spamandham

You are misquoting Matthew 24:30. The 'sign of the son of man' is to appear in heaven, not in the clouds, and the son of man himself will be seen in the clouds with great power and glory. All the tribes of the earth will see this. It will not be some secret JW crazy talk bullshit that makes a cyber-lunatic in desperate need of mental health medical help the messiah - instead it's 1st/2nd century crazy talk bullshit designed to make some other lunatic out to be the messiah.

(So apparently 'the devil' hasn't discovered this location, even though he's practically omnicient, with the power to simultaneoulsy read 6 billion minds and tempt them all.)

By your insano interpretation of Revelation, the 3.5 years has already started. According to Revelation, the eagle flees to the place of asylum to be protected for only 3.5 years. So, when Oct 2010 rolls around, will you realize you are not the messiah after all, or will you just come up with some other bullshit instead?

No, it's a slam dunk. You are most definitely insane and in need of medical attention. The only thing that's interesting about it, is that you seem to have convinced a few other gullible people in addition to yourself. Of course, I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out those other people don't actually exist, but are simply part of your schitzophrenia.

Come on now, say it with me, "lithium".

Steve Weiss

All references to the bible as an accurate source of facts and truth are to a book of fiction sold as ultimate and unquestionable truth. To make references to this fictional and contradictory work of propaganda is to accept its relevance to historic and scientific truth, for which there is none.

There is no point debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin when there are no angels. Just because an actual pin is mentioned doesn't legitimize the issue. No book that is full of miracles and impossibilities is worth debating, and to participate in such is to concede the battle for truth and to give standing to that which is an obvious con job.

Larsguy47

I heart you. But truly, I believe everyone is entitled to express five incorrect opinions. You have four to go.


Some things in the Bible were written for only a few select ones to understand. To others it seems to be meaningless or confusing, even if the secret meaning is explained.

Acts 13:41 ‘Behold it, YOU scorners, and wonder at it, and vanish away, because I am working a work in YOUR days, a work that YOU will by no means believe even if anyone relates it to YOU in detail.’”

How do you know I'm not just pretending to be crazy to deceive you? What is my real motive? Have you figured it out yet?


Well, maybe people who have spoken with God themselves or been visited by angels are a little more open than someone who hasn't. You know of course, that when Christ arrives the angels are sent out to gather the anointed, right? Did you realize that part of that process involved them materializing and pretending to be human? That's right. So it's more than just some people in some secretive society refusing to come out into the open, they are supported by angels who control things pretending to be human, but they are not. You might have even seen one or two thinking they were just ordinary people. It's the perfect disguise. Some even fake being criminals to get arrested so they become cell mates to a target member.

Think about it. God is supposed to come here and destroy the unworthy. If an angel posed as a bum on the street to test your level of human kindness, and you knew he was an angel, and it was announced that he was there that weekend testing human kindness of individuals, would you walk past him if he asked you for a quarter, or would you give him a dollar? But God doesn't do the test that way. He tells you AFTER the fact who are angels. That way he knows for sure what your true motive is.


34 “Then the king will say to those on his right, ‘Come, YOU who have been blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for YOU from the founding of the world. 35 For I became hungry and YOU gave me something to eat; I got thirsty and YOU gave me something to drink. I was a stranger and YOU received me hospitably; 36 naked, and YOU clothed me. I fell sick and YOU looked after me. I was in prison and YOU came to me.’ 37
[You saw that I was schitzophrenic and offered me lithium? ] Then the righteous ones will answer him with the words, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty, and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and receive you hospitably, or naked, and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to you?’ 40 And in reply the king will say to them, ‘Truly I say to YOU, To the extent that YOU did it to one of the least of these my brothers, YOU did it to me.’

How do you know I'm not sent here by God just to see who is opposed to me and the Bible compared to some nice people who feel sorry for me and kindly encourage me to seek medical help?

Maybe God sent me here just to see who would be sentimental and who would be sarcastic.

LG47

Larsguy47

There is just lack of what archaeologists are expecting from people living in tents in this period after the Exodus up to the battle of Qarqar. After Qarqar there is relatively consistent confirmation in the Assyrian, Babylonian and Persian records of what happened to the Jews and the part they played in this region. So your comment about "which there is none" is only for things that simply don't have easy corroroboration by extra-Biblical sources. So you can't say, "Ahhh, the Bible is just a book of fiction where 100% of the characters never existed, including Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon, also a fictional character of which there is "no scientific turth" or evidence any such king existed." People will laugh at you.

