This is sad news.
I loved watching that show, too.
This is sad news.
I loved watching that show, too.
comments you will not hear at the 3/1/03 wt study
january 15, 2003 wt.
how strong is your faith?.
Thanks, blondie, your reviews are always appreciated by me, as otherwise I probably would never know what was in a Watchtower magazine (inspite of technically being a "regular publisher". Funny how I always manage to go out one hour a month, and the only time I go to meeting is once a month to report that I've been out for one hour a month ). It's just so amazing how coded the Watchtower magazine could be; a regular "wordly" person would never pick up on a lot of the things that are so obvious to an active JW, and are super obvious to us.
BTW, just out of curiousity, what is your belief in the bible? Not trying to start a debate or anything, just wondering because I have no clue.
an atheist was walking through the woods one day, admiring all that .
evolution had created.
suddenly he heard a rustling in the bushes behind .
I've seen this joke before, but I certainly don't completely get it. If I were in that situation, there is no way I'd want the bear to be a Christain (unless I were an adult woman, then maybe I'd be safe if I wanted the bear to be a Catholic priest ). Hell, that would make me more scared. I'd ask god why he had bears eating people if he originally made them vegetarian . Or at the very least I'd request that the bear be Unitarian.
i grew up in the religion and was baptized at.............supposedly the most important day in our lives and i cannot remember how old i actually was, anyways...... i believe it was 13 or 14. i was never disfellowshipped.
i have a "worldly" boyfriend whom i love dearly, and i no longer attend the "meetings".
i do not disagree with the organization entirely; in fact i am not even sure if i disagree with it at all.
Hey Sandy, welcome to the board.
I hope you will stick around and read with an open mind all the things that are written and said on this board.
You mentioned in your last post that you were hurt in some ways by (I assume the JW) religion. Well, in my case I was not in anyway hurt by my experiences with the JW religion (at least not in a direct and immediate way), and can in fact recall alot of very positive times, as no doubt you can, too. However, you have to also keep in mind many of the things that were taught to you as a JW; namely the infallibilty of the religion, and the importance of certain theological concepts (e.g. :1914), and do some objective research on the truth of falsity of those claims. The results of such a search might help you to better understand were alot of the people on this board are coming from (i.e.: they aren't being arbitrarily bitter, as per the standard Watchtower answer; an answer possibly you may still to some extent hold).
While people like you and I may carry mostly positive memories of the people and experiences that we had during our JW days, that certainly doesn't mean that others did not have extremely harrowing experiences, or that despite having mostly pleasant experiences, there isn't still ample reason to see objective wrong in the JW religion (e.g.: the blood doctrine, which could have killed anyone of us despite having no real scriptural support). I know you said you weren't interested in hearing criticisms of the JW religion, and I respect your choice, but if you have a change of heart, I would whole heartedly recommend you read the book [u]Crisis of Conscience[/u], by former Governing Body member Raymond Franz, for a dispassionate and more importantly, well documented perspective of some of the not too good aspects of the JW religion (that is, in addition to the great sites recommended on this thread so far).
So once again, welcome. [:)]
while drinking beer and gin/tonics at a sports bar, my friend and i argued over who the best nba team would be.
please give us some help and tell who you think would win this game in a best of 7 series in a neutral court.
keep in mind that all the players are in their prime and consider how these would play as a unit as much as their career stats.
I guess I'd have to choose any team with Micheal Jordan on it, but I think a better pair of teams would be:
1st Team (modern day):
G- Micheal Jordan
"Magic" Johnson
F- Larry Bird
Karl Malone
C- Kareem Abdul Jabbar
2nd Team (old players):
G- Jerry West
Oscar Robertson
F- Bob Petit
Elgin Baylor
C- Bill Russell
I'd still pick the first team.
Edited by - crownboy on 13 February 2003 22:16:41
i thought the following from from our posthuman future by francis fukuyama was very interesting: .
"one writer states: 'one of the factors inhibiting sexuality with ageing is undoubtedly the brain-washing that all of us experience which says that the older person is less sexually attractive.
' would that sexuality were only a matter of brainwashing!
I'm going to get risque here...but there's an easy way for us old gals to get beyond that one: Develop expert oral technique.
Is that why you have your mouth as your profile pic, BeautifulGarbage?
reading the march 2003 okm brought up a question i've had for a long time....why do christians feel the the death of jesus was this unbelievably loving act by both god and christ?
i mean, god knew his son would be faithful to death (because of prophecy...not much of a test on j.c.
eh?
VencieIT, what exactly do you believe on the topic, if I may ask? From what I recall of past posts from you, I thought you were a bible believing Christain. So welcome to the dark side, BTW .
I think AlanF's post pretty much covers my thinking on it. If god's in charge, he sets the rules. If his rules are absurd, so is he. The ransom scenario is absurd.
.
i'm not for discriminating against people based on religion, and the government should indeed do its best to accomodate people's religious inclinations, but i think i'll have to side with the government in this case, and against the religious people.. http://news.mpr.org/features/200212/12_stawickie_licenses/
I went to school in the same area which this complaint is being held. When it was photo ID day, the Muslim students took off their head coverings and took their pictures. None of them really complained.
From what I know about Islam, it is not a hard and fast rule that the women must wear veils, but it seems to be something that earns you religious "brownie points" if you do. But even if the head covering were an absolute religious requirement, I'd still be against the Muslims on this one for obvious practical reasons.
.
i'm not for discriminating against people based on religion, and the government should indeed do its best to accomodate people's religious inclinations, but i think i'll have to side with the government in this case, and against the religious people.. http://news.mpr.org/features/200212/12_stawickie_licenses/
I'm not for discriminating against people based on religion, and the government should indeed do its best to accomodate people's religious inclinations, but I think I'll have to side with the government in this case, and against the religious people.
i'm beginning to change my "no" answer on this.
this seems pretty close to it.. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=564&ncid=564&e=3&u=/nm/20030211/ts_nm/iraq_usa_planning_dc_2.
u.s. plans for two-year occupation of iraq.
You are indeed correct, gsx1138. But I do post here more often.