slimboyfat

Joined

• started 539 topics
• posted 17,646 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by slimboyfat

• 
  11530

  It's been a long 9 years Lloyd Evans / John Cedars

  by Newly Enlightened in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  original reddit post (removed).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  My impression is he’s a good guy too, although I find some of his titles and takes a bit cringe because they tend to overstate the case in the way that YouTube videos probably have to in order to get attention. Plus the videos are far too long. They need to get to the point. There’s another YouTuber I follow who summarises his main point at the start of the video in under a minute and then lets his audience decide whether they want to watch the whole 20 minutes or so. That’s an excellent approach and probably why he’s got millions of subscribers. 👍
• 
  55

  "Independent" Scotland joke!

  by BoogerMan in

  1. social
  2. current

  humza yousaf, scotland's first minister, said: "scotland, i'm afraid, is suffering because we are not independent.

  " https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-66012834.

  try telling that to scotland's tourists and many island communities: the ferry services are dying month by month, and the two new overdue & over-budget ferries justify a serious legal/criminal enquiry.. any bunch of incompetents who can't provide a small country with a ferry service and a legally binding contract to build 2 new boats - having controlled scotland since 2007 - has no credibility in claiming they could run a country!.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  Journeyman you are entitled to your opinion that Scotland shouldn’t be independent. But if you are arguing that Scotland has no right to choose independence then I don’t think there is any basis for discussion here. Even the most extreme unionists at Holyrood or Westminster have argued against independence but have accepted that Scotland has the right to choose independence if it wishes. Because they have generally understood and recognised that the idea that the union is not voluntary is fatal to the concept of union.

  None of your whataboutery over the EU works. Scotland is under 10% of the population of UK. Whereas the UK was more than 10% of the population of the EU. If you are saying that England has control over Scotland in a way that Europe didn’t have control over Scotland then you are turning Scotland into a colony or a captive state.

  The closest analogy to Scotland leaving the union of course is Ireland leaving the union in 1921. Hardly anybody now argues that Ireland had no right to independence or that Westminster didn’t handle it atrociously. And where is the movement in the Republic of Ireland to rejoin the UK? There isn’t one. Or if there is it’s so tiny it doesn’t have any representation at any level of politics in the Republic of Ireland. Because Ireland is now more prosperous and outward looking than the UK. The idea that Scotland would be the first country in world history to “regret” independence is pure unionist fantasy. Countries such as Ireland that declare independence don’t look back.

  The union of the crowns took place in 1603 and the 2014 referendum didn’t propose to end that union. It was the voluntary political union of the Scottish state with the English state in 1707 that will be dissolved on independence.
• 
  55

  "Independent" Scotland joke!

  by BoogerMan in

  1. social
  2. current

  humza yousaf, scotland's first minister, said: "scotland, i'm afraid, is suffering because we are not independent.

  " https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-66012834.

  try telling that to scotland's tourists and many island communities: the ferry services are dying month by month, and the two new overdue & over-budget ferries justify a serious legal/criminal enquiry.. any bunch of incompetents who can't provide a small country with a ferry service and a legally binding contract to build 2 new boats - having controlled scotland since 2007 - has no credibility in claiming they could run a country!.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  ITSupport great to “see” you. I hope you’re doing well!

  LoveUni I wonder were you in favour of France or Germany having a vote on whether the UK should be allowed to break up the European Union?
• 
  11530

  It's been a long 9 years Lloyd Evans / John Cedars

  by Newly Enlightened in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  original reddit post (removed).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  It was a classic. Would be fun if we could enter it for some sort of award, a fitting legacy you might say. ‘Shooting yourself in the foot video award’, or something.
• 
  12

  Wimbledon's attitude to Russian/Belorussian players ...

  by LoveUniHateExams in

  1. social
  2. current

  ... is absolutely ridiculous.. last year, 2022, russian and belorussian tennis players were banned from wimbledon.

  let that just sink in.

  if you were a pro tennis player, and happened to be a russian or belorussian citizen, the all england club decided that you could not compete at their annual grass tournament.. let's explore that particular brand of discrimination and lunacy further.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  It’s only fair after all - remember all the UK and US athletes who were banned from the 2004 Olympics following the illegal invasion of Iraq.

