Fulfillment of Biblical Predictions

[Harbal]

What Janoah is trying to say, and what he wishes to make clear, has to be guessed.

And until we know his intentions, he should be treated with hostility, and thereafter, possibly with more hostility.

WHY WHEN one just BELIEVES the OPPOSITE of what "another" does, then there, supposedly, SHOULD BE 'treated' WITH 'hostility', and if the "other" does NOT 'come around' to one's OWN BELIEF or "one-side" of 'things', then there WILL POSSIBLY BE even MORE HOSTILITY, "harbal"?

I don't care what he believes; I just hate it when people go round quoting the Bible.

[Iwannaplato]

And until we know his intentions, he should be treated with hostility, and thereafter, possibly with more hostility.

WHY WHEN one just BELIEVES the OPPOSITE of what "another" does, then there, supposedly, SHOULD BE 'treated' WITH 'hostility', and if the "other" does NOT 'come around' to one's OWN BELIEF or "one-side" of 'things', then there WILL POSSIBLY BE even MORE HOSTILITY, "harbal"?

I don't care what he believes; I just hate it when people go round quoting the Bible.

You need to learn from Age how to communicate condescension via using LOLs, calling people 'you people' and bemoaning their common failure with the others of their time. This is the superior way to express one's distaste.

[Harbal]

WHY WHEN one just BELIEVES the OPPOSITE of what "another" does, then there, supposedly, SHOULD BE 'treated' WITH 'hostility', and if the "other" does NOT 'come around' to one's OWN BELIEF or "one-side" of 'things', then there WILL POSSIBLY BE even MORE HOSTILITY, "harbal"?

I don't care what he believes; I just hate it when people go round quoting the Bible.

You need to learn from Age how to communicate condescension via using LOLs, calling people 'you people' and bemoaning their common failure with the others of their time. This is the superior way to express one's distaste.

There's only room for one Age in this forum.

LOL

[Dontaskme]

There's only room for one Age in this forum.

LOL

LOL
LOL
LOL
LOL
LOL
LOL
LOL
LOL


And many impersonators.

[Age]

And until we know his intentions, he should be treated with hostility, and thereafter, possibly with more hostility.

WHY WHEN one just BELIEVES the OPPOSITE of what "another" does, then there, supposedly, SHOULD BE 'treated' WITH 'hostility', and if the "other" does NOT 'come around' to one's OWN BELIEF or "one-side" of 'things', then there WILL POSSIBLY BE even MORE HOSTILITY, "harbal"?

I don't care what he believes; I just hate it when people go round quoting the Bible.

Okay.

Are there ANY 'intentions' of one, when KNOWN, when one is quoting 'the bible', which would REDUCE the HOSTILITY 'you' HAVE towards 'that one' who is just REPEATING some words out of A book?

Or, are ALL of EVERY 'speaker's/writer's' INTENTIONS' worthy of HOSTILITY, to 'you', "harbal"?

[Dontaskme]

The Bible emphatically declares that there is one, and only one, God. Not “gods”—plural.

Everyone else is God's impersonator. God's own echo, God appearing as two ( IM-personator )

Definition of personator.. as in performer.. a person who imitates another's voice and mannerisms for comic effect.

LOL
LOL
LOL
LOL
LOL
LOL
LOL

[Iwannaplato]

There's only room for one Age in this forum.

LOL

Nice pun and point taken!

[Harbal]

WHY WHEN one just BELIEVES the OPPOSITE of what "another" does, then there, supposedly, SHOULD BE 'treated' WITH 'hostility', and if the "other" does NOT 'come around' to one's OWN BELIEF or "one-side" of 'things', then there WILL POSSIBLY BE even MORE HOSTILITY, "harbal"?

I don't care what he believes; I just hate it when people go round quoting the Bible.

Okay.

Are there ANY 'intentions' of one, when KNOWN, when one is quoting 'the bible', which would REDUCE the HOSTILITY 'you' HAVE towards 'that one' who is just REPEATING some words out of A book?

Yes, I would exchange hostility for approval if it were being quoted in order to mock it. Maybe that's what Janoah was doing; it's hard to know what his intentions are.

Or, are ALL of EVERY 'speaker's/writer's' INTENTIONS' worthy of HOSTILITY, to 'you', "harbal"?

No. I do always look for a reason to be hostile, but can't always find one.

[Age]

WHY WHEN one just BELIEVES the OPPOSITE of what "another" does, then there, supposedly, SHOULD BE 'treated' WITH 'hostility', and if the "other" does NOT 'come around' to one's OWN BELIEF or "one-side" of 'things', then there WILL POSSIBLY BE even MORE HOSTILITY, "harbal"?

I don't care what he believes; I just hate it when people go round quoting the Bible.

You need to learn from Age how to communicate condescension via using LOLs,

What can be CLEARLY SEEN here is that 'this one' STILL WRITES, and SPEAKS, based SOLELY ON and FROM 'its' OWN ASSUMPTIONS, ONLY, and it does NOT matter ONE IOTA to 'this one' that 'its' OWN ASSUMPTIONS could be ABSOLUTELY False, Wrong, or Incorrect here.

