Posts by crownboy

33

Are there too many EX-JW Born agains?

by sleepy in

jw
friends

i dont wish to offend anyone but this is what i think.a large number of people who leave the jehovahs witness movment become born again christians or join other religious groups.but is this a sign that many who have learnt that "gods chosen organisation" is wrong have not learnt anything at all?.

maybe the prospect of facing a future without a god , a divine purpose , and a faith just too much for some people to bear.but in joining another religious group are they not making the same or similar mistakes as before?they are still putting their trust in a ancient book written by people they have never met, interpretted by other people or by themselves, they have not maybe learnt to be analytical in their thinking and to withhold trust until reasonably solid evidence is provided on an issue.. although other religious may or may not be more harmful than jehovahs witnesses if lessons on thinking and reasoning have not been learnt then we could be open to many more errors of judgment in our lives.. so does the fact that many jehovahs witnesses join other religons show that they are just moving on rather than understanding why jehovahs witness are wrong and learning from it?.

maybe they dont fully grasp that the fudamental flaw to jehovahs witness , is belief in the bible as gods word only the second being following that through an organistation .if the bible is not gods word then all religions who follow it are flawed.. of course what other people choose to think or follow is none of my buisness and i fully respect other peoples right to believe what they want, but if this world is to progress and mankind to improve in thier dealings with one another then we can not all go round living in our own little fantasy worlds , we must be brutal with ourselves in checking why we believe the things we do and trying to align our minds with reality not fantasy.. this apllies to all aspects of our lives.but if we are not honest or open minded and reasonable enough to see there are some massive problems to the bibles authenticity and divine declerations how will we be able to make reasonable decisions in other areas of our lives?

crownboy

Ditto to what rem said in his first and second post.

BTW, rem, I recall Mommie Dark using that analogy.

see:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.aspx?id=19666&site=3

53

Bible is God's word?

by Moxy in

id like to hear some *reasoned* explanations for why you believe the bible is gods word.

ive been so fascinated by the study of *real* biblical scholarship since i began educating myself, i now find it incredulous that i used to take the bible as divine, along with all jws and tons of christians, including a good number here.

so id like to entertain your very best lines of evidence that this is the real deal.. mox

crownboy

That's a very truthful observation you made about JW publications, Moxy.

The magazine writers always write from the perspective that all the stuff in the bible is indeed true. I'm kind of amuzed myself by this whole notion. In fact, in the Mankinds Search for God book, one of the proofs that the writers used to establish the veracity of the bible was quoting 2Tim. 3:16 ("all scriptures is inspired...")! They quoted from the bible to establish the bible's authenticity; that reasoning is so circular, my head is spinning just thinking about it . I suspect a Muslim could do the same with the Quaran, or any religionist with his or her holy book.

The book The Bible, God's Word or Man's? also attempts to establish the bible's authencity, but they use several very weak arguments, as would be expected. At one point, they say we should believe the bible is correct in all things because it is so in some things, so therefore when there is an inconsisentency, we should give the bible the benefit of the doubt.

However, in most publications, they won't even bother trying to establish anything like the above.

307

Super Bowl Predictions

by WildTurkey in

.

im a huge cowboy fan but i dont think they will make it to the super bowl, damn sure would love to be wrong.

ok here is who i think as of right now pittsburgh stealers and san francisco 49ers and god i hate them both, well thats my pick how about you?

crownboy

Hey, Heaven, you didn't forget about the hot tub, did you?

Geez, dubla still hasn't shown his face yet, huh? Who'd have thought the mighty Dolphins and future Hall of Famer Jay Fiedler (), would be beat by a 300 year old kicker? Or not have the ball on offense very much? Well, here's hoping Belicheck's defense does it's job on Sunday (unlike this pass Sunday )

4

When will George W. Bush stop the craziness?

by crownboy in

jw
friends

ok, so this hasn't happened (as yet), but in spite of the article being written in jest, it certainly seems like something that would happen if the administration thought they could get away with it.. http://theonion.com/onion3847/bill_of_rights.html.

washington, dcflanked by key members of congress and his administration, president bush approved monday a streamlined version of the bill of rights that pares its 10 original amendments down to a "tight, no-nonsense" six.. above: as supporters look on, bush signs the bill of rights reduction and consolidation act.. a republican initiative that went unopposed by congressional democrats, the revised bill of rights provides citizens with a "more manageable" set of privacy and due-process rights by eliminating four amendments and condensing and/or restructuring five others.

the second amendment, which protects the right to keep and bear arms, was the only article left unchanged.. calling the historic reduction "a victory for america," bush promised that the new document would do away with "bureaucratic impediments to the flourishing of democracy at home and abroad.".

crownboy

Ok, so this hasn't happened (as yet), but in spite of the article being written in jest, it certainly seems like something that would happen if the administration thought they could get away with it.

http://theonion.com/onion3847/bill_of_rights.html

WASHINGTON, DCFlanked by key members of Congress and his administration, President Bush approved Monday a streamlined version of the Bill of Rights that pares its 10 original amendments down to a "tight, no-nonsense" six.


