Bullying Should Be Count As More Serious With Quicker Action Taken

[Not_Fred_Honest]

I've never live in Brighton..... only common people live there called Kevin
All the best people live in Hove actually

And I would never show you a picture of my home, you'd turn up with your scabby dog on a bit of string and NEVER leave

 

[Kev45]

And it was only because a lovely moderator told me that he was using a Kev45 guest ID in chat, otherwise I would never have known.

A 63-year-old man, think about that, not 21, 63 years old.

 

[Not_Fred_Honest]

Every time Kev talks about my age, he ad's 10 years
Kev I know you have a "thing" about older men and I'm your fantasy..........but at this rate I'll be 100 in 2025

 

[NickUK]

Every time Kev talks about my age, he ad's 10 years
Kev I know you have a "thing" about older men and I'm your fantasy..........but at this rate I'll be 100 in 2025

You guys!

 

[Kev45]

Imagine coming into chat randomly, day or night, and a 63-year-old man is always in there typing about you, even though you were not there, day after day, after day.

For weeks and even months on end.

Of course, he was immediately put on iggy, but it still didn't stop him, and it's pretty damn scary, right?

 

[Not_Fred_Honest]

Talking about scary
Kev's obsession for me is worrying..... Ben was right... having a stalker is no fun

 

[Kev45]

Imagine coming into chat, randomly (painting the scenario for you) and a 63-year-old man is typing about you when you have not been there and as if he knows you personally (which he doesn't)

To the point, a moderator had to tell him to shut his obsessive cakehole.

Imagine being so obsessed with another chatter, you gossip about them on a daily basis and when they are not even in chat.

Imagine that, pretty scary, right?

Btw DOA you stalky old cvnt, if I have to leave the site completely to get away from you again, just like I left main chat because of you, I will.

 

[Not_Fred_Honest]

Imagine being so obsessed with another chatter, you gossip about them on a daily basis and when they are not even in chat.

More than you know

Can't you go play with whalebum for a bit? Its tea time and countdown will be on soon

 

[ArthurSleep]

Elwoodbluz another bullying tyrant admin saying he bans people he doesn't like personally even when they have done nothing wrong

 

[A_Son_of_God]

Talking about scary
Kev's obsession for me is worrying..... Ben was right... having a stalker is no fun

It's obsessed with everyone. It's a delicate petal. It thinks it's fine to abuse people constantly - they and their tag-team partner, and when it gets a bit back, it harbours it like there's no tomorrow, then takes it out of context to spread poison with so it can excuse himself for its iniquities.

I have found great pleasure putting it on ignore. That way I can watch it accumulate its loathing of me, and state inaccuracies, while I don't need to see its circular reasoning.

 

[Harbal]

It's obsessed with everyone. It's a delicate petal. It thinks it's fine to abuse people constantly - they and their tag-team partner, and when it gets a bit back, it harbours it like there's no tomorrow, then takes it out of context to spread poison with so it can excuse himself for its iniquities.

I have found great pleasure putting it on ignore. That way I can watch it accumulate its loathing of me, and state inaccuracies, while I don't need to see its circular reasoning.

Stop snivelling like a little girl who's had her pony tail pulled. If you want to express your annoying opinions online, you need to learn how to stand up for yourself.

 

[Kev45]

It's obsessed with everyone. It's a delicate petal. It thinks it's fine to abuse people constantly - they and their tag-team partner, and when it gets a bit back, it harbours it like there's no tomorrow, then takes it out of context to spread poison with so it can excuse himself for its iniquities.

I have found great pleasure putting it on ignore. That way I can watch it accumulate its loathing of me, and state inaccuracies, while I don't need to see its circular reasoning.

I guess that it is still upset about this.

This one is funny. Yes, that is indeed what Jehovah's Witnesses believe. Because that's what the Bible teaches. When you argue Jehovah's Witnesses' teachings, you're arguing the Bible's teachings. You're a funny guy. Not very bright, but yeah, quite funny."

The same "Bible teachings" that your "faith" published in the 1960s, The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, right?

In 1961 to be precise, only 63 years ago, yes?

An alleged translation of the original Holy Scriptures, right?

That's what you are referring to here, and NOT in fact the "Bible", right?

Just a few examples in the following, but there are many, many more.

A translation which systematically (deliberately) omitted more than 30 full verses and or part verses because that information clashed with existing Jehovah Witness doctrine, right?

That claims Christ died on a stake because Jehovah Witness leaders no longer believed that he was crucified on a cross.

A doctrine which denies hell exists, and so the translators did not include any biblical references to nor even translations of hell in general.

The translating committee, five men, who were completely anonymous and therefore not open to any public scrutiny by biblical scholars (not you, real ones) to check their academic background/qualifications and or their suitability to translate original Holy Scripture.

Did any of the five men even understand Aramaic, Biblical Hebrew or Koine Greek, do you know?

