Jehovah`s Witness/What are your reasons? FU4
For any readers this is my 4th follow up. My third one can be found in "What are your reasons? FU2", Derrick decided to post my reply in there instead of the mainboard, (I’m not sure that how the system works) he also answered to that reply in the said post.
I am not sure what gave you the impression that I am interested in, or even have the time, for a lengthy back-and-forth discussion on this. I am not. Although I have allowed myself to get into many lengthy debates here in the past, I found it was consuming nearly all of my free time.
The impression came from you being an expert on this forum. Over the past year
you’ve had only six questions asked, when seeing this I naturally assumed you’d have ample time for a discussion. I realize and understand it can take time to respond back in these type of discussions, hence the reason why in the first paragraph I referred you to the end of my reply where I tell you to only answer the seven points (some of which need only a few words if not one word to answer them) instead of the whole post to save you, and I, time.
Please, when you can, have a read of the whole of my previous reply, and then when you have more time, reply to these points that I asked in my last follow-up.
Based on Hebrews 1:1,2 who is the originator of creation, the Father or Jesus? (Hebrews 1:2) “..God has spoken to us by means of his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe..”
Is the word “beginning”, with the sense of “first in a series”, the most credible translation of the word “acrhe” in Revelation 3:14? If it isn’t, could you explain how either “beginning” with the meaning "a beginning point in time” or “source/originator” are better translations without contradicting Hebrews 1:1,2 and 1 Cor 8:6,7 when doing so.
Could you give me a single example of anything –and I mean anything- being the firstborn of a group (regardless of the sense) where they’re not actually part of the group that they’re firstborn of? You can use a biblical or worldly example and If your incapable of finding me an example can you please state you unable to.
How does Jesus having a pre-existence in heaven negate that if he’s firstborn of a group that it doesn’t mean he’s part of it, please show your reasoning.
Jesus was the firstborn of the dead according to Col 1:18, if Jesus didn’t die and become part of the group “the dead”, could he still be called the firstborn of/from the dead?
What do you believe the “wisdom” in Proverbs 8:22 is referring to?
Were God and the Angels subject to Adam/Man according to Hebrews 2:7-8?
I gave you my reasons, which are solid, sound, and Scriptural.
Its worthless saying you gave points that are solid, sound, and scriptural, when you haven’t even responded back to critics of the apparent solid, sound, and Scriptural reasoning.
Enjoy your time away.
My first intention when I saw yet another question pop into my email from you, after telling you that I did not have time this week to sit down and read, much less answer, the incredibly long writing from you, was to simply reject it. I mean, who has so little consideration, that they send another question, after being told that the person will not have time to answer their other one? Although, I shoulder part of the blame, because I had not yet put myself "On Vacation", and remained available. I guess I just thought you would respect what I had said...my mistake.
Now, I still have not been able to read the entire content of your other writing as of yet, but I did read this one. I decided to respond to some comments in it, because you seem to imply that I am making some sort of effort to keep your remarks from being readily seen. I could have rejected this writing and done just that, but as that is not my intention, I will type a short response here, to 3 of your remarks. And again, I am leaving tomorrow, so I will not be able to respond to all the other points this week.
But I do want to briefly comment on these....
YOU: "For any readers this is my 4th follow up. My third one can be found in "What are your reasons? FU2", Derrick decided to post my reply in there instead of the mainboard, (I’m not sure that how the system works) he also answered to that reply in the said post."
That is correct...You do not know how the system works. If you did, you would not have said "Derrick decided to post my reply in there instead of the main board"
. What is interesting to me, is that you admit you don't know how it works, in the same sentence as making your public appeal to the readers, as to my apparently duplicitous action of trying to hide your writing. If you don't know how it works, then why presume to tell everyone what I decided to do, when you don't know what you're talking about?
