so a user named "the-question" said the jw's were right about 607 bce.. this is your chance brother to prove us all wrong.. we all can't wait to hear from you :).
@wzstick "just guessing" means what it says.
How about you? What do you think you know? However, GTR does not prove 587.
In another thread, "scholar" debated 587, but I see you dont like it and you get very upset when people don't agree with you, and express what they think.
POI, relax, have a cup of tea, the world ain't coming to an end -or is it?
so a user named "the-question" said the jw's were right about 607 bce.. this is your chance brother to prove us all wrong.. we all can't wait to hear from you :).
"silly"
GTR is mostly commentary. However, on page 403 of the latest revision of said book, the author concedes that there is controversy disputing 587: RR Newton and scholarly support for his belief that challenges Ptolemy's observation as fabricated. - See Scientific American Oct 1977 issue page 80.
for information:.
court of appeals of the state of washingtondivision iidocket number: 48070-1file date: 01/24/2017.
keisha baumgartner appeals the summary judgment dismissal of her medical malpractice wrongful death claim against anesthesiologist dr. mark morehart and columbia anesthesia group, p.s.
for information:.
court of appeals of the state of washingtondivision iidocket number: 48070-1file date: 01/24/2017.
keisha baumgartner appeals the summary judgment dismissal of her medical malpractice wrongful death claim against anesthesiologist dr. mark morehart and columbia anesthesia group, p.s.
I tried to upload a photo of a billboard advertising "no blood surgery Safe options for your family, reducing the risk and compliations" from one of the major hospitals in the US. In fact, first heart trasplant in the US was done in this hospital. The upload failed -But JW are not the only ones that opt for no blood surgery. The hospital offers the option to everyone regardless of religion.
one of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.
it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.
christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.
It is human nature to be moral because man is made in God's image, but since humans -unlike animals- are free moral agents, they are free to fo whatever they like, even to deviate from what comes naturally, but not without consequences.
so a user named "the-question" said the jw's were right about 607 bce.. this is your chance brother to prove us all wrong.. we all can't wait to hear from you :).
The onus of proof is on the one that wants to show JW that 607 is not historical. I believe that it is. There are other beliefs that it ain't -but no solid proof.
i know you know who i am by now...the one that forgets to use paragraphs...anyway, all over all the jw sites (not jw.org).
it's been asked if you knew this or that why did you stay...it's been discussed how no matter what you hit the friends with, failed dated, new lights, pedophiles, etc, yet they stay and you can't reason with them....so what i've come up with is that most stay because they feel it's god's org.
and they were chosen in place of the jews.
It does not make JW God's organization because they say so.
for information:.
court of appeals of the state of washingtondivision iidocket number: 48070-1file date: 01/24/2017.
keisha baumgartner appeals the summary judgment dismissal of her medical malpractice wrongful death claim against anesthesiologist dr. mark morehart and columbia anesthesia group, p.s.
Without reading what was agreed to and signed off on before the surgery, it is hard to say if defendants are liable. But the hospital has a responsibility to make sure that the instruments they use do not fail. Should a surgeon drop a scalpel on the floor, he needs to be prepared for that contingency. Suppose the machine that pumps gases through the tracheal tube fails, should the surgeon proceed without oxygen or anesthesia and finish the surgery the best he can? Baloney! The hospital agreed to perform surgery on JW using a machine that was essential to keep the patient alive; the machine failed and the JW patient died because their machine essential to the life of the patient failed. The hospital is liable. But if the JW patient signed something releasing the hospital prior to the surgery, that agreement has to be considered. But whether a patient is JW or otherwise or is a allergic to blood or something else or needs some special machine for his condition or just the regular machine they use on everybody or any paraphernalia needed to keep the patient alive -the hospital is liable to make sure nothing fails. It ain't an excuse to say "too bad the medicine that we had for the patient fell on the floor and broke, it is his fault, he is allergic to regular medicine,cause that's all we have, so we will just have to do our best and if he dies, it is his fault because we agreed to use special medicine and we don't have any more and it is his fault he does not want regular standard, medicine."
The JW patient died because the machine used, essential to his life, failed.
http://starconnectmedia.com/2017/01/19/russia-gets-go-ahead-to-liquidate-jehovahs-witnesses-organisation/.
OC, are you saying that proof of WT claims (assuming the figure is correct and theirs) regarding the actual number of cases adjudicated by the ECHR in 2016 involving JW, discredits the credibility of your source?
(And by the the way, thanks for the link.)
http://starconnectmedia.com/2017/01/19/russia-gets-go-ahead-to-liquidate-jehovahs-witnesses-organisation/.
But what I also don't see is how your linked source disproves the number that I posted because you feel that your source "would have been all over it" or would have established the number as true.
