it's between one of the following kinds.. religion 1. we have these big churches with lots of money.
when we first start the church, we will kill people unless they join.. in later years there will be...no brith control, no eating meat on fridays, we will confess our sins to a preist.
sex before marriage is o.k.
Good one! LOL only one little addition:
or they my start to question...our beliefs....and if they do you....and change their minds and try to leave us.....we will shun them, defame them and impugn their motives... and oh yes, there will be lots of GUILT!
so i'm curious to get your opinions.
in your minds what is the worst part of the wtbs?
the abuse issue, money, false teachings/doctrines, control?
They exist and operate under the protection of rights they deny their members.
1st of all, nothing is more embarassing than Congress' current approval rating, nothing.
2nd Gopher, the article says: "The president and his aides argued that the Constitution gives the commander in chief the authority to bypass the 1978 law when necessary to protect national security. They also argued that Congress implicitly endorsed that power when it authorized the use of force against the perpetrators of the attacks."
This is true, and has been exercized by every President since 1978. The only time anyone from the activist media squacks about it is when a republican President uses it. No one, in large numbers anyway, complained about Bill Clinton's similar decisions, that was before 9/11.
3rd Geneva Conventions rules don't apply to terrorists.
Why doesn't Congress outlaw it? B/c this all partisan double speak.
Congress has always declined to outlaw it, 5 times thus far.
But they have to run out and act outraged about it.
a thoughtful series of twenty six pro-life arguments specifically against abortion can be found at: .
http://www.all.org/article.php?id=10229 .
through (following down the links the left side of each page) .
emy
Convicted murderers in a court of law facing a possible death penalty have MANY more rights than,unborn babies in their mothers' wombs.Because even after you 'load the language' convicted murders are human beings with personalities, and 'unborn babies' (are eggs 'unborn chickens'?) of an age where abortion would be given for social reasons in a well-regulated healthcare system are not human beings with personalities.
If someone doesn't have a personality, then they are not someone.
Lots of people have no personalities (you didn't define that), should they receive post-natal abortions?
Moral equivalency is neither moral or equivalent, i.e., convicted murderers being compared to unborn children.Actually, you can't compare them, for the reasons given above. And yes I am being semantically awkward. It's a gift
Glad you pointed out that "It's a gift" I wouldn't have recognized it otherwise. BTW, "moral equivalency" is a term used to indicate that there is no right or wrong. They have become interchangable. Convicted killers are deserving of death, unborn babies deserve a chance to live. Right and wrong is clear and it is not interchangable. Gifted semantics is not needed.
the insight book says:.
the events that took place from and after the year 1914 c.e.
are well-known history to all, beginning with the great war that erupted, the first world war in mankinds history and the first to be fought over the issue, not of the domination of europe alone, nor of africa, nor of asia, but of thedominationoftheworld.lu 21:7-33; re 11:15-18; see last days; presence.
Oompa-- LOL yeah, I didn't know what an "apostate" I was till I came here! Thought Criminal! Disputing the veracity and properness of the proper food at any time.
OTWO--great points. I didn't recognize the condescending and manipulative tone (who says it's a well known fact?) of that clip fully until your breakdown.
the insight book says:.
the events that took place from and after the year 1914 c.e.
are well-known history to all, beginning with the great war that erupted, the first world war in mankinds history and the first to be fought over the issue, not of the domination of europe alone, nor of africa, nor of asia, but of thedominationoftheworld.lu 21:7-33; re 11:15-18; see last days; presence.
I guess Germany and England were arguing about South American, then the Germans sank the Lusitania in 11/14. The US policy was to stay out of it until Germany appeared to be on the verge of victory.
---From the book Don't Tread On Me by H.W. Crocker III
Chancellor Georg Hertling stated: "At the beginning of July, 1918, I was convinced...that before the 1st of Sept. our adversairies would send us peace proposals...We expected grave events in Paris for the end of July. That was on the 15th. On the 18th even the most optimistic of us knew that all was lost. The history of the world was played out in 3 days."
The German army had eviscerated Russia. It had crumpled Serbia, Romania, and Italy. It had demoralized the armies of France. And yet, on the western front--now the decisive front--the bulldog British and the hard charging Americans held the line and then advanced, shifting the tide so that imminent German domination of the European continent became imminent German defeat."
The book goes into great detail about the battles.
i heard a good story yesterday, true as well.
some american and british troops were training together.
some yelled out, "join the religion of peace...or they'll kill ya!".
I heard a good story yesterday, true as well. Some American and British troops were training together. Some yelled out, "Join the religion of peace...or they'll kill ya!". Someone else yelled out, "If we hadn't fought the nazi's, we'd all be speaking german." This continued back through history until an American yelled out, "If we hadn't fought the British....we'd all be speaking.....?" A British soldier finished it for him by yelling, "Damn tax-dodgers!" LOL
yesterday i made a post that discussed some common argumentation methods that jws use to defend their religion and why they are faulty.
you can read that post here.
in that post i mentioned how jws live in a system that encourages, rewards, and praises people for using poor thinking methods.
Is it loving of brothers to stike at one of the other nation. What if there were two men of the same religion, one from Germany, on from America, fighting a war? Would that be showing love?
So not fighting Nazi's, was showing love? Or was showing love saving people from nazi slaughter?
Drew, you make good points. They're foundation is weakening, thus the borders (no internet, or as that bunch of geezers would probably say 'interweb' LOL ) are being enforced.
insight on the scriptures volume 1,p.787expellingone who was cast out as wicked, cut off entirely, would be considered worthy of death, though the jews might not have the authority to execute such a one.
nevertheless, the form of cutting off they did employ was a very powerful weapon in the jewish community.
jesus foretold that his followers would be expelled from the synagogues.
Sooner or later the ACLU or some other organization may tackle the issue on the basis of human rights as divorce and child custody issues continue to rise - sammieswife.
Sorry to say, but the ACLU would probably side with the WTS's so called "right" to shun.
It's a tough and heart-wrenching thing, but seems the best approach would be to be fearless, if the worst happened and your family was pressured to view you as "dead", voicing the fact that freedoms are not granted to us by any group, or elders, or JC's or gov't for that matter. Our rights are granted to us by God, and anyone who interferes with that is in violation of the US Constitution, which the borg has no respect for unless its advancing their goals. Then they pull it right out and site it endlessly. (not sure, probably pretty uniform throughout the western world)
JW's have gotten to used to readily submitting their power and control over to the borg, so this will be foriegn and 'dangerous' (thought crimes) to them initially. But they will think it about it. If they don't think about it at that point, they never will. The issue of freedom gets me worked up.