  And it’ll be good to see Putin in The Hague once the trials of Blair and Bush are wrapped up.
• 
  16

  Did Jesus say the God of the OT is not the same God as mine??

  by Diogenesister in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  bart erhman states, in this you tube short presumably taken from the video series he has been doing with megan lewis*, that jesus said the god of the ot, the god of jeremiah, is not the (same)god as jesus.

  bart continues "jeremiah's god killed (the children) - jesus said let the children come to me.

  jesus' god said turn the other cheek" - the ot god was war-like etc (paraphrasing bart here a bit).. it's always been the thing that stopped my fully embracing the bible after leaving watchtower.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  Matthew 22

  Marriage at the Resurrection

  23 That same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question.24 “Teacher,” they said, “Moses told us that if a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and raise up offspring for him. 25 Now there were seven brothers among us. The first one married and died, and since he had no children, he left his wife to his brother. 26 The same thing happened to the second and third brother, right on down to the seventh. 27 Finally, the woman died. 28 Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her?”

  29 Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God.30 At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. 31 But about the resurrection of the dead—have you not read what God said to you, 32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.”
• 
  81

  Careful what you wish for! Regarding Jehovah in the New Testament

  by pizzahut2023 in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  ok i'll bite.. let's say for a moment that jehovah's witnesses are right, and that the nt autographs (the originals) contained the tetragrammaton.let's say that the nt writers always wrote "jehovah" in greek (iexoba, as the witnesses spell it currently) when they quoted the hebrew scriptures, whether they quoted from the hebrew version or the septuagint, and jehovah's name appeared on the quote.

  let's say that the original septuagint always had iexoba whenever they were referring to jehovah.then we have that the original septuagint said in psalms 101:26-28 the following:"at the beginning it was you, o jehovah, who founded the earth, and the heavens are works of your hands.

  they will perish, but you will endure, and they will all become old like a garment.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  
  

  Hopefully you can make out that photo. It is from FF Bruce’s commentary on Hebrews, where he explains that it is God who is addressing the Son as “Lord” in Heb 1.10 in accordance with a messianic interpretation of Psalm 101 in the Greek. You can read the commentary at the following link, although I think you need to make an account with the archive site, which is well worth doing anyway.

  https://archive.org/details/epistletohebrews0000ffbr/page/22/mode/2up?view=theater
  
• 
  81

  Careful what you wish for! Regarding Jehovah in the New Testament

  by pizzahut2023 in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  ok i'll bite.. let's say for a moment that jehovah's witnesses are right, and that the nt autographs (the originals) contained the tetragrammaton.let's say that the nt writers always wrote "jehovah" in greek (iexoba, as the witnesses spell it currently) when they quoted the hebrew scriptures, whether they quoted from the hebrew version or the septuagint, and jehovah's name appeared on the quote.

  let's say that the original septuagint always had iexoba whenever they were referring to jehovah.then we have that the original septuagint said in psalms 101:26-28 the following:"at the beginning it was you, o jehovah, who founded the earth, and the heavens are works of your hands.

  they will perish, but you will endure, and they will all become old like a garment.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  Personally I think Fred Franz invested far too much faith in the so-called J, or Hebrew versions as a guide for where to restore the divine name. Apart from the couple of Hebrew versions that possibly reflect ancient originals, I don’t see why Hebrew versions should have any more weight than the judgment of other modern translators, or more importantly, internal and external considerations in the individual texts themselves.

  Psalm 102 isn’t messianic in the Hebrew original, but the author of Hebrews is quoting Psalm 101 in the Greek version. The Hebrew version doesn’t have the word Lord or the name YHWH in verse 25. It says:

  In the beginning you laid the foundations of the earth,
  and the heavens are the work of your hands.

  But the Greek version of the Psalm uses the word Lord.

  26 In the beginning thou, O Lord, didst lay the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands.

  Some commentators have noted that God appears to be speaking to this “Lord” because in the previous verse in the Greek it says:

  24 He answered him in the way of his strength: tell me the fewness of my days. 25 Take me not away in the midst of my days: thy years are through all generations. 26 In the beginning thou, O Lord, didst lay the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands.

  It seems like a radically different take, but parts of the LXX were read as Christological statements like this, that are quite different from their original contexts. Note the Christian reading of the “young woman” in Isaiah 7, the “angel of great counsel” in Isaiah 9, the suffering servant in Isaiah 53, the messianic king in Psalm 2,45, 110, and so on.

