Depends on what court the decision was made and at what level. Ultimately, if it wasn't the supreme court of the united states then it can go on up to that level out of any state court system. If it was to the highest levels sometimes it just wording and smart lawyers will work on the area of weakness and resubmit under another issue. In other words, it will be a pain in the ass for a while no matter what court it in. The society attorney's pretty much work for nothing so that won't hurt them.
writetoknow
JoinedPosts by writetoknow
-
30
You want some big Watchtower news? I think this is big news.
by under_believer injust like the wts, the mormons (okay, the "church of jesus christ of latter-day saints," hey look, a religion with even less talent at picking a name than the jw's) hide their net worth.
nobody knows how much money they have, though estimates go as high as 30 billion usd.. .
well, this guy in portland is suing them for (what else) pastoral pedophilia, and part of the discussion of damages, the plaintiff argues, is the revelation of how much money the church has.
-
-
-
30
You want some big Watchtower news? I think this is big news.
by under_believer injust like the wts, the mormons (okay, the "church of jesus christ of latter-day saints," hey look, a religion with even less talent at picking a name than the jw's) hide their net worth.
nobody knows how much money they have, though estimates go as high as 30 billion usd.. .
well, this guy in portland is suing them for (what else) pastoral pedophilia, and part of the discussion of damages, the plaintiff argues, is the revelation of how much money the church has.
-
-
writetoknow
I work with the courts in Oregon.
1.) Circuit Court
2.) Appeals Court
3. Supreme Court
4. Federal Court if allowed District and Circuit
5.) Nineth Circuit
6.) Supreme Court of the United States.
The Supreme Court is the highest court of Oregon if it was heard there then it has went through the Appeals Court or it won't be allowed into the Supreme Court of Oregon. The Supreme Court of Oregon does not take every appeal only the important ones.
If there are constiutional issues (United States Constitional issues) It can be appeal into the Federal Courts. Once there is will go up to the highest level into the Nineth Circuit then the Supreme Court of the United States can choose to hearing it they don't have to.
In that area all the way up they really don't like religion so it won't be go good for the society.
The veil for corporation to protect against lawsuit won't hold up if the the congrecation were following the society directives and were bound to follow them. The questions will be did the elders act outside of the society purveiw. It would seem they did not or the Supreme Court of Oregon would not be looking at the appeal for showing how much the societ actually has. That issue had to already be resolved and proven. There is no law that states a corporation earning can't be public unless the coporation was established in a state that does not allow that information to be public or overseas.
-
50
Is the Watch Tower name going away?
by garybuss inis the watch tower name going away?
i'm seeing more use of the "jehovah's witnesses" name where the watch tower name once was such as the sponsors of the summer conventions.
is this new, or am i just noticing it?
-
-
writetoknow
Maybe the watch is no longer ticking in the tower after resetting is so many times over the last hundred years.
-
110
A PUZZLING QUESTION...????...????...????
by Terry inthe "sacred secret" of god that creation was yearing to glimpse for so long was jehovah's plan of salvation and righteous government rescue operation.. yet, pagans, heathens and various crackpot primitives all came up with the same plan long before jehovah's was "revealed".
something smells bad about this!!.
i find it puzzling.. child sacrifice to appease wrathful deities is a disgusting solution to crop failure.
-
-
writetoknow
Well thank you for the corrections. First I am not trying to win someone over factually most people on this thread have their veiws set long before I came on this stie. Secondly for the person that talked about interaction with them proves they exist. I also interact with God so I no He exist!
The point once again I did not start this post nor did I set the tone of this post. So its the old double standards this is "how christian are suppose to act" but we can say and do anything we want with whatever tone because we have a free ticket because we don't believe in God.
If the tone is put back to you it is a superior attitude. The contemp for religion was here long before I came on board and it will be here long after I am gone. You have a right to state your contemp for religion you have your reasons many I am sure are valid reasons. And you have your experiences as well and your stero types of Christain also.
