i cant seem to understand this text actually, can someone please explain it to me.
Venus: It means prayer can work as a placebo—curing some and not curing others. Thus James 5:14 can have both applications—literal and figurative.
What of blindness from birth? Was Jesus putting mud on the man's eyes a placebo? What about Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead? Even today there are miraculous healings that take place because of the faith of those being healed.
Healings can and do take place in many religions.
i was talking to my sister in law the other day about death, and i mentioned something about the afterlife, i don’t remember what i said but it was nothing shocking .
but she squealed, “we don’t believe in the afterlife!
!” and i reasoned, well we kinda do...life after death is the after life..and she just insisted no no it’s not the same thing.
i cant seem to understand this text actually, can someone please explain it to me.
Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord.
In the ancient church, the elders would anoint the sick with consecrated oil, then pray for him. If the person was healed as a result, the person's sins would be forgiven him (see verse 15).
Anciently, sin was often associated with illness. That's why the apostles asked Jesus, "Master, who did sin, this man or his parents that he was born blind?" The inference was that this man either sinned before he was born or that his parents sinned.
imagine yourself still sitting at a kingdom hall meeting and turn to the book of mark 7: 21-23. the sayings of jesus are really profound.
the scripture makes you think, reflect, enters your heart and produces results.. today, you have your modern day governing body ( who supposedly are the mouthpiece for jesus and jehovah and provide spiritual food for the 8 million followers).
if jehovah really sends his holy spirit upon these seven men, is this silly and petty message they can come up with?
Yes, in France they dispense with the hotel room and go at it on public benches, in movie theaters, World War II monuments -- anywhere. If hotel staff don't see the DO NOT DISTURB tab and happen on a couple going at it in a room, they say, "Oh, c'mon, find a park!" The whole country needs dedicated men and women willing to walk up couples, hand them a WATCHTOWER and say, "Would you like to read about Jehovah's coming kingdom and the end of this wicked, horrible system of things?" (It's right around the corner!)
imagine yourself still sitting at a kingdom hall meeting and turn to the book of mark 7: 21-23. the sayings of jesus are really profound.
the scripture makes you think, reflect, enters your heart and produces results.. today, you have your modern day governing body ( who supposedly are the mouthpiece for jesus and jehovah and provide spiritual food for the 8 million followers).
if jehovah really sends his holy spirit upon these seven men, is this silly and petty message they can come up with?
The Governing Body is a group of men who I suspect fancy themselves as modern apostles. I also suspect that if two or more of them announced that the Second Coming was going to happen on April 1 of this year you'd have a bed-wetting epidemic unheard of since...well, 1978. Great for the mattress makers.
The religion has progressively centered on them as the faithful and discreet slave of Matthew 24, though I don't know why they would want to funnel the authority to themselves. Their jobs are safe, and were safe as far as they were concerned--so why would they want the extra authority that they once shared with the so-called anointed, or heavenly, class?
As their relevance waned, perhaps they realized they couldn't take the word of those of the John-class (after all, anyone can partake of the emblems). On the other hand, power is power. David Pack, of the Restored Church of God, has consolidated it in his movement and he speaks, writes articles and views himself as an end-times apostle. The GB, on the other hand, takes a bit of a softer approach. The GB members bask in the light of authority but as far as I can tell they're not at each others' throats competing with each other for authority. They seem to be happy pulling down recognition and whatever they can get at HQ.
I'd love to talk to one of them, just to see what make 'em tick. They want to be anointed leaders, but I think some of them just lack the education and the conviction.
when god informed of his intention of destroying the wicked inhabitants of sodom and gomorrah abraham made extensive questioning, cross-questioning and bargaining with god till he gets satisfied.
(genesis 18:16-33) however, when god informed of his intention of murdering abraham’s own only-begotten, innocent son, he simply obeys without any questionings [which he should naturally have done more intensely than he did in the case of unrelated wicked people].. god too acted strangely!
no introduction of the subject with sufficient reasons.
OP clearly says Father offering son as a sacrifice (both of Abraham and of God) is a human thought, written by humans. That means God is nowhere in the picture, says the Bible. (Luke 6:38)
I don't buy that it was. God, in my view, was very much in the picture. Abraham was commanded to sacrifice his only son as a type and shadow of the Father having to offer his Son, and I believe Abraham was acutely aware of that. He had a deep and abiding relationship with God; he knew that God was very much against human sacrifice, and he trusted God as a being of integrity and honor. Thus, he had every reason to expect that Issac would be spared. Some ancient accounts go so far as to say that if God did require Isaac to die that God would restore his life, but most seem to support the idea that God would somehow stop the sacrifice, which he did.
Why try to read anything else into it? Many Christian scholars have written about this extensively and they come to similar conclusions. Abraham learned of Christ by and through the commandment of God that came to him---that he should sacrifice Isaac; otherwise, the story makes little sense. If this story is marginalized, then Christianity makes little sense. But together, the religion of Jesus works masterfully as it looks both ways through the corridors of time.
