can someone please explain what the image on the last page of awake represents please?
three interlocked rings with three points that make a triangle shape when joined.. .
does not three linked circles symbolise the trinity?.
Awake-to-deceit:
I believe it signifies the trinity/occult
So, which is it?
Over a billion people nominally believe in the 'Trinity', so it's hardly a secret or 'occult'. But JWs don't believe in the 'Trinity', so it would be rather pointless for them to 'covertly' suggest otherwise.
It's just a logo for a magazine segment that touches on science (rather poorly). Move along. Nothing to see here.
can someone please explain what the image on the last page of awake represents please?
three interlocked rings with three points that make a triangle shape when joined.. .
does not three linked circles symbolise the trinity?.
can someone please explain what the image on the last page of awake represents please?
three interlocked rings with three points that make a triangle shape when joined.. .
does not three linked circles symbolise the trinity?.
Awake-to-deceit:
I believe it signifies the trinity/occult, I don't know how long the term 'stylised atom' has been around, I'm pretty sure Borromean Rings pre-date this modern application and that they can have multiple forms of parametrization.
You're welcome to believe whatever you like, but there isn't some 'special' reference to the 'Trinity' (or the 'occult') every time there happens to be three of something. The three dots and rings represent the three electrons of a lithium atom and their associated orbits, as depicted in the Rutherford model.
"Stylised atom" is not a 'special term'. Stylised means what it means, and atom means what it means. Atoms are too small to actually see, so all depictions of atoms are technically stylised, but in this case it is stylised in a manner similar to many logos and other insignia to convey a concept in a non-technical manner. The lithium atom is frequently used to represent atoms in this way because it is more readily identifiable as an atom than simpler hydrogen (one ring) or helium (two rings) representations, without being unduly complex.
Borromean rings by definition are interlinked in such a way that all three rings are linked, but removing any one ring results in two remaining unlinked rings.
can someone please explain what the image on the last page of awake represents please?
three interlocked rings with three points that make a triangle shape when joined.. .
does not three linked circles symbolise the trinity?.
Which issue of Awake! are you talking about??
If you're referring to the semi-regular Was it Designed? item, it's a stylised atom as an analog for the concept of design. It most closely resembles a lithium atom.
In any case, they aren't Borromean rings, which by definition interlink in a particular way. There is insufficient detail in the stylised image to represent the interlinks required for Borromean rings.
its been a tough 6 months for my jw hubby and myself.
next saturday is our anniversary.
i wasn't sure we would make it with the turbulance of the last 6 months.
KariOtt:
Yes to keep the peace I don't celebrate any holidays anymore.
He decided to give up those celebrations. There's no reason you should. You have as much right to your beliefs (or lack of belief) as he has to his. Why not go to other family or friends to celebrate your birthday, Christmas, etc? It might be easier to keep the peace by not having those celebrations at your own home, but there's no reason at all why you should give them up altogether if you don't want to.
Thats why I purchased my cross for myself.
What was his actual reaction to you buying the piece of jewellery? Outraged? Mildly disappointed?
its been a tough 6 months for my jw hubby and myself.
next saturday is our anniversary.
i wasn't sure we would make it with the turbulance of the last 6 months.
KariOtt:
I'm taking the cross and chain back.
You have every right to keep it, especially if it's part of practising your own faith.
If having a cross matters a lot to you, keep it. If your husband expects you to respect his beliefs, it's a two-way street.
If having it doesn't matter that much to you, it's probably simpler to just take it back.
its been a tough 6 months for my jw hubby and myself.
next saturday is our anniversary.
i wasn't sure we would make it with the turbulance of the last 6 months.
KariOtt:
The mistake comes in to play when hubby found out I bought a gold cross and chain for myself. Since all this was to be a suprise and he has never gotten me anything for our anniversary I took it upon myself to get a gift for me. The mistake is not getting a gift for myself it was what I got. A cross. He's jw. I am not. I'm taking the cross and chain back.
Did he appreciate everything else? If he only focussed on the piece of jewellery, he's a prick. If he's a nice guy, it could have been just a two-second distraction from an otherwise happy occasion.
He could say something like: "I'd really prefer if you didn't have a gold cross. Let me buy you something else." Problem solved.
I hope you were still able to have a nice anniversary.
creationists are not consistant with their otherwise apparant logic:.
nothing comes from nothing check .
everything has a beginning check .
tec:
Now, I have explained three times that the example was in regard to NOT listening.
Nothing of what you provided as 'evidence' constitutes evidence of anything at all. But back to your statement above...
If you occasionally second-guess yourself, that makes you just like everyone else.
If you like to fantasise that some of your self-talk is actually Jesus, that makes you a little naive.
If you 'know' that a supernatural all-knowing entity answers questions for you, and you sometimes ignore its advice, that makes you a special kind of stupid.
(Though one would think that 'your lord' should probably be doing something more worthwhile than trying to help you locate scriptures that you already know about. Especially when he would already have known that you were going to ignore him. )
late last night i received the following message from the contact form on my website.
this message was sent from the contact form on the today's pa website.
organisation:.
jgnat:
Yeah, that "Hurts Jehovah" business. It's passive-aggressive manipulation. Besides, Jehovah by comparison has always been direct. Jehovah is described as angry or loving but never "hurt".
The Bible's flood myth says he was "hurt" at Genesis 6:6. (Awww... poor little Jehovah.) So he murdered almost everyone.
creationists are not consistant with their otherwise apparant logic:.
nothing comes from nothing check .
everything has a beginning check .
tec:
Gentlemen, you have all missed the point of that example
It was a stupid 'example'. You second-guessed yourself about recalling a Bible verse, and that's all. There was absolutely nothing remarkable about the 'example'. When a person initially thinks of a correct answer but then chooses an incorrect answer instead, it doesn't mean the correct answer came from 'Jesus'.
But this was my Lord.
You gave an entirely mundane 'example', and then made the above assertion. Your assertion has no basis whatsoever, and there is no compelling reason to believe that you 'heard' anything other than your own thoughts.
I have no tumors or the like of that (I have had tests for those becasue of headaches and history of aneurisms, etc).
If you have a history of aneurysms, it should be of immediate concern if you are experiencing auditory hallucinations.
However, from what you've described, your 'hearing' of the voice of 'your lord' seems more like fantasising about your own self-talk rather than genuine auditory hallucinations.