Here's the fact of the matter...I didn't "decide" to do anything. When you hit the "Ask A Follow Up" option, the reply is AUTOMATICALLY attached to the previous one. That is not something I "decide" to do, or even CAN do. I can control whether to allow follow-ups after my question load has been reached, but that's it. I cannot decide how they're posted. Its what the system does. If you want your question to appear as a separate writing each time, or as you say, on the "mainboard", then write a separate question each time.
In fact, if you will scroll down in the writing you are upset about, you will see the following, appearing just before your last follow-up....
"---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------"
That's done by the system. And it has nothing to do with anything I did...it has to do with what you did.
That's how the system works. Now you know.
Also, I want to comment on this, briefly....
YOU: "I am not sure what gave you the impression that I am interested in, or even have the time, for a lengthy back-and-forth discussion on this. I am not. Although I have allowed myself to get into many lengthy debates here in the past, I found it was consuming nearly all of my free time.
The impression came from you being an expert on this forum. Over the past year you’ve had only six questions asked, when seeing this I naturally assumed you’d have ample time for a discussion."
Well, don't naturally assume anything. First off, this is a Question and Answer forum, not a debate/discussion forum. Now, I have engaged in a number of debates on here, but that is at my discretion, according to how much time or desire I have to put into it. Not one expert here, is required to get into lengthy back-and-forths, as you seem to think we are. I assure you, we are not.
Its strange that you would go to the effort of counting how many questions I have had over the past year, and then deciding based on that, that "Hey, this guy has time for a long discussion every few days"
....like you know anything about my life, or my schedule. That just seems really weird to me.
In fact, we are given several "Rejection" options to use, and one of them is that the question is "too long". I did not utilize that option, but I certainly could have.
And don't "naturally assume" what my schedule is, and how much of a lengthy debate it permits. You simply would not know that. We are not paid for doing this. We volunteer our time, and answer whatever questions we wish to. The amount of questions I have received in the past year, simply has no bearing on anything. I work an 8 hour per day job, work a garden when I'm not on my job, work around my house, have begun a regular work-out routine, have church activities, and still try to sleep about 8 hours a night. So, you do the math, as to whether I consistently have several hours to devote to your multiple questions and incredibly long writings, several days per week.
YOU: "I realize and understand it can take time to respond back in these type of discussions, hence the reason why in the first paragraph I referred you to the end of my reply where I tell you to only answer the seven points (some of which need only a few words if not one word to answer them) instead of the whole post to save you, and I, time."
What you may not understand, is that we are under a 3 day time constraint, to answer your question if we do not reject it. Otherwise, we start getting notices in our inbox, that the question needs answering. And if we allow this to go on too long or too many times, we can be automatically removed. So, that is one of the reasons (besides showing you common courtesy), that I sent you a reply last time, letting you know that my answer would be delayed. It shows up in the system as having been "Answered", because I sent the reply, even though I had not answered the question as of yet.
And no, I am not going to be told to "just answer the 7 points". If you made other comments that I feel need addressing, or inaccurate facts and faulty reasonings as found in first follow-up, then I will answer those, if I think they need addressing, as well.
And let me just state this...I am not the only expert here, JW or non-JW, that has had to request that the questioner not send so many questions in one long writing at the same time, because the questioner automatically thinks this is all we do. It is not. We volunteer our time. In the past, I spent far too much of that time, addressing everything under the sun, and trying to straighten out every lie that was told by some of the JWs here. It was quite a relief when things quieted down, and I have no desire to devote that kind of time to this again. I will help anyone who needs help, and I will address something if it needs addressing. In fact, I am also currently having private email discussions with 2 atheists, one who came to my church, and another from a Facebook discussion. And those are taking some time, as well. And since they are both questioning and opening up to the idea of God, they will have my priority over a religious debate on the meaning of "firstborn", with someone who already believes in the existence of God.
Now, as I've told you...When I return, I will try to look over your post, and respond to anything worth responding to, provided you can show common courtesy to me, and stop with the appeals to the public as to things I am supposedly doing.