Total Posts:37|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Principle not law.

MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2016 5:41:49 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
Paul and the Apostles made it very clear that we are no longer under law.

That being the case, what replaces it, because something must.

As scripture also demonstrates, not least Jesus n his sermon on the mount, we are now under principle instead of law.

What does that mean for us?

Is it easier than being under law?

In fact it is more difficult than being under law because it is not possible to point to a passage and say "there you are, that says you must (or must not) do whatever.

That was what the law did.

What being under principle means is that you have to find an scripture which, whilst it does not specifically mention what y want to know about, gives the general principle you are expected to supply.

That means that whilst it is still wrong to commit adultery it is wrong now even to think about doing so, because the thought is father to the deed.

It also means that you cannot say "Well, show me a passage which specifically details whether or not something is right".

What you can do is point to a passage which gives the general principle which can be applied to other things.

Thus a scripture like 1 Corinthians 4:9 "For it seems to me that God has put us the apostles last on exhibition as men condemned to death, because we have become a theatrical spectacle to the world, and to angels and to men" shows a principle which tells us that everything we do is to be observed by both angels and men (even demons) as evidence that we mean what we say and are prepared to serve Jehovah and his son whatever may result from that service.

That simply adds to the evidence Jehovah gathered in scripture to prove that Satan is wrong, at least in the case of some humans.

That applies also to baptism, which is a public spectacle for men and angels, for precisely the same reasons.

Unfortunately for some, especially those like my erstwhile and constant opponent in all things scriptural, despite her unconscionable ignorance of her chosen subject, this means that one actually has to think.

One cannot simply point to some words in a book and say "Look' there it is.", one has to actually think about how every scripture in the Bible fits not the whole, and what lessons it teaches us.

It seems that not all are capable of doing so.
Harikrish
Posts: 11,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2016 8:46:06 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/31/2016 5:41:49 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Paul and the Apostles made it very clear that we are no longer under law.

That being the case, what replaces it, because something must.

As scripture also demonstrates, not least Jesus n his sermon on the mount, we are now under principle instead of law.

What does that mean for us?

Is it easier than being under law?

In fact it is more difficult than being under law because it is not possible to point to a passage and say "there you are, that says you must (or must not) do whatever.

That was what the law did.

What being under principle means is that you have to find an scripture which, whilst it does not specifically mention what y want to know about, gives the general principle you are expected to supply.

That means that whilst it is still wrong to commit adultery it is wrong now even to think about doing so, because the thought is father to the deed.

It also means that you cannot say "Well, show me a passage which specifically details whether or not something is right".

What you can do is point to a passage which gives the general principle which can be applied to other things.

Thus a scripture like 1 Corinthians 4:9 "For it seems to me that God has put us the apostles last on exhibition as men condemned to death, because we have become a theatrical spectacle to the world, and to angels and to men" shows a principle which tells us that everything we do is to be observed by both angels and men (even demons) as evidence that we mean what we say and are prepared to serve Jehovah and his son whatever may result from that service.

That simply adds to the evidence Jehovah gathered in scripture to prove that Satan is wrong, at least in the case of some humans.

That applies also to baptism, which is a public spectacle for men and angels, for precisely the same reasons.

Unfortunately for some, especially those like my erstwhile and constant opponent in all things scriptural, despite her unconscionable ignorance of her chosen subject, this means that one actually has to think.

One cannot simply point to some words in a book and say "Look' there it is.", one has to actually think about how every scripture in the Bible fits not the whole, and what lessons it teaches us.

It seems that not all are capable of doing so.

The JW are very specific about what constitutes a violation and members are subject to disfellowshipped and shunning for violating the guidelines.. Their guidelines are written for all to follow. The bible has very specific laws dictated under the Mosaic laws numbering some 613 that the Jews had to abide by.
Jesus said he did not come to change the laws....they are therefore still effective. In fact the example you quoted about lust and adultery demonstrates how he interpreted the law in its strictest form.
Baptism was a ritual that even Jesus participated in. But as John tbe Baptist said. Jesus would come and baptize not with water but the Holy Spirit.

You are an embarrassing spectacle unto the JW that is why they disfellowshipped and shunned you. You would be an embarrassing spectacle to your children if they knew you were preaching here after you abandoned them to pursue your selfish perverted serial adulterous lifestyle. That is why you at 67 live alone with a dog because no human wants to be near you.

Now try to see how mentally challenged you are.

You wrote:
1. "It also means that you cannot say "Well, show me a passage which specifically details whether or not something is right".

2. "What you can do is point to a passage which gives the general principle which can be applied to other things."

Showing a passage and pointing to a passage both serve the same objective. Both are to verify what the passage has to say about what is right and how it should be applied.

That is exactly how both the law and scriptures are referenced.

You are trying to weasel out of the hole you created by resorting to lies and deception. Just accept you are a failed father, a failed husband, a failed JW member and a suicidal pervert who needs medication to help you cope with your guilt and suicidal depression. Jehovah has taught you nothing. You are still in denial.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2016 11:25:27 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/31/2016 5:41:49 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Paul and the Apostles made it very clear that we are no longer under law.
Except that's not clear from the Christian Bible, since it contains both principles and laws in both the Old and New Testaments, and Christians have interpreted it both ways since early Christianity -- whereas, if it were clear, we wouldn't see nearly so much of that.

However what is clear is that trying to define morality from rigid rules isn't workable, and produces cruelty and injustice. And you can only apply principles effectively if you tie them to an accountable understanding of cause and consequence, which means you need observation and reason too: the very elements introduced in the Enlightenment, resulting in massive moral reform to older Judaeo-Christian traditions, which reform continues today.

It's true that early Christian authors realised that principles under laws work better than laws alone. And in fact if you use principles to frame policy, you're working with a system called ethics, which was first explored by pagan and secular Greeks, along with thinkers of other, pre-Christian cultures.

So what we see in MCB's post is familiar in Christian rhetoric. Ideas that pre-date Christianity are appropriated as Christian innovations both through ignorance (people like MCB seldom research where ideas came from), and conceit (would he acknowledge that any Christian thought came from outside the Judaeo-Christian tradition, even if he'd seen evidence that it did?)

The irony here is that living by principles always requires honesty, diligence and self-examination. Or as the pagan Socrates put it: the unexamined life is not worth living.

It's good that anyone of faith seeks to live by principles, but hypocritical when those principals are so selective about evidence. :p
bulpoof
Posts: 143
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2016 11:32:14 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/31/2016 5:41:49 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Paul and the Apostles made it very clear that we are no longer under law.

That being the case, what replaces it, because something must.

As scripture also demonstrates, not least Jesus n his sermon on the mount, we are now under principle instead of law.

What does that mean for us?

Is it easier than being under law?

