The Problem Of Evil

[Free]

@admins/mods: Is it possible to consider banning this useless twat? He is not contributing anything to this forum. He is not engaging in good faith, he is hardly engaging in discussion at all...

I can only agree with this request.

Ima Believer has contributed very little of value to this forum from day one.  He's consistently disruptive to the
flow of any thread he partakes in; willfully posts deliberately inflammatory comments; openly insults other
members and disparages their opinions, often crudely; has no desire to interact at any meaningful level other
than repeatedly citing biblical scripture; has expressed often and openly his distaste for atheism and aversion
towards  atheists; and is even a self-admitted troll.

As per these gems each culled from different posts in this one thread...

I have proved a god exists. I have provided evidence gods exist...

Shut the fuck up about claims and evidence you pretentious cunt...

You people can't even comprehend the simple concept of God...

I can prove a god exists. I've done it here...

I don't give a fuck that you don't give a fuck...

Pick up a dictionary and look up god. You idiot...

You were an only child weren't you, girly man? You're probably like 40 and still in school, aren't you...

I wonder how is it when you open your virtual mouth you don't realize what comes out. Like vomit...

You're delusional...

Actually I think your brother may have been an only child. And you're a girly man because you are a whiny little bitch...

So I too ask the mods to ban this obnoxious little wanker.   Please.    

You need to point to a forum rule. Being an obnoxious little wanker is not against the forum rules.

Ban hammer is in my pocket, gimme a rule.

I am proof of this, since I can be a very obnoxious little wanker also.

[Bucky Ball]

Of course I'm aware of the rest of the story, but nothing you have written implies that it's sensible to separate god's holiness from who god is, and perhaps more to the point, what god does.

I wrote this above:

We are informed that he is just, holy, and good. It makes no sense to "well, how good?" or "how holy?" because you are positing a measuring standard that is separate from God. If it is separate from God, that standard must be subjective (because where did it come from?). The only way a nature/property's extent is not subjective or arbitrary is that if you say "to the greatest conceivable extent". That's how Anselm got to where he did.

I'm not entirely sure why you cut and pasted this into my particular reply if I'm honest, but let's go through it anyway.

We are informed that he is just, holy

Sure some dudes wrote that in a book.. right ? But is there any evidence outside of that book ?
The world as we see it has to be the fruits of the nature of a creator god if indeed any such being exists, if he cannot create anything unholy then where did anything unholy come from if not from what he created?

If it is separate from God, that standard must be subjective (because where did it come from?).

Well from the dudes who wrote the book.. right ?

The only way a nature/property's extent is not subjective or arbitrary is that if you say "to the greatest conceivable extent".

Isn't that just words with no measurement though, like the kids story to the moon.. to the moon and back, then someone adding to infinity  ? It is not really a measurement of anything useful. You might as well say 'to a magical degree we can't imagine''

If I'm honest your replies are becoming so fragmented it really is getting difficult to make any sense of them,and seems to be moving away from any argument to just asserting what the bible says. If god is holy and good (in any way we can understand) it should be wholly apparent in his creation, In other worlds the PoE even just existing as a simple question we can coherently ask casts doubt on a good, holy god.

If I am described as the best car designer and builder conceivable  and you see all my cars broken down at the side of the road bit's strewn everywhere, would you believe that description ?

Actually the attributes "holy" and "just" are meaningless. What does "holy" even mean. Nothing.
What does "just" mean ? There are countless standards of justice ... none of them being absolute.
It's all just pious unexamined drivel that is heard so often it's just part of the "lingo" ... but in actuality, is totally meaningless.

Euthyphro's dilemma has never been answered. If the standard is the standard (just) because that's what the god's nature *is*, then the standard is non-existent for that god. If the standard exists for other beings it has to be stated, and the origins examined. Stevie just got done telling us his deity is "unfathomable" so he has no way of knowing what the standards, properties or ANYTHING else about his god actually is.

[LostLocke]

If I am described as the best car designer and builder conceivable  and you see all my cars broken down at the side of the road bit's strewn everywhere, would you believe that description ?