When a person has a negative view of anything then they will find every possible reason to discredit it. All people think their balance and fair and we all have double standards. So when a person wants a conversation and they make dogmatic statements as though it can be proven be on a shadow of a doubt it is offensive be it your Christain or Pagan or Atheist.
Life is not fair people are not fair and we want God to be fair. When we judge we get judged. I am being judged on this site because I judged. So there are invisible laws that apply to everyone equally and that's fair now isn't it?
There more happiness in giving then receiving so when we discredit someones beliefs we get nothing back but ulginess because we are taking something from them called diginty. When we view people as enemies and less then we get back the same.
Here is the chasm that exist: It is assumed that Christain don't have God's spirit and that they don't get their prayers answered and they haven't had God direct their lives. There is no proving that and yet there is no disproving it either.
For JW"s & X most not all the majority never had that type of an experience. For them it was a personal interaction with an organization and doctrine. Why they did what they did was to get the approval of the people in that organization which they assumed was Jehovah God.
It was an intellectaul physical experience not a spiritual one. For a witness to believe and act out of trust is almost impossible. It must be analysis to death found under questions from readers and passed by the elders.
It is not possible to understand God with out faith or trust in Him. So a witnesses could never simply accept Christ into there heart because that requires faith. They could never trust God to direct their lives by His Holy Spirit that he would keep a promise he would give them the wisdom for every problem in time. That He would provide people and everything they needed for this life if they just believe.
They can't understand faith which is trust. They understand you must trust people if you want a relationship with them but God can't be trusted outside of what JW's teach. The foundation of Christainty is faith it does not exist outside of having faith.
That is why an honest heart JW's when they come across people of other faiths that are direct by God in what they call false religion it destroys them. They can't deal with an uneducated person that just believes God will keep His promises His good and love - they have never had that experience and most never will it.
So when JW's lose their God GB they have been worshiping there truly is nothing left accept more legal wrangle on other subjects.
They can intellectualize the facts of God that He never taught there would be a modern day org/business He would set up. But He's people would worship in truth and spirit. They can understand that there is one person that they must accept and believe in for salvation but they just can make a leap of faith to get there.
They can understand that all a person had to do at the first passover was to have faith enough or trust God enough to put blood on the door post and God angle of death would passover them. God didn't wrangle if their beliefs were correct or that they were of His faith.
That to simple for JW's it takes something more. So until we become like young children trusting something more then ourselves there is no understanding God there is only an intellectual understanding of God. And that is not real it like talking on this forum with words and letters there no feeling accept our own feelings the other person exist but they are not real a family member we can touch and feel and love.
It would not matter if you could produce absolute rock solid facts that God does not exist. God is a Spirit and those that worship Him worship with spirit and truth and that spirit can only be gotten by faith nothing else turns it on. A person cannot see God - who He really is without faith. And that is why once a person has that it not about the reward they have already received the greatest reward friendship with God. And it not defind in human words or understandstood by human logic. And it does look foolish and weak to a physical person intellectually.
The stories of the bible were not written for people without faith and that is why they appear to them as wicked, stupid, unfair and unjust. They were written for people seeking God with an honest heart. So no religion on this earth has it right because it not about that its about trust that developes a understanding of God through faith and it is not on our terms ever.
-
110
A PUZZLING QUESTION...????...????...????
by Terry inthe "sacred secret" of god that creation was yearing to glimpse for so long was jehovah's plan of salvation and righteous government rescue operation.. yet, pagans, heathens and various crackpot primitives all came up with the same plan long before jehovah's was "revealed".
something smells bad about this!!.
i find it puzzling.. child sacrifice to appease wrathful deities is a disgusting solution to crop failure.
-
-
writetoknow
too bad perhaps you need to talk to santa clause or too yourself. Because that is your god prove to me you exist? You've haven't done anything for me so you can't exist!
-
110
A PUZZLING QUESTION...????...????...????
by Terry inthe "sacred secret" of god that creation was yearing to glimpse for so long was jehovah's plan of salvation and righteous government rescue operation.. yet, pagans, heathens and various crackpot primitives all came up with the same plan long before jehovah's was "revealed".
something smells bad about this!!.
i find it puzzling.. child sacrifice to appease wrathful deities is a disgusting solution to crop failure.