Above: As supporters look on, Bush signs the Bill Of Rights Reduction And Consolidation Act.

A Republican initiative that went unopposed by congressional Democrats, the revised Bill of Rights provides citizens with a "more manageable" set of privacy and due-process rights by eliminating four amendments and condensing and/or restructuring five others. The Second Amendment, which protects the right to keep and bear arms, was the only article left unchanged.

Calling the historic reduction "a victory for America," Bush promised that the new document would do away with "bureaucratic impediments to the flourishing of democracy at home and abroad."

"It is high time we reaffirmed our commitment to this enduring symbol of American ideals," Bush said. "By making the Bill of Rights a tool for progress instead of a hindrance to freedom, we honor the true spirit of our nation's forefathers."

The Fourth Amendment, which long protected citizens' homes against unreasonable search and seizure, was among the eliminated amendments. Also stricken was the Ninth Amendment, which stated that the enumeration of certain Constitutional rights does not result in the abrogation of rights not mentioned.

"Quite honestly, I could never get my head around what the Ninth Amendment meant anyway," said outgoing House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-TX), one of the leading advocates of the revised Bill of Rights. "So goodbye to that one."

Amendments V through VII, which guaranteed the right to legal counsel in criminal cases, and guarded against double jeopardy, testifying against oneself, biased juries, and drawn-out trials, have been condensed into Super-Amendment V: The One About Trials.

Attorney General John Ashcroft hailed the slimmed-down Bill of Rights as "a positive step."

"Go up to the average citizen and ask them what's in the Bill of Rights," Ashcroft said. "Chances are, they'll have only a vague notion. They just know it's a set of rules put in place to protect their individual freedoms from government intrusion, and they assume that's a good thing."


	Above: Bush works on revisions to the Bill of Rights.

Ashcroft responded sharply to critics who charge that the Bill of Rights no longer safeguards certain basic, inalienable rights.

"We're not taking away personal rights; we're increasing personal security," Ashcroft said. "By allowing for greater government control over the particulars of individual liberties, the Bill of Rights will now offer expanded personal freedoms whenever they are deemed appropriate and unobtrusive to the activities necessary to effective operation of the federal government."

Ashcroft added that, thanks to several key additions, the Bill of Rights now offers protections that were previously lacking, including the right to be protected by soldiers quartered in one's home (Amendment III), the guarantee that activities not specifically delegated to the states and people will be carried out by the federal government (Amendment VI), and freedom of Judeo-Christianity and non-combative speech (Amendment I).

According to U.S. Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID), the original Bill of Rights, though well-intentioned, was "seriously outdated."

"The United States is a different place than it was back in 1791," Craig said. "As visionary as they were, the framers of the Constitution never could have foreseen, for example, that our government would one day need to jail someone indefinitely without judicial review. There was no such thing as suspicious Middle Eastern immigrants back then."

Ashcroft noted that recent FBI efforts to conduct investigations into "unusual activities" were severely hampered by the old Fourth Amendment.

"The Bill of Rights was written more than 200 years ago, long before anyone could even fathom the existence of wiretapping technology or surveillance cameras," Ashcroft said. "Yet through a bizarre fluke, it was still somehow worded in such a way as to restrict use of these devices. Clearly, it had to go before it could do more serious damage in the future."

The president agreed.

"Any machine, no matter how well-built, periodically needs a tune-up to keep it in good working order," Bush said. "Now that we have the bugs worked out of the ol' Constitution, she'll be purring like a kitten when Congress reconvenes in Januaryjust in time to work on a new round of counterterrorism legislation."

"Ten was just too much of a handful," Bush added. "Six civil liberties are more than enough."

53

Bible is God's word?

by Moxy in

id like to hear some *reasoned* explanations for why you believe the bible is gods word.

ive been so fascinated by the study of *real* biblical scholarship since i began educating myself, i now find it incredulous that i used to take the bible as divine, along with all jws and tons of christians, including a good number here.

so id like to entertain your very best lines of evidence that this is the real deal.. mox

crownboy

RubyTuesday,

Check out this link for some useful information:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/christianity/index.shtml

307

Super Bowl Predictions

by WildTurkey in

.

im a huge cowboy fan but i dont think they will make it to the super bowl, damn sure would love to be wrong.

ok here is who i think as of right now pittsburgh stealers and san francisco 49ers and god i hate them both, well thats my pick how about you?

crownboy

Ok, Heaven, for you I'll get with the program and say :

GREEN BAY KICKS BOOTAYE!

(can't believe I'm doing this for the cheese jacuzzi )

Hey, dubla, just call me Nostradamous.

(bigger gloat pending if the Jets win tomorrow).