Ah, but you see when it comes to "God", his creation is perfect. It's just that we "fell" and that corrupted, well, apparently the entire universe.
Which is odd considering that when some of the angels fell, Heaven was not affected, and God just kicked them out.

[possibletarian]

If I am described as the best car designer and builder conceivable  and you see all my cars broken down at the side of the road bit's strewn everywhere, would you believe that description ?

Ah, but you see when it comes to "God", his creation is perfect. It's just that we "fell" and that corrupted, well, apparently the entire universe.
Which is odd considering that when some of the angels fell, Heaven was not affected, and God just kicked them out.

But he did allow good ole Satan back from time to time to report to god what he had been doing (which of course god surely would know anyway) ahh.. the mind boggles !!

I'm aware of the theology, my problem being with it is not that we 'fell' but that we had the ability to do so in the first place, if we became unholy (lack of holiness) then that ability (or in Steve's case inevitability) was built in and created wholly in god's holy nature.

If I were described as the best conceivable car builder, and then built a car with obviously faulty parts, or parts that must fail then I would hope I would loose that title.  And if it is beyond me to make a perfect car then to call me perfect would be silly.

[possibletarian]

I wrote this above:

We are informed that he is just, holy, and good. It makes no sense to "well, how good?" or "how holy?" because you are positing a measuring standard that is separate from God. If it is separate from God, that standard must be subjective (because where did it come from?). The only way a nature/property's extent is not subjective or arbitrary is that if you say "to the greatest conceivable extent". That's how Anselm got to where he did.

I'm not entirely sure why you cut and pasted this into my particular reply if I'm honest, but let's go through it anyway.

We are informed that he is just, holy

Sure some dudes wrote that in a book.. right ? But is there any evidence outside of that book ?
The world as we see it has to be the fruits of the nature of a creator god if indeed any such being exists, if he cannot create anything unholy then where did anything unholy come from if not from what he created?

If it is separate from God, that standard must be subjective (because where did it come from?).

Well from the dudes who wrote the book.. right ?

The only way a nature/property's extent is not subjective or arbitrary is that if you say "to the greatest conceivable extent".

Isn't that just words with no measurement though, like the kids story to the moon.. to the moon and back, then someone adding to infinity  ? It is not really a measurement of anything useful. You might as well say 'to a magical degree we can't imagine''

If I'm honest your replies are becoming so fragmented it really is getting difficult to make any sense of them,and seems to be moving away from any argument to just asserting what the bible says. If god is holy and good (in any way we can understand) it should be wholly apparent in his creation, In other worlds the PoE even just existing as a simple question we can coherently ask casts doubt on a good, holy god.

If I am described as the best car designer and builder conceivable  and you see all my cars broken down at the side of the road bit's strewn everywhere, would you believe that description ?

Actually the attributes "holy" and "just" are meaningless. What does "holy" even mean. Nothing.

What does "just" mean ? There are countless standards of justice ... none of them being absolute.

It's all just pious unexamined drivel that is heard so often it's just part of the "lingo" ... but in actuality, is totally meaningless.

Euthyphro's dilemma has never been answered. If the standard is the standard (just) because that's what the god's nature *is*, then the standard is non-existent for that god. If the standard exists for other beings it has to be stated, and the origins examined. Stevie just got done telling us his deity is "unfathomable" so he has no way of knowing what the standards, properties or ANYTHING else about his god actually is.

*bold mine*

I would agree it's why people use phrases like best /maximumly conceivable, it's shorthand for 'we don't have a clue, so we will make shit up, and as it's beyond your comprehension by definition, you can't argue against it '.   Its bastard brother are the ever popular 'less' series of phrases 'space-less' & 'timeless' etc.

[Free]

I'm not entirely sure why you cut and pasted this into my particular reply if I'm honest, but let's go through it anyway.


Sure some dudes wrote that in a book.. right ? But is there any evidence outside of that book ?
The world as we see it has to be the fruits of the nature of a creator god if indeed any such being exists, if he cannot create anything unholy then where did anything unholy come from if not from what he created?


Well from the dudes who wrote the book.. right ?