-
-
writetoknow
fifi40
Who in the world are you talking about? The idea of posting provocative statements about the blood of Christ is to provoke a rise from those reading the post.
If you don't want to hear a rebuttal then don't support the post. I heard both sides of the story I was once a Jehovah's Witness should I also hate all religions because of group of people did wrong. I never served the group I accept Christ not them. Christ hasn't done anything to me. God hasn't hurt me.
I think its great you have such a peaceful wonderful life that's great more power to you. If your not supporting a faith then comments from Christian should't bother you. God's not real anyway.
I have read many of these threads and it is often that provocative statements are made against Christian and I guess everyone assumes because it X JW's they all don't believe in God anymore.
Your treating atheism as it a infaliable religion. If you want to believe your nothing more then an animal that your choice. I never stated anywhere that people could be forced to believe in anything that they didn't want. I don't think God's so weak or stupid He wants people to serve Him because of death.
Thats your thinking not mine. I didn't start this thread and it is a public thread and I can post the opposing views. No I don't agree with your belief that no suprize and you don't agree with mine that your business so get off your high horse.
Why Atheism Is Wrong
Atheism is defined as a lack of belief in a supernatural being, creator, or deity. Briefly, it is a lack of belief in God.
It is one of the major opponents of the Christian Church and Christian beliefs. It has always been diretly related to materialism. Summed up, the more materialistic a society is, the less spiritual it becomes. The less spiritual it becomes, the stronger atheism affects that society.
Therefore, the more materialistic a society becomes, the more atheism strengthens over it.
Atheism relies mostly on logic, analysis, and science. They do not believe in faith, nor the miracles of the Bible.
Atheism, though has major flaws. At first glance, it seems atheism has a strong, irrefutable, non-debatable position. Like so many things in this world, it looks good only on the outside, but actually is weak on the inside - a foundation built on sand.
Atheism has three major flaws:
Atheist Statement No. 1 - "Atheism declares it does not believe in faith, that science is the way to truth because it does not rely on faith unlike religion. Science does not rely on faith and therefore cannot be biased."
Christian answer: Even in science, we still need a certain degree of faith in scientists and researchers since we ourselves cannot possibly verify all their findings to prove that what they are saying is true.
Unless you can verify scientists' findings one by one for yourself, you will have to accept their "word" at face value. You will have to believe that what they're saying is true. You will have to have "faith" in their words.
Look. In the past, we've had "scientific errors" committed by scientists. Errors such as scientific facts that were declared as truth but were later found out to be false or in doubt.
Among numerous examples, one example is found in medical science. For many years, scientists/researchers have always declared that damage to the human spinal cord was permanent and irreversible. This was a scientific fact, established as the truth before.
However, only recently, this previous scientific fact was proven to be, well, untrue. Modern findings have proven that the human spinal cord does regenerate, albeit, in a very slow manner. A lot of people with damaged spinal cords have been able to walk, much against the declaration of their doctors that all hope was lost.
That science is not based on faith is totally false. Therefore, this refutes the first statement of atheism.
As St. Francis of Assisi wisely said "Faith is higher than reason. Reason is useless.... unless you believe."
Atheist Statement No. 2 - "Science is based only on purely objective facts, while religion is partially subjective and therefore cannot be purely objective. "
Christian answer: Science relies on objectivity, and needs to utilize a method called the "scientific method". The scientific method relies on observation, experimentation, data-gathering, etc.
Once science loses its objectivity, or becomes partially subjective, it loses its credibility as a discipline.
Therein lies the problem. The scientific method does provide purely objective data, BUT scientists still have to "interpret them. Since scientists are only human, the interpretation of the data becomes mixed with personal opinions and become "partially subjective". This cannot be avoided.
Scientists are human beings with different beliefs, religions, philosophies, and come from various countries and cultures throughout the globe.
Take for example the debate on the origin of the universe. This major debate has been going on for centuries, and has divided the scientific community into "creationist scientists" and "evolutionist scientists".
