Posts by MeanMrMustard

25

Jehovah is Satan

by VW.org in

i found a very convincing youtube video showing that jehovah of the old testament is satan and the god of the new testament is god the father.. https://youtu.be/-eyp4n0xkxk.

MeanMrMustard

@Old Navy: We must also remember that when the Southern Kingdom was removed from the land, many people went without decent underwear.

25

Jehovah is Satan

by VW.org in

i found a very convincing youtube video showing that jehovah of the old testament is satan and the god of the new testament is god the father.. https://youtu.be/-eyp4n0xkxk.

MeanMrMustard

@David_Jay:

Yes, we are basically saying the same thing - mainly the YouTuber’s argument has internal inconsistencies. As you say - it is self defeating.

Cheers!

38

Barred from entering kh

by poopie in

jw
friends

a friend of mine called last night we will call him tom.

he is df now for 2 yrs for associating with a a df person non relative.

anyway he arrived at the meeting this week and was informed by 3 elders that he was no longer welcomed at the hall.apparently he was caught greeting someone in the parking lot after meeting.

MeanMrMustard

Left out of the story: he arrived at the meeting wearing his best meeting shoes ... only.

And then he greeted someone in the parking lot.... with a “helicopter”...

25

Jehovah is Satan

by VW.org in

i found a very convincing youtube video showing that jehovah of the old testament is satan and the god of the new testament is god the father.. https://youtu.be/-eyp4n0xkxk.

Sure. But I don’t think it matters if you consider Jesus as YHWH or not. Even if you don’t be believe Jesus is YHWH, or even of you think the entire thing is a story myth. It doesn’t matter because you have to at least explain the internal contradiction if you are keen on this theory of OT YHWH = Satan.

Jesus, the good guy, identified himself with the OT YHWH. Whatever your beliefs on the nature of Jesus, it presents a bit of an issue for the theory, eh?

Seems to me if you want to say OT YHWH = Satan, then you at least put Jesus in Satan’s camp.

25

Jehovah is Satan

by VW.org in

i found a very convincing youtube video showing that jehovah of the old testament is satan and the god of the new testament is god the father.. https://youtu.be/-eyp4n0xkxk.

MeanMrMustard

I am at work and have not watched all the videos. Browsing threads at lunch - but just a surface question:

Jesus at one point ( as a lost child ) said it should have been easy to find him because he would be in his “Father’s house” (Luke 2:49). In this context, it was the Jewish Temple... the house of the OT YHWH. How does this theory reconcile this statement? Is Jesus the son of God, or YHWH (since YHWH in this theory = Satan)

27

At the annual meeting right now . . .

by neat blue dog in

i'm at the recorded meeting right now.

trying to hide my disgust sitting up front listening to geoffrey jackson quibble about the pharisaical minutai of sanctification vs. vindication.

the audience is thrilled that they now have 'permission' to say god's name can be vindicated.

MeanMrMustard

@neat blue dog:

Stephen Lett just said that God gave Jesus "immorality" in the heavens. The audience laughed and he corrected himself. Seconds later he said "organism". Couldn't help thinking he dodged a bullet with that word too 😉

Back in the day when I attended meetings and went to the good ol in-home book study, it was held at an older brother’s house. This guy was one step away from senile, but out of respect, he was most often the reader. When we studied the creation book we learned, of course, that all “orgasms” were created, not evolved. We learned that God created all varieties of “orgasms”, and in the future we would live in peace with the animals and “orgasms”.

It was the hardest (no pun intended) thing to sit through. Everyone was embarrassed. Paragraph after paragraph. The conductor didn’t want to correct him or reassign the reading in the middle of the study - too awkward I guess. Kids that were just starting to read, but who were not so confident, started to say “orgasm” too.

Good lord.

146

Just woke up turn TV on to hear yet another nut case with a gun.

by Still Totally ADD in

jw
friends

first they said 20 dead with 100 injured.

now i just heard 50 dead and 200 injured.

whatever it is it just another nut case who was able to get a high power gun to kill people.

MeanMrMustard

@honest:

Yes, but you have spiders that eat dingos... very very large spiders. Like this:

If I lived in AU, I would want a gun... fully automatic.... hold nothing back from this horrible creature .... good lord.

146

Just woke up turn TV on to hear yet another nut case with a gun.

by Still Totally ADD in

jw
friends

first they said 20 dead with 100 injured.

now i just heard 50 dead and 200 injured.

whatever it is it just another nut case who was able to get a high power gun to kill people.

MeanMrMustard

Agreed that statistics can prove anything but however you slice and dice it the US has significantly more guns per head of population and more gun related homicides than any European country
For some example figures see here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Did you notice that if you remove suicides, you lose about 60% of the gun deaths (at least in the US)?

