this got buried in a thread, so i'll ask in a new thread.. in the 2017 convention program is this photo for sunday.
can someone with better eyes tell me if those are truth books?.
https://assetsnffrgf-a.akamaihd.net/assets/m/1102017403/univ/art/1102017403_univ_lsr_lg.jpg.
This got buried in a thread, so I'll ask in a new thread.
In the 2017 convention program is this photo for Sunday. Can someone with better eyes tell me if those are Truth books?
https://assetsnffrgf-a.akamaihd.net/assets/m/1102017403/univ/art/1102017403_univ_lsr_lg.jpg
i was pondering the recent influx of lawsuits against wt, specifically in regards to the child abuse cases (ie.
conti, fessler, lopez, etc).. in each of these, wt has settled for an "undisclosed" amount, assumed to be in the millions of dollars each.
i know there are many many more cases, subject for a different thread i'm sure.. i was reading something completely unrelated a while back that mentioned the dangers of settlement agreements for a large corporation or business (not just wt).
It is Risk Management 101.
Automakers are the most prominent. How much will a recall cost vs how many deaths and negative publicity?
With over 20 in-house volunteer lawyers, WT will fight until they know that they will lose. The publicity of a loss is as much a consideration as the amount.
https://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/convention-program-2017/friday/.
why would our beloved gb member be on the top picture of the program?.
any ideas?.
Are they studying the Truth book in Sunday's photo?
https://assetsnffrgf-a.akamaihd.net/assets/m/1102017403/univ/art/1102017403_univ_lsr_lg.jpg
i saw a post the other day on another forum (think it was reddit) that put forward the idea that god should have created multiple couples, not just adam and ever.
this idea was so simple and brilliantly logical, that i wish i'd thought of it, but i cannot claim credit!
but it really got me thinking of the practical implications and benefits.... if god had simply created multiple couples instead of one, he would in one foul swoop have solved the problem of incest, as well as have prevented 6 thousand years of human tragedy and a ransom sacrifice being needed etc.
Multiple couples?
This could have even been done with the couples placed separately on different continents.
i saw a post the other day on another forum (think it was reddit) that put forward the idea that god should have created multiple couples, not just adam and ever.
this idea was so simple and brilliantly logical, that i wish i'd thought of it, but i cannot claim credit!
but it really got me thinking of the practical implications and benefits.... if god had simply created multiple couples instead of one, he would in one foul swoop have solved the problem of incest, as well as have prevented 6 thousand years of human tragedy and a ransom sacrifice being needed etc.
He sacrificed?
He would have been desperate to return to be with his father, and to have his former life.
He suffered?
As you posted, it would have been a blip.
Draw Close - page 232
"Just think—Jehovah’s Son was in existence before the physical universe. How long, then, were Father and Son together? Some scientists estimate that the universe is 13 billion years old. Can you even imagine that much time? To help people grasp the age of the universe as estimated by scientists, one planetarium features a time line 360 feet [110 m] long. As visitors walk along that time line, each step they take represents about 75 million years in the life of the universe. At the end of the time line, all human history is represented by a single mark the thickness of one human hair! Yet, even if this estimate is correct, that entire time line would not be long enough to represent the life span of Jehovah’s Son! "
in reading these posts, it sounds like a lot of you are very jealous of the wt.
society’s annual income and the money they/we have in the bank.
jehovah has indeed blessed us.
Soon, very soon
Can you commit to a maximum time - eg. 5 years, 10 years, 20 years, 40 years?
so now you can share spiritual things with df ones.
has this question ever been answered by wt or biblical apologetic?.
if near the beginning of her creation, would she not have had the effective development of a a toddler or even a baby?.
if so, would you sentence a toddler or a baby to death for grabbing an appealing candy from a bowl?.
Are you suggesting that Eve was created as a CHILD?
Not physically.
But with what measure of mental development, including reasoning ability, was Eve created?
If God did create her with mental development, then to what degree is God responsible for Eve's decision making?
If God did create her without mental development, then how could it be fair to sentence such a child-like person to death for believing a lie told by an intelligent scheming person (Satan)?
i need advisei need advise about lingo of jw community.a publisher is required to report time spent in preaching, and field service.in japan.
we say something like“ put time in report card’how do you say in english language?.
Announcement at meeting at the end of the month:
`Please remember to turn in your Field Service Report.``
has this question ever been answered by wt or biblical apologetic?.
if near the beginning of her creation, would she not have had the effective development of a a toddler or even a baby?.
if so, would you sentence a toddler or a baby to death for grabbing an appealing candy from a bowl?.
Supplementary observation in Jan 15, 1958 WT QFR:
(firstly, definition of providential: involving divine foresight or intervention.)
Their first act of intercourse that the Bible records was after their expulsion from Eden as sinners...
This proved to be very providential. It made it possible for all the offspring of Adam and Eve outside the garden of Eden to be redeemed by the one human sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ. It left no child or children born perfect inside the garden of Eden who did not need to be redeemed by Christ’s sacrifice,
So, my reading of this QFR is that it was God`s foresight or intervention that disallowed any children to have been born `perfect.``