In fact it is more difficult than being under law because it is not possible to point to a passage and say "there you are, that says you must (or must not) do whatever.

That was what the law did.

What being under principle means is that you have to find an scripture which, whilst it does not specifically mention what y want to know about, gives the general principle you are expected to supply.

That means that whilst it is still wrong to commit adultery it is wrong now even to think about doing so, because the thought is father to the deed.

It also means that you cannot say "Well, show me a passage which specifically details whether or not something is right".

What you can do is point to a passage which gives the general principle which can be applied to other things.

Thus a scripture like 1 Corinthians 4:9 "For it seems to me that God has put us the apostles last on exhibition as men condemned to death, because we have become a theatrical spectacle to the world, and to angels and to men" shows a principle which tells us that everything we do is to be observed by both angels and men (even demons) as evidence that we mean what we say and are prepared to serve Jehovah and his son whatever may result from that service.

That simply adds to the evidence Jehovah gathered in scripture to prove that Satan is wrong, at least in the case of some humans.

That applies also to baptism, which is a public spectacle for men and angels, for precisely the same reasons.

Unfortunately for some, especially those like my erstwhile and constant opponent in all things scriptural, despite her unconscionable ignorance of her chosen subject, this means that one actually has to think.

One cannot simply point to some words in a book and say "Look' there it is.", one has to actually think about how every scripture in the Bible fits not the whole, and what lessons it teaches us.

It seems that not all are capable of doing so. : :

All flesh of this world are under the Old Covenant Law. That's why all flesh will perish by the end of this first age. The saints came to speak the Law of God, also known as the Voice of God where all life experiences come from. If you listen to the Voice of God and obey all the commandments that come forth from the Voice, you will learn everything that was revealed through the testimonies of all God's saints.
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2016 8:10:20 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/31/2016 11:32:14 PM, bulpoof wrote:
At 3/31/2016 5:41:49 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Paul and the Apostles made it very clear that we are no longer under law.

That being the case, what replaces it, because something must.

As scripture also demonstrates, not least Jesus n his sermon on the mount, we are now under principle instead of law.

What does that mean for us?

Is it easier than being under law?

In fact it is more difficult than being under law because it is not possible to point to a passage and say "there you are, that says you must (or must not) do whatever.

That was what the law did.

What being under principle means is that you have to find an scripture which, whilst it does not specifically mention what y want to know about, gives the general principle you are expected to supply.

That means that whilst it is still wrong to commit adultery it is wrong now even to think about doing so, because the thought is father to the deed.

It also means that you cannot say "Well, show me a passage which specifically details whether or not something is right".

What you can do is point to a passage which gives the general principle which can be applied to other things.

Thus a scripture like 1 Corinthians 4:9 "For it seems to me that God has put us the apostles last on exhibition as men condemned to death, because we have become a theatrical spectacle to the world, and to angels and to men" shows a principle which tells us that everything we do is to be observed by both angels and men (even demons) as evidence that we mean what we say and are prepared to serve Jehovah and his son whatever may result from that service.

That simply adds to the evidence Jehovah gathered in scripture to prove that Satan is wrong, at least in the case of some humans.

That applies also to baptism, which is a public spectacle for men and angels, for precisely the same reasons.

Unfortunately for some, especially those like my erstwhile and constant opponent in all things scriptural, despite her unconscionable ignorance of her chosen subject, this means that one actually has to think.

One cannot simply point to some words in a book and say "Look' there it is.", one has to actually think about how every scripture in the Bible fits not the whole, and what lessons it teaches us.

It seems that not all are capable of doing so. : :

All flesh of this world are under the Old Covenant Law. That's why all flesh will perish by the end of this first age. The saints came to speak the Law of God, also known as the Voice of God where all life experiences come from. If you listen to the Voice of God and obey all the commandments that come forth from the Voice, you will learn everything that was revealed through the testimonies of all God's saints.

Sounds like a good show, when does it open, phoney?
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2016 10:18:03 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/31/2016 11:25:27 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 3/31/2016 5:41:49 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Paul and the Apostles made it very clear that we are no longer under law.
Except that's not clear from the Christian Bible, since it contains both principles and laws in both the Old and New Testaments, and Christians have interpreted it both ways since early Christianity -- whereas, if it were clear, we wouldn't see nearly so much of that.

However what is clear is that trying to define morality from rigid rules isn't workable, and produces cruelty and injustice. And you can only apply principles effectively if you tie them to an accountable understanding of cause and consequence, which means you need observation and reason too: the very elements introduced in the Enlightenment, resulting in massive moral reform to older Judaeo-Christian traditions, which reform continues today.

It's true that early Christian authors realised that principles under laws work better than laws alone. And in fact if you use principles to frame policy, you're working with a system called ethics, which was first explored by pagan and secular Greeks, along with thinkers of other, pre-Christian cultures.

So what we see in MCB's post is familiar in Christian rhetoric. Ideas that pre-date Christianity are appropriated as Christian innovations both through ignorance (people like MCB seldom research where ideas came from), and conceit (would he acknowledge that any Christian thought came from outside the Judaeo-Christian tradition, even if he'd seen evidence that it did?)

The irony here is that living by principles always requires honesty, diligence and self-examination. Or as the pagan Socrates put it: the unexamined life is not worth living.

It's good that anyone of faith seeks to live by principles, but hypocritical when those principals are so selective about evidence. :p

Of course true worship pre-dates Christianity.

Christ taught from the Hebrew Scriptures, particularly the law.

Christianity is not an "New Religion" in any sense of the word. It is quite siply the lates "upgrade" of the old religion which went from:

Individual (Abel, Enoch, Noah etc.

to

Familial (Noah, Abraham, Isaac)

to

The Mosiac Covenant.

to

The New covenant promised at Jeremiah 31:33 which is in effect what Christ brought it to, and despite 1800 years of Apostasy, was re-born by him and is now known as Jehovah's Witnesses.

It still worships the same God, Jehovah,

It is still guided by is only begotten son, first as the Word (AKA Michael) Jehovah's spokesman to fallen humanity, then as our Messiah, incarnate in the body of Jesus, now as Jehovah's reigning King, currently preparing his government in readiness to become the "Lion of Judah", and wrest the rule of this earth from Satan and mankind.

It is still the same religion, still part of the same plan, which will soon be reverted back on to the original plan.

Whether you think of Jehovah's Witnesses as the oldest New Religion on Earth, or the Newest Old Religion, it is still directly connected to the original religion which Adam betrayed.