At least that's how I see it. (I'm unsure of exactly what you mean by your allusion to Luke 6:38.)
in the aftermath of the valentine's day school shooting in florida, i have read quite a number of articles, blogs and posts about the event.
it is disturbing--and i think inexcusable--that many people take the opportunity to use horrible tragedies such as this to push their own particular agenda.. in particularly insensitive and tone-deaf tweet, conservative political commentator tomi lahren wrote: "can the left let the families grieve for even 24 hours before they push their anti-gun and anti-gunowner agenda?
my goodness.
During police interviews and in a statement he read in court, the shooter has given no rationale for why he killed four people or shot up his school.
Do they need a rationale? The guy wanted to kill people. That's why he did it. But when shooters survive, they want to escape the death penalty. Is it so difficult to realize that they wanted to shoot people?
It bugs the hell out of me that the shooter is pleading guilty to escape the death penalty. I'm sorry, but 17 people are dead and it's only right he be the 18th casualty.
You know what else bugs the hell out of me? That teachers who are ex-military can't carry guns or even keep them in a nearby drawer when the jackasses who can are outside hiding behind their police cruisers waiting for the shooting to stop! These are the people who are supposed to be taking care of us, and they're hiding!
I don't know who first said it, but I agree with it: namely, that when seconds count the police are just minutes away.
Truer words were never spoken.
in the aftermath of the valentine's day school shooting in florida, i have read quite a number of articles, blogs and posts about the event.
it is disturbing--and i think inexcusable--that many people take the opportunity to use horrible tragedies such as this to push their own particular agenda.. in particularly insensitive and tone-deaf tweet, conservative political commentator tomi lahren wrote: "can the left let the families grieve for even 24 hours before they push their anti-gun and anti-gunowner agenda?
my goodness.
MeanMrMustard » These debates go off the rails because of lack of clear meaning. If by “gun control” you mean “keeping guns out of the hands of people who would like to shoot up schools, movie theatres, etc.”, then everyone is on board. Period. Everyone wants this.
Yes, but how does one keep guns out of the wrong hands without taking them out of the right hands? Whenever something like this happens, people scream GUN CONTROL without giving any workable solutions. The government needs to register guns before they confiscate them, so any proposals that would implement registration is a non-starter by gun owners.
If we take away AR-15s, bad guys will use Ruger Mini-14s. Take away those and they'll use something else. These things don't stop until the guns are gone.
In the 1960s, guns were plentiful. Even Sears had them. And anyone could buy them if they were old enough. But school shootings were unheard of. Crime was low and violence was unheard of if one stayed out of the wrong areas.
But things are different now. We've become angry, resentful and distrustful as a nation. Our leaders are dishonest, conniving worms and they perhaps they always were. As we've become polarized no one wants to give. Those in the U.S. who voted for Hillary felt they were entitled to victory, and they took to the streets when she lost.
It's just the way things are now.
speaking to two jw's, separately and days apart, they both weaved in to the conversation the phrase " it is the true religion " .. now in neither case was it possible for me to do my usual thing, piling in with both guns blazing and pointing out that it is impossible for there to be any such thing as "the true religion", unless by "truth" you mean that which is true in your opinion and not supported by facts or reality etc etc.
my question is : is this mere coincidence, or has there been an article or something telling them to say this ?
if there is, could someone point me to it ?
As a Mormon, I can say there's only ONE true religion!
in the aftermath of the valentine's day school shooting in florida, i have read quite a number of articles, blogs and posts about the event.
it is disturbing--and i think inexcusable--that many people take the opportunity to use horrible tragedies such as this to push their own particular agenda.. in particularly insensitive and tone-deaf tweet, conservative political commentator tomi lahren wrote: "can the left let the families grieve for even 24 hours before they push their anti-gun and anti-gunowner agenda?
my goodness.
Never_A_JW » You're overstating what gun advocates say. The Second Amendment doesn't directly have anything to do with personal self defense. (Neither does it have anything to do with hunting.) The Second Amendment is all about having the American people armed in the event of an oppressive government. This is one reason that Hillary Clinton and the Deep State want so desperately to disarm the American people. They cannot put into place their agenda if the People are armed.
Advocates of gun control want to outlaw AR-15s because they've been used in high profile crimes (but not crimes in general). Only in high profile shootings. But if we banned AR-15s, the shooters will get Ruger Mini-14s, and so it goes. In all of these shootings, the people who should have protected us at some point dropped the ball.
We know Hillary put a great emphasis on disarming the American people. The question is, WHY? Hillary has never put her concern for others high on her agenda. Her agenda is always self-centered. So why did she place disarmament so high on that agenda? It had to do with her own interests, and make no mistake, she was dead serious about it, even going so far as to planning on how to implement it once she was in office.
The Second Amendment was put into place to protect the people from would be tyrants like Hillary. And I've heard people say, "What could a bunch of people with AR-15s and other semi-automatics do against the military if there ever was martial law? Actually, quite a bit, especially with the number of veterans in the U.S. today.
Whatever the reason, the Second Amendment is law. The states can implement their own gun laws, but the Constitution specifically prohibits the federal government from regulating or "infringing" in any way "arms." And the very term has nothing to do with hunting. The founders put a very high emphasis on both national defense and self defense.
In the Warsaw Ghetto during World War II, a small number of handguns wreaked havoc with the German sentries. The Ghetto was later subdued, but at great cost to the Germans. Handguns were easily concealed and the Jews were able to pop off a number of the sentries assigned to the Ghetto.