Isn't that just words with no measurement though, like the kids story to the moon.. to the moon and back, then someone adding to infinity  ? It is not really a measurement of anything useful. You might as well say 'to a magical degree we can't imagine''

If I'm honest your replies are becoming so fragmented it really is getting difficult to make any sense of them,and seems to be moving away from any argument to just asserting what the bible says. If god is holy and good (in any way we can understand) it should be wholly apparent in his creation, In other worlds the PoE even just existing as a simple question we can coherently ask casts doubt on a good, holy god.

If I am described as the best car designer and builder conceivable  and you see all my cars broken down at the side of the road bit's strewn everywhere, would you believe that description ?

Actually the attributes "holy" and "just" are meaningless. What does "holy" even mean. Nothing.

What does "just" mean ? There are countless standards of justice ... none of them being absolute.

It's all just pious unexamined drivel that is heard so often it's just part of the "lingo" ... but in actuality, is totally meaningless.

Euthyphro's dilemma has never been answered. If the standard is the standard (just) because that's what the god's nature *is*, then the standard is non-existent for that god. If the standard exists for other beings it has to be stated, and the origins examined. Stevie just got done telling us his deity is "unfathomable" so he has no way of knowing what the standards, properties or ANYTHING else about his god actually is.

*bold mine*

I would agree it's why people use phrases  like best /maximumly conceivable, it's shorthand for 'we don't have a clue, so we will make shit up, and as it's beyond your comprehension by definition, you can't argue against it '.   Its bastard brother are the ever popular 'less' series of phrases 'space-less' & 'timeless' etc.

And then when the toaster fell off the top of the inside out of the crazy bag of hammers, justice prevailed, and it prevailed because it is holy, and we all know how holy a crazy bag of hammers can be!

[Bucky Ball]

And then when the toaster fell off the top of the inside out of the crazy bag of hammers, justice prevailed, and it prevailed because it is holy, and we all know how holy a crazy bag of hammers can be!

Oh I like that. You have a future as some sort of poet.

The "state of justice" is interesting, for many reasons.
We keep hearing about the god's just nature *required* atonement.
It's so much anthropomorphized BS. And that after telling us it's "unfathomable".
Sounds all *technical* and *highfalutin* and *oh so very special knowledge* tho.
Snort.

[Old Man Marsh]

Skeletor is Love!

[Ima Believer]

Yes. 
The authors/editors of the texts (obviously) were recounting as fact, that what they were stating, actually happened.
There is no reason to add "and my life is preserved" if they didn't mean it, as it (obviously) references the claim that "no one has seen god and lived" ... and marks the occasion as an exception by saying "and my life is preserved".

You have no training in ancient Near Eastern Literature. You opinion of anything here is totally irrelevant.

Uh-huh. Maybe I'd better check the JW Library. Maybe someone there has some training in "ancient Near Eastern Literature." 

Hmm. That seems like a contradiction, doesn't it. I don't think it is. 

I think you better ask for a refund on that "ancient Near Eastern Literature." 

So I started thinking. If I show this Dumbo where "he's" (forgive me if I mistook the pronoun) wrong he will just act like an ass in typical atheist fashion, denying the truth, insulting my education and intelligence . . . basically make a big scene for his idiot atheist buddies and life goes on. 

Then I started thinking some of the ridiculous terms atheists use when they're too lazy and stupid to do the work. Terms like claim and burden of proof. You made the claim that the verses you presented indicated that there was a contradiction in whether or not anyone had actually seen God face to face. Now back it up. 

I'll help you. As a sort of social experiment. See, I think that if I show you where you are wrong you would rather die than accept that you are wrong and I [shudder] am right. So I wonder . . . this is the key to understanding atheists.

Look up the cases where angels appeared to men and what they call the angels. Angels. Men. Even Jehovah. Sometimes he appears in glory, but never in person. Show me.

[epronovost]

Uh-huh. Maybe I'd better check the JW Library. Maybe someone there has some training in "ancient Near Eastern Literature." 

