....still looking for that "imperfection" scripture.....
Well you won't find it from me (I have better things to do on a Sunday than look at scripture) and you gave the other two a headache so I don't think you can count on them either.
lately i have made some pretty bold statements about the value of dialogue.
so i thought i would put it in to practice.
i've picked this topic, one i have not studied out thoroughly.
....still looking for that "imperfection" scripture.....
Well you won't find it from me (I have better things to do on a Sunday than look at scripture) and you gave the other two a headache so I don't think you can count on them either.
lately i have made some pretty bold statements about the value of dialogue.
so i thought i would put it in to practice.
i've picked this topic, one i have not studied out thoroughly.
Happy Guy, we may curse the toaster, but is it the toaster's fault?
Thank you for your above question jgnat. I was under the impression that I had already given my thoughts on that when I said " "No" - after all it's inanimate ".
My little addition of "I often find myself cursing at inanimate objects" was my attempt at being facetious. I hope this clarifies my position.
lately i have made some pretty bold statements about the value of dialogue.
so i thought i would put it in to practice.
i've picked this topic, one i have not studied out thoroughly.
Interesting point you raise jgnat. While it would seem obvious to me that the answer would be "No" - after all it's inanimate - I often find myself cursing at inanimate objects.
lately i have made some pretty bold statements about the value of dialogue.
so i thought i would put it in to practice.
i've picked this topic, one i have not studied out thoroughly.
jgnat, I can recall asking that same question to a couple of pioneers and elders. I was told by them (with only slight differences in thier versions) that Adam was created perfect. The reason he sinned (hence losing his immortality and perfection) was because he was also given "free will" by Jehovah. When I pressed with how someone created perfect could make a mistake by breaking Jehovah's rule thus sinning they would just repeat because he had free will. In thier minds it made sense, in mine it didn't.
well, the worst case scenario happened in my life,.
i had a topic awhile back about, have you ever thought about leaving your mate for someone else??.
i never updated as much as i should of ?.
This is really rough news R.D.W. and my heart goes out to you. You will have a hill to climb but I think Scully has given you a truly outstanding post. Read it again. Good luck R.D.W. and thank you for sharing this difficult news with others here. We're all pulling for you and the Mrs. how ever it turns out.
so forget hillbillys post...... what's in your glass, mug or can tonight?.
me, oj and vodka, yeah a screwdriver.
i wanted a sloscrew but we didn't have the slo so i had to settle for the regular screwdriver.. whatcha drinking?.
Chocolate milk.
http://www.northpeel.com/br/gi/news/story/2270645p-2631778c.html .
wednesday, october 13th, 2004 .
alberta man brings protest to georgetown .
I do not believe that it merely has to be a publication. Firstly let me qualify that: I should have said libel and slander. It can be simply a matter of someone making a statement to someone else. If it is proved the statement is false and it is proved that the subject was harmed by the statement then my understanding is that is sufficient. I believe the question becomes proving it was said (obviously it's easier if it's published) and then proving the extent of the harm to ones reputation etc. My past experience, while limited, leads me to believe that even if the press was told "no comment" a story would still be circulated amongst the flock (presumably for damage control). My interpretation from your quote is that there is concern about one of the flock repeating this "damage control story" to the wrong individual and it leading to at least a slander situation.
http://www.northpeel.com/br/gi/news/story/2270645p-2631778c.html .
wednesday, october 13th, 2004 .
alberta man brings protest to georgetown .
I can think of one very powerful reason Scully (assuming the quote is true): If they say things publicly and it gets proven at a later date that they lied (presumeably in order to do damage control) they would be open to a libel suit. I read this that they are providing "stories" to the flock of their version (presumably to passify them) and they are afraid it could be repeated publically. To me, it implies they know their "stories" are untrue and they could be open to libel.
this is an updated announcement from lawrence hughes:
the court hearing has been moved over one day to tuesday morning, october 19. the protest rally will start at 11:00am.
i figure the protest will end at about 1:00pm.
Sorry ,but ive thought about this for ages now.There is no way on earth that the Witnesses i know or knew,would allow a known Paedophile to go un-reported and to be free to be around Kids.It wouldnot happen.That means the Elders too.Im not denying abuse happens.Clearly it has happened,but not to the extent some People say. Many testimonials from credible people support this abuse IT, at least to a highly significant extent. Many of us have had different experiences than you IT. You are very fortunate to not have had these types of bad experiences. * Practicing some cut and paste
.
...hope anyone in that neck o woods will drop in and see me!.
kimberlee d.
btt