Simple as.
tarantula
Posts: 858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2016 10:53:09 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
If Adam and Eve existed, and are not the fairy tale characters I think they are, they should be congratulated for sticking two fingers up to the deity who created them for its sick amusement.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2016 2:33:20 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/1/2016 10:18:03 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/31/2016 11:25:27 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
What we see in MCB's post is familiar in Christian rhetoric. Ideas that pre-date Christianity are appropriated as Christian innovations both through ignorance (people like MCB seldom research where ideas came from), and conceit
Of course true worship pre-dates Christianity.
If by true worship you mean the justice in living by principles set from observation and reason, then yes, that pre-dates Christianity, was unrelated to Judaism, and was developed by people who'd never heard of Jehovah and weren't even monotheists. But it wasn't first introduced by anyone in the Judaeo-Christian tradition, which means (among other things) that:
1) monotheism has nothing to do with justice and compassion; and
2) Judaeo-Christian revelation has nothing to do with it either.

(would he acknowledge that any Christian thought came from outside the Judaeo-Christian tradition, even if he'd seen evidence that it did?)
No, as he has just demonstrated.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2016 3:56:21 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/1/2016 2:33:20 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/1/2016 10:18:03 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/31/2016 11:25:27 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
What we see in MCB's post is familiar in Christian rhetoric. Ideas that pre-date Christianity are appropriated as Christian innovations both through ignorance (people like MCB seldom research where ideas came from), and conceit
Of course true worship pre-dates Christianity.
If by true worship you mean the justice in living by principles set from observation and reason, then yes, that pre-dates Christianity, was unrelated to Judaism, and was developed by people who'd never heard of Jehovah and weren't even monotheists. But it wasn't first introduced by anyone in the Judaeo-Christian tradition, which means (among other things) that:
1) monotheism has nothing to do with justice and compassion; and
2) Judaeo-Christian revelation has nothing to do with it either.

By true worship I mean worship of the one true God in the way in which he wishes to be worshipped.

That is what I, and the JWs do.

Simple as.


(would he acknowledge that any Christian thought came from outside the Judaeo-Christian tradition, even if he'd seen evidence that it did?)
No, as he has just demonstrated.

That could be because there is no such evidence in reality.

True worship comes from only one source, Jehovah, via his only begotten son. Always has, always will.

No-one has any right to dictate what constitutes true worship other than God himself so it is to him I listen, not to any human.

It took me over two decades to find the only group on this earth that does Jehovah's will and follows it as closely as any human can.
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2016 10:15:35 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/31/2016 5:41:49 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

That applies also to baptism, which is a public spectacle for men and angels, for precisely the same reasons.

Alright, find us a passage that states that baptism is a public spectacle.

1. And while you're at it, find us ONE THING - one activity - which is not "public."

2. The thesaurus lists "private" as the antonym or opposite of "public". Many times the disciples came to Jesus privately. Could you tell us if they came to Him "publicly" at the same time they came to him "privately."

3. Could you name for us one commonly accepted English dictionary which defines the word "publicly" as you do?

4. If you were arrested for public urination - which you do on a daily basis, according to you - would you plead guilty? If so, I know several here who will notify the authorities.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 10:45:04 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/1/2016 10:15:35 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 3/31/2016 5:41:49 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

That applies also to baptism, which is a public spectacle for men and angels, for precisely the same reasons.

Alright, find us a passage that states that baptism is a public spectacle.

1. And while you're at it, find us ONE THING - one activity - which is not "public."

2. The thesaurus lists "private" as the antonym or opposite of "public". Many times the disciples came to Jesus privately. Could you tell us if they came to Him "publicly" at the same time they came to him "privately."

3. Could you name for us one commonly accepted English dictionary which defines the word "publicly" as you do?

4. If you were arrested for public urination - which you do on a daily basis, according to you - would you plead guilty? If so, I know several here who will notify the authorities.

I've given you the passage which shows that everything is a public spectacle, to both men and angels. Deny it all you like, it is still true.

It is not my fault that you don;t have a spiritual aspect to your thinking. You are a physical type woman and that is all there is to it.

It seems you don't understand how principle works either, but then I have seen little sign of you having any principles.

A principle is something which can be applied in many different contexts, "public spectacle" is precisely that, applicable to everything in life.
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 11:27:56 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/2/2016 10:45:04 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 4/1/2016 10:15:35 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 3/31/2016 5:41:49 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

That applies also to baptism, which is a public spectacle for men and angels, for precisely the same reasons.

Alright, find us a passage that states that baptism is a public spectacle.

1. And while you're at it, find us ONE THING - one activity - which is not "public."

2. The thesaurus lists "private" as the antonym or opposite of "public". Many times the disciples came to Jesus privately. Could you tell us if they came to Him "publicly" at the same time they came to him "privately."

3. Could you name for us one commonly accepted English dictionary which defines the word "publicly" as you do?

4. If you were arrested for public urination - which you do on a daily basis, according to you - would you plead guilty? If so, I know several here who will notify the authorities.

I've given you the passage which shows that everything is a public spectacle, to both men and angels. Deny it all you like, it is still true.

It is not my fault that you don;t have a spiritual aspect to your thinking. You are a physical type woman and that is all there is to it.

It seems you don't understand how principle works either, but then I have seen little sign of you having any principles.

A principle is something which can be applied in many different contexts, "public spectacle" is precisely that, applicable to everything in life.

Oh, answer the questions instead of rambling.

1. And while you're at it, find us ONE THING - one activity - which is not "public."

2. The thesaurus lists "private" as the antonym or opposite of "public". Many times the disciples came to Jesus privately. Could you tell us if they came to Him "publicly" at the same time they came to him "privately."

3. Could you name for us one commonly accepted English dictionary which defines the word "publicly" as you do?

4. If you were arrested for public urination - which you do on a daily basis, according to you - would you plead guilty? If so, I know several here who will notify the authorities.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 1:10:21 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/2/2016 11:27:56 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 4/2/2016 10:45:04 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 4/1/2016 10:15:35 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 3/31/2016 5:41:49 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

That applies also to baptism, which is a public spectacle for men and angels, for precisely the same reasons.

Alright, find us a passage that states that baptism is a public spectacle.

1. And while you're at it, find us ONE THING - one activity - which is not "public."

To humans there are plenty, but since as scripture says there is nothing that can be hidden, the Angels can see whatever they like, which in the case of the unfaithful ones means literally everything.

So if, as scripture does at times you include the Angels, faithful and faithful, then no, nothing is private, everything is public to them.

Like I say, I have no doubt that the faithful Angels allow us reasonable privacy, but the unfaithful? Why on earth should they, they are worse than the nosiest of busybodies.


2. The thesaurus lists "private" as the antonym or opposite of "public". Many times the disciples came to Jesus privately. Could you tell us if they came to Him "publicly" at the same time they came to him "privately."

That is right, it is indeed the antonym of Public, and there we have the proof that what isn't done where no-one can see it, Angel or human, is not essentially private, and since Angels can see anywhere, anything they choose that means nothing is private.