In the US you see private militia armed with semi-automatic weapons involved in situations that would typically be the domain of the police. I get these guys are acting legally but it's a very different culture to other places and fosters an attitude that anyone within reason is perfectly sound to bear such weapons.

These private militia are not nearly as common as you think. The vast majority of gun owners are not in a militia. They are just people, like the kind that got shot up the other day.

Knee jerk legislation will not work but if the will of the American people is to prevent these events from happening, minimise the risk and scale of attacks then there has to be dialogue. Perhaps there is legislation that could help. I would say there has to be a cultural change and that can only come from within the community of people that most cherish the right to bear arms, IMHO it is only when those who wish to have the right to own any quantity of whatever they like start to put the rights of the nation as a whole to be safer that a real cultural shift will happen.

Here is the crux of the matter. I have read the above about 10 times. I would really like to know what you mean by a "cultural change" specifically. From above it really sounds like those that "most cherish the right to bear arms" should start to put the "rights of the nation as a whole" first by changing their mind on cherishing guns. In other words, the cultural change you speak of is having everyone agree to give up owning weapons. Correct me if I am wrong.

Also, what does it mean for the "nation as a whole" to have rights? What is the right that a nation has in this case?

146

Just woke up turn TV on to hear yet another nut case with a gun.

by Still Totally ADD in

jw
friends

first they said 20 dead with 100 injured.

now i just heard 50 dead and 200 injured.

whatever it is it just another nut case who was able to get a high power gun to kill people.

MeanMrMustard

@TD:

One of these:

https://youtu.be/pqxoiAjSrAU

Here is how to make one yourself:

https://www.ar15.com/forums/ar-15/Homemade_Bump_fire_stock/4-571714/

146

Just woke up turn TV on to hear yet another nut case with a gun.

by Still Totally ADD in

jw
friends

first they said 20 dead with 100 injured.

now i just heard 50 dead and 200 injured.

whatever it is it just another nut case who was able to get a high power gun to kill people.

MeanMrMustard

Whilst there are lots of grey areas around gun ownership there is a simple reality. Every year thousands of people die as a result of gun related incidents in the US, far more than per capita than most other countries, especially if you look at moderate democratic countries in Europe.

Here we go. Statistics... we can argue over these for months. For example, are you including suicide in those gun deaths? Are you considering all the prevented crime (good guys with guns) doesn't get put on air? Are you considering net effect on crime in general? It is complex. There are many, many interconnecting variables. Having government lawmakers fuss with them like dials and levers often makes it worse because of unforeseen consequences.

If nothing changes in the way America approaches gun ownership either legislatively or culturally then America will have to accept that incidents like Columbine, Sandy Hook, Orlando, Virgina Tech and Las Vegas etc are going to continue to happen. By accepting that the incidents will happen then by implication you are accepting that this is the price to be paid for maintaining the gun culture that exists.

If you are not proposing changing the law, then you are proposing changing the culture. How do you manage that? What does it mean to change the culture? What ideas are toxic in the culture specifically?

I am not advocating changing laws for the sake of it, especially when the root problems for a specific crime may lie outside of what can be legislated (e.g. mental health or criminal activity for example). I understand that for those determined to do something then the law is no deterrent. I also understand that removing guns does not remove the threat of death through some other criminal and violent act.

Fair enough.

What I don't understand is the apparent lack of will to formulate some kind of change. Those like the NRA simply throw the same arguments out that absolve anyone with a gun of any responsibility. Politicians can do nothing due to the gun lobby. Those representing the so called responsible gun owning citizens want to maintain a position where there is no restriction to the type, quantity and capability of weapon available.

The "nutters" are always on the defensive, that's why. The blood from these people hasn't even dried on their lifeless bodies and the left comes out and wants to ban guns. There can't be a discussion about what might actually ail the patient when the left wants to cover him with leeches.

So far I have not seen a report detailing the type of weapon used here. Everyone seems to think it was automatic, and not legal. What does that imply? In other words, there are limits. Yet, this ass hole got around them. The limits didn't matter.

Here is an interesting exercise. Google how to convert a semi-automatic AR-15 to fully automatic. I found a YouTube video on how to do it. And I found a document outlining how to make your own AR-15 block. All you need are some good machining tools, most of which you can get at Sears.

Just because the problem is complex does not mean those with a vested interest cannot even try to work things out to have some positive effect on it.

I agree. But it does mean there will be a simple legislative "fix".

From what I can see, everytime something like Vegas happens the gun lobby put their hands over their ears and shout "lalalalalalala nothing to do with us".

No, they make a lot of noise in response to talks about gun bans.

Change is formulated through discussion, compromise and a willingness to accept responsibility where responsibility is due. This seems totally lacking in how the gun lobby approach the problem.

Responsibility for the Vegas shooting lies directly on the shoulders of shooter. It does not fall on the second amendment or "nutters". I do agree there should be a discussion.

In any case, I still appreciate your post, so I +1ed it.