i don`t think so .
hasn`t science ,astronomy ,time , .....proven it an illogical beleif ?.
with the information about this solar system and it`s planets ,other stars and their planets that we have information about ,and the fact that no god has ever revealed him/her self in any shape or form 'there is no evidence that a creator / god has ever existed.. except in the minds of humans who want to control a section of humanity .. the fact that religions rely on "you have to have faith" to beleive in a god ,surely is a cop out.. i look forward to your comments .. and a happy new year to you all..
God isn’t a “thing”
semantics
an item inside this existence that requires explanation.
With the God ( substance, thing, something ) explanation nothing never existed. God always filled all the voids of reality. Before the universe there was God then there was a change —like the big bang.
In other words, something some thing always existed, God.
i don`t think so .
hasn`t science ,astronomy ,time , .....proven it an illogical beleif ?.
with the information about this solar system and it`s planets ,other stars and their planets that we have information about ,and the fact that no god has ever revealed him/her self in any shape or form 'there is no evidence that a creator / god has ever existed.. except in the minds of humans who want to control a section of humanity .. the fact that religions rely on "you have to have faith" to beleive in a god ,surely is a cop out.. i look forward to your comments .. and a happy new year to you all..
Lawrence Krauss’s version of “nothing” is not very nothingy, because it still assumes physical properties and laws at the beginning. Why is there anything at all? He doesn’t really address the philosophical question. Any way that you look at it, existence is miraculous.
What Krauss is saying is that the universe, its drive , description and dynamics always existed. (That something is a form of nothing.) It doesn’t make sense but there is no other explanation that I can think of to change nonexistence into the universe with its descriptive properties. The other explanation is God. In any case. Something dynamic and descriptive always existed.
i was looking at the (mostly) wrong answers to a riddle that's making the rounds on social media and thought it was a good example of how something simple (in this case, grade school math) can be distorted with words.
the riddle goes like this:.
i bought a cow for $800.. i sold it for $1000.
f the manager had said, "Okay. The three customers ended up paying $9 each. You have $2 and I have $25" it wouldn't be any fun at all.Count the money 9x3 =27 + 3 = 30
here's my list of jw no-no's as i recall: .
1. no giving or accepting valentine candy for students.
2. no going to home coming football games.
Most important and most enforceable: No segs.
it would appear that circuit overseers (no dos these days i guess) are taken off at 70 years old.
even older ones in bethels are disposed (sorry 're-assigned to the field) of before they get too past it.. how come though the old boys on the gb aren't shown the door at 70 and replaced by younger men - obviously of the recently anointed type?
they don't look a particularly fit bunch so they can't claim special mightiness because of doing 'the lord's work'.
FDS
i was looking at the (mostly) wrong answers to a riddle that's making the rounds on social media and thought it was a good example of how something simple (in this case, grade school math) can be distorted with words.
the riddle goes like this:.
i bought a cow for $800.. i sold it for $1000.
As it relates to Bible prophecy, count the money (prophits) at the end of the day.
mark writes.
"if a person accepts a blood transfusion, the jehovah’s witness elders are required to “investigate” to see if the person is sorry for “cowardly” saving their life.
if the person doesnt beg and grovel to the elders for allowing the doctor to save their life (or that of their child) then the elders can take this as a sign that he/she has disassociated from the congregation - and tell the congregation to start shunning them.. if someone willingly takes blood, perhaps because of being under extreme pressure, the committee should obtain the facts and determine the individual’s attitude.
As in all matters of "wrongdoing", repentence or the lack of it is key.
In all matters such as $exual immorality except bt, most of the time the verdict is unrepentant followed by df. The key in bt is that the sinner doesn’t show defiance or says that wt is wrong about the doctrine, for example. If that is the case then obviously the sinner doesn’t want to be a JW and is disassociated as you pointed out. Other than that, if the sinner says he was afraid or gives some other reason why, admitting his guilt, that is sufficient evidence of repentance to the tribunal . WT won’t test the truthfulness of his words as is the case with other sins. Obviously, a JW will refuse a bt if he can help it but under the pressure of the moment he might give in, so prima facie the case is about weakness and much mercy and compassion and understanding is extended and usually it is the sinner that feels very bad about it. But it the sinner starts carrying on that the wt is wrong or justifies what he did, it becomes clear he is not a JW because JW believe and practice different.
mark writes.
"if a person accepts a blood transfusion, the jehovah’s witness elders are required to “investigate” to see if the person is sorry for “cowardly” saving their life.
if the person doesnt beg and grovel to the elders for allowing the doctor to save their life (or that of their child) then the elders can take this as a sign that he/she has disassociated from the congregation - and tell the congregation to start shunning them.. if someone willingly takes blood, perhaps because of being under extreme pressure, the committee should obtain the facts and determine the individual’s attitude.
No. Not even 50 years ago. At most, private reproof. What is hard is how the individual feels believing that others won’t think highly of him.
curious.
time goes by so fast.
who remembers 1975, the ray franz incident, the generation change in 1995, the blood fractions, alternative service, participation in ochr, aid afrique, the historical research by james pellechia, jolene chu and johannes stephan wrobel?
I remember the music.
sorry for the posting error below.. my wife is reading crisis of conscience now.
this is good news because i know i will have someone to talk to when im caught and dfd.
but in her reading she is recognizing most of the names ( we were there at bethel during the 70s as a married couple) and asked what happened to reinhard lengtat?
Bernie Getz’s face and slim appearance reminded me of RL.