3. Could you name for us one commonly accepted English dictionary which defines the word "publicly" as you do?

Dictionaries are written by humans from a purely human standpoint. I see things from a spiritual standpoint, as you should also, but don't.

That is why your reliance on dictionaries leas you into so much trouble when it comes to scripture. As 1 Corinthians 2:12-16 shows, everything in scripture has to be seen from a spiritual viewpoint, not the human one you always lean on.


4. If you were arrested for public urination - which you do on a daily basis, according to you - would you plead guilty? If so, I know several here who will notify the authorities.

Again we are talking from your usual human standpoint.

If to Jehovah it was against his law then I would be in trouble, but human law only takes humans into account. Since all Jehovah requires is that I do so as far as possible away from human sight that is not a problem.

Again Anna you try to apply my statements out of context.

Also you have evidently not bee into a male toilets or seen a French Pissoire. It is hard not to urinate in public in those since there is no real barrier between urinal stalls, and in Pissoires no barrier at all.


I've given you the passage which shows that everything is a public spectacle, to both men and angels. Deny it all you like, it is still true.

It is not my fault that you don;t have a spiritual aspect to your thinking. You are a physical type woman and that is all there is to it.

It seems you don't understand how principle works either, but then I have seen little sign of you having any principles.

A principle is something which can be applied in many different contexts, "public spectacle" is precisely that, applicable to everything in life.

Oh, answer the questions instead of rambling.

I don't ramble, I explain.

If you don't like the explanations, tough.
Harikrish
Posts: 11,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 1:52:43 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/2/2016 10:45:04 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 4/1/2016 10:15:35 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 3/31/2016 5:41:49 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

That applies also to baptism, which is a public spectacle for men and angels, for precisely the same reasons.

Alright, find us a passage that states that baptism is a public spectacle.

1. And while you're at it, find us ONE THING - one activity - which is not "public."

2. The thesaurus lists "private" as the antonym or opposite of "public". Many times the disciples came to Jesus privately. Could you tell us if they came to Him "publicly" at the same time they came to him "privately."

3. Could you name for us one commonly accepted English dictionary which defines the word "publicly" as you do?

4. If you were arrested for public urination - which you do on a daily basis, according to you - would you plead guilty? If so, I know several here who will notify the authorities.

I've given you the passage which shows that everything is a public spectacle, to both men and angels. Deny it all you like, it is still true.

It is not my fault that you don;t have a spiritual aspect to your thinking. You are a physical type woman and that is all there is to it.

It seems you don't understand how principle works either, but then I have seen little sign of you having any principles.

A principle is something which can be applied in many different contexts, "public spectacle" is precisely that, applicable to everything in life.

You are a public spectacle airing in public forums your failed life, failed marriages, failed father, failed husband, failed JW member. What principle (moral rule or basic truths) are you expounding by your public spectacle except that you lack principle and moral character?
Harikrish
Posts: 11,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 2:23:18 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/1/2016 10:18:03 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/31/2016 11:25:27 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 3/31/2016 5:41:49 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Paul and the Apostles made it very clear that we are no longer under law.
Except that's not clear from the Christian Bible, since it contains both principles and laws in both the Old and New Testaments, and Christians have interpreted it both ways since early Christianity -- whereas, if it were clear, we wouldn't see nearly so much of that.

However what is clear is that trying to define morality from rigid rules isn't workable, and produces cruelty and injustice. And you can only apply principles effectively if you tie them to an accountable understanding of cause and consequence, which means you need observation and reason too: the very elements introduced in the Enlightenment, resulting in massive moral reform to older Judaeo-Christian traditions, which reform continues today.

It's true that early Christian authors realised that principles under laws work better than laws alone. And in fact if you use principles to frame policy, you're working with a system called ethics, which was first explored by pagan and secular Greeks, along with thinkers of other, pre-Christian cultures.

So what we see in MCB's post is familiar in Christian rhetoric. Ideas that pre-date Christianity are appropriated as Christian innovations both through ignorance (people like MCB seldom research where ideas came from), and conceit (would he acknowledge that any Christian thought came from outside the Judaeo-Christian tradition, even if he'd seen evidence that it did?)

The irony here is that living by principles always requires honesty, diligence and self-examination. Or as the pagan Socrates put it: the unexamined life is not worth living.

It's good that anyone of faith seeks to live by principles, but hypocritical when those principals are so selective about evidence. :p

Of course true worship pre-dates Christianity.

Christ taught from the Hebrew Scriptures, particularly the law.

Christianity is not an "New Religion" in any sense of the word. It is quite siply the lates "upgrade" of the old religion which went from:

Individual (Abel, Enoch, Noah etc.

to

Familial (Noah, Abraham, Isaac)

to

The Mosiac Covenant.

to

The New covenant promised at Jeremiah 31:33 which is in effect what Christ brought it to, and despite 1800 years of Apostasy, was re-born by him and is now known as Jehovah's Witnesses.

It still worships the same God, Jehovah,

It is still guided by is only begotten son, first as the Word (AKA Michael) Jehovah's spokesman to fallen humanity, then as our Messiah, incarnate in the body of Jesus, now as Jehovah's reigning King, currently preparing his government in readiness to become the "Lion of Judah", and wrest the rule of this earth from Satan and mankind.

It is still the same religion, still part of the same plan, which will soon be reverted back on to the original plan.

Whether you think of Jehovah's Witnesses as the oldest New Religion on Earth, or the Newest Old Religion, it is still directly connected to the original religion which Adam betrayed.

Simple as.

But you just said: "Paul and the Apostles made it very clear that we are no longer under law."
That would be a drastic change from God issuing Moses the 10 commandments and some 613 Mosaic laws the Jews were bound by which are part of Jewish laws and tradition.

You really don't know what Paul was teaching and how he applied it to living under the law. In fact you didnt even know the rules you were living under when you joined the Jehovah's Witnesses which resulted in you being disfellowshipped and shunned by the JW elders for the past 11 years with little chance of being reinstated.

Why do you continue to present yourself as someone with knowledge of scriptures when you cannot even meet the minimum requirement like honouring the sanctity of marriage, meeting your obligations as a father to your children or following the guidelines you agreed to as a member of the JW.

You made yourself a public spectacle. A freak of nature.
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2016 3:36:45 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/2/2016 1:10:21 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 4/2/2016 11:27:56 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 4/2/2016 10:45:04 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 4/1/2016 10:15:35 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 3/31/2016 5:41:49 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

That applies also to baptism, which is a public spectacle for men and angels, for precisely the same reasons.

Alright, find us a passage that states that baptism is a public spectacle.

1. And while you're at it, find us ONE THING - one activity - which is not "public."

To humans there are plenty, but since as scripture says there is nothing that can be hidden, the Angels can see whatever they like, which in the case of the unfaithful ones means literally everything.

So if, as scripture does at times you include the Angels, faithful and faithful, then no, nothing is private, everything is public to them.