Maybe you should check who are the authors of the JW library indeed. Do they have training in ancient Near Eastern literature? Do they have training in ancient Near Eastern history? Do they have training in ancient Near Eastern philosophy? There are people with opinions, their are people with beliefs and there are people with expertise in a specific domain. Consulting the people with expertise in specific domain on questions related to this domain is the best way to insure you are correct, or at the very least reasonnable. It's not foolproof, but it's, by far, the best method. Was the expertise of the JW Library author what convinced you that when the Bible says "there is aGod and his name his Jehovah" (paraphrasing there) that this was the case, that there was a God named Jehovah and it wasn't just superstition and mythology from some ancient civilisation? You didn't answer that question (I don't really blame you, you have been exchanging with about 3 different people at the same time).

[Ima Believer]

Uh-huh. Maybe I'd better check the JW Library. Maybe someone there has some training in "ancient Near Eastern Literature." 

Maybe you should check who are the authors of the JW library indeed. Do they have training in ancient Near Eastern literature? Do they have training in ancient Near Eastern history? Do they have training in ancient Near Eastern philosophy? There are people with opinions, their are people with beliefs and there are people with expertise in a specific domain. Consulting the people with expertise in specific domain on questions related to this domain is the best way to insure you are correct, or at the very least reasonnable. It's not foolproof, but it's, by far, the best method. Was the expertise of the JW Library author what convinced you that when the Bible says "there is aGod and his name his Jehovah" (paraphrasing there) that this was the case, that there was a God named Jehovah and it wasn't just superstition and mythology from some ancient civilisation? You didn't answer that question (I don't really blame you, you have been exchanging with about 3 different people at the same time).

Quite a few more than three. And I don't care what kind of training, if any, the authors of the JW library had. They have the right answer. Would you like me to show you? No. You probably wouldn't. You see, here's what I've noticed. The people with the faith are the ones you want to watch. The doubters jump on the wagon only after the work has been done. They call that science. But it isn't. Science is faith. Doing the work. Having faith. The Wright brothers had faith. Salk had faith. Noah had faith.

[Bucky Ball]

Yes. 
The authors/editors of the texts (obviously) were recounting as fact, that what they were stating, actually happened.
There is no reason to add "and my life is preserved" if they didn't mean it, as it (obviously) references the claim that "no one has seen god and lived" ... and marks the occasion as an exception by saying "and my life is preserved".

You have no training in ancient Near Eastern Literature. You opinion of anything here is totally irrelevant.

Uh-huh. Maybe I'd better check the JW Library. Maybe someone there has some training in "ancient Near Eastern Literature." 

Hmm. That seems like a contradiction, doesn't it. I don't think it is. 

I think you better ask for a refund on that "ancient Near Eastern Literature." 

So I started thinking. If I show this Dumbo where "he's" (forgive me if I mistook the pronoun) wrong he will just act like an ass in typical atheist fashion, denying the truth, insulting my education and intelligence . . . basically make a big scene for his idiot atheist buddies and life goes on. 

Then I started thinking some of the ridiculous terms atheists use when they're too lazy and stupid to do the work. Terms like claim and burden of proof. You made the claim that the verses you presented indicated that there was a contradiction in whether or not anyone had actually seen God face to face. Now back it up. 

I'll help you. As a sort of social experiment. See, I think that if I show you where you are wrong you would rather die than accept that you are wrong and I [shudder] am right. So I wonder . . . this is the key to understanding atheists.

Look up the cases where angels appeared to men and what they call the angels. Angels. Men. Even Jehovah. Sometimes he appears in glory, but never in person. Show me.

Go fuck yourself. 

The text says nothing about angels. Nothing. It says what it says. Not only that, it justifies exactly what it says by using "and my life was preserved". The author is totally conscious of what he's saying, and justifies the consequences. When you get all big and leave mommy's basement you may get to school, and learn about literary things. You are unable to "show" anyone anything. You don't get to make up shit because you want to. Since you always act like an ass, and have since you arrived here, (calling people cunts etc), and NOW you say "typical atheist fashion", I guess that would make Pissant an atheist, now wouldn't it. You can't help anyone, much less me. Reference a scholar (which you are NOT) who agrees with you, or piss off, Pissant.

Dismissed.

