max,.
i just read another thread where someone took a "shot" at you with the f__k word etc.. go hug your wife and remember what happens in october with your family.. you may meet 10 idiots on this board but i assure you, you will help save at least one life and another one's freedom.. hawk
I guess alot of people like you Maximus, but you know that's got to draw some fire from those that inside feel jealous, perhaps wanting such attention for themselves.
You got quite a bunch of us that will defend you not because your Maximus, but because we value your imput to this forum.
Keep up the good work!
I'll defend your right to say it, but it doesn't mean I beleive it.
first off i beleive in god's existance.. that being said, let me proceed.. there is much so-called scholarly debate on both sides, but lately on this forum it has been brought out what scholarly and pseudo-scholarly is.. scholarly: compiles facts then makes deduction based on all facts as best as unbiasedly possible.. pseudo-scholarly: makes deduction then compiles selected facts that support deduction, giving little validity to the contrary.. .
so my point is if these definitions are true then the only one that can provide scholarly work on the existance of god is an agnostic since those from the other 2 camps fall in the pseudo-scholarly collectors of facts.. i admit that my beleif is from selected facts and a discounting of others that i feel quite probably are wrong, but not from facts always but because i'm not a scientist and don't keep up with all the data availible, it would be so so tireing for me.
to me in my mind it works.. so then can either camp(the beleiver, or nonbeleiver) prove that they are unbiased and that they collect facts and look at them dispassionatly?.
Brining it up
I'll defend your right to say it, but it doesn't mean I beleive it.
barbara anderson's attention was called to the thread about the differences in policy of great britain and the us regarding child abuse; as you know she has championed a change in that policy.
another post caught her eye, and she expressed the desire to share some thoughts with you.
i'm delighted to share her first post, which i know you will find riveting.
proplog2,
Being in the WT 29 years I can feel your pain.
I know these feelings of mine are not very healthy. And I continue to work on it. I still feel this organization has achieved a near miracle of unity - in spite of the idiots who would like to lord it over others.
I know it must cause some deep feelings of pain to see certain ones get some kudos because they at one time where higher up in the organization than we were and now they have left and everyone falls all over them.
You gotta admit its only quite natural.
But you have to realize we really arn't following them. Some like Franz and Dunlap did a lot of people good by revealing information that would be very hard if not imposible to come by. That information has caused in many of us certain thoughts to gel and we can't but feel a fondness for them.
I hope you find some good freinds, I think that will help you to feel better.
I'll defend your right to say it, but it doesn't mean I beleive it.
in a controversial post in a separate thread, janh makes an extremely good observation that a certain former gb member will likely carry many, many wts "top secrets" to his grave, for whatever reasons he does not wish to divulge such.. then, on this db, former bethelites constantly exchange posts where their word choice is "cloaked" so that many of us who were not insiders are left guessing at meaning, people, etc.
obviously, even individual members of this fraternity have unique experiences and insights.
if such info is not disseminated, it is lost if that person dies naturally or in an accident.. would you folks please post more elaborately so that the rest of us can benefit from your knowledge and experience.. the statement that motivated this post made a silent reference to the author of the happiness book.
I'm starting to think MA is a troll also.
If that is the case, what is he trying to do, start a flame war, get some to leave this forum, or divulge sensitive information.
If these are the goals, I don't think he will get too far.
Just my 2 pennies, MA.
I'll defend your right to say it, but it doesn't mean I beleive it.
first off i beleive in god's existance.. that being said, let me proceed.. there is much so-called scholarly debate on both sides, but lately on this forum it has been brought out what scholarly and pseudo-scholarly is.. scholarly: compiles facts then makes deduction based on all facts as best as unbiasedly possible.. pseudo-scholarly: makes deduction then compiles selected facts that support deduction, giving little validity to the contrary.. .
so my point is if these definitions are true then the only one that can provide scholarly work on the existance of god is an agnostic since those from the other 2 camps fall in the pseudo-scholarly collectors of facts.. i admit that my beleif is from selected facts and a discounting of others that i feel quite probably are wrong, but not from facts always but because i'm not a scientist and don't keep up with all the data availible, it would be so so tireing for me.
to me in my mind it works.. so then can either camp(the beleiver, or nonbeleiver) prove that they are unbiased and that they collect facts and look at them dispassionatly?.