The creationist scientists believe that the universe has order, design, and was created by an intelligent, omnpiotent being, a god. God is the creator of the universe.
The evolutionist scientists believe otherwise. They state that the universe has no design, has no order and is random. They reject the idea of a god, a creator of our universe.
And it doesn't even matter who has more numbers on either side. The truth is never based on "majority wins".
Say for example, my friend and I hid a silver coin inside a box. Now, we make a survey and ask all people around the world if they believe a coin exists in the box or not.
Even if all people around the world said they don't believe a coin exists in the box, the truth is not affected by their numbers. My friend and I know the truth that a coin does exist because we hid it ourselves! So truth is not based on majority opinion.
Atheist statement number 2 is therefore false.
Atheist Statement No. 3) "Science is better than religion because it relies on an objective method - the scientific method. This method produces truth because it is based on objective data, experimentations, logic, etc. Religion does not use an objective method and is based on opinion, speculation, etc. It lacks "scientific proof", on "miracles" in the Holy Bible."
Christian answer: Science does rely on an objective method, but by what authority does the "scientific method" produce truth? By what authority does science possess when it says we must believe science because it utilizes the "scientific method"?
I mean you cannot state that science is an authority of truth simpy because it uses the scientific method. It's like saying "I therefore conclude that science produces truth because it uses the scientific method."
By what authority?
How will you prove using the scientific method does produce truth? Because it's "scientific"? Because science said so? Again, the question "By what authority does science have by proclaiming to be the truth than religion"?
The statement "The results of the scientific method should be followed" is unscientific because it is a value statement that does not get its authority from anywhere but itself.
"We should use the scientific method." Why should we? "It proves itself." How does it prove itself? "It uses the scientific method."
Atheist Statement: "The scientific method is true because it works and because it is axiomatic (self-evident)."
Christian answer: Sounds a lot like faith to me. Who decides what is axiomatic? does the scientific method decide it? That makes it circular if it does. If not, then it is not scientific itself.
I would have to do all the experiments to come to that conclusion. Other than that, I take it on faith that all of the scientists who did the experiments and reviewed them and tested them are not lying to me. That is my point.
You cannot use the "scientific method" as a reason to make science as an authority of truth, simply because the only way to prove science as the truth is to use the "scientific method"! The logic is circular.
And yes, the miracles in the Bible have been verified by both atheist (for objectivity) and theist (God-believing) scientists as true historical events. Events such as the Exodus from Egypt, David slaying Goliath, parting of the Red Sea, etc. were tested and researched using modern scientific methods. Watch "Secrets of the Bible" at Cable TV's "Discovery Channel".
At a different cable channel, underwater cameras showed pictures of ancient relics -particularly a large "chariot wheel" deep beneath the Red Sea. When traced back, the design of the wheel was identical to the chariots used in Egypt at around the time Moses' parting of the Red Sea occurred!
God has been so gracious as to provide solid, irrefutable evidence to believers and non-believers alike.
Atheist statement number 3 is therefore false.posted by Alex C @ 6:23 AM
About Me
- Name: Alex C
Previous Posts
- How Hard it is to be God!
- The Genius of God
- What is Essential is Invisible
- What are You Searching For?
- Love Overpower
- The 3 Types of Love
- Are we guilty of idolatry?
- Who has power over life and death?
- Why so many deaths this Christmas season?
-
110
A PUZZLING QUESTION...????...????...????
by Terry inthe "sacred secret" of god that creation was yearing to glimpse for so long was jehovah's plan of salvation and righteous government rescue operation.. yet, pagans, heathens and various crackpot primitives all came up with the same plan long before jehovah's was "revealed".
something smells bad about this!!.
i find it puzzling.. child sacrifice to appease wrathful deities is a disgusting solution to crop failure.
-
-
writetoknow
By the way the last two post are not my writings they are someone else. YOU SHALL SURELY DIE!
GOOD MORNING CLASS: Today I issue a bold challenge to all atheists - a challenge that not even the most educated and meticulous thinkers of them will be able to satisfactorily answer in any way. The only thing they will be able to do in effort to effectually rebutt this challenge is to babble unintelligently.