[epronovost]

Quite a few more than three. And I don't care what kind of training, if any, the authors of the JW library had. They have the right answer.

How did they prove it, yes, I'd like to know how they managed to demonstrate that they were right and all the others were wrong.

The people with the faith are the ones you want to watch. The doubters jump on the wagon only after the work has been done. They call that science. But it isn't. Science is faith. Doing the work. Having faith. The Wright brothers had faith. Salk had faith. Noah had faith.

I think you are equivocating faith and confidence there. The Wrights brothers had faith in their project in the sense that they were confident it could succeed amongst other thing because of precedent discovery about the mechanic of flight. They also participated and attended many convetion on flight and discussed and exchanged ideas with other people trying to build planes too. A lot of flying object already existed in their times, kites for example. The Wright brothers were also clever engineers. They had already designed glidders to test their theories about wing design and flight control well before they started to build a first plane. Faith is absolute and unwavering confidence. You don't make tests and plans when you have absolute and unwavering confidence. You don't double and triple check your findings just to be on the safe side. The Wrights brother made numerous test and experiment before building their first place showing they were not absolutely sure it would work, they had their doubts, but they were confident nonetheless. Confidence is to faith what fear is to terror.

[Ima Believer]

Go fuck yourself. 

Now Bucky! Is that any way to talk?

The text says nothing about angels. Nothing. It says what it says. You are unable to "show" anyone anything. You don't get to make up shit because you want to. since you always ask like an ass, and have since you arrived here, (calling people cunts etc), and NOW you say "typical atheist fashion", I guess that would make Pissant an atheist, now wouldn't it. You can't help anyone, much less me. Reference a scholar (which you are NOT) who agrees with you, or piss off, Pissant.

Context Bucky, context! References. Footnotes. That sort of thing. They didn't teach you that in Near Eastern Idiot Whatever Class? Mercy!

C'mon bucky, you can do it. Back up that lame ass claim. Don't make me do it myself.

[Dom]

Context Bucky, context! References. Footnotes. That sort of thing. They didn't teach you that in Near Eastern Idiot Whatever Class? Mercy!

C'mon bucky, you can do it. Back up that lame ass claim. Don't make me do it myself.

Boy, are you a jerk.

Maybe you need to read "how to make friends and influence people".

[Bucky Ball]

Go fuck yourself. 

Now Bucky! Is that any way to talk?

The text says nothing about angels. Nothing. It says what it says. You are unable to "show" anyone anything. You don't get to make up shit because you want to. since you always ask like an ass, and have since you arrived here, (calling people cunts etc), and NOW you say "typical atheist fashion", I guess that would make Pissant an atheist, now wouldn't it. You can't help anyone, much less me. Reference a scholar (which you are NOT) who agrees with you, or piss off, Pissant.

Context Bucky, context! References. Footnotes. That sort of thing. They didn't teach you that in Near Eastern Idiot Whatever Class? Mercy!

C'mon bucky, you can do it. Back up that lame ass claim. Don't make me do it myself.

]ust as soon as you do, 
Nice try at more deflection, Pissant.
You do have this lame-ass way when you don't like something of having your little girly tantrum to try to deflect. 
Let us know when you get into an Ivy League College. LOL
Speaking of ancient literature, weren't you the fool who missed the metaphor in Paul when he said "Their destiny is destruction, their god is their stomach, and their glory is in their shame. Their mind is set on earthly things." LMAO. You also have said nothing about you "proof" of a god that was totally ripped to shreds here. Poor widdow Pissant. Mommy's basement is getting to him.

There is no reason for the author to add "and my life was preserved" if he wasn't talking about something that was normally thought to be fatal.
get it ? You do have to engage your brain, not just what the JW CD told you.

[Free]

Uh-huh. Maybe I'd better check the JW Library. Maybe someone there has some training in "ancient Near Eastern Literature." 

