Prove to me Jeruselem was destroyed in 607bce. Would love to put that one to a witness, but just haven't had the chance.
Paul
lets have a free for all .
i would say why dont you have a book study anymore but that one is done to death... we had a witness recently and i asked for the latest jw only mag (he didn't realise i used to be in his cong... have i done that good a job at fading?
) it was a laugh to see the two of them struggle to come up with an answer.... ok lets here the best you can come up with, there has to be some better than mine, what question will leave them stuck for an answer...... .
Prove to me Jeruselem was destroyed in 607bce. Would love to put that one to a witness, but just haven't had the chance.
Paul
there are always so many bad memories related here i thought it might be nice to change it up a bit.
what are some of your funniestmemories of the meetings, or even field service?
things that happened things said?
One elder getting carried away giving a public talk. He was getting very excited describing the Israelites fleeing from the egyptians. Getting louder he said, "and Moses came to the Red Sea, he parted the waves so that they could escape over the sea bed. Then as the Eqyptians followed, Jehovah crashed the sea down on them killing the whole BLOODY lot of em!"
i have noticed alot of debate in posts lately between an atheist argument and a christian one.
it seems to me that the atheist is asked to disprove god's existence.
some times these debates have started to get personal with one side attacking the other with insults and i do not want to start another argument like these.. but i dont get it?
It is something that has baffled me for some time. I am of the opinion that all creationalists point of view is just a thoery, normally based on centuries of theories. But a creationalists argument against an atheist tends to go along the lines of attacking the evolution theory, again just a theory.
In my agnostic opinion an atheist doesn't have to attempt to prove anything to anyone.
Paul
sorry this is in red.
i do not see a way to change it to black.
this is excerpt from web page by fellow poster here at jwd.
I do not believe God's name is Jehovah. To believe that you would have to belive the god of the bible for a start.
If the name Jehovah has been invented in relatively recent years, before that it was YHWH, then surely it is wrong for a christian to use that name.
Paul
i have noticed alot of debate in posts lately between an atheist argument and a christian one.
it seems to me that the atheist is asked to disprove god's existence.
some times these debates have started to get personal with one side attacking the other with insults and i do not want to start another argument like these.. but i dont get it?
I have noticed alot of debate in posts lately between an atheist argument and a christian one. It seems to me that the atheist is asked to disprove God's existence. Some times these debates have started to get personal with one side attacking the other with insults and i do not want to start another argument like these.
But i dont get it? Why should atheists have to defend themselves for believing God doesn't exist? As there is no hard evidence for an existence in God, surely it should be the Christian who would have to defend his stance.
Paul
i was hoping to create a poll but i do not see an option for that.
thank you for taking the time to answer.
this is a very important question for me because of personal reasons.
Welcome bill and yes it was the cloakroom.
Paul
are you my bowes rd buddy?.
.
Freaky the inside of that inside hall looks exactly the same as the one at Dudley before it got refurbished. Even those doing the baptising wore the same white t shirts!
Paul
on what basis did god so love the world?.
the world of mankind had been condemned to death by god's curse in eden!.
god viewed mankind as "dust on the scales".
Science has a way of explaining that need to someone who doesn't have God or spirituality in their lives.
Perhaps i didn't quite explain myself hamilcarr.
Rather than explaining that need, may be i should have said filled that void. In my opinion those who don't have a faith have a void that need to answer certain questions such as where we came from?, etc. Science can fill that void for those who don't believe in God or higher beings, etc
Paul
on what basis did god so love the world?.
the world of mankind had been condemned to death by god's curse in eden!.
god viewed mankind as "dust on the scales".
Religion wants to supercede the need for science!
Dont agree with that, after all religion came before science.
Religion has its place in society, in my view it is science that is trying to supercede religion. There has always been a need to search for 'the truth' and both attempt to do that. Science has a way of explaining that need to someone who doesn't have God or spirituality in their lives.
Paul
did anyone see this programme at 9pm last night.
it was presented by a clinical psychologist, who looked into different people who were religious in british society.. how a preacher on oxford st was looked on as mad, yet nuns in the same locality who locked themselves away were not looked at in the same way.
yet in can be said that these nuns really display abnormal behaviour, yet us as a society see them different.. it also challenged the concept of god, but came from a perspective that a belief in the supernatural is a benefit to us as human beings.
Did anyone see this programme at 9pm last night. It was presented by a clinical psychologist, who looked into different people who were religious in British society.
How a preacher on Oxford St was looked on as mad, yet nuns in the same locality who locked themselves away were not looked at in the same way. Yet in can be said that these nuns really display abnormal behaviour, yet us as a society see them different.
It also challenged the concept of God, but came from a perspective that a belief in the supernatural is a benefit to us as human beings. They showed the brain scan of a pentecostal pastor speaking in tongues and showed how the patterns were different whilst he was doing this.
I found it very interesting coming from my agnostic point of view.
Did anyone else see it?
Paul