First off I beleive in God's existance.
That being said, let me proceed.
There is much so-called scholarly debate on both sides, but lately on this forum it has been brought out what scholarly and pseudo-scholarly is.
Scholarly: Compiles facts then makes deduction based on all facts as best as unbiasedly possible.
Pseudo-scholarly: Makes deduction then compiles selected facts that support deduction, giving little validity to the contrary.
So my point is if these definitions are true then the only one that can provide scholarly work on the existance of God is an Agnostic since those from the other 2 camps fall in the Pseudo-scholarly collectors of facts.
I admit that my beleif is from selected facts and a discounting of others that I feel quite probably are wrong, but not from facts always but because I'm not a Scientist and don't keep up with all the data availible, it would be so so tireing for me. To me in my mind it works.
So then can either camp(the beleiver, or nonbeleiver) prove that they are unbiased and that they collect facts and look at them dispassionatly?
I'll defend your right to say it, but it doesn't mean I beleive it.
just on a personal note i would like to thank anyone and everyone that can tell me anything to expose the jehovah's witnesses for the cult that they are.
i especially appreciate information from any who have dedicated enough years to gain responsibility and inside information within the cult.
i appreciate it because no doubt with the investment of so much and discovery of the truth, comes much grief and regret.
Grunt,
All I can say I share your feelings and understand your concerns.
Your righteous indignation is a uniting bond for most here on this board.
I'll defend your right to say it, but it doesn't mean I beleive it.
the question has always been, primarily: is jehovah really god?
secondarily, the question has been: are jehovahs witnesses really jehovahs witnesses?
or, perhaps worded differently: is the watchtower really the voice of christs appointed faithful and discreet slave of prophecy?
Question what does anyone think about Bobby Zimmerman's (you can me Zimmy) born again period?
I'll defend your right to say it, but it doesn't mean I beleive it.
the question has always been, primarily: is jehovah really god?
secondarily, the question has been: are jehovahs witnesses really jehovahs witnesses?
or, perhaps worded differently: is the watchtower really the voice of christs appointed faithful and discreet slave of prophecy?
Some of my favorite that a hard one he wrote so many songs.
It all depends on what I feel like at the time.
Lets see?
Its alright ma I'm only bleeding
Mr. tamborine man
Tangled up in blue
positivly 4th street
Idiot wind
Sara
Isis
You Ain't goin nowhere
Maggie farm
Masters of war
Balid in pain d
Sad eyed lady of the lowland
Shelter from the storm
I can go on and on I have no real favorites.
I think I'll go to work today and turn up the volume on so Dylan.
Can't play him to loud at home my wife hates him in fact most people I know don't like him, I can't figure it out!
I'll defend your right to say it, but it doesn't mean I beleive it.
i had a very positive experience today which maybe not-so-coincidentally coincided with my recent comments on matthew 25.. it was only my second personal experience with babylon the grape in my entire life.
my first was when one of my daughters got married in a catholic church over three years ago.
i actually sat inside the catholic chapel and watched her priest perform the ceremony.
Farkel,
I'm really sorry about your predicament.
Well its good at least some group is following your interpetation of Matt.25 ;-)(just kidding here)
I hope you don't mind the humor in the last sentence.
All kidding aside I hope the tide of misfortune will receed and things get back to normal for yourself.
I'll defend your right to say it, but it doesn't mean I beleive it.
the question has always been, primarily: is jehovah really god?
secondarily, the question has been: are jehovahs witnesses really jehovahs witnesses?
or, perhaps worded differently: is the watchtower really the voice of christs appointed faithful and discreet slave of prophecy?
Actually Yes,
I'll defend your right to say it, but it doesn't mean I beleive it.