Maybe you should check who are the authors of the JW library indeed. Do they have training in ancient Near Eastern literature? Do they have training in ancient Near Eastern history? Do they have training in ancient Near Eastern philosophy? There are people with opinions, their are people with beliefs and there are people with expertise in a specific domain. Consulting the people with expertise in specific domain on questions related to this domain is the best way to insure you are correct, or at the very least reasonnable. It's not foolproof, but it's, by far, the best method. Was the expertise of the JW Library author what convinced you that when the Bible says "there is aGod and his name his Jehovah" (paraphrasing there) that this was the case, that there was a God named Jehovah and it wasn't just superstition and mythology from some ancient civilisation? You didn't answer that question (I don't really blame you, you have been exchanging with about 3 different people at the same time).

Quite a few more than three. And I don't care what kind of training, if any, the authors of the JW library had. They have the right answer. Would you like me to show you? No. You probably wouldn't. You see, here's what I've noticed. The people with the faith are the ones you want to watch. The doubters jump on the wagon only after the work has been done. They call that science. But it isn't. Science is faith. Doing the work. Having faith. The Wright brothers had faith. Salk had faith. Noah had faith.

Let's talk about "faith" and what it actually is. Here are some definitions relevant to our discussion:

1. belief and trust in and loyalty to God - Webster's Dictionary

2. strong belief in God or a particular religion - Cambridge University

3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion - Dictionary.com 

I think we can both agree that faith can be defined as having a belief. 

So let's talk about beliefs, and how they can be qualified as being valid.

Beliefs come when one has confidence in something as representing a truth. Therefore, where does the confidence come from? What generates it? Would you agree that confidence is generated by evidence? I mean, if there is no proof of something, how can you have confidence in it?

Hence, to have a belief requires tangible evidence to make that belief valid. That evidence must be detectable, and not imagined. It must be something that can be detected by some means, and verified by others.

Now let's talk about the science of evolution and why scientists and normal armchair critics believe in it. I am certain you are quite aware of the plethora of evidence evolution has to support the theory. After all, we have a fossil record, and we can even see evolution happening right now. For example, all dogs are the evolution of the wolf and even today we still have both roaming the earth. 

My point is that science has evidence to validate the beliefs science holds onto. From evolution to Black Holes (which is no longer a theory but a reality) science has methodically set out to prove the validity of what it believes to be true. 

But religion cannot make the claim of having a valid belief in god, because you have no evidence of the existence of god. Stories written in the bible are not evidence of anything other than that they are merely stories written in the bible. 

Now let us reason together.

To have faith/belief, one must qualify the faith/belief by having evidence. Once you have evidence, you then have a theory. Once enough evidence has been accumulated, the theory evolves into a fact. 

1. Science has valid faith because science has evidence.

2. Religion has no valid faith because religion has no evidence.

How can anyone believe that something is true when there is no evidence?

A better question is, why  should you believe something when you have no evidence?

Answer me one question:

What is driving you to believe in God?

[Bucky Ball]

Quite a few more than three. And I don't care what kind of training, if any, the authors of the JW library had. They have the right answer. Would you like me to show you? No. You probably wouldn't. You see, here's what I've noticed. The people with the faith are the ones you want to watch. The doubters jump on the wagon only after the work has been done. They call that science. But it isn't. Science is faith. Doing the work. Having faith. The Wright brothers had faith. Salk had faith. Noah had faith.

Too bad Pissant.
Buncha clap-trap.
There was no flood.

Salk developed the vaccine after a LONG career using the SCIENTIFIC method.
https://www.salk.edu/about/history-of-salk/jonas-salk/
Faith had NOTHING at all to do with it.

And I don't care what kind of training, if any, the authors of the JW library had. They have the right answer.

Assertion by an uneducated fool.. No supporting evidence.
Dismissed.
For thousands of years religionists / theists have stomped their impotent little feet : "I know I'm right."
They were all wrong. Ima is not special.

[Dancefortwo]

If there's a 1500 page thread it's only because people are giving him the attention he craves (negative or positive, it doesn't matter to him).

Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding!  Bingo.   You hit the nail right on the head.  This is the only attention this troll gets.  For him, any attention is better than nothing and spouting  religious dogma on an atheist forum sits him smack dab in the center of everyone's view.  He's produced a lightening rod of comments which is what he wanted.  It makes him feel important.   I've never said this about any theist, even on the old forum, but he should be banned.   