The challenge has to do with the issue of human death. The sentence of death (which comes from God as a result of mankind having committed high treason against God's kingdom in the first man Adam) is one that every person of mankind cannot escape as long as mankind exists. (The actual experience of death is one that few humans will escape). Every atheist BELIEVE and even KNOW that every person of mankind, must die. However, even though they believe and know this fact, not one of them can supply SCIENTIFIC PROOF to that effect. Their belief is not based on any type of SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.
This is so because no scientific proof actually exists to that effect. If there was scientific proof, it would also point to a specific time, date and type of death. But despite the fact that their death is inevitable, there is no so-called "scientific proof" to that effect. The only real proof is found only in the unadulterated teachings of Holy Writ - the Bible. Duly noting that death has prevailed over all mankind throughout their history is not proof that all will be overtaken by death in the future. It is only proof that death has prevailed thusfar, (since there will be certain people who will not be overtaken by death in the future).
As examples to prove that there is an absence of scientific proof for the inevitability of death, carefully examine the many cases wherein such evidence should in all rightness be used to aid the most professional of physicians in predicting the time of death of certain ill patients. There are many cases wherein desperately ill patients did not die as physicians predicted. Had the physicians actually made their predictions according to available credible "Scientific Evidence", they would not have erred in their judgments. They made the errors because there was no credible scientific proof to base such judgments. This principle also holds true in cases wherein physicians erroneously predict certain human fetuses will cause the death of their mothers.
Therefore, since atheists believe and know that death is inevitable, but reject the only source which presents the only real evidence of the inevitability of death, how is it that atheists who insists on scientific proof know and believe the inevitability of death in the absolute absence of scientific evidence. I challenge the most "educated" atheists to supply SCIENTIFIC PROOF for their belief and knowledge that death is inevitable.
I chuckle at atheists when I think about the fact that even in the midst of the absence of scientific proof of the inevitability of death, there is no sensible physician who will make the prediction that humans will begin to live forever at some future point in human history. It is is logical to think that since there is no so-called "scientific proof" of the inevitability of human death, and since atheists say they trust nothing but scientific evidence, some of their "experts" would predict that man will one day conquer death. But no sensible atheist will predict such with any seriousness, because he or she knows that as long as mankind exists, their death is inevitable, even in the midst of the absence of scientific proof to that effect.
This proves that you don't always have to have "scientific proof" to know the reality of an entity's existence.
IT IS FOOLISH TO DEBATE WITH AN ATHEIST
Numerous atheists have invited or challenged me to debate with them about the existence of God. I always turn down such invitations. Such a debate is like them denying their own existence and me debating with them about their true existence. It is a waste of time trying to convince someone that they exist while they deliberately deny it. The debater becomes a greater fool than the denier. Atheists (fools) have said that there is no God (Psalms 14:1). But true Christians should never answer fools according to their folly (Proverbs 26:4-5).
Evidence of God's existence is so overwhelming that it far, far exceeds any of the evidence any true Christian can present in a debate. Since the greater evidence is denied, there's no convincing by the lesser.
What is this overwhelming evidence? God has supplied all mankind with atleast two great witnesses of His existence. It is the existence of the vast HEAVENS and all therein and the EARTH and all hereon. These two contain more evidence than can ever be fully known and understood by man. Nothing that exists could have brought itself into being out of its none existence. The Almighty God had to therefore create it (Psalms 102:25; Genesis 1:1).
Also, no part of God's creation can sustain itself apart from God sustaining it. God is the fountain and sustainer of all things (Colossians 1:16; 1 Corinthians 8:6; 11:12). So just the mere existence of the heavens and the earth is overwhelming proof of God's existence.
But atheists discount this overwhelming proof while asking for proof. Since they deny the overwhelming evidence, much of which they can monitor through their senses and through technological innovations - their own existence included, no debate that presents the proof will convince them. Therefore it is utterly worthless for true Christians to debate with atheists about the existence of God.