15

Lott resigns...

by kelsey007 in

jw
friends

my question is "why are'nt the democrats jumping on bush's hipocracy as well?

they certainly need all the fuel they can get before 2004. it was bush that stood before an open mike and by name called someone a "major league asshole.

" the demos need to be applying pressure at every leval if they hope to gain in 04. are they scared to speak out?

crownboy

JT touched on a point I was about to make; the Republicans wanted Trent Lott out more than the Democrats did. The immediate reaction of the congressional black caucus and senator Tom Daschle was actually quite moderate. It was mostly all the conservative "talking heads" (with the notable exception of Sean Hannity), who seemed intent on seeing him go. After that, both the black caucus (excluding Rep. John Lewis) and Daschle jumped on the "lynch Lott" bandwagon which was already started full throttle by the conservatives.

I think besides the obvious impotence Trent Lott would have represented as the party leader, Republicans were quite frankly tired of what they thought was Lott's lack of leadership. His biggest gaffe, of course, was making James Jeffords so uncomfortable as to leave the republican party. With that loss went the Republicans chances to enact even bigger corporate kick backs for the rich, their opportunity to pack the federal appletate courts with right wing Federalist society hacks, and their opportunity to pay out supporters unconstitutionally by enacting the "faith based" initiatives. It was mainly the work of George W. Bush and (probable new leader) Sen. Bill Frist that has gotten the Republicans back on track to fulfilling at least some of those odious goal (well, at least I'm OK with the school vouchers program ). Trent Lott was a great fundraiser with great connections, and (like Hillary Clinton does for the Democrats) he helps alot of his collegues get money for their campaigns, etc. However, it was rather obvious he was on tenous ground at best, so the republicans jumped on this opportunity to "go in another direction".

As far as his actual comments were concerned, I had a similar reaction to JT. I guess I would have been in the minority of black people who thought Trent Lott should stay. Sure, I disagree with him on most issues of major policy (as I do with most Republicans), but if Bobby Byrd could get away with using the "n word" about a year ago, at the very least Trent Lott deserved as much (of course, Lott's association with a "KKK lite" group makes me a little suspicious about how racist he really is, but hell, Byrd was actually IN the clan at one time. Of course, I don't think Byrd voted against MLK day, and I've seen him several times on C-SPAN while making speeches talk about how wrong his clan membership was.). Of couse, in the end not much will change in Washington, anyway.

The group Trent Lott was associated with (yes, they were just as bad back then as they are now):

http://www.cofcc.org

Edited by - crownboy on 20 December 2002 18:2:42

307

Super Bowl Predictions

by WildTurkey in

.

im a huge cowboy fan but i dont think they will make it to the super bowl, damn sure would love to be wrong.

ok here is who i think as of right now pittsburgh stealers and san francisco 49ers and god i hate them both, well thats my pick how about you?

crownboy

I'll only go into the hot tub if you come in and get your body all cheesy with me, heaven .

The preliminary reality check still has me believing in the J-E-T-S. Perhaps 3 Brett Favre interceptions will seal the loss ? Maybe a couple of solid Mo Lewis tackles will remind Ahman Green of his fumbling troubles?

307

Super Bowl Predictions

by WildTurkey in

.

im a huge cowboy fan but i dont think they will make it to the super bowl, damn sure would love to be wrong.

ok here is who i think as of right now pittsburgh stealers and san francisco 49ers and god i hate them both, well thats my pick how about you?

crownboy

Heaven, feel free to have your way with me anytime .

I'm not sure if dressing me in a cheesehead will keep the Packers from loosing to the Jets again, but you gotta try, right?

307

Super Bowl Predictions

by WildTurkey in

.

im a huge cowboy fan but i dont think they will make it to the super bowl, damn sure would love to be wrong.

ok here is who i think as of right now pittsburgh stealers and san francisco 49ers and god i hate them both, well thats my pick how about you?

crownboy

Crazy151drinker, the Packers are scheduled to get their butts kicked by the Jets on the last week of the season, just as they had it kicked two years ago on opening week in Green Bay. Good luck on getting Favre to get another good road win against the best team in the AFC East.

dubla, the bag was never on my head . As I had hoped, the Patriots lossed to Tennesse on Monday night, so this AFC East race is not quite over yet. The Vikings were good enough to beat the Packers, who actually have a QB, so they at least have a nice chance of beating you guys if the defense is a little off. Fiedler is incapable of carrying a game on his shoulders, his 27 and whatever record might as well be chalked up to the defense. If Moss, Bennett and Culpepper get off to a good start, I'd love to see Fiedler engineer a Marino like comeback. Untill then, he is only marginally better than Trent Dilfer was during the Ravens Super Bowl run. Hell, even Akili Smith could do OK with that defense (ok...so I may have crossed the line ). Of course, if you guys win Saturday, I doubt the Jets will have a chance then, but we can still make your season OK by destroying Brett Favre on the closing weekend.