Jehovah Witness.

[Starman3000m]

...For me then I say all of you guys need to seriously evaluate the tactic of attacking the messenger to avoid the message - because that tactic demonstrates your own weakness and your hypocrisy and your deception.

JPC- you have just described yourself perfectly!

1.) You continually avoid the message I have posted that the Muslim god, Allah, is NOT Yahweh of The Holy Bible and so you attack me by claiming that the Muslims have it right and I am wrong.

2.) You show your weakness as not really being learned in what Muslims really teach about the deity they worship. You call Islam a great religion even though Islam wants to subjugate and destroy both the Jewish and Christian faiths, dominate the world and persecute and kill anyone that does not accept Islam as the "true religion" and who reject Muhammad as the last and final prophet of Allah.

3.) You show hypocrisy when you claim on one hand that Islam is a great religion, Jehovah's Witnesses have it more right, and yet on the other hand state that you don't really believe everything that those religions teach.

4.) JPC - you are deceived.

 

[baydoll]

3.) You show hypocrisy when you claim on one hand that Islam is a great religion, Jehovah's Witnesses have it more right, and yet on the other hand state that you don't really believe everything that those religions teach.

You bring up a very good point.

Islam and the Jehovah Witnessess are gazillions of miles apart in their beliefs. So how can they both be right?

Sounds like JPC cherry picks what he likes from different religions and disregards whatever he doesn't. In other words, he is his own religion... made up by him.

The Church of JPC.

 

[Starman3000m]

...The Church of JPC.

I'm now going to see if I can find any reference to this one on "Wikipedia"

 

[Toxick]

I'm now going to see if I can find any reference to this one on "Wikipedia"

Start here: Grandiose delusions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[JPCusick]

Reply.

You continually avoid the message I have posted that the Muslim god, Allah, is NOT Yahweh of The Holy Bible

I have not avoided any such message, and in fact I confront you directly.

Not the Muslims nor I claim that Allah is a name for Yahweh, because Allah and Elohim are words that translate to mean "God".

You are trying to claim that Yahweh is a name for God and it is NOT.

Jesus translated the name Yahweh as "Father" as in "Our Father who art in Heaven ..." as Jesus did not say "Our God in heaven" and it is your self who is mixing up the words and you are dead wrong.

The mainstream Christians do not use the name of Yahweh, as Christians use the name as "God", and in fact this is the BIG message of the Jehovah Witnesses when they come knocking on the doors - that Christians do not know what is the correct name which is Yahweh God (Yahweh Elohim) or Jehovah God.

The next time the JWs come knocking at your door then let them tell you it correctly instead of hiding away from them.

It is the JWs who have been preaching that God is really Yahweh (Jehovah) and that is why the Christians hide behind their doors when the JW come knocking.

 

[Starman3000m]

Fixed:

I have not avoided any such message, and in fact I attack you directly.

JPC- the point I was making is that Muslims claim they pray to the "same God". I have even pointed out specific theological references from the Qur'an and the Holy Bible to show they are NOT the same deity. That is why I have stated that Allah is NOT Yahweh!

Even with all that proof it appears that you still seem to think that the Muslim god, and the JWs god are the same deity as taught in Biblical Christianity. That they are all praying to the same god.

BTW: There is a Surrah in Islamic teaching whereby Muslims try to "convince" Jews and Christians that they also pray to the same God.

Here are two versions of that teaching from the Qur'an:

And dispute ye not with the People of the Book except with means better (than mere disputation) unless it be with those of them who inflict wrong (and injury): but say "We believe in the Revelation which has come down to us and in that which came down to you; Our Allah and your Allah is one; and it is to Him we(all of us) bow (in Islam)." (Qur’an 29:46)

(other version)

And do not argue with the People of the Scripture except in a way that is best, except for those who commit injustice among them, and say, "We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you. And our God and your God is one; and we are Muslims [in submission] to Him." (Qur’an 29:46)

 

[JPCusick]

Repair.

Fixed:

Your so called "Fixed" is just a lie, and it is yourself interjecting your own lie.

I look at it with scorn, and it goes to the bigger point that you do not stick to the actual given words.

JPC- the point I was making is that Muslims claim they pray to the "same God". I have even pointed out specific theological references from the Qur'an and the Holy Bible to show they are NOT the same deity. That is why I have stated that Allah is NOT Yahweh!

Even with all that proof it appears that you still seem to think that the Muslim god, and the JWs god are the same deity as taught in Biblical Christianity. That they are all praying to the same god.

BTW: There is a Surrah in Islamic teaching whereby Muslims try to "convince" Jews and Christians that they also pray to the same God.