Why, that's nonsense. Of course no one includes dogs, cats, horses, houseflies, or angles. They are not within the purview, the scope, of "public."


2. The thesaurus lists "private" as the antonym or opposite of "public". Many times the disciples came to Jesus privately. Could you tell us if they came to Him "publicly" at the same time they came to him "privately."

That is right, it is indeed the antonym of Public, and there we have the proof that what isn't done where no-one can see it, Angel or human, is not essentially private, and since Angels can see anywhere, anything they choose that means nothing is private.

Then the disciples couldn't have come to Jesus privately, could they? But the scriptures repeatedly state that they DID.


3. Could you name for us one commonly accepted English dictionary which defines the word "publicly" as you do?

Dictionaries are written by humans from a purely human standpoint. I see things from a spiritual standpoint, as you should also, but don't.

Name one, instead of babbling.

That is why your reliance on dictionaries leas you into so much trouble when it comes to scripture. As 1 Corinthians 2:12-16 shows, everything in scripture has to be seen from a spiritual viewpoint, not the human one you always lean on.

You didn't name one yet.


4. If you were arrested for public urination - which you do on a daily basis, according to you - would you plead guilty? If so, I know several here who will notify the authorities.

Again we are talking from your usual human standpoint.

If to Jehovah it was against his law then I would be in trouble, but human law only takes humans into account. Since all Jehovah requires is that I do so as far as possible away from human sight that is not a problem.

Again Anna you try to apply my statements out of context.

Also you have evidently not bee into a male toilets or seen a French Pissoire. It is hard not to urinate in public in those since there is no real barrier between urinal stalls, and in Pissoires no barrier at all.


I've given you the passage which shows that everything is a public spectacle, to both men and angels. Deny it all you like, it is still true.

It is not my fault that you don;t have a spiritual aspect to your thinking. You are a physical type woman and that is all there is to it.

It seems you don't understand how principle works either, but then I have seen little sign of you having any principles.

A principle is something which can be applied in many different contexts, "public spectacle" is precisely that, applicable to everything in life.

Oh, answer the questions instead of rambling.

I don't ramble, I explain.

You ramble without ever answering most of the time.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
nothead
Posts: 371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2016 9:45:59 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/31/2016 5:41:49 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Paul and the Apostles made it very clear that we are no longer under law.


That is totally false. Jesus came not to ABROGATE Law but to fulfill it.

And the highest Law is Shema, the Law of Love, God's love, not no touchy feely wishy washy lovey dovey hunka HUNKA burnin' love...

God's love, which the highest form of is sacrifice of life and limb for another one.
Harikrish
Posts: 11,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2016 9:58:19 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/3/2016 9:45:59 PM, nothead wrote:
At 3/31/2016 5:41:49 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Paul and the Apostles made it very clear that we are no longer under law.


That is totally false. Jesus came not to ABROGATE Law but to fulfill it.

And the highest Law is Shema, the Law of Love, God's love, not no touchy feely wishy washy lovey dovey hunka HUNKA burnin' love...

God's love, which the highest form of is sacrifice of life and limb for another one.

Nice rebuttal....
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2016 10:53:10 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/3/2016 9:45:59 PM, nothead wrote:
At 3/31/2016 5:41:49 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Paul and the Apostles made it very clear that we are no longer under law.


That is totally false. Jesus came not to ABROGATE Law but to fulfill it.

I never said anything other than that.

What dos it en to fulfil something?

It means to bring it's useful life, in its current form, to an end. The Law is no longer a code of conduct, but a tutor teaching us the principles by which we must live.


And the highest Law is Shema, the Law of Love, God's love, not no touchy feely wishy washy lovey dovey hunka HUNKA burnin' love...

God's love, which the highest form of is sacrifice of life and limb for another one.

Shema is a part of false Jewish practice, it bears no relationship with the truth from scripture. If you knew your own scriptures beyond the Torah you would know that.

Of course he didn't come to destroy it, he taught from it, and he taught us how to fulfil Jeremiah 31:33 and put Jehovah's law in our hearts.

There are two overweaning laws, as Jesus pointed out:

Matthew 22:36-40
36 "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37 He said to him: ""You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind." 38 This is the greatest and first commandment. 39 The second, like it, is this: "You must love your neighbor as yourself." 40 On these two commandments the whole Law hangs, and the Prophets."

Note that final verse of the statement which I have highlighted. If you keep just those two commandments fully you have fulfilled the whole of the law and the prophets.

That is one of the ways Jesus fulfilled the law, by teaching us not to rely on a written code but to learn to put the principles in it into action.

Thus whilst the Mosaic Law is no longer a Law Code for follower of Christ it is the source of all the principles we live by, just as Jesus pointed out above.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2016 10:54:15 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/3/2016 9:58:19 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 4/3/2016 9:45:59 PM, nothead wrote:
At 3/31/2016 5:41:49 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Paul and the Apostles made it very clear that we are no longer under law.


That is totally false. Jesus came not to ABROGATE Law but to fulfill it.

And the highest Law is Shema, the Law of Love, God's love, not no touchy feely wishy washy lovey dovey hunka HUNKA burnin' love...

God's love, which the highest form of is sacrifice of life and limb for another one.

Nice rebuttal....

But an inaccurate one. It ignores the true meaning of the word "fulfil".
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2016 10:55:32 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/2/2016 3:36:45 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 4/2/2016 1:10:21 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 4/2/2016 11:27:56 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 4/2/2016 10:45:04 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 4/1/2016 10:15:35 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 3/31/2016 5:41:49 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

That applies also to baptism, which is a public spectacle for men and angels, for precisely the same reasons.

Alright, find us a passage that states that baptism is a public spectacle.

1. And while you're at it, find us ONE THING - one activity - which is not "public."

To humans there are plenty, but since as scripture says there is nothing that can be hidden, the Angels can see whatever they like, which in the case of the unfaithful ones means literally everything.

So if, as scripture does at times you include the Angels, faithful and faithful, then no, nothing is private, everything is public to them.

Why, that's nonsense. Of course no one includes dogs, cats, horses, houseflies, or angles. They are not within the purview, the scope, of "public."


2. The thesaurus lists "private" as the antonym or opposite of "public". Many times the disciples came to Jesus privately. Could you tell us if they came to Him "publicly" at the same time they came to him "privately."

That is right, it is indeed the antonym of Public, and there we have the proof that what isn't done where no-one can see it, Angel or human, is not essentially private, and since Angels can see anywhere, anything they choose that means nothing is private.

Then the disciples couldn't have come to Jesus privately, could they? But the scriptures repeatedly state that they DID.


3. Could you name for us one commonly accepted English dictionary which defines the word "publicly" as you do?

Dictionaries are written by humans from a purely human standpoint. I see things from a spiritual standpoint, as you should also, but don't.

