the bible doesnt mention them at all.
so what the hell?
I asked this to an elder long time ago. The answer: they bible does not say they existed so they did not.
That was a real stupid a$$. My answer: they bible does not say that you exist also.
Anyway, they had a awake with a whole theme about dinasours. They do not deny them. They leave open all important questions though.
Danny
it is interesting to note that of the total actual growth of all churches put together in the usa, 98.8% went to the roman catholic church (852,663 rcc vs 863,448 all ).
church.
21. united church of christ.
Jehovah's Witnesses have never had 1,041,030 publishers in the USA, let alone 1,022,397. These numbers are false. Check the yearbooks; in fact, the highest number this 2005 service year is 1,004,000.
Probably they do not count publishers. As that is hard to compare to other religions.
By the way where are the other religions like boeddists and moslims?
today.
well i called that chicks number, it was her home number and her mom answered.
i thought it was her and said "hey whats up?
I wonder if I really care to know this all.
(I feel lucky when I erad those post that those years are behind me.)
never mind me, Tsunami Rider, just keep on posting
ok, since all the evidence and people/scholars etc, all agree that jerusalem was destroyed in 587/586 bce and not 607 bce.
how do the jw's get the extra 20 years, i understand the 2520 years and going back from 1914. but alot of the proof goes by adding up the kings reigns, and it gets you to the 587/586 date, do jw's simply add on a few years for each king, or is their a mystery king that ruled for 20 years that only they know about.. hhhhhhmmmmmmm.
hope my question makes sense.
The Bible never mentions any other dates, like 607 bc, 587 bc, 537 bc, etc?
it would be a bit strange to start counting before the start right. Like we live now in the year -607.
Anyway just like most tribes did in that area, they started each time a new king came to power.
locally on occasion it was the common practice when "in service" to leave gas money for the driver.
i know that the individuals if savvy can get a tax credit for mileage for service (and i was once told mileage to and from public talks could also be included).
what i am curious about is do people still give the driver money for thier trouble?
For the field service this is very uncommon here.
For going to a convention or somewhere more far, mostly people split it fairly.
it is not so cold
wow, yeah i was looking fr the theocratic ministry school oral review questions and i came across an apostate site!
the site was www.jehovahs-witness.com and was just fill of retarded apostates!
they were not only using a domain name and header name that denotes a conection with the actual watchtower society, but where using it to blasphem the jehovah's true organization in order to help people break away.
The question we can ask is: Is a publisher joing an apostate board more wrong than the WTS joining the UN?
.
i am researching 1975 and i was curious to ask any that served as elder back then in the wtbts ever issue a directive to the congregations to stop or discourage believers from selling their property, cashing out retirements, early marriage, quiting jobs, etc., etc.................. thanks
My father was a elder and he told the congregation that it would not come in 1975 (because nowbody knows the hour) etc.
it was not appriciated, but tolerated. Anyway most did not listen to him, but there was a lot of discussion about it.
What I remember from the "older times" was that discussion was much more possible then it is now.
Anyway it is not too important what the WTS exactly said IMO. They knew very well what was going on worldwirde, and did nothing to prevent people from putting their fate on this date. That says enough for me
don't get me wrong here.
nor will i deny that there are men and women of science who do not work for money or fame or glory, but rather for "truth", and even for the good of the human race and this planet.. scientists are supposed to be unbiased in their research using the universally accepted "scientific method", being completely objective, and working in the sterile environment of the laboratory, removed from outside contamination and social influence.
they themselves are supposed to approach a subject or investigation with patience and open-mindedness, without prejudice or pre-conceived notions.
What I think is one of the problems here is that there is a big gap between the general public and science. The public does (mostly) not understand how science works, and have a wrong image of scientists.
Maybe thanks to the media or whatever who depicts scientists as some strange wierdo doing all wrong kinds of experiments in his basement.
In many fields it is all group works, the individual is becomming less and less important. There are also so may controls.
Anyway, I think it is true that a scientist is under a lot of pressure to get something to be published. This can cause some scientists to fake (or adjust) some data or whatever. However a scientist has to describe the way he conducts his experiments and soon other will try the same. If the experimental data of the other researchers are constantly very different, it is easy for the scientist to get a blame as fraud.
About the big bang therory, it is very interesting information. It is true there are many holes in the theories, or better to say things that we do not understand. This does not have to indicate however that everything is wrong. But in the article I think there is not given a better theory or suggestion. So as long as there is no better theory that can be verified, it is best to hold on to the existing theory and try to prove or disprove it, and continue to calculate its concequences.
Anyway it is good for scientists to have an open mind on theories that they use. I know most of them are, as there are as view things as exiting as proving a accepted theory wrong.
On the other hand, scientist need to use older theories to build something new.
Danny
i just saw a documentary called "the corporation".
very disturbing.. one premise put forth likened our reality to those who first experimented with flying.
they formed contraptions with wings and jumped off cliffs.
I am positive about the future.
A said, things come and go. It has always been that things turned out better after a bad period. Better then they were before. In my opinion things are a lot better then before 1914.
I think we (humans) have come already from far. Things that use to be very normal (like slavery) are (almost) non existent now. In the awareness things are improving.
Personally I believe that we will live forever in a paradise on earth, someday. Well I am not going to see this. And we do not need any GOD to do it. W can manage our own.
