love each other; they complete each
> other. Homosexuals force that kind of
> relationship, and it's unhealthy, in my opinion.
> They strech themselves on Ixion's bed, and no
> matter how hard they try, they can't fit.
>
> (Btw, Ixion's bed is a greek myth. it isn't
> perverted...you can look it up)

As I have talked to Ushersgirl about, I don't belive in the bible. We were indeed put on Earth to repopulate and keep the species going. But currently our population is thriving so there is no need to worry that we will die out. People who are gay love eachother. And I see no problem in who some one loves. Reguardless of their partner's gender. Could you elaborate on how you see it as unhealthy? I am curious.

In the next few days I will check out lxion's bed. Currently I have other things to attend to but I will indeed search the greek myth.

I personally do not find Islam to be any more violent then Christianity. But that is besides the point since both religions preach peace. Extremists of any religion are the ones who make their religion appear violent.

faith hope love14:
The frightening thing is that the most devout islams is that that's how they translate their holy laws: they'd do it again in a heartbeat. Most Christians are ashamed of what the crusades did, because it completely contradicts the doctrine.

There is no such thing as "devout Islams". The correct terminology for a follower of Islam is Muslim. Many of my friends who are Muslim would be happy to correct your translation of their holy laws. Do you know all Muslims? Is it fair to suppose that they are eager to engage in religious wars and not seek peace? The 5 Pillars in no way, shape or form preach such religious intolerance and violence.

faith hope love 14:
So no, it isn't unfair to Muslims. If anyone is going to find truth, accusations must be made, and offence must be taken. Views challenged, doctrines explored...no is going anywhere by trying to protect all of the social classes, there is no way to protect all of the minorities.

Even if the accusations are heavily biased? With no provided evidence? I am also not sure what you mean by not protecting minorities. I am trying to provide a different p.o.v. that supports Islam instead of constantly throwing negativity upon it. Islam is one of the most misunderstood religions especially since after Sept 11th. On the boards there is a heavy population of Christians, but Muslims from my observation are few, if any. So I think it is unfair to attack a religion without members of that said religion being there to defend their beliefs.

faith hope love 14:
Also, I have, indeed, studied many religions in depth: (I know I'm a nerd) buddhism, taoism (which Star Wars is based off of), polytheism, christianity (and some of it's many denomonations), judaism, hinduism, islam, jehovah's wittnesses (yes, I've researched it and put it in it's own catagory), wicca (yes, it is a religion, which I wrote a 5000 word essay on)...would you like to hear more? The fact that I've researched religion doesn't give me the right to do anything, it just proves that what I say doesn't come off of the top of my head.

While I think that is great I am not sure what point exactly you are trying to get across. I never claimed that all religions were violent. Please do not try to put words into my mouth.

Maybe you missed the part of my post which clearly stated my belief that religions are not violent, but however extremists are. Here is that part of my post incase you missed it:
I have to disagree with your statement and instead say that extremists in any religion are very aggressive, instead of saying that the religion itself is.

As we say in my history class, motivations of exploration can be summed up in the 3 G's. God, Greed, and Glory.

You are incorrect when you state gold as a main motive for exploration. While in the very beginning yes, very soon after the Americas became known for the more lucrative and booming silver mining industry fueled by China's silver obsession. So gold is misconstrued as a motive for settlement and exploitation of resources in the Americas.

faith hope love 14:
Also, (sorry if I sound pugnacious) Though the book "Things Fall Apart" is a good example of violent christians, keep in mind that the exploration of the new world was not entirely religiously motivated. [/color]

What I did say was:
Another example of the aggressive Christian missionary efforts in Africa can be read in the book Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe.

I never said that the Christians were violent. I did however say that their missionary efforts were violent. Just to clarify Things Fall Apart is based in Africa, not the new world.

Yea, sorry if I explained it vaguely. Thanks for having an open mind to what I have to say.

For one, the Bible says so, so the homosexuality is perfectly fine, unless you believe in the doctrine of the Bible. I do, so to me, I find homosexuality immoral. Males and Females were meant to love each other; they complete each other. Homosexuals force that kind of relationship, and it's unhealthy, in my opinion. They strech themselves on Ixion's bed, and no matter how hard they try, they can't fit.

(Btw, Ixion's bed is a greek myth. it isn't perverted...you can look it up)