Since atheists rejects the overwhelming evidence, we see proof that atheism is a deliberate rejection of the evidence and His existence. This clearly proves that atheism is not about proof and evidence, but is about rejecting the fundamental principles of life. Atheism's chief purpose of existence is to deny the existence of God in the midst of overwhelming proof. No atheist will admit these facts. But again, this is the nature of satanic atheism: to refuse to admit the truth.
What is belief? What is faith?
Although the Christian faith is not based purely on evidence, it is definitely supported by evidence. Faith is not about turning off the brain and merely relying on the heart, or squashing reason in favor of emotion. No, Christian faith is about seeking and knowing Jesus with all facets of the human character. It's not a "blind faith" as I once thought... It's a "calculated faith" based on a preponderance of the evidence. Well, I've collected the evidence, and I've put it on trial... After a number of months in the jury room, I have returned with my personal verdict... Jesus Christ is who he claims to be... the Son of God who came to this earth about 2,000 years ago to offer true and lasting hope for mankind.
OK, now what...? I intellectually believe, by a preponderance of the evidence, that God exists, that the Bible is true, and that Jesus is his Son... How does this affect me? What is faith, as far as it concerns me?
I love the metaphor of a chair... Find the chair closest to you. Look at it closely. Examine its design. Is it structurally sound? Is it sufficiently engineered? Will the materials chosen by the manufacturer support your weight?
Most likely, you picked a chair that you believe will support you. That's belief. You applied logic, knowledge and experience to make an informed intellectual decision.
Now sit in the chair... That's faith! At one point, intellectual assent only goes so far. True living requires that we put our beliefs into action. Intellectual belief without actionable faith is hollow and meaningless...
Have you ever heard about the guy who walked a tight rope across Niagra Falls? Many people watched him do it. To them he asked, "Do you believe I can walk a tight rope across the Falls?" They all replied, "Yes." They had already seen him do it.
Then he pushed a wheel barrow on a tight rope across Niagra Falls. When he completed the feat, he asked the onlookers, "Do you believe I can walk a tight rope across the Falls pushing a wheel barrow?" To that they replied unanimously, "Yes." Because they saw him do that too.
Finally, a buddy of the tight rope walker climbs into the wheel barrow and the tight rope walker pushes him across the Falls. Wow, what a daring feat! When they finished, the tight rope walker asked the crowd, "Do you believe I can walk a tight rope across the Falls pushing a wheel barrow with a person in it?" To that they exclaimed, "Yes!" For they were now believers in this guy's awesome abilities.
Then he looked at the crowd and asked, "Who's next?"
There you have it... Belief vs. Faith...! -
110
A PUZZLING QUESTION...????...????...????
by Terry inthe "sacred secret" of god that creation was yearing to glimpse for so long was jehovah's plan of salvation and righteous government rescue operation.. yet, pagans, heathens and various crackpot primitives all came up with the same plan long before jehovah's was "revealed".
something smells bad about this!!.
i find it puzzling.. child sacrifice to appease wrathful deities is a disgusting solution to crop failure.
-
-
writetoknow
I read an article in Wired this past week titled, "The New Atheism." It was very well written and quite interesting, thought provoking, and a little frustrating. Here's why.
The New Atheists, as the author names them, have good criticisms of religion and American Christianity in general. Religion is used as a crutch, as a hindrance, as an escape, as a way to avoid upsetting thoughts that might challenge their conception of the world. The New Atheists are people who've called this what it is - bogus - and are, sometimes quite radically, trying to make people face the music and question their lives. I'm down with this.
What I'm not down with is the rest of the "project," if it can be called that, which is, for all intents and purposes, a completely ignorant perspective on the enlightenment, faith, and meaning. At least to the extent that this article portrays them, none of these "new Atheists" recognize the similarities between or make any attempts to differentiate themselves from the stalwart Atheists of our recent history who failed so miserably to make God useless. When Russell, Freud, Marx, Engles, etc. failed so totally, why do these new comers think they'll succeed?
When I say "fail", I mean that they failed to create either a successful society or successful people from their radical atheist philosophies. When I say "successful", I of course mean happy, productive, and fulfilled. The greatest thinkers of the 20th century wrote volumes of philosophy that culminated in founding several societies which ended in abject poverty and total despair. I know religion has a sordid legacy as well, but given that atheism and "reason" have done no better, doesn't it seem like perhaps the real problem with the way we're living is something else?
So that's my issue with this. I don't want to see any more religion vs. reason debates, because they're missing the boat, and degrade into a spectrum of useless agendas that have all been tried at one time or another in different parts of the world and have, quite literally, largely failed. Religion is not the problem, and reason is not the problem. The problem with people is that regardless of what they claim to believe, they ultimately believe that the world's problems are someone else's fault, and that if they could only fix this or that about other people then things would be fine.
On a less preachy note, I also take issue with the "New Atheists" for failing to improve on what I consider to be the enlightenment's largest failing: the topic of death. Regardless of what you believe, you are going to die. I'm not trying to pull Pascal's wager out here - I simply want to know how an atheist deals with death. I believe that death is the most defining and common aspect of human experience, and it does an excellent job of crushing our idealistic forays into the greatness of reason with, well, reason itself. The bottom line is that regardless of how productive, honest, wholesome, and critical you are during your life, you're still going to die, and time will pass on without you, and everything you've worked for and built will be destroyed and forgotten. Can you deal with that and not fall into nihilism? I'm not saying it's impossible, but I'm just saying I've never seen it done before.
What most atheists do is to construct some wonderful ideal out of productivity or an abstract "goodness" to hide behind, and claim that this makes life worth living. It sounds quite valuable, but underneath the gloss it's just an intellectual shield to keep the idea of total nothingness away. It's not real critical thought - it's ignorance; it's hiding from the truth. It is, in short, everything that atheists accuse religious people of. This is, I think, one of the singular things keeping most non-religious agnostics, who seem to make up the majority of Western society today, from diving headfirst into real and devoted atheism.
But maybe I'm wrong. Was the enlightenment really a failure, or did it just hit a few setbacks, and the vast and lofty promises of utopian reason are simply yet to be realized? Maybe Marx had more to offer than I give him credit for. Regardless, I thank the well-mannered atheists who are truly seeking for the truth and truly convinced of God's absence, because if nothing else they do an excellent job of providing much needed criticism for a cultural church mistakenly convinced of it's total supremacy in all things. -
110
A PUZZLING QUESTION...????...????...????
by Terry inthe "sacred secret" of god that creation was yearing to glimpse for so long was jehovah's plan of salvation and righteous government rescue operation.. yet, pagans, heathens and various crackpot primitives all came up with the same plan long before jehovah's was "revealed".
something smells bad about this!!.
i find it puzzling.. child sacrifice to appease wrathful deities is a disgusting solution to crop failure.
-
-
writetoknow
Well my wife received a heart one month ago and blood - she died before they could open her up. The new heart pumps the blood so she now has life.
Blood does symbolize life and it does make an impression when you deal with it in the real world. Without it life doesn't exist and giving it provides life.
So the whole topic of blood really seems kinda stupid when we humans know that it's about the most precious thing we process and that is life.
I am thankful for the person that made such a huge sacarifice for my wife and it is very overwhelming and humbling how does one thank a person for such a gift it beyond me?
Many people have given their blood rightly or wrongly for this country and we know that blood is a gift to us rather we agree of disagree with the reason it was given.
If God set the bar so high that nothing would pay for the sins of the human race but His Son blood I consider it a gift that's not repayable and I am equally humbled and overwhelmed .
-
110
A PUZZLING QUESTION...????...????...????
by Terry inthe "sacred secret" of god that creation was yearing to glimpse for so long was jehovah's plan of salvation and righteous government rescue operation.. yet, pagans, heathens and various crackpot primitives all came up with the same plan long before jehovah's was "revealed".
something smells bad about this!!.
i find it puzzling.. child sacrifice to appease wrathful deities is a disgusting solution to crop failure.
-
-
writetoknow
I am laughing some great no nonsence comments by both of you. We do take ourselves too seriously and we do have a whinny society.