for all you people who were raised witnesses, and yet got to college without parental help, i want your story.. i'm in just that situation and i need ideas.
plus it will probably be interesting too.
so, please, commence with the stories...
Sorry I disapeared there... By 'no parental help' I acctualy meant 'parental opposition' so no money or emotional support. (I'm not very emotional so that's not a big problem.)
Yes I am a US citizen by birth.
Thanks these comments are acctualy quite helpfull.
for all you people who were raised witnesses, and yet got to college without parental help, i want your story.. i'm in just that situation and i need ideas.
plus it will probably be interesting too.
so, please, commence with the stories...
For all you people who were raised witnesses, and yet got to college without parental help, I want your story.
I'm in just that situation and I need ideas. Plus it will probably be interesting too. So, please, commence with the stories...
i just thought it would be nice to have a documented case of someone other than a jw having been 'protected' from rape, carjacking, murder or mugging in an unusual way (ie.
praying, preaching or screaming 'o my god' and the guy stops and apologizes.).
the idea is that i can the relate the experience to a witness, .
Thanks Sunspot that's a great experience (Not great... It's acctualy quite a terrible thing but I'm sure you know what I mean.) Thanks for sharing.
I'm sure I could find thousands of experiences if I look hard enough. But now I'm not so sure it's a good idea... I'll save this argument for untill right before I leave.
i just thought it would be nice to have a documented case of someone other than a jw having been 'protected' from rape, carjacking, murder or mugging in an unusual way (ie.
praying, preaching or screaming 'o my god' and the guy stops and apologizes.).
the idea is that i can the relate the experience to a witness, .
I just thought it would be nice to have a documented case of someone OTHER than a JW having been 'protected' from rape, carjacking, murder or mugging in an unusual way (IE. Praying, preaching or screaming 'O MY GOD' and the guy stops and apologizes.)
The idea is that I can the relate the experience to a witness,
Me:"Hey did you hear the experience about _____ being protected from _________You know that had to be holy spirit huh?"
JW:"Oh my yeah... praise Jehovah..."
Me:"Well guess what! It was a Catholic! (Or whatever.)"
The thing is, I'm sick of all these experiences where something good happens to a witness and it simply must be Jehovah.
So if you know of any, prefferably ones that can be proven to a relative extent, I'd like to hear them.
correct me if i'm wrong but the last time the society has used the phrase 'he causes to become' was in 2004, in a review.
it's not even mentioned in the bible teach book... which has an appendix about what gods name is and means, it says it means: i shall become whatsoever i chose.
have they changed their minds about the meaning of gods name?
That was written in 2000 in an Awake. But if you asked any witness what gods name meant they would say "He Causes to Become" but they haven't used that at all since 2004 even in the main study book.
Was 'He Causes to Become' proven to be inacurate?
correct me if i'm wrong but the last time the society has used the phrase 'he causes to become' was in 2004, in a review.
it's not even mentioned in the bible teach book... which has an appendix about what gods name is and means, it says it means: i shall become whatsoever i chose.
have they changed their minds about the meaning of gods name?
Correct me if I'm wrong but the last time the society has used the phrase 'he causes to become' was in 2004, in a review. It's not even mentioned in the Bible teach book... which has an appendix about what gods name is and means, it says it means: I shall become whatsoever I chose. Have they changed their minds about the meaning of gods name? Why else would they leave it out of the main study book?
The next question is why? What made them change it from 'he causes to become' to 'I shall become whatsoever I please'?
i have a scientific question that has to do with evolution that i've ment to ask, due to the recent awake:.
if two dwarfs mate and have a child, will the child be a dwarf?
what about two people with six fingers on each hand?
O.K thanks for the info guys. I thought it was pretty skrewy that they use 70 years of failed research to prove their point... 70 years out of billions is like taking a cup of water from the ocean and looking for life.
a couple of things got me thinking today.
i was reading jgnat's thread on responses to elders, and it reminded me of the reasoning book in some ways.
then i got to thinking about having access online to all of the elder's letters for decades, and websites with wts literature, copies of the un letter on the wts being a ngo and so much more.
I agree completely. This is the type of stuff that the society would use as proof of gods backing...
So I raise my digital glass in my first ever toast...
To free thinking, and all the people brave enough to use it.
i have a scientific question that has to do with evolution that i've ment to ask, due to the recent awake:.
if two dwarfs mate and have a child, will the child be a dwarf?
what about two people with six fingers on each hand?
I have a scientific question that has to do with evolution that I've ment to ask, due to the recent AWAKE:
If two dwarfs mate and have a child, will the child be a dwarf? What about two people with six fingers on each hand? Couldn't this theoreticaly bring about a race dwarfs or people with 24 digits? And then of course that race would have there own types of mutations, causing the human race to slowly change, or branch off!
The AWAKE made this sound impossible, and I want to make sure I'm right before I bring it up with someone...
I could have some fun thinking up cool mutations.
september's awake mag, discusses evolution.. on page 20 it makes the claim that' (the bible), does not support the idea that life arose from nonliving matter or that god started off the process of evolution with a single cell.'.
however, if i remember the account of creation in genesis, god created adam from the 'dust of the ground'.
am i mistaken here, or could the wtbts be confused?
I don't understood why it's considered so much more logical to believe that god, which is arguably the most complex thing in existence, always existed but it's totally unacceptable to believe that physical matter always existed. The fact is
It's the same 'no begining' paradox, your just adding one more step by putting god in there.