Name one, instead of babbling.

That is why your reliance on dictionaries leas you into so much trouble when it comes to scripture. As 1 Corinthians 2:12-16 shows, everything in scripture has to be seen from a spiritual viewpoint, not the human one you always lean on.

You didn't name one yet.


4. If you were arrested for public urination - which you do on a daily basis, according to you - would you plead guilty? If so, I know several here who will notify the authorities.

Again we are talking from your usual human standpoint.

If to Jehovah it was against his law then I would be in trouble, but human law only takes humans into account. Since all Jehovah requires is that I do so as far as possible away from human sight that is not a problem.

Again Anna you try to apply my statements out of context.

Also you have evidently not bee into a male toilets or seen a French Pissoire. It is hard not to urinate in public in those since there is no real barrier between urinal stalls, and in Pissoires no barrier at all.


I've given you the passage which shows that everything is a public spectacle, to both men and angels. Deny it all you like, it is still true.

It is not my fault that you don;t have a spiritual aspect to your thinking. You are a physical type woman and that is all there is to it.

It seems you don't understand how principle works either, but then I have seen little sign of you having any principles.

A principle is something which can be applied in many different contexts, "public spectacle" is precisely that, applicable to everything in life.

Oh, answer the questions instead of rambling.

I don't ramble, I explain.

You ramble without ever answering most of the time.

No Anna I answer with explanations. I do not ramble. What I type is important and life giving since it is all a part of Jehovah's message.
Harikrish
Posts: 11,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2016 11:06:32 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/3/2016 10:54:15 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 4/3/2016 9:58:19 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 4/3/2016 9:45:59 PM, nothead wrote:
At 3/31/2016 5:41:49 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Paul and the Apostles made it very clear that we are no longer under law.


That is totally false. Jesus came not to ABROGATE Law but to fulfill it.

And the highest Law is Shema, the Law of Love, God's love, not no touchy feely wishy washy lovey dovey hunka HUNKA burnin' love...

God's love, which the highest form of is sacrifice of life and limb for another one.

Nice rebuttal....

But an inaccurate one. It ignores the true meaning of the word "fulfil".
There is no greater love than a man lay down his life for another. It didn't take Nothead 20,000 post to get to the truth.

John 15:13
There is no greater love than to lay down one's life for one's friends.
nothead
Posts: 371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2016 1:03:37 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/3/2016 10:53:10 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 4/3/2016 9:45:59 PM, nothead wrote:
At 3/31/2016 5:41:49 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Paul and the Apostles made it very clear that we are no longer under law.


That is totally false. Jesus came not to ABROGATE Law but to fulfill it.

I never said anything other than that.

What dos it en to fulfil something?

It means to bring it's useful life, in its current form, to an end. The Law is no longer a code of conduct, but a tutor teaching us the principles by which we must live.


And the highest Law is Shema, the Law of Love, God's love, not no touchy feely wishy washy lovey dovey hunka HUNKA burnin' love...

God's love, which the highest form of is sacrifice of life and limb for another one.

Shema is a part of false Jewish practice, it bears no relationship with the truth from scripture. If you knew your own scriptures beyond the Torah you would know that.

Of course he didn't come to destroy it, he taught from it, and he taught us how to fulfil Jeremiah 31:33 and put Jehovah's law in our hearts.

There are two overweaning laws, as Jesus pointed out:

Matthew 22:36-40
36 "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37 He said to him: ""You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind." 38 This is the greatest and first commandment. 39 The second, like it, is this: "You must love your neighbor as yourself." 40 On these two commandments the whole Law hangs, and the Prophets."

Note that final verse of the statement which I have highlighted. If you keep just those two commandments fully you have fulfilled the whole of the law and the prophets.

That is one of the ways Jesus fulfilled the law, by teaching us not to rely on a written code but to learn to put the principles in it into action.

Thus whilst the Mosaic Law is no longer a Law Code for follower of Christ it is the source of all the principles we live by, just as Jesus pointed out above.

Obviously you never understood Shema to begin with. Mk 12 is the AFFIRMATION of the highest Law in Judaism which so happens to also be the highest Law in Christianity. What is Shema, sir?

YHWH our Elohim, YHWH one. Thou shalt love YHWH with all of your heart soul and might. What did Jesus say?

29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:

30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.

And yes the principle is the actual specific commandment in this case. The PRINCIPLE of love first to God and then to neighbor. But this PRINCIPLE came inside the rebirth data and event, the EXPERIENCE we did receive first, what Jehovah's Witnesses do not experience first in Spirit rather in their minds.

It WAS the rebirth Jesus told Nicodemus he must have, the Circumcision of Heart foretold in Deut 30:

6 And the Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live.

This is a SUPERNATURAL rebirth in spirit. The Spirit of God is God's Love first to us. And we in turn reciprocate that which was given as well as we can.

And Shema has never died. The scribe AND Jesus were both referring to Shema in Mk 12 and the principle and content in this case are the same.
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2016 5:43:55 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/3/2016 10:55:32 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:36:45 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 4/2/2016 1:10:21 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 4/2/2016 11:27:56 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 4/2/2016 10:45:04 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 4/1/2016 10:15:35 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 3/31/2016 5:41:49 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

That applies also to baptism, which is a public spectacle for men and angels, for precisely the same reasons.

Alright, find us a passage that states that baptism is a public spectacle.

1. And while you're at it, find us ONE THING - one activity - which is not "public."

To humans there are plenty, but since as scripture says there is nothing that can be hidden, the Angels can see whatever they like, which in the case of the unfaithful ones means literally everything.

So if, as scripture does at times you include the Angels, faithful and faithful, then no, nothing is private, everything is public to them.

Why, that's nonsense. Of course no one includes dogs, cats, horses, houseflies, or angles. They are not within the purview, the scope, of "public."


2. The thesaurus lists "private" as the antonym or opposite of "public". Many times the disciples came to Jesus privately. Could you tell us if they came to Him "publicly" at the same time they came to him "privately."

That is right, it is indeed the antonym of Public, and there we have the proof that what isn't done where no-one can see it, Angel or human, is not essentially private, and since Angels can see anywhere, anything they choose that means nothing is private.

Then the disciples couldn't have come to Jesus privately, could they? But the scriptures repeatedly state that they DID.


3. Could you name for us one commonly accepted English dictionary which defines the word "publicly" as you do?

Dictionaries are written by humans from a purely human standpoint. I see things from a spiritual standpoint, as you should also, but don't.

Name one, instead of babbling.

That is why your reliance on dictionaries leas you into so much trouble when it comes to scripture. As 1 Corinthians 2:12-16 shows, everything in scripture has to be seen from a spiritual viewpoint, not the human one you always lean on.

You didn't name one yet.