After I post this he's on my ignore list.

[SYZ]

Ban hammer is in my pocket, gimme a rule.

0) Don’t be a dick  (has been described as this by several other members as well as me; trolling with one-liners)

7) No Deliberately Disruptive Behavior (see my list; constantly insulting members and moderators; posting willfully
inflammatory comments; repeated inappropriate obscenities directed personally at others)

Time for the hammer!     

[Ima Believer]

How did they prove it, yes, I'd like to know how they managed to demonstrate that they were right and all the others were wrong.

Prove it, Orville and Wilbur. Prove it, Jonas. That's a good little atheist. If they don't have proof they couldn't possibly fly! Somebody's got to have proof for you to sit in your easy chair and marvel at. Someone must have wrote something down in a science book you can read. Some proof . . .

Some proof. 

I think you are equivocating faith and confidence there.

Tomato / tomato. That doesn't really work in written form. 

Do you doubt me? Do you doubt that I have the answer, given to me by the uneducated, untrained Watchtower researchers. Nasty bunch the Watchtower. Got'ta watch out for those guys. But that don't mean they don't have the answer. You though, you wouldn't accept it. 

I want you to read Judges 13:1-23: "And the sons of Israel engaged again in doing what was bad in Jehovah’s eyes, so that Jehovah gave them into the hand of the Philistines for forty years.

Meanwhile there happened to be a certain man of Zorah of the family of the Danites, and his name was Manoah. And his wife was barren and had borne no child. In time Jehovah’s angel appeared to the woman and said to her: “Look, now, you are barren and have borne no child. And you will certainly become pregnant and give birth to a son. And now watch yourself, please, and do not drink wine or intoxicating liquor, and do not eat anything unclean. For, look! you will be pregnant, and you will certainly give birth to a son, and no razor should come upon his head, because a Nazirite of God is what the child will become on leaving the belly; and he it is who will take the lead in saving Israel out of the hand of the Philistines.”

Then the woman went and said to her husband: “There was a man of the [true] God that came to me, and his appearance was like the appearance of the angel of the [true] God, very fear-inspiring. And I did not ask him from just where he was, neither did he tell me his name. But he said to me, ‘Look! You will be pregnant, and you will certainly give birth to a son. And now do not drink wine or intoxicating liquor, and do not eat any unclean thing, because a Nazirite of God is what the child will become on leaving the belly until the day of his death.’”

And Manoah began to entreat Jehovah and say: “Excuse me, Jehovah. The man of the [true] God that you just sent, let him, please, come again to us and instruct us as to what we ought to do to the child that will be born.” Accordingly the [true] God listened to the voice of Manoah, and the angel of the [true] God came again to the woman while she was sitting in the field, and Manoah her husband was not with her. Immediately the woman hurried and ran and told her husband and said to him: “Look! The man that came the other day to me has appeared to me.”


At that Manoah got up and accompanied his wife and came to the man and said to him: “Are you the man that spoke to the woman?” to which he said: “I am.” Then Manoah said: “Now let your words come true. What will become the child’s mode of life and his work?” So Jehovah’s angel said to Manoah: “From everything that I mentioned to the woman she should keep herself. Nothing at all that comes forth from the wine vine should she eat, and no wine or intoxicating liquor let her drink, and no unclean thing of any sort let her eat. Everything that I have commanded her let her keep.”

Manoah now said to Jehovah’s angel: “Let us, please, detain you and fix up a kid of the goats before you.” But Jehovah’s angel said to Manoah: “If you detain me, I shall not feed myself on your bread; but if you will render up a burnt offering to Jehovah, you may offer it up.” For Manoah did not know that he was Jehovah’s angel. Then Manoah said to Jehovah’s angel: “What is your name, that when your word comes true we shall certainly do you honor?” However, Jehovah’s angel said to him: “Just why should you ask about my name, when it is a wonderful one?”