There are too angels and some of them are posing as humans, watching mankind and taking notes. Can you prove every person you've seen are human and not materialized angels? Of course you can't. So your disbelief in angels is based upon your person defense mechanism not to believe it, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

This is what will happen. The angels and God will come out of the woodwork, start performing their amazing works, and then you'll say: "Oh! I guess I was wrong." And that's it. Then you'll say, "What about my strong belief and apparent fantasy that you didn't exist? Doesn't that count for something? Doesn't that prove you didn't exist?" Apparently not.


LG47

trendkill

This is probably the best kind of evidence for the existence of God that there is. "God came and had a conversation with me." Such experiences can be very hard to argue with, because they form the basis of your reality much like all your other experience.

The problem is of course that, unlike your other experiences, this one is not nearly as easy to corroborate. The world is full of people who've had vivid experiences of God, and few of them actually match up enough that they seem to be experiencing the same being in an accurate manner. We can note that, due to the mutual incompatibility between the various experiences of God, that no matter what the truth of God's nature and revelation might be, the majority of people who have direct perceptions of it are perceiving inaccurately. This in turn means that, even if God exists, any particular religious revelation is more likely than not to be inaccurate.

This, I think, is a powerful counterweight to the most powerful evidence of the existence of God. Any religious person can rest assured that there is someone else out there whose religious experiences are as powerful and convincing as his, yet from his perspective, that person is completely deluded.

There are tens of thousands of distinct religious sects based on the Bible, and even more different theologies. Many of these belief systems are wildly different from one another. It would hardly an amazing coincidence if a particular theistic revelation was compatible with some interpretation of the Bible. Nor would it be surprising if a delusion confirmed the framework of the deluded person's previous beliefs.


Not necessarily. They might also not believe because religious experience in general is unreliable in terms of its specific content.

Larsguy47

Thanks!!!

34 “Then the king will say to those on his right, ‘Come, YOU who have been blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for YOU from the founding of the world. 35 For I became hungry and YOU gave me something to eat; I got thirsty and YOU gave me something to drink. I was a stranger and YOU received me hospitably; 36 naked, and YOU clothed me. I fell sick and YOU looked after me. I was in prison and YOU came to me.’ 37 Then the righteous ones will answer him with the words, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty, and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and receive you hospitably, or naked, and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to you?’ 40 And in reply the king will say to them, ‘Truly I say to YOU, To the extent that YOU did it to one of the least of these my brothers, YOU did it to me.’

spamandham

I certainly never made such a claim, nor did I intend to imply it!

I'm analyzing the Bible from a literary perspective here, not a historical perspective. Messiah47 can't even figure out what the fucking book actually says.

Larsguy47

Thanks for the explanation, and BELIEVE ME!, this board is far more open than most. But if the "categories" are too specific and stringent, sometimes it doesn't allow the natural sway of issues. Sometimes a topic will bloom toward a tangent but then get back to the main topic eventually. If that "natural process" of working out the details and getting on the same plane to return to the main topic is curtailed prematurely then it serves no more than an interruption. Sometimes it takes a few posts just to explain the relevance to the topic, but we never get there.

And it is a fine line and I do believe moderators serve a good purpose, but sometimes it is a fine line on some issues. Judgment calls are inevitable. But sometimes, in the court system for instance, when things are not certain, a decision is made to "error on the side of doubt."

For instance, I can assure you I indeed am the messiah. I'm not crazy. And this is probably a test. You're judging me on what I've have shown you only. But maybe I haven't told you EVERYTHING. Did you know there was more than one image that showed up in the clouds that day?

Now according to the Bible, lots of people will eventually be convinced that indeed, the messiah is the messiah! They come knocking on the door to to get into the kingdom. So something they weren't exposed to before, or some miracle occurs, convinces them of the truth. But it doesn't do them any good as far as getting into the kingdom.

See what I mean? Better to err on the side of doubt. Because if I truly am the messiah, then it is likely that it's not me that is under examination here, but you. Right?



LG47

spamandham

By my count, I still have five.

My guess is any psychiatrist would declare you clinically insane, and the JWs are in part culpable for your insanity. If you are lucky enough to seek help before you end up killing yourself (and probably taking others with you), perhaps you will sue those fuckers for brain washing you.

Those bastards have probably destroyed your life. Escape if you can. Get out now, and seek help.

This is not an insult to you, it's a plea. What do you have to lose by seeking professional medical help if you really are the Messiah? If you are, it will be obvious to those who examine you and they will convert.

spamandham

I don't know that you are not simply a poser, but I'm reacting as if you are not. I recognize that you might be a perfectly rational person playing some kind of odd game. I also recognize that you might actually be insane.

Your jumbled incoherent approach is either the work of a madman, or a genius impersonating a madman. Take that as a complement if appropriate.