Here are two versions of that teaching from the Qur'an:

Well I can repeat is correctly again - Yahweh is NOT the Christian God.

So the Muslims and the Christians do have the same God - who is not Yahweh - duh.

It is debatable whether the Jews actually recognize Yahweh as the Creator Father, but the Jews do use Elohim as "God" so the 3 Abrahamic religions do have the same Deity / the same God.

Another link = Abrahamic religion - RationalWiki

 

[cheezgrits]

Jimmy, do you know how wikipedia works?

You do know that anyone can post anything with collaboration, right?

Right?

Wiki is NOT a credible reference.

 

[Beta84]

No problem here. Throughout the Bible, there are accounts of the Patriarchs having situations where they had multiple wives/concubines. However, that practice was not really sanctioned nor ordained by God for them to do. It's just that the Patriarchs acted on their own whims and "human desires" and yet God worked through their lives to make everything turn out for the good.

In the case of Islam, the Qur'an actually has Allah telling Muhammad that it's okay for Muhammad to take as many wives as he wishes - even from his own relatives - and that the Muslim male was limited to having four wives.

In the case of Jacob marrying Leah and then Rachel, I believe the Biblical account makes reference to the fact that Jacob wanted to originally marry Rachel in the first place but he was actually tricked into marrying Leah first by their own father.

Here's a link to an interesting commentary about that "love triangle" if you would like to read all about it:

Leah - Wife of Jacob - Christian Living

That's right, I remember Leah's father being the one that tricked him. I guess something similar goes for Abraham...Sarah gave him Hagar so he could have a child.

I just find it interesting that out of the first 3 patriarchs, two of them had children with more than one woman.

 

[baydoll]

That's right, I remember Leah's father being the one that tricked him. I guess something similar goes for Abraham...Sarah gave him Hagar so he could have a child.

I just find it interesting that out of the first 3 patriarchs, two of them had children with more than one woman.

Well that just goes to show that the patriarchs weren't perfect and they did incredibly stupid things. Just like we do. At least in that respect, the Bible is glaringly honest with it's showing the patriarchs in true living color, warts and all. Moses was a murderer; David was an adulterer plus he had his mistress husband killed; Lot handed his daughters over to be gang raped and later on had sex with them (albeit they got him drunk to do so). The Apostle Paul persecuted the early church (INCLUDING Stephen...Paul as Saul was there holding the coats of the men who were stoning him.) On and on it goes.


And if you remember, that little episode with Abraham, Sarah and Hagar created a huge mess we are still to this day trying to untangle (with frustrating results).

 

[baydoll]

Well I can repeat is correctly again - Yahweh is NOT the Christian God.

So the Muslims and the Christians do have the same God - who is not Yahweh - duh.

JPC, does Allah have a Son?

 

[Beta84]

JPC, does Allah have a Son?

The Jewish god doesn't. Does that mean there are 3 different gods for the three religions? I keep seeing arguments that some of them are the same so I'm trying to sort through it.

And if the Christian god has a son, how are they the same entity? See how this can be a bit confusing?

 

[JPCusick]

Reply.

Jimmy, do you know how wikipedia works?

You do know that anyone can post anything with collaboration, right?

Right?

Wiki is NOT a credible reference.

Actually on the Internet the Wikipedia is a very respected source, and on any Wiki page one needs only go to the bottom of the page to see the source references and verification of the given info.

If anyone wants it to be better explained then stop hiding away from the Jehovah Witnesses because they will happily sit down with you and explain the info is vivid detail.

The King James version (KJV) of the Bible declares:

Exodus 6:3 "And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name Jehovah was I not known to them."

Psalms 83:18 "That men may know that thou, whose name alone is Jehovah, art the most high over all the earth."

In that KJV the name "Yahweh" is translated as Jehovah.

When a person is afraid of Wikipedia and afraid of the Jehovah Witnesses (since they both tell that you are wrong) then the problem is in thy self.

:shrug:

 

[JPCusick]

Response.

JPC, does Allah have a Son?

Honestly - it depends on how we interpret the words.

My understanding is that "God aka Allah aka Elohim" have every human being as their sons and daughters.

Acronym "aka" = "also known as" - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So if we accept that Adam and Eve were the son and daughter of God and they were the parents for all of humanity then every person throughout all of humanity are sons and daughters of God (aka Allah and aka Elohim and known by other names too).

The Bible also declares that Angels and Spirits are also sons of God = Genesis 6:2-4 and in Job 1:6-11 and again in Job 38:7 and 1 John 3:1-2, and really this is a theme that runs throughout the Bible.