4. If you were arrested for public urination - which you do on a daily basis, according to you - would you plead guilty? If so, I know several here who will notify the authorities.

Again we are talking from your usual human standpoint.

If to Jehovah it was against his law then I would be in trouble, but human law only takes humans into account. Since all Jehovah requires is that I do so as far as possible away from human sight that is not a problem.

Again Anna you try to apply my statements out of context.

Also you have evidently not bee into a male toilets or seen a French Pissoire. It is hard not to urinate in public in those since there is no real barrier between urinal stalls, and in Pissoires no barrier at all.


I've given you the passage which shows that everything is a public spectacle, to both men and angels. Deny it all you like, it is still true.

It is not my fault that you don;t have a spiritual aspect to your thinking. You are a physical type woman and that is all there is to it.

It seems you don't understand how principle works either, but then I have seen little sign of you having any principles.

A principle is something which can be applied in many different contexts, "public spectacle" is precisely that, applicable to everything in life.

Oh, answer the questions instead of rambling.

I don't ramble, I explain.

You ramble without ever answering most of the time.

No Anna I answer with explanations. I do not ramble. What I type is important and life giving since it is all a part of Jehovah's message.

Well, this was the question, lest you lose sight of it:

"Could you name for us one commonly-accepted English dictionary or lexicon which defines the word 'publicly' as you do?"

About all you've done is told us again that you have no use for dictionaries. So what? Answer the question anyway. I have little use for negroes, but I'll certainly answer a question about them.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Riwaaz_Ras
Posts: 1,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2016 6:59:51 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/4/2016 5:43:55 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 4/3/2016 10:55:32 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 4/2/2016 3:36:45 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 4/2/2016 1:10:21 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 4/2/2016 11:27:56 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 4/2/2016 10:45:04 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 4/1/2016 10:15:35 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 3/31/2016 5:41:49 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

That applies also to baptism, which is a public spectacle for men and angels, for precisely the same reasons.

Alright, find us a passage that states that baptism is a public spectacle.

1. And while you're at it, find us ONE THING - one activity - which is not "public."

To humans there are plenty, but since as scripture says there is nothing that can be hidden, the Angels can see whatever they like, which in the case of the unfaithful ones means literally everything.

So if, as scripture does at times you include the Angels, faithful and faithful, then no, nothing is private, everything is public to them.

Why, that's nonsense. Of course no one includes dogs, cats, horses, houseflies, or angles. They are not within the purview, the scope, of "public."


2. The thesaurus lists "private" as the antonym or opposite of "public". Many times the disciples came to Jesus privately. Could you tell us if they came to Him "publicly" at the same time they came to him "privately."

That is right, it is indeed the antonym of Public, and there we have the proof that what isn't done where no-one can see it, Angel or human, is not essentially private, and since Angels can see anywhere, anything they choose that means nothing is private.

Then the disciples couldn't have come to Jesus privately, could they? But the scriptures repeatedly state that they DID.


3. Could you name for us one commonly accepted English dictionary which defines the word "publicly" as you do?

Dictionaries are written by humans from a purely human standpoint. I see things from a spiritual standpoint, as you should also, but don't.

Name one, instead of babbling.

That is why your reliance on dictionaries leas you into so much trouble when it comes to scripture. As 1 Corinthians 2:12-16 shows, everything in scripture has to be seen from a spiritual viewpoint, not the human one you always lean on.

You didn't name one yet.


4. If you were arrested for public urination - which you do on a daily basis, according to you - would you plead guilty? If so, I know several here who will notify the authorities.

Again we are talking from your usual human standpoint.

If to Jehovah it was against his law then I would be in trouble, but human law only takes humans into account. Since all Jehovah requires is that I do so as far as possible away from human sight that is not a problem.

Again Anna you try to apply my statements out of context.

Also you have evidently not bee into a male toilets or seen a French Pissoire. It is hard not to urinate in public in those since there is no real barrier between urinal stalls, and in Pissoires no barrier at all.


I've given you the passage which shows that everything is a public spectacle, to both men and angels. Deny it all you like, it is still true.

It is not my fault that you don;t have a spiritual aspect to your thinking. You are a physical type woman and that is all there is to it.

It seems you don't understand how principle works either, but then I have seen little sign of you having any principles.

A principle is something which can be applied in many different contexts, "public spectacle" is precisely that, applicable to everything in life.

Oh, answer the questions instead of rambling.

I don't ramble, I explain.

You ramble without ever answering most of the time.

No Anna I answer with explanations. I do not ramble. What I type is important and life giving since it is all a part of Jehovah's message.

Well, this was the question, lest you lose sight of it:

"Could you name for us one commonly-accepted English dictionary or lexicon which defines the word 'publicly' as you do?"

About all you've done is told us again that you have no use for dictionaries. So what? Answer the question anyway. I have little use for negroes, but I'll certainly answer a question about them.

Ever had bbc?
(This is not a goodbye message. I may or may not come back after ten years.)
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2016 10:32:46 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/4/2016 5:43:55 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 4/3/2016 10:55:32 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:


You ramble without ever answering most of the time.

No Anna I answer with explanations. I do not ramble. What I type is important and life giving since it is all a part of Jehovah's message.

Well, this was the question, lest you lose sight of it:

"Could you name for us one commonly-accepted English dictionary or lexicon which defines the word 'publicly' as you do?"

About all you've done is told us again that you have no use for dictionaries. So what? Answer the question anyway. I have little use for negroes, but I'll certainly answer a question about them.

You have "little use for Negroes eh". How Christian of you. Prejudice lives in Anna's heart.

Negroes are our equals in every way, as far as Jehovah is concerned, in fact if Genetics are to be believed we are all descended from them. We are all Brothers and Sisters, no matter how far removed.

Maybe that is why you don;t like JWs, because you would have to accept Negroes as your equals, as your Brothers and Sisters, if you were to become one.

You reveal more of your poisonous nature with almost every post Anna.

I presume therefore that you don't sunbathe or use tanning studios so you can imitate their colour, however pale an imitation it may be. I always thought that was ironic, people spending thousands to look like pale copies of those they hated, lol.

You know my answer to that question as well as you do, you even have it in your signature.
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2016 12:58:22 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/4/2016 10:32:46 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 4/4/2016 5:43:55 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 4/3/2016 10:55:32 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:


You ramble without ever answering most of the time.

No Anna I answer with explanations. I do not ramble. What I type is important and life giving since it is all a part of Jehovah's message.

Well, this was the question, lest you lose sight of it:

"Could you name for us one commonly-accepted English dictionary or lexicon which defines the word 'publicly' as you do?"

About all you've done is told us again that you have no use for dictionaries. So what? Answer the question anyway. I have little use for negroes, but I'll certainly answer a question about them.

You have "little use for Negroes eh". How Christian of you. Prejudice lives in Anna's heart.