  In the context of Hebrews chapter 1 we have already been told that it is God who created through his Son in Heb 1.2. So presumably Heb 1.10 was meant to complement that statement, not contradict it. The quotation of Psalm 101 in the LXX was intended to underline the part that the Son of God played in the creation of the physical heavens and earth, and the contrast between him as the instrument of creation who will never fade, and the nature of material things that wear out over time.

  I need to think about where I got the idea that the NWT erred on the side of caution in where to restore the divine name. It’s probably in the front matter of the versious editions of the NWT and KIT but I haven’t checked.
• 
  55

  "Independent" Scotland joke!

  by BoogerMan in

  1. social
  2. current

  humza yousaf, scotland's first minister, said: "scotland, i'm afraid, is suffering because we are not independent.

  " https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-66012834.

  try telling that to scotland's tourists and many island communities: the ferry services are dying month by month, and the two new overdue & over-budget ferries justify a serious legal/criminal enquiry.. any bunch of incompetents who can't provide a small country with a ferry service and a legally binding contract to build 2 new boats - having controlled scotland since 2007 - has no credibility in claiming they could run a country!.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  Independence supporters would always want another referendum of course, but they don’t get it unless they win an election on that basis. They lost the first two Holyrood elections and look set to lose the next one. But when there is more than 50% support for it then there should be another referendum. That’s democracy.

  Rejoining the UK would require the agreement of the rest of the UK and would not be a decision of Scotland alone. But if there was support for it on both sides of the border then it would be reasonable to pursue that. It would probably be a very marginal position if it gained again traction at all.

  Because it’s worth pointing out that dozens of countries have declared independence in recent decades, including many who declared independence from the British state. None of them have the slightest interest in giving up their independence as far as I know. Again it’s a strange kind of exceptionalism that imagines Scotland will be the first country in history to regret and want to give up its independence once taken.

  The future is always uncertain but at the moment it looks like a second independent will be held and some point and that Scotland will opt for independence. It would be good to make the best of it for all the people of the UK.
• 
  55

  "Independent" Scotland joke!

  by BoogerMan in

  1. social
  2. current

  humza yousaf, scotland's first minister, said: "scotland, i'm afraid, is suffering because we are not independent.

  " https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-66012834.

  try telling that to scotland's tourists and many island communities: the ferry services are dying month by month, and the two new overdue & over-budget ferries justify a serious legal/criminal enquiry.. any bunch of incompetents who can't provide a small country with a ferry service and a legally binding contract to build 2 new boats - having controlled scotland since 2007 - has no credibility in claiming they could run a country!.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  If Scotland were to have a second IndyRef, and the result was the same as the first one, would you accept that result, or would you press for a third referendum?

  Scotland should be able to have another referendum if it chooses, in principle, now or any time in the future. In reality a second referendum might be the last. That’s a recognition of the political reality, not some sort of promise. It’s a basic democratic principle that current voters can’t tie the hands of future voters, or prevent them from changing their mind on any issue.

  But I don’t think many people appreciate what a high bar has been reached to get a referendum the first time and to get another one, if it happens. Basically it requires the majority in a parliament that was specifically designed not to produce a majority. The SNP defied the odds and got an overall majority in 2011 because their support was so high at the time. It had never happened before and it wasn’t expected to happen. That’s why we got the first referendum in the first place, it wasn’t some sort of gift from David Cameron, it was a recognition of the overwhelming democratic case for one.

  Getting a majority in the Scottish parliament is very difficult to achieve because it is a proportional system. So if a majority in the parliament supports a second referendum then that is because the electorate has voted for parties on that basis in huge numbers (far higher percentages than elects the typical UK government for example) and that democratic vote should be respected. The idea that Scotland can keep voting for another referendum and Westminster keep saying you can’t have another one is likely to create significant ill feeling the longer it goes on. It’s a huge sign of weakness too that Westminster feels it would lose a referendum at this point and needs to resort to holding Scotland against its will. Surely nobody thinks that’s a good idea.

  But then you get people saying “you can’t have referendums all the time”. Well I would agree that would be impractical. But a second referendum after 10 years is hardly “all the time”, even by LE’s definition of “regular basis”. Secondly, there have been huge breaches in the promises of the No campaign made during the first referendum, such as staying in the EU as part of the UK, and not meddling in devolved governance.

  Quebec had two referendums and are done for the time being. The political reality is that a second referendum in Scotland would likely be conclusive for an even longer period of time, not because of some preset rule, but just because of the political reality of the situation.