<!-- .style1 {font-family: arial, sans-serif} .style2 {font-size: 14px} .style3 {font-size: 14px; font-family: arial, sans-serif; } .style4 {color: #454b97} .style7 {font-family: arial, sans-serif; color: #8b5b38; } .style8 {color: #336600} --> questions surrounding evolution regarding this subject, the thought in mind is to ask.
some pertinent questions regarding evolution in .
it must be strongly emphasized that there is no wish.
And who says the bible doesn't contradict itself!
Proverbs Chp 4:
6 Do not forsake wisdom, and she will protect you;
love her, and she will watch over you.
7 Wisdom is supreme; therefore get wisdom.
Though it cost all you have, [ a ] get understanding.
8 Esteem her, and she will exalt you;
embrace her, and she will honor you.
9 She will set a garland of grace on your head
and present you with a crown of splendor."
steve
i recall reading a couple years back, some court documents posted on an ex-jw site that stated that charles taze russell was accused by his wife (at their divorce hearing) of sexually abusing a girl that they had taken in to their home.
does anyone have any information on this?
or know where i can find this again?
Charles Russell was a lot of things. And, many unpleasant titles fit his epitaph. However, child molestation wasn't one of them.
steve
i have several ways of stating and demonstrating what is essentially the same point.... 1. jws often deflected the question, "what is the purpose of life?
", by stating that our purpose it is to serve the creator... but, what is the purpose of the creator himself?
must we not apply the same criteria to the creator as we do to ourselves?
dorayakii: ...of course, creationists would argue that God did not begin to exist, he merely... exists. Therefore, if we can say something like that about God, why can we not say that Life itself... just exists? Why do special rules apply to the Creator, and why does he get out of the logical equation? (and don't just say "because he's the Creator d'uh" coz that doesnt hold water)
Lets make a preposition here:
'The creator' does not have to be an intelligent, supreme, omnipotent being.
'The creator' created the big bang.
Therefore, using your logic: What created 'The creator'?
steve
i have several ways of stating and demonstrating what is essentially the same point.... 1. jws often deflected the question, "what is the purpose of life?
", by stating that our purpose it is to serve the creator... but, what is the purpose of the creator himself?
must we not apply the same criteria to the creator as we do to ourselves?
Dorayakii, Have you read about the Kalam cosmological argument? If not you may find it interesting. The refined break down is something like this:
1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2) The universe began to exist.
3) Therefore, the universe had a cause.
Note: the 'cause' is in the 'cause and effect' sense.
It is commonly used as proof of the existence of God.
There have been objections to this, including quantum physics which shows how electrons can 'come into being' in a vacuum.
Also, there is an argument that says it is absurd to define a state of what happened 'before' the big bang, because if the big bang created space and TIME, then any-TIME BEFORE the big bang didn't exist.
steve
my friend and work colleague was kelvin.
often he would be the one to do the "egg and bacon" run at 9:30am after we'd been at work for a couple of hours on the ward.
down to the hospital cantain he'd go to get us all lots of cholesterol laiden food, egg, bacon, mushrooms,fried bread waffles etc a proper english breakfast.
God bless you Kelvin, you silly sod.
Take care Scott.
steve
california court tells watchtower society to make public the silentlambs files revealing who among jehovahs witness are pedophiles etc:.
http://silentlambs.org/newsletter/newsletteritem.cfm?sendoutid=489.
I converted the PDF to text for easy reading here: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/8/122529/3.ashx
steve
ENDORSED
Clerk of the Napa Superior Court
By: M.M Fields
SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF NAPA
CHARlSSA W., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT
SOCIETY OF NEW YORK, et al.
Defendants.
CaseNo.: 26-22191
JCCP No. 4374
RULING ON SUBMITTED
DISCOVERY MOTIONS
Plaintiffs' Motions To Compel Discovery came on for hearing on October 13, 2006. The
court, having read and considered the papers in support of and in opposition to the motion and having heard ora1 argument, took the motions under submission and now rules as follows:
Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Depositions and/or for Protective Order re: the Weedland
Elders (Motion #1)
The Watchtower defendants have informed the plaintiffs that, at the depositions of four
Church Elders, they will invoke the clergy-penitent privilege and object to "any inquiries concerning judicial investigations and judicial committees." Plaintiffs seek an order compelling the deponents to attend their depositions and to respond to such inquiries.
