http://www.businessinsider.com/the-muslim-brotherhood-is-ruining-egypt-2013-5.
i expected this when i heard their parliament declare israel their greatest enemy.. not disease.
not poverty.
I'm not surprised by what has happened or how this happened but I was saddened by the pictures that were presented. So many children without family guidance, food or support.
http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/205569/1/Anyone-else-closing-watching-crisis-in-Egypt
dear moshe...
I tend to agree with the people who said that but all it takes is a tipping point and that doesn't have to be "no more free stuff"...
love michelle
1.man's nature as homo sapien is to pursue knowledge for survival.
1.man's nature as homo sapien is to pursue knowledge for survival.
1.man's nature as homo sapien is to pursue knowledge for survival.
dear Terry...
at some point in ancient history God spoke to people. He chose certain people out of all other people to reveal the "theologically" correct interpretaion of the world around them. Many ancient civilizations spoke about "a beginning" and "a flood"...God gave the correct meaning or interpretaion of these events to a people who incidentally haven't drifted off or been assimilated like other ancient people groups. It wasn't an accident that God revealed these things and His purpose to the very ones who would carefully preserve it. He planned on preserving them unique and for Himself!!
God also planned on preserving the church and the revelation that He gave them. I know that there are, in these times, many variations on a theme but, this also was foretold. I know you take great issue with the fact that "all we have is copies of copies of copies...there are no originals"...however, there were originals that these copies wee copied from. True we didn't see them in order to check every phrase or word against what we have now but, that is where people in our day have to get over themselves. the entire reason and purpose for the bible even as we have it, is to give more clarity to people regarding what God wants and does etc. A person has to trust what these people have said and tried to teach us...for our own good, as it is God's will for us.
Now, you don't have to trust anyone but yourself if that is what allows you to feel safe in this big world but for others that God is trying to reach out to in His love and grace with comforting words from the bible...words that will allow them to know that God IS on His throne...you are, in your unbelief, the one who appears to be the vigilante fighting toward eradicating all vestiges of "religious" thought...and I've seen that the way that you do this is not just question the validity of what is written but you twist it it suit your agenda.
one has to ignore the way that God has guided His people throughout history, one has to ignore the fact that things that are foretold in the bible are happening on the world scene, one even has to deny that there is anything "happening" toward the fulfilment of the end of the age in order to maintain that there is no there, there...that is a lot of looking away from evidence to conclude that the bible is merely some peoples opinion and that there wasn't direct inspiration from God in it's compilation, transmission and interpretation...
I wonder what makes you think it is more humble to say, "we don't know (because you don't know)"...than to say, "thank you, we have so much valuable information and thoughtful encouragement from those who have gone before us"...seriously, IS it intellectually honest to think that because you don't know, no one knows?
love michelle
how can the following be proved to be scriptural?.
what possible evidence supports these teachings and policies?.
1. jesus surveyed all christian denominations and chose the "anointed" under judge rutherford for his approved church in the year 1919.. .
On page 236of "The Harp of God" (1921) "it is figured that "Counting three and a half years from 1874, the time of his presence, brings us to 1878. During the presence of The Lord from 1874-1878 he was making preparation for the harvest of the gospel age. The Jewish harvest covered a period of forty years, ending in AD 73. We should expect, then, the general harvest of the gospel age to end in 1918." ...page 244 "His presence beginning in 1874, he has carried on his harvest work from 1878 forward, but has not interrupted the gentile domination until that domination should end. The end of the gentile rule, therefore, would mark necessarily the end of the present order; therefore, the end of the world. We should expect, then, to find 1914 as the beginning of the end of the old world or order oh government."
i can't find any place where it specifically talks about the year that Jesus is placed upon his holy hill in Zion.
xo
how can the following be proved to be scriptural?.
what possible evidence supports these teachings and policies?.
1. jesus surveyed all christian denominations and chose the "anointed" under judge rutherford for his approved church in the year 1919.. .
dear DATA-DOG...
in "The Harp of God" on page 225 we have the reason given that some would notice the signs of Jesus' presence. Namely Jesus' words in Acts 1:7,8. "Those who are begotten of the Holy Spirit have the promise that The Lord will reveal to them His great truths when due to be understood" (1 cor.2:9,10) The beginning of the time of the end is marked as 1799 (Napoleon begins his campaign in Egypt and finishes in 1799, page 229)
"the prophet then was shown that 1260 years from AD539 bearings us to 1799. This also shows that it is from the date 539AD that the other prophetic days of Daniel must be counted." ..."Blessed is he that wait etch, and comets to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty [1335] days".(Daniel 12:12) This date, therefore, when understood, would certainly fix the time when The Lord is due at his second appearing. Applying the same rule, then,of a day for a year, 1335 days after 539AD brings us to AD 1874 (pg 230)...(also it is noted that these dates are studied extensively in volumes 2 and 3 of Studies in the Scriptures.