Negroes are our equals in every way, as far as Jehovah is concerned, in fact if Genetics are to be believed we are all descended from them. We are all Brothers and Sisters, no matter how far removed.

Maybe that is why you don;t like JWs, because you would have to accept Negroes as your equals, as your Brothers and Sisters, if you were to become one.

You reveal more of your poisonous nature with almost every post Anna.

I presume therefore that you don't sunbathe or use tanning studios so you can imitate their colour, however pale an imitation it may be. I always thought that was ironic, people spending thousands to look like pale copies of those they hated, lol.

You know my answer to that question as well as you do, you even have it in your signature.

More circular rambling!

Anna: "Could you name for us one commonly-accepted English dictionary or lexicon which defines the word 'publicly' as you do?"

MadClown: "No, no dictionary defines the word as I do."

THERE is the answer.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2016 8:39:40 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/4/2016 12:58:22 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 4/4/2016 10:32:46 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 4/4/2016 5:43:55 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 4/3/2016 10:55:32 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:


You ramble without ever answering most of the time.

No Anna I answer with explanations. I do not ramble. What I type is important and life giving since it is all a part of Jehovah's message.

Well, this was the question, lest you lose sight of it:

"Could you name for us one commonly-accepted English dictionary or lexicon which defines the word 'publicly' as you do?"

About all you've done is told us again that you have no use for dictionaries. So what? Answer the question anyway. I have little use for negroes, but I'll certainly answer a question about them.

You have "little use for Negroes eh". How Christian of you. Prejudice lives in Anna's heart.

Negroes are our equals in every way, as far as Jehovah is concerned, in fact if Genetics are to be believed we are all descended from them. We are all Brothers and Sisters, no matter how far removed.

Maybe that is why you don;t like JWs, because you would have to accept Negroes as your equals, as your Brothers and Sisters, if you were to become one.

You reveal more of your poisonous nature with almost every post Anna.

I presume therefore that you don't sunbathe or use tanning studios so you can imitate their colour, however pale an imitation it may be. I always thought that was ironic, people spending thousands to look like pale copies of those they hated, lol.

You know my answer to that question as well as you do, you even have it in your signature.

More circular rambling!


Anna: "Could you name for us one commonly-accepted English dictionary or lexicon which defines the word 'publicly' as you do?"

MadClown: "No, no dictionary defines the word as I do."

THERE is the answer.

Not at all.

Many dictionaries include most of the usages in scripture, though some are now obsolete since language has changed much over the years.

And that is another reasons I don't need dictionaries.

Having a good vocabulary helps of course, but most useful is an ability to analyse writing accurately, a skill I have long had, but honed somewhat whilst studying with the Open University for something to do about 5 years ago.

Shame you are so useless at it, and an even bigger shame you are too arrogant to admit it.
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2016 8:42:07 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/4/2016 8:39:40 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 4/4/2016 12:58:22 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 4/4/2016 10:32:46 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 4/4/2016 5:43:55 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 4/3/2016 10:55:32 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:


You ramble without ever answering most of the time.

No Anna I answer with explanations. I do not ramble. What I type is important and life giving since it is all a part of Jehovah's message.

Well, this was the question, lest you lose sight of it:

"Could you name for us one commonly-accepted English dictionary or lexicon which defines the word 'publicly' as you do?"

About all you've done is told us again that you have no use for dictionaries. So what? Answer the question anyway. I have little use for negroes, but I'll certainly answer a question about them.

You have "little use for Negroes eh". How Christian of you. Prejudice lives in Anna's heart.

Negroes are our equals in every way, as far as Jehovah is concerned, in fact if Genetics are to be believed we are all descended from them. We are all Brothers and Sisters, no matter how far removed.

Maybe that is why you don;t like JWs, because you would have to accept Negroes as your equals, as your Brothers and Sisters, if you were to become one.

You reveal more of your poisonous nature with almost every post Anna.

I presume therefore that you don't sunbathe or use tanning studios so you can imitate their colour, however pale an imitation it may be. I always thought that was ironic, people spending thousands to look like pale copies of those they hated, lol.

You know my answer to that question as well as you do, you even have it in your signature.

More circular rambling!


Anna: "Could you name for us one commonly-accepted English dictionary or lexicon which defines the word 'publicly' as you do?"

MadClown: "No, no dictionary defines the word as I do."

THERE is the answer.

Not at all.

Many dictionaries include most of the usages in scripture, though some are now obsolete since language has changed much over the years.

... then don't hesitate to supply us with a reference or two from reputable, recognized dictionaries/lexicons which define the word "public" as you do.

If not, then we'll stick with, "No, no dictionary defines the word as I do."
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2016 8:58:20 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/4/2016 8:42:07 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 4/4/2016 8:39:40 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 4/4/2016 12:58:22 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 4/4/2016 10:32:46 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 4/4/2016 5:43:55 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 4/3/2016 10:55:32 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:


You ramble without ever answering most of the time.

No Anna I answer with explanations. I do not ramble. What I type is important and life giving since it is all a part of Jehovah's message.

Well, this was the question, lest you lose sight of it:

"Could you name for us one commonly-accepted English dictionary or lexicon which defines the word 'publicly' as you do?"

About all you've done is told us again that you have no use for dictionaries. So what? Answer the question anyway. I have little use for negroes, but I'll certainly answer a question about them.

You have "little use for Negroes eh". How Christian of you. Prejudice lives in Anna's heart.

Negroes are our equals in every way, as far as Jehovah is concerned, in fact if Genetics are to be believed we are all descended from them. We are all Brothers and Sisters, no matter how far removed.

Maybe that is why you don;t like JWs, because you would have to accept Negroes as your equals, as your Brothers and Sisters, if you were to become one.

You reveal more of your poisonous nature with almost every post Anna.

I presume therefore that you don't sunbathe or use tanning studios so you can imitate their colour, however pale an imitation it may be. I always thought that was ironic, people spending thousands to look like pale copies of those they hated, lol.

You know my answer to that question as well as you do, you even have it in your signature.

More circular rambling!


Anna: "Could you name for us one commonly-accepted English dictionary or lexicon which defines the word 'publicly' as you do?"

MadClown: "No, no dictionary defines the word as I do."

THERE is the answer.

Not at all.

Many dictionaries include most of the usages in scripture, though some are now obsolete since language has changed much over the years.

... then don't hesitate to supply us with a reference or two from reputable, recognized dictionaries/lexicons which define the word "public" as you do.

If not, then we'll stick with, "No, no dictionary defines the word as I do."

You have already done that. As you said it is the antonym of Private.

Since Angels can see everyone everywhere there is no privacy from them, therefore everything is public to them.

Yawn.

Your stupid petty quibbling over words is getting boring, and is certainly against scripture.