And Manoah proceeded to take the kid of the goats and the grain offering and to offer it upon the rock to Jehovah. And He was doing something in a wonderful way while Manoah and his wife were looking on. So it came about that, as the flame ascended from off the altar heavenward, then Jehovah’s angel ascended in the flame of the altar while Manoah and his wife were looking on. At once they fell upon their faces to the earth. And Jehovah’s angel did not repeat appearing to Manoah and his wife anymore. Then it was that Ma·no′ah knew that he had been Jehovah’s angel. Consequently Manoah said to his wife: “We shall positively die, because it is God that we have seen.” But his wife said to him: “If Jehovah had been delighted only to put us to death, he would not have accepted a burnt offering and grain offering from our hand, and he would not have shown us all these things, and he would not as now have let us hear anything like this.”"


Interesting? How about Genesis 18:1-15: "Afterward Jehovah appeared to him among the big trees of Mamre, while he was sitting at the entrance of the tent about the heat of the day. When he raised his eyes, then he looked and there three men were standing some distance from him. When he caught sight of them he began running to meet them from the entrance of the tent and proceeded to bow down to the earth. Then he said: “Jehovah, if, now, I have found favor in your eyes, please do not pass by your servant. Let a little water be taken, please, and you must have your feet washed. Then recline under the tree. And let me get a piece of bread, and refresh your hearts. Following that, you can pass on, because that is why you have passed this way to your servant.” At this they said: “All right. You may do just as you have spoken.”

So Abraham went hurrying to the tent to Sarah and said: “Hurry! Get three seah measures of fine flour, knead the dough and make round cakes.” Next Abraham ran to the herd and proceeded to get a tender and good young bull and to give it to the attendant, and he went hurrying to get it ready. He then took butter and milk and the young bull that he had got ready and set it before them. Then he himself kept standing by them under the tree as they were eating.

They now said to him: “Where is Sarah your wife?” To this he said: “Here in the tent!” So he continued: “I am surely going to return to you next year at this time, and, look! Sarah your wife will have a son.” Now Sarah was listening at the tent entrance, and it was behind the man. And Abraham and Sarah were old, being advanced in years. Sarah had stopped having menstruation. Hence Sarah began to laugh inside herself, saying: “After I am worn out, shall I really have pleasure, my lord being old besides?” Then Jehovah said to Abraham: “Why was it that Sarah laughed, saying, ‘Shall I really and truly give birth although I have become old?’ Is anything too extraordinary for Jehovah? At the appointed time I shall return to you, next year at this time, and Sarah will have a son.” But Sarah began to deny it, saying: “I did not laugh!” For she was afraid. At this he said: “No! but you did laugh.”

An angel, representing Jehovah, becomes a man. Called angel, called man, called Jehovah. All the same. When you see this you see, in effect, Jehovah. Without seeing him. Like, his glory that appeared to Moses, Saul, etc. Even Jesus. Who was Jehovah's Word, or spokesperson. Representative. In the image of.

[SYZ]

BTW Dom...

This is how Ima Believer responded to one of my comments in another thread;  this was it in total...

I'll tell you what stupid, I'll make you a deal. For one week you and I. The first one to insult the other has to pack up his hypocritical myopic ass and leave never to come back.

Bullshit your wrinkled up old ass out of that you ignorant fuck.

Frankly I'm not prepared to put up with this sort of puerile rubbish, and nor should the other members
who've had this same sort of invective directed at them.  I'm actually left wondering why he's not been
banned already, considering his confrontational attitude since day one—from his very first post in fact.

[Ima Believer]

Boy, are you a jerk.

Maybe you need to read "how to make friends and influence people".

I know. I feel really bad. Bucky is always such a nice, polite young man. Why couldn't I see that?!

[Dom]

Boy, are you a jerk.

Maybe you need to read "how to make friends and influence people".

I know. I feel really bad. Bucky is always such a nice, polite young man. Why couldn't I see that?!

He is always nice and polite to me. I'm assuming that is because I have always ben nice and polite to him.

You on the other hand don't just insult individuals, you insult all of us. Stop being deliberately disruptive or I'll have to show you the door.

[Ima Believer]

He is always nice and polite to me. I'm assuming that is because I have always ben nice and polite to him.

You on the other hand don't just insult individuals, you insult all of us. Stop being deliberately disruptive or I'll have to show you the door.

Show me to the door you coward.