EDITED: This is another important point. The "committee" only checked the work of the actual translators who did the bulk of the work and who translated Holy Scriptures into English (also anonymous). We still don't even know if the "committee" spoke/understood original Holy Scriptures languages.

In a passage in Colossians 1:16, their translation inserted the word “other” although "other" isn't in the original Greek text. This is important to point out because Jehovah Witnesses don't believe in the Trinity. This translation (edit) gives the false impression that Christ is a creation, mirroring Jehovah Witness doctrine, and, when the original text said no such thing. Jehovah Witnesses believe there is only one "God" (with a capital g) and that Christ was NOT physically resurrected.

Etc.

Slyly removing or adding a word here and there to deceitfully manipulate the context/meaning of a passage or even an entire verse, right?

Because Jehovah Witnesses believe that doctrine dictates Holy Scripture, it is therefore acceptable for them to revise and edit Holy Scripture to suit their stance. Rather than the opposite, that in fact Holy Scripture dictates doctrine, or should, right?

The well regarded English academic H.H. Rowley, an Old Testament scholar, described the translation as "an insult to the word of God" and "a shining example of how the Bible should not be translated".

Professor Charles Feinberg, a dean at Talbot School of Theology, and a world renowned biblical expert specializing in Jewish history and the Old Testament said "I can assure you that the rendering which the Jehovah’s Witnesses give John 1:1 is not held by any reputable Greek scholar."

The respected Professor James A. Beverley, a Research Professor at Tyndale Seminary in Toronto, specializing in American religion and who advices his government about religious groups, accuses Jehovah Witnesses of "false prophesy" and described the faith as "fitting the model of a cult".

Professor Bruce Metzger, a professor at Princeton Theological Seminary, another biblical scholar, a Bible translator and textual critic, alongside serving on various religious boards, described the translation as "frightful".

Far too many views from 'experts' to list here.

Other well respected biblical scholars argue the Jehovah Witness faith is not even a religion, because it denies "essential doctrines".

100s of published and well regarded academic papers and theological/biblical works between them.

It's a tough decision, but who to trust here, the actual experts or a bunch of anonymous cowboys?

"Bible teachings".

Oh, dearie me.

You're a funny guy. Not very bright, but yeah, quite funny."

Psst btw, I am guessing that it is not "quite" so "funny" today, is it, laughing boy?

 

[Altair]

It's obsessed with everyone. It's a delicate petal. It thinks it's fine to abuse people constantly - they and their tag-team partner, and when it gets a bit back, it harbours it like there's no tomorrow, then takes it out of context to spread poison with so it can excuse himself for its iniquities.

I have found great pleasure putting it on ignore. That way I can watch it accumulate its loathing of me, and state inaccuracies, while I don't need to see its circular reasoning.

YOU....Still haven't answered MY question about Adam and Eve. !

 

[A_Son_of_God]

YOU....Still haven't answered MY question about Adam and Eve. !

Oh.
Did I not say it in a specific way that you can understand?
Here's the deal. You explain this load of drivel first. Because your question is based on this. I know it is hard for you to grasp because you have a pig-headed way of looking at things, and think you're right.
But you asked the question based on these untruths.

...so you answer these first.

Namely...

Adam and Eve never existed. The fossil record, DNA, and other sciences all prove

... Show me this proof.

how human sapiens came to be. And it was long after our sun and many stars existed, and long after many species of plants and animals lived and became extinct, despite the chronology seen in Genesis.

...explain how this has any bearing on anything. Are you that deep in your own head that you think that humans are spoken of as being here BEFORE the sun somewhere in the Bible? If so, show it. If not, explain where your head is.

When was Eve created? Genesis 1:24–27 says it was at the same time that Adam was (on the sixth day) but Genesis 2:18–23 says it was after Adam and the animals were created in order to find a better companion for Adam.

...this one has been addressed.

Despite the Bible saying otherwise, there is no need to explain that rain and snow are not released through windows in the sky,

...this one has been addressed.

or that two and a half million people outran the Egyptian army,

...explain your thoughts on this. Outran? Explain.

or that Solomon was the wisest man on earth,

...explain your idea of this. Why was Solomon NOT the wisest man on earth?

or that Lot was righteous (see reason #4).

...explain why Lot was not righteous.

And of course, everybody except a Biblical author knows that bats are not birds

...explain why you can't grasp the idea of flying creatures?

nor is leprosy cured by sprinkling the blood of birds seven times throughout the house (Leviticus 14:49–53).

...explain where it says that sprinkling blood of birds cures leprosy.

Because you can't explain your claims, and you just accuse - never explain - you don't DESERVE an answer. It is implied, and blatantly obvious to any normal person with correct thinking ability on this. Why you continue to not see it is your own mental disposition that has you blind and stuck in your messy rut.

Also, based on this, there is no reason for me to respond to your silly. Keep on posting your gaming videos as though they're real life. You have a great future in imagination.

I will be ignoring you and you can wonder this for the rest of your life.