Mephis: "What they wanted that quote to say is shown by what they replaced it with."
. . . which was basically just a reworded version of what he really did say.
let's be honest with ourselves, even if you have an ax to grind with the wts.
i mean, the quote in question was merely a statement of what he believed to be a fact, or else he wouldn't have said it.
there was nothing in the quote (and everyone has the right to make accurate quotes under the fair use doctrine), that even remotely suggested that he was pro-creationism or anything like that.
Mephis: "What they wanted that quote to say is shown by what they replaced it with."
. . . which was basically just a reworded version of what he really did say.
let's be honest with ourselves, even if you have an ax to grind with the wts.
i mean, the quote in question was merely a statement of what he believed to be a fact, or else he wouldn't have said it.
there was nothing in the quote (and everyone has the right to make accurate quotes under the fair use doctrine), that even remotely suggested that he was pro-creationism or anything like that.
cognisonanance: "Awake is trying to make it sound like there are valid reasons to not believe in evolution, and is trying to use Sighn's statement of fact that a 'great many' of scientifically minded do not believe in evolution as an example of a valid reason."
Which is perfectly fine. It's apparent to pretty much anyone that they're quoting him because he's in the scientific community and has an opinion about his colleagues, not because of any sympathy to creationism. Anything anyone says in public is a fact, and doesn't need permission to be published in support of a certain cause.
let's be honest with ourselves, even if you have an ax to grind with the wts.
i mean, the quote in question was merely a statement of what he believed to be a fact, or else he wouldn't have said it.
there was nothing in the quote (and everyone has the right to make accurate quotes under the fair use doctrine), that even remotely suggested that he was pro-creationism or anything like that.
Wasanelder: "Would it be a big deal if people quoted me as saying "neat blue dog was a child predator"? Or if I were quoted as saying "I believe in creation"?"
Yes, but in this instance they didn't isolate his words in a way that changed their meaning. THAT would be a misquote.
let's be honest with ourselves, even if you have an ax to grind with the wts.
i mean, the quote in question was merely a statement of what he believed to be a fact, or else he wouldn't have said it.
there was nothing in the quote (and everyone has the right to make accurate quotes under the fair use doctrine), that even remotely suggested that he was pro-creationism or anything like that.
the witnesses seem to love to make things a "conscience matter" and then just shame people into doing whatever it is they want them to do anyway.
so, why haven't they done this with the holidays?
there are plenty of scriptures in their own bible they could use to justify making it a conscience matter, yet the last i knew, celebrating christmas was still a disfellowshipping offense.
anybody heard any scrap of information about this vhs released by the society in the 90s?
it was mentioned in only one edition of the publications index, and it may not be on the current wt library index.
friday morning9:20 music9:30 song no.
5 and prayer9:40 chairmans address: imitate jesuswhy and how?10:20 symposium: lessons from jesus word pictures observe the birds and the lilies have salt in yourselves build your house on the rock11:10 song no.
120 and announcements11:20 follow jesus patternkeep on asking, seeking, and knocking!11:45 keynote address: concealed in him are all the treasures of wisdom12:15 song no.
the penalty of this charge??
yes, disfellowshipping.. bad association?
excessive time at work?
it seems that select videos on jw.org now offer a comment section for any registered user, (previously, logins were only used by elders, servants and those who wanted to donate by credit card).
however, your login info now has to contain your real full name and be approved by your congregations service committee..
it seems that select videos on jw.org now offer a comment section for any registered user, (previously, logins were only used by elders, servants and those who wanted to donate by credit card).
however, your login info now has to contain your real full name and be approved by your congregations service committee..
I clicked on your link . . .