Page 231 wants to make a clear distinction between the years mentioned. "There are two important dates here that we must not confuse, but clearly differentiate, namely, the beginning of "the time of the end" and of "the presence of The Lord". The time of the end embraces a period from 1799' as indicated, to the time of the complete overthrow of satan's empire and the establishment of the kingdom of the Messiah. The time of the Lord's second presence dates from 1874, as stated. The later period is within the first named, of course, and at the latter part of the period known as "the time of the end".
love michelle
overheard:.
"is your cup half full or half empty?".
"well, depends on whether you just poured something out or poured something in.".
dear James Thomas...
thank you for your response.
I had read what you said about the sugar cube before, the first time you wrote about it. I thought it was interesting. I tend to believe that in spite of the very small amount of "us" that the human body contains people are immeasurably more valuable than their gross weight :) someone elses "one seven billionth of one teaspoon" of ideas alone can actually cause another person to move physically, can't they?...impel them forward AND provide them momentum.
anyway, I don't think you're a fool if that's what you're saying. I was giving your (I don't know what to call it, belief, experiential philosophy?) some thought last night. I don't want to experience it because I don't think it is a healthy approach to life, if it works for you in some way I would be interested in hearing about what benefit you have found it to have for you personally.
what I was thinking last night is that if nothing can be known about this "Source" then one shouldn't be too dogmatic about calling it the "Source" first of all. also if a person has to give up time, thoughts, beliefs and energy to advance toward some kind of eventual (I don't know, connection?) with the "all" or the "Source"...but this "Source" doesn't encourage questions (you can't actually know), give any answers or provide for hope of anything in return...can it even be called a "Source" when in theory it acts like a parasite? (no offense).
so...those are just some of my thoughts. Have you ever thought about what you believe and asked yourself questions like this?
love michelle
overheard:.
"is your cup half full or half empty?".
"well, depends on whether you just poured something out or poured something in.".
dear James Thomas...
let me see if I've understood what you've said correctly...ummm...not that your words actually mean anything or something
on your "pathless-path" (through meditation etc?) you have found that:"What does matter, amounts to one thing: how we treat each-other and all life and planet." BUT that isn't truth because if we are all part of the all the exact opposite could be just as true.
evil could be generated through thought and mind generated confusion but if it is and has been essentially part of the all...should it be silenced?...are we the ones to make that call?...would be be messing with the "Source"?...how would we know?
it seems to me, if no real truth only ambiguity can be found on this pathless path...isn't that really a waste of precious time?...even as little as 1/2 an hour spent on this pathless path could have been spent enjoying this life.
love michelle
I've heard that the time of the gentiles refers to the period of grace when the gentiles are called into fellowship with God through Jesus Christ. the end of the time of the gentiles is when jewish people start to be grafted back in by coming to believe in Jesus Christ as their Saviour. there are more jewish people in jerusalem coming to Christ now-a-days than there has been since the time of Jesus Christ on earth.
love michelle
"it is the concept of original sin that negates morality.. if man is guilty by nature, he has no choice about it.. if he has no choice, the issue does not belong in the field of morality.
morality pertains only to the sphere of man's free will -- only to those actions which are open to his choice.. to consider man guilty by nature is a contradiction in terms.".
augustine had the mistaken view that many metaphysicians had at that time: all humans were "nested" inside of adam like those russian dolls that fit inside each other.
dear Tammy...
you said:"Death entered him, and had not been in him before he ate of the tree of the knowledge of good (life), and bad (death). Eating of death, brings death into you.
Instead of leaving him to die then and there, though (thereby giving none of us who came after, life)... God prepared a new body for him (long garment of skin), that 'holds' that sin and death. So that we do not have to die, in spirit... though these vessels do get sick, and die."...
I used to think that regarding the tree of good and evil that good meant life and evil meant death but a word study proved this notion to be false. in genesis 2:9 the word evil #7451 never connotes "death" in any of the places that it is used in the bible. even the evil spiritswithout flesh (which would be similar in nature as to what you are suggesting A&E were before they were covered) are pictured as being evil or wicked, the biblical usage of this word "evil" doesn't imply dead or death. strongs says: this word evil denotes degeneracy from original virtue. (to become disobedient)
as well, the word good in genesis 2:9 connotes in the widest sense of the word...goodness, not life. "the creation narrative best embodies all these various elements of meaning when the Lord declares each aspect of His handiwork to be good." the word naturally expresses the idea of being loved or enjoying the favor of someone. (to remain in grace) none of the words employed to express goodness relating to this one word #2896 meant "life".