This court has previously ruled in the Track I cases that the penitential communication
privilege does not apply to communications between the alleged abusers and the Judicial
Committee. (See Court's ruling of September 29, 2005.) Although that ruling is not res judicata in non-track 1 cases, defendants provide no convincing reason why the court should rule differently in this case. For the reasons expressed in the earlier ruling, the court concludes that the witnesses may not assert the penitential communication privilege. To the extent the motion also encompasses the production of documents, defendants shall produce responsive documents, regardless of when they arc dated. As plaintiffs note, it is possible that documents dated after the alleged abuse will contain relevant information. For these reasons, plaintiffs' motion #1 is GRANTED.
Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel PMK Deposition and Documents – General (Motion #2)
Plaintiffs have noticed the deposition of the Church defendants' Person(s) Most
Knowledgeable (PMK) on a number of specified topics. Defendants have objected to six areas of inquiry, again invoking the clergy-penitent privilege. For the reasons discussed above and in the court’s earlier ruling, the court finds that the clergy-penitent privilege does not apply to these areas of inquiry. Defendants also object to the scope of the document requests, claiming that documents that post-date the alleged abuse arc not relevant or likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. As above, the court finds that the documents are discoverable. For these reasons, plaintiffs' motion #2 is GRANTED.
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel PMK Deposition and Documents – Legal (Motion #3)
Plaintiffs previously issued a PMK deposition notice concerning "any and all policies that
the Jehovah's Witnesses organization had for handling accusations and proof of child sexual abuse from 1970 to the present." During that PMK deposition of Mr. Breaux, he identified functions that were handled by the Legal Department rather than by the Service Department, where he worked. As to these, he lacked the information necessary to provide responses.
Plaintiffs subsequently noticed a PMK deposition to inquire into (1) the organiztiion,
staffing and operation of the Legal Department; (2) the Legal Departments role in responding to and investigating child sexual abuse allegations within the organization; (3) the development and use of "Child Abuse Telememos" which were forms developed to obtain and record information concerning reports of abuse (blank forms were produced in discovery); (4) records kept by or under the direction of the Legal Department concerning allegations of abuse; and (5) answers given to "survey questions" contained on one of the Telememos.
Defendants have objected that these areas of inquiry are protected by the attorney-client and/or work product privileges. As to the first two categories, plaintiffs contend that they concern only policies and implementation, and do not invade any privileges. As to category 3 and 5, they assert only that the information is related to the blank documents they already received in discovery, and that the information goes to the heart of their case. Finally, as to category 4, they claim again, that no privileges would be invaded, because they seek general information about the types of records kept by the legal department.
The court agrees that items 1, 2 and 4 which seek general structural, policy and organizational information concerning the Legal Department, implicate neither the attorney-client nor the work product privileges. Item 3 and 5 on the other hand, seek protected information. As set forth in the declaration of the Church’s associate general council, the Telememo forms are completed by attorneys or legal assistants based upon information provided them by congregation elders, and are used to assist in giving legal advice to the elders, as clients of the Legal Department. Similarly, any compilation of information, as from the “survey questions” constitutes attorney work product and is not discoverable.
For these reasons, the court will GRANT the motion as to the items 1, 2, and 4 and will DENY the motion as to items 3 and 5.
i try to be open minded and not judge anything but when i see these movie commercials----.
i think it was saw iii or something, all this blood, gore, shrieking and grotesque violence, all i can do is ask with a sense of awe --why?
why would someone want to watch that?.
There is a direct correlation between the movie industry making / releasing horror movies and which political party (Democrat or Republican) is in office !
steve
<!-- .style1 {font-family: arial, sans-serif} .style2 { font-size: 14px; font-family: arial, sans-serif; } .style3 {font-family: arial, sans-serif; color: #e8b303; } .style4 {font-family: arial, sans-serif; color: #a9a4b8; } --> "there are no atheists in a foxhole"old soliders' adage this discussion was brought about by curiosity as to why in-.
dividuals have become atheists seeing that at one time they.
professed a belief in god.. the intent is not to argue, debate, or incite to riot.
Education, rational thought, and the humility to accept I was wrong.
steve
ok, lets have a discussion about where we all came from, evolution or creation?
(or whatever you beleive in of course) every one put down there main reasons, along with reasonable facts and backup as to why.. .
hopefully this doesnt start to many arguments, lol.. .
TopHat: If anyone could prove anything..it would have been said by now. How many days ago did this thread begin!
What would you like 'proved'. The proof of evolution or the proof of Jewish/Christian Creationism?
steve