I have ALSO INFORMED 'this one' that there is ABSOLUTELY NO 'condescension' INTENDED AT ALL, ANYWHERE in this forum. So, if 'this one' STILL ASSUMES or BELIEVES that there IS 'condescension' FROM 'me', or HAS BEEN AT ANY time, then 'this one' has ONLY TRICKED and FOOLED "its" OWN 'self', FROM 'its' OWN False, Wrong, AND Incorrect previous ASSUMPTIONS or BELIEFS.

Oh, and by the way, 'this one', hitherto, does NOT even KNOW what 'lol' MEANS when I write 'it'. AGAIN, 'this one' is ONLY STILL just MAKING ASSUMPTIONS, ONLY.

calling people 'you people' and bemoaning their common failure with the others of their time. This is the superior way to express one's distaste.

AGAIN, 'this one's' ASSUMPTION about 'me' here, ONCE AGAIN, is COMPLETELY and UTTERLY False, Wrong, Inaccurate, AND Incorrect.

One of the WHOLE PURPOSES I SPEAK and WRITE 'the ACTUAL way' that I DO here, in this forum, is to SHOW and PROVE JUST HOW MUCH 'people' can END UP STRAYING, and thus END UP LOST and/or completely CONFUSED, FROM just MAKING Wrong ASSUMPTIONS and/or just ASSUMING 'things' Wrongly, like above here.

I ALSO WRITE and SPEAK 'the way' that I DO here, in this forum, is to SHOW, and PROVE, that what I WILL REVEAL could have been REVEALED, and UNDERSTOOD, FULLY, a LOT, LOT EARLIER, if 'adult human beings' HAD, ONLY, just STOPPED MAKING ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEVING 'things', and thus HAD BECOME Truly OPEN, and CURIOUS, AT LOT EARLIER, ALSO.

[Age]

I don't care what he believes; I just hate it when people go round quoting the Bible.

Okay.

Are there ANY 'intentions' of one, when KNOWN, when one is quoting 'the bible', which would REDUCE the HOSTILITY 'you' HAVE towards 'that one' who is just REPEATING some words out of A book?

Yes, I would exchange hostility for approval if it were being quoted in order to mock it.

Are ALL 'the words' of 'the bible' only worthy of being so-called 'mocked'?

Maybe that's what Janoah was doing; it's hard to know what his intentions are.

Just so 'you' BECOME FULLY AWARE, that by just ASKING Truly OPEN CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, to GAIN "another's" True and FULL INTENTIONS, and the "other" IS Honest, and OPEN, (which, by the way, go 'hand-in-hand together', as some might say), IN ANSWERING, then, ACTUALLY, it is VERY, VERY EASY, SIMPLE, and QUICK to LEARN, and KNOW what the INTENTIONS ARE, EXACTLY, of the "other".

Or, are ALL of EVERY 'speaker's/writer's' INTENTIONS' worthy of HOSTILITY, to 'you', "harbal"?

No. I do always look for a reason to be hostile, but can't always find one.

Okay. Thank you ALSO for just ANSWERING, and CLARIFYING, the QUESTIONS that I just ASKED here.

It VERY RARELY HAPPENS here, as can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVED True, and IS VERY REFRESHING when CLARIFYING OCCURS.

[FlashDangerpants]

Doesn't this Biblical Prediction below remind you of today's realities?

The last guy to ask us that question was babbling about Bakhmut and something called "Globohomo". The previous few were all playing some sort of cosmic bingo where A=1 and B=2 and the Bible has never been written in Greek or Latin or Aramaic. I liked the one who thought everythihng was related to Ouzo best. He was slightly madder than you, but more fun.

[Gary Childress]

Perhaps we should try something else

This is interesting, what would you suggest trying, for example?

Maybe we could try not wasting our time with God. It seems to absorb some people to the point where they become deaf and mute to everyone else in the world who is trying to talk to them.

God obviously doesn't care a whole lot about anyone or any living thing in this world. All we living beings do is kill each other, either for survival or if not that, then it's out of necessity for food. Our planet is apparently on the course toward destruction. I've seen more news stories on my Internet home page concerning the multitude of natural and man-made ways the world could end (possibly in the near future) than my sanity can handle. It would be fine if it weren't for the fact that impending death seems to evoke dread and anxiety in us living beings.

As far as I can tell, God should be apologizing to us, not the other way around. So obviously it's a waste of time talking or praying to this God. It's been a waste of time for everyone who has prayed to "him/her" or whatever gender God is (maybe God's trans?). No one who has prayed to god has yet avoided the dire consequences of living. Some people just haven't figured that out yet, apparently. So the rest of us have to put up with being "heretics", "unbelievers" or whatever you all want to call us.

[Gary Childress]

The Bible emphatically declares that there is one, and only one, God. Not “gods”—plural.

There's a passage somewhere I saw where (If I recall) God talks to someone and reassures them that "Baal" or some other god is not going to win or take over (or something like that). Maybe God was the closest early people could get to weapons of mass destruction, so they recruited him through prayer and sacrificing dead animals to him.

[Walker]

Don't you mean, sacrificing live animals?

[Gary Childress]

Don't you mean, sacrificing live animals?

My mistake. I guess God liked to watch as the blood and guts spewed all over the place while the animal was squealing in fear and pain.