so, adam didn't eat of "death", the act of eating from that tree was an act of disobedience toward God's command. And the consequence of his disobenience was that he could no longer eat from the tree of life...this isn't ever called the tree of "good" either
in the OT as well as the NT the idea of putting on new or glorified "flesh" is not expressed the way you have implied. the idea expressed is to put on "the garment of salvation"...ie: the salvation of Christ; or "the garment of righteousness"...ie: the righteousness of Christ. in jude 23 the direct opposite is stated...those false teachers who walk not according to the Lord Jesus Christ have garments defiled by the flesh. what they have on (not their flesh) is defiled in that they don't have on or haven't put on "the garment of salvation" or "the garment of righteousness" offered by Jesus Christ. in revelation 3:17-18 Jesus talks about people who are pitiful, poor, blind and "naked"...though they believe they have need of nothing, (perhaps because they are "good") they have on their own righteousness so Jesus points to the fact that they are "naked" and need to buy from Him white garments because they don't have on His righteousness or His salvation...they are told to repent. interestingly this command is addressed to the church in Laodicea...historically, C.T. Russell billed himself as the "angel/messenger" of the church of Laodicea and few JW's have actually come under the cover of the blood of Jesus Christ.
in revelation 3:4-5 Jesus again speaks about garments and He isn't refering to "flesh" but garments that haven't been defiled by the flesh, they will walk with Him in white. Jesus also talks here about another group overcoming in order to walk in white garments. this is an illusion to the garden of eden where A&E didn't overcome satans temptation to disobey God...these must overcome, not simply generic "sins" of the flesh, but overcome the temptation of satan to disobey God...ie: acts 2:36-41, the divine nature of Jesus Christ is not something that we can obtain by ourselves by being good or nice we can't fashion it no matter how hard we try...we must turn to the Lord Jesus Christ, repent and put on His garments of righteousness and salvation acts 17:29-34
love michelle
p.s. in contrast to the garments we "fashion", white garments symbolize the purity of the blood of Jesus Christ..."wash your robes in the blood of the Lamb"
1.man's nature as homo sapien is to pursue knowledge for survival.
1.man's nature as homo sapien is to pursue knowledge for survival.
1.man's nature as homo sapien is to pursue knowledge for survival.
dear Terry...
I have reiterated what you have said about God. I have not slandered you.
I have explained and posted as simply as I can what the text says so that people can understand it. in another comparable thread of yours, people who have read the bible might even recognise that my reference to adam realising that he was no longer "covered" by the grace of God is a direct reference to the words of Jesus in revelation 3:5 (and many other places where the bible talks about being covered by the blood of Jesus Christ once we re-appropriate the grace of God) Your indignant response:"Where does your imagination find compelling evidence of that assertion, pray tell?" ...You have insisted that God made adam go against his nature by prohibiting him from seeking knowledge and threatened "a willful act of murder" if he did...AND that was a "test" from God. (IF THAT ISN'T A MIS-LEADING, BIASED ACCUSATION I DON'T KNOW WHAT IS)...
you're offended are you?...how very ego-centric of you.
I'm annoyed, but...love michelle
1.man's nature as homo sapien is to pursue knowledge for survival.
1.man's nature as homo sapien is to pursue knowledge for survival.
1.man's nature as homo sapien is to pursue knowledge for survival.
dear Terry...
matthew 1:1...that doesn't say that Jehovah tempted Jesus. it says satan tempted Jesus.
matthew 1:8...that doesn't say that Jehovah delivered all the nations into satans hand...it says that satan believes he is in control of the nations. Of course, God says the He Himself lifts up kingdoms and brings them down...at His will.
you said: " Had Jehovah NOT delivered to Satan the Kingdoms and the glory the premise of the temptation would have been null. "...again, God does not tempt with evil. satan tempted Jesus with the easy way to get worship. Jesus rebuffed the offer in order to do the will of the Father the hardest way.
you said: " A distinction without a difference, I'm afraid " ...but there is a difference. you alledge that it was God who created the conflict about knowledge by putting a restriction on what adam could learn thereby causing him to go against his "nature". I said that it wasn't God who created the conflict about knowledge. God's warning was about death. satan manipulated God's warning about death and made it about God with-holding knowledge. as I said in my previous post: satan "made" the conflict about knowledge (where the original prohabition from God was about death.
"in the day that you eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you will surely die" the text certainly eludes to the fact that a day for God is not what we would call a day. As it says in genesis 1:9-13 the earth was seeded and brought forth all vegetaion on one day. that doesn't happen in one of our days. with this in mind, why do you insist that God is lying because He said in that day. that day could have been a mighty long time.
you said:" I don't understand your objections, to be frank. What are you on about? "...my objections are these: you are deliberately mis-representing what the text says in order to try and make it conform to your "bias" toward God. (you have said: He's incompetent, lying, murdering, spiteful and dim witted) you are misleading people with your mis-information and biased accusations and THAT is what I am on about...I don't want to see JWN people mislead...I think they've had enough of that with the WTBTS...
...and then on another thread you say: "I have nothing against God"...does this suggest that you might be confused?
love michelle
