Posts by AnnOMaly

2

100 yrs on

by thedog1 in

jw
friends

100 years on from 1914 and this old eurovision song seems appropriate.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-b3xtj5g_sa.

.

AnnOMaly

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3w4DqFhLDBk

Lyrics

It's good to be wise
When you're young
Cos' you can only be young
But for once
Enjoy yourself
And have lots of fun
Serve God n live, my friends
And it will never done

Enjoy yourself
It's later than you think
Enjoy yourself
Why you're still in the pink
The years go by
As quickly as a wink
Enjoy yourself
It's later than you think

Get wisdom, get knowledge
And understanding
Those three were given free
By the maker
Go to school
Learn the rules
Don't be a faker
It's not wise that you should be
Another man's foot stool

So enjoy yourself
It's later than you think
Enjoy yourself
Why you're still in the pink
The years go by
As quickly as a wink
Enjoy yourself
It's later than you think

82

Do you remember the 15 minute break at the Sun. meeting?

by 3rdgen in

a poster on another thread reminded me of when there was a 15 min.

break between the talk and the wt study on sundays.

the break was supposed to be to allow jw's time to drive their bible studys home from the talk.

AnnOMaly

I remember the intermission as a little girl in the early '70s. An ice cream seller figured it was good business to park outside the KH at those times

49

A QUESTION FOR JW'S who say, "The brothers were overly zealous" about 1975

by Terry in

"what was the actual significance of that year, then?".

if jw's were overly zealous, what was the exact amount of zeal encouraged by the wts for a non-event which took up.

over 7 years of every jw's time?.

AnnOMaly

I found that the question, "Then why did the Society/Org. leadership officially express regret over the part they played in the 1975 hype?" usually shuts the person up.

82

Awake January 2015: How did life begin? - More misquotes

by Designer Stubble in

[quote]some might assume that a scientifically-minded person would pick evolution and that a religious person would pick creation.

but not always.. rama singh, professor of biology at canadas mcmaster university, says: the opposition to evolution goes beyond religious fundamentalism and includes a great many people from educated sections of the population.[/quote].

end-of-quote in awake.

AnnOMaly

The Awake quote comes from the bottom of page 870.

The 2nd quote in the OP comes from the article's abstract on page 868.

I know. I can see that. Hence the query.

35

JAN 2015 Awake - Yet More Fallacies and Disingenuous Statements re Evolution/Creation

by konceptual99 in

so the new awake is up.. first question..... "how did life begin?.

how would you complete the following sentance?.

life is the result of..... a. evolution.

AnnOMaly

...if you have to cheat to defend your beliefs, your beliefs don't deserve to be defended.

Well said. Nailed it

82

Awake January 2015: How did life begin? - More misquotes

by Designer Stubble in

[quote]some might assume that a scientifically-minded person would pick evolution and that a religious person would pick creation.

but not always.. rama singh, professor of biology at canadas mcmaster university, says: the opposition to evolution goes beyond religious fundamentalism and includes a great many people from educated sections of the population.[/quote].

end-of-quote in awake.

AnnOMaly

Rama Singh, professor of biology at Canada’s McMaster University, says: “The opposition to evolution goes beyond religious fundamentalism and includes a great many people from educated sections of the population.”[/quote]

end-of-quote in Awake

Actual Rama quote however continues:

[quote]...who may not be logically opposed to evolution nevertheless do not accept it. This is because the process of and the evidence for evolution are invisible to a nonspecialist, or the theory may look too simple to explain complex traits to some, or because people compare evolution against God and find evolutionary explanations threatening to their beliefs. Considering how evolution affects our lives, including health and the environment to give just two examples, a basic course in evolution should become a required component of all our college and university educational systems.[/quote]

sir82 gave a link to the article. In this article the two quotes do not join up (Pistoff gives the full sentence). DS, were you using a different source to sir82's?

82

Awake January 2015: How did life begin? - More misquotes

by Designer Stubble in

[quote]some might assume that a scientifically-minded person would pick evolution and that a religious person would pick creation.

but not always.. rama singh, professor of biology at canadas mcmaster university, says: the opposition to evolution goes beyond religious fundamentalism and includes a great many people from educated sections of the population.[/quote].

end-of-quote in awake.

AnnOMaly

Interested in response.

35

JAN 2015 Awake - Yet More Fallacies and Disingenuous Statements re Evolution/Creation

by konceptual99 in

so the new awake is up.. first question..... "how did life begin?.

how would you complete the following sentance?.

life is the result of..... a. evolution.

AnnOMaly

Awake! question:

"Why is it that even some scientifically-minded people have trouble accepting evolution as the origin of life?"

Not a good start.

I shall read the rest of the thread now.

48

Service meeting video....what a non-event

by sir82 in

jw
friends

at our service meeting we saw the video of a jw explaining his beliefs about 1914.. it was.....well, "underwhelming" does not do it justice.

what is below "underwhelming"?

"boringly tepid"?.

AnnOMaly

sir82, the OP's 'how to make toast' conversation is Classic.

(Taking the opportunity for another shameless plug for my parodies HERE and HERE.)

33

Watchtower REMOVES "Trinity" Booklet---ONLINE! Video

by BlindersOff1 in

another great catch by "the snarky apologist" on youtube......................................................i'm looking for this pdf can anyone give me a link.

.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hihh1_uc9s4.

AnnOMaly

I keep hearing this about misquotes in it but I never see any evidence of that.

http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/trinity.php

By saying that there are misquotes in it, are you saying that there is a trinity?

The Trinity doctrine is an explanation which tries to harmonize and make sense of God/Jesus/Holy Spirit biblically and philosophically, and still retain monotheism.

Or is the contention that the Watchtower writers were not being honest in their attack on a doctrine that is false.

Yes. That is the contention.

Those quotes don't mean anything anyway. A person over 1000 years ago said something. Is that supposed to mean anything?

The quotes help in tracing early Christians' ideas about God/Jesus/Holy Spirit and how the Trinity doctrine evolved.

The only thing that means something is that God himself says it or if Jesus says it.

OK, but then you have to tie all the texts together to form a consistent whole. That is hard to do when you're faced with verses that apparently contradict each other or are ambiguous.

Then if someone was inspired by God to say it.

The others such as apostles, Paul, Peter, James, Jude, John (except for Revelation) were not inspired. And those after them were

not inspired. What they said matters not.

It does matter if you are a Bible-believing Christian because the epistles and Revelation are understood to be inspired.