Plus the name "Yahweh / Jehovah" means a "male-creator: as in Father - as Jesus said Father - Matthew 6:9-15.

The Christians try to claim that Jesus was the one and only "Son" which is not what the Bible declares, and Jesus Himself told us all that we all have the same Heavenly Father to His human children.

 

[Beta84]

Actually on the Internet the Wikipedia is a very respected source, and on any Wiki page one needs only go to the bottom of the page to see the source references and verification of the given info.

I can go on wikipedia right now and change the wiki information and everyone will see my changes. I can go and say that Jehovah's Witnesses are devil worshippers and it would stay there until either someone else changed it, or the wiki staff evaluated it and reverted it to a previous entry. Regardless, wikipedia can't be cited as a source because of its possible inaccuracies.

However, you can always go to the sources you're talking about and go through those, which may be more accurate and are typically considered "legitimate" sources. As a research tool, wiki is good for getting people on the right path and providing sources, but it can never be used as an actual source. Understand?

 

[JPCusick]

Reply.

I can go on wikipedia right now and change the wiki information and everyone will see my changes. I can go and say that Jehovah's Witnesses are devil worshippers and it would stay there until either someone else changed it, or the wiki staff evaluated it and reverted it to a previous entry. Regardless, wikipedia can't be cited as a source because of its possible inaccuracies.

However, you can always go to the sources you're talking about and go through those, which may be more accurate and are typically considered "legitimate" sources. As a research tool, wiki is good for getting people on the right path and providing sources, but it can never be used as an actual source. Understand?

I do understand that what you are referring to is your own weakness.

As in - what the Wikipedia sources here are saying are indeed accurate and true.

So if you or anyone else can not face-up to that simple reality - then the lacking is only your own.

The Wikipedia is giving the correct info, so it makes no difference whether anyone likes it or not - because right is right even when it comes from Wiki.

:shrug:

 

[Beta84]

I do understand that what you are referring to is your own weakness.

As in - what the Wikipedia sources here are saying are indeed accurate and true.

So if you or anyone else can not face-up to that simple reality - then the lacking is only your own.

The Wikipedia is giving the correct info, so it makes no difference whether anyone likes it or not - because right is right even when it comes from Wiki.

:shrug:

so I guess on the side of the page you don't see all of the "edit" options that are available to anyone? Why don't you try clicking it and see what it does?

 

[JPCusick]

Reply.

so I guess on the side of the page you don't see all of the "edit" options that are available to anyone? Why don't you try clicking it and see what it does?

It does not matter whatever options are on the page - because the given information is correct.

I have great confidence that Wiki works very hard to keeps its global and intensive resources safe and secure from liars and from trouble makers.

The given info from Wiki is correctly given, and that is all that matters.

You are not giving any rebuttal, and Wiki is not the only reference source given here.

I say you do not like Wiki because Wiki is right, just as people do not like the Jehovah Witnesses for being right, and do not like myself because I am right.

 

[Beta84]

It does not matter whatever options are on the page - because the given information is correct.

I have great confidence that Wiki works very hard to keeps its global and intensive resources safe and secure from liars and from trouble makers.

The given info from Wiki is correctly given, and that is all that matters.

You are not giving any rebuttal, and Wiki is not the only reference source given here.

I say you do not like Wiki because Wiki is right, just as people do not like the Jehovah Witnesses for being right, and do not like myself because I am right.

If you bothered following the discussion, I'm not arguing anything regarding your Jehovah's Witness junk. I'm just talking about your use of wikipedia as a reliable entry. I didn't even argue the article you put in, I only say that wikipedia itself isn't always reliable and can easily be modified, even if it's just temporary.

Maybe if you bothered following along you'd stop throwing everyone who says anything against you in the people who are arguing against your Jehovah's statements.

Darn those evil right-wing people as MSNBC for disliking wikipedia! http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/2879915...dgets/t/wikipedia-black-white-wrong-all-over/

 

[JPCusick]

Reply.

If you bothered following the discussion, I'm not arguing anything regarding your Jehovah's Witness junk. I'm just talking about your use of wikipedia as a reliable entry. I didn't even argue the article you put in, I only say that wikipedia itself isn't always reliable and can easily be modified, even if it's just temporary.

Maybe if you bothered following along you'd stop throwing everyone who says anything against you in the people who are arguing against your Jehovah's statements.

And what? you think you are to be respected for that?

The thread subject here is about the Jehovah Witnesses.

What does it matter if you do not like Wikipedia? especially when Wiki gives the correct info!

And do you offer any replacement or anything better than Wiki - no.

:shrug: