Posts by still

LOL! EVERYONE GETS "G" !!!!!!!!! Once I got a "W" when i was a kid and I was devastated.
Then when I was about 25 an elder that was a total A-Hole gave me a "W" for about 2 years straight. Problem with that was, I was probably the best speaker in the KH and he knew it.
I think he felt it his divine mission to "humble" me. Not that I really cared about those public speaking awards I have anyway. As for "I" I only ever knew of one school overseer that gave "I" - he would say that if you had a "W" on your slip you had to get an "I" on the talk after that, you couldnt go straight to a "G"... i would make fun of that but he was good man and I really like him. Still do I guess. But I always got a kick out of the fact that he was the only one that I had ever heard give an "I"

21

June 3-08 #4 Talk - Evolution - A Scientific Dilemma

by still_in74 in

okay, so i have this talk tonight and i forgot all about it.

anyone on here have this talk and can post it here for me??????????.

or if you feel inclined you can write it for me!

still_in74

Where exactly did this source material come from?

i got it right out of the PDF 2008 TMS Download off this site! Probably 90% in my cong have bound copies of this PDF.

I presumed it came from the reasoning book but upon further review I think the dude that put this thing together has pulled some info on his own.

I couldnt care less where it came from, I just want this over with. Besides, not one person in the KH will be listening to a word I say anyway, I will be looking at glazed over eye-balls for 90% and furrowing eye-brows for 10% - (of course in a vain attempt to appear like they understand/give a shite about what I am saying)

21

June 3-08 #4 Talk - Evolution - A Scientific Dilemma

by still_in74 in

okay, so i have this talk tonight and i forgot all about it.

anyone on here have this talk and can post it here for me??????????.

or if you feel inclined you can write it for me!

still_in74

bttt

I need help on this one!

21

June 3-08 #4 Talk - Evolution - A Scientific Dilemma

by still_in74 in

okay, so i have this talk tonight and i forgot all about it.

anyone on here have this talk and can post it here for me??????????.

or if you feel inclined you can write it for me!

still_in74

Okay, so I have this talk tonight and I forgot all about it. Anyone on here have this talk and can post it here for me??????????

Or if you feel inclined you can write it for me! here is the source material

No.4: Evolution—A Scientific Dilemma (rs pp. 121-3 ¶1)
Evolution

Definition:
Organic evolution is the theory that the first living organism developed from lifeless matter. Then, as it reproduced, it is said, it changed into different kinds of living things, ultimately producing all forms of plant and animal life that have ever existed on this earth. All of this is said to have been accomplished without the supernatural intervention of a Creator. Some persons endeavor to blend belief in God with evolution, saying that God created by means of evolution, that he brought into existence the first primitive life forms and that then higher life forms, including man, were produced by means of evolution. Not a Bible teaching.
Is evolution really scientific?

The "scientific method" is as follows: Observe what happens; based on those observations, form a theory as to what may be true; test the theory by further observations and by experiments; and watch to see if the predictions based on the theory are fulfilled. Is this the method followed by those who believe in and teach evolution?
Astronomer Robert Jastrow says: "To their chagrin [scientists] have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature’s experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter.

Year Text 2008 page 84 Theocratic Ministry School 2008
Scientists do not know how that happened."—The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (New York, 1981), p. 19.
Evolutionist Loren Eiseley acknowledged: "After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past."—The Immense Journey (New York, 1957), p. 199.
According to New Scientist: "An increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists . . . argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all. . . . Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials."—June 25, 1981, p. 828.
Physicist H. S. Lipson said: "The only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it." (Italics added.)—Physics Bulletin, 1980, Vol. 31, p. 138.
Are those who advocate evolution in agreement? How do these facts make you feel about what they teach?
The introduction to the centennial edition of Darwin’s Origin of Species (London, 1956) says: "As we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the causes of evolution but even about the actual process. This divergence exists because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion. It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution."—By W. R. Thompson, then director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, Ottawa, Canada.
"A century after Darwin’s death, we still have not the slightest demonstrable or even plausible idea of how evolution really took place—and in recent years this has led to an extraordinary series of battles over the whole question. . . . A state of almost open war exists among the evolutionists themselves, with every kind of [evolutionary] sect urging some new modification."—C. Booker (London Times writer), The Star, (Johannesburg), April 20, 1982, p. 19.
The scientific magazine Discover said: "Evolution . . . is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is growing dissent."—October 1980, p. 88.

Thank goodness for the online 2008 TMS PDF that was linked on JWD. That is how I got the source material at work. I love this site!

Thanks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

45

Questions concerning 607

by beavis in

i am sorry to hash and rehash this old topic, but i have a friend that has continually asked the wt's chronology of 607 and that historians do not agree with their thoughts on their selection of this date to "fit" their ideaolgies.

could someone give me information from credible historians that absolutely prove that 607 is impossible?

this person has looked up information and what they have found so far is that most websites or some persons on this site do not show conclusively that 607 is not credible.

still_in74

Farkel, who hopes JCanon doesn't trash this thread with his own jibberish...

LOL !

I second that!

45

Questions concerning 607

by beavis in

i am sorry to hash and rehash this old topic, but i have a friend that has continually asked the wt's chronology of 607 and that historians do not agree with their thoughts on their selection of this date to "fit" their ideaolgies.

could someone give me information from credible historians that absolutely prove that 607 is impossible?

this person has looked up information and what they have found so far is that most websites or some persons on this site do not show conclusively that 607 is not credible.

still_in74

"Whenever scientific findings contradict what the Bible says, the scientific writings are always wrong." (paraphrase)
(Note that the Watchtower is much easier to undertand when you apply the decoding algorithm: always supply "The Watchtower" when the sentence says "The Bible", and substitute "The Governing Body" whenever it says "Jehovah")

AMEN BROTHER! You NAILED it!

Truer words have never been spoken............. it is the "decoding algorithm" that sets you free, because this is the absolute truth.
Ah yes... the "decoding algorithm will set you free!"

11

"Knock" Saturday Brothers keep "encouraging" me so I let them have it!

by Witness 007 in

this brother just won't take the hint....he leaves me his phone number and i don't call...he "encourages" me to the meeting and i never go...he tells my wife i "look depressed".....he won't give up?

so he calls on me saturday and says: "so your not interested in coming to meetings at the moment?

" i say {suprisingly} "no not really....there are some doctrinal matters i don't agree with...i don't want to really discuss it...it's just blood and 607 b.c.e".

still_in74

i talked to the elders about blood cause I had to give a #4 talk on blood.

Surprisingly they didnt argue with me, but I also did not press the issue to demandingly either as i am still trying to get my nerve.

Blood just pisses me off now. I have family that have me as their POA for medical and have told me no blood at all. that makes me want to call them the bunch of brain washed, non-thinking, mind-controlled cult members they are!
But then i rationalized that at least if I am their POA and can pull the doc aside and say give them blood if they need. God forbid anything were to happen, but if so and they were to live because I had them given blood I am curious as to if they would shun me after.

I cant believe that anyone can rationalize the WTS blood policy. It is the most obtuse pile of steaming BS I have ever read!

9

Bring the Light (has sound)

by Bring_the_Light in

jw
friends

'bring the light' by the smashing pumpkins' from zeitgeist(track 9).

shot down i stood.

withstood my neighborhood.

still_in74

Billy Corgan repeatedly indicates in song and in interviews that God is "empty"

I heard him in one interview, he was asked what his favourite book was, he said "the bible" and then laughed. then went on about another book.

He has a serious problem with the idea of a God or religion for that matter.

21

Do you think the guys in the Governing Body belive in the Governing Body?

by Samuel Thorsen in

jw
friends

i presume they do.

they are probably so intoxicated by their own power that they belive in the never ending rubbish.. or am i wrong?

is there other reasons to stay on the top of the hill?.

still_in74

i think they believe that "THE ORGANIZATION" is bigger than any one of them.

That despite the obvious mistakes like blood, doctrinal flip-flops, 1925/1975, UN-NGO, mishandling of Pedophilia cases, etc. They believe, really believe that Jehovah has put them there to "hold it all together"

The end seems to justify the means. Eventhough they are imperfect and they know this, they look at their role in a "bigger picture" mentality. That no matter what comes their way, they need to keep the org together until Armaggedon. No matter how many mistakes they make or have made, Jehovah NEEDS them to "keep it together"

Regardless of whether they believe everything they teach is of no consequence. It only matters that they overcome all obstacles (even via "theocratci warfare") and persevere.
Truth/Light will come later but only if they are still around.

this is how I think the GB think. They all believe they are the channel despite imperfection. The "Org" is a living breathing entity that they must care for until Armageddon.

Or maybe I am just an idiot..........

still_in74

Posts by still_in74