well, i'm back.
its too bad these horses were so thoroughly killed.
they were utterly destroyed, followed by a good smiting.
ROTFLOL!
"Salto mortale" has been longer around than cars that's for sure! It means 'twist/turn of death' literary in Italian I believe. Usually it refers to a mid air revolvement of the body around its own axis. Sorta like a roll in the air as performed in the circus by the trapezium artists. Anyway I meant something like that... nothing to do with cars.. but sounds spectacular anyway... If Judas used donkeys I applaud him
Greven
well, i'm back.
its too bad these horses were so thoroughly killed.
they were utterly destroyed, followed by a good smiting.
the hypothesis that he hanged himself on a tree that had a branch overhanging a cliff. When he jumped off, the branch broke, and he fell, splitting himself open. This isn’t a bad story, except that it is pure speculation - there is nothing in the bible to indicate that it happened. As well, under this scenario, he would not “fall headlong”. He would have fallen feet first.
The real problem with this 'solution' is not how he fell IMO. Heck he could have made a 'salto mortale' for all I care... The real problem is that in one story his throws the coins down in the temple and then hangs himself. The pharisees then buy a field with this money as it is blood money and they feel a little giddy putting it in the contribution box
Yet in the other story judas himself buys a field with the blood money... This has interesting repercussions later on. In both stories a different reason is given for naming the field 'bloodfield': the first says it is because it was bought with blood money, the second because judas spilled his guts there....
Greven
ps. Farell Till helped me unravel the bible as well! After my religion fell to pieces I diceded to follow debates pro and con for a while. He certainly stood out both in wit as well as reasoning skills.
.
i credit this to "cinemablend" for giving me the thought.. prove to me that the watchtower is the "faithful and discreet slave class', to which the j.w's have to obey down to the letter.. who can "prove" or "disprove" this?.
hubert
Thanx Robert!
greven
.
i credit this to "cinemablend" for giving me the thought.. prove to me that the watchtower is the "faithful and discreet slave class', to which the j.w's have to obey down to the letter.. who can "prove" or "disprove" this?.
hubert
Does this book only exists in hard copy or are there pdf's available...
Anyone?
Greven
a nice guy named robert de vrije has put a link to his site - http://websitemaker.kennisnet.nl/jehoshuafellowship/index.htm - over at thewatchtower.org.
i can't read dutch so the site is useless to me except for the fact that i am drawn to this wondrful mock-up!.
i don't know why clint eastwood is there or what the significance of the gunslinging girlie is but i love it!.
hoe lang houden zij het schieten op "nieuw wachttorenlicht" nog vol?
This means in english:
How long will they keep the shooting (or guessing) at new watchtower light up? The 'shooting' part can mean real shooting with say guns, but can also mean guessing. A possible english equivalent for the saying could be: 'a wild stab in the dark'.
'Hoe' simply means 'how' not 'ho' as in hooker. LOL
Greven
i remember reading in the reasoning book about how to approach someone at the door who said the bible was full of contradictions.
one of the answers was "many say the bible's full of contradictions but no one's been able to show me an example of one.".
so, what are some examples that jws would have no real canned answer to?.
oroborous: One writer called it Scarlet and one writer called it Purple it is just a difference of opinion
This can be true only if one assumes the bible to be UNinspired which the WT does not. If the bible is inspired by God or his insubstantial friend, the Holy Spirit, there cannot be a difference of opinion because the author would then be in disagreement with itself. Hardly a fitting position for an omnipotent God.
Greven
hey gang!
i apologize for my absence of a few weeks.
i have been very busy with work lately, and i hate to write something that i haven't been able to research properly, so i haven't posted anything in this series for three weeks now.
tijkmo:
yeah for all i have difficulty believing in a god of justice anymore and certainly in a wt directing god...i cannot accept that there isnt a creator..as sherlock holmes said 'once you have ruled out the impossible whatever is left no matter how improbable must be true....and evoluton is impossible
First of all: evolution does not rule out a creator. Evolution starts at the first organism. How this first organism came to be is not something the theory of evolution adresses. Secondly: what makes evolution 'impossible' according to you? It certainly works on paper, and we have real life examples of evolution happening under our noses... Third: when using Sherlock Holmes' rule of thumb it is important to remember that 1) it is a rule of thumb and 2) in order for it to work we MUST know ALL possible options. Greven
i remember reading in the reasoning book about how to approach someone at the door who said the bible was full of contradictions.
one of the answers was "many say the bible's full of contradictions but no one's been able to show me an example of one.".
so, what are some examples that jws would have no real canned answer to?.
Elsewhere:
I don't see how anyone could mistake these two colors regardless of the lighting
It is irrelevant whether or not the writers of those two books mistook the color of the robe anyway:
If they were inspired by the same holy spirit they can't make any mistakes anyway, unless the holy spirit is colorblind itself
Greven
i am not a scientist so i do bow to others superior knowledge on this site regarding these subjects (and welcome their input) but what is to stop these two theories both being proven so that they both apply to our origins.. what is to stop a creator creating evolution as a process just as a creator would create the laws of physics etc?
it would be akin to starting the ball rolling in creation terms and letting it carry on until the highest lifeform is present.
could scientific theory support this view perhaps?.
Certainly evolution theory doesn't exclude the possibility of a creator at the very start of it all, simply because it is out of it's realm. (evolution theory is about the progress of species, not the start of life. This would be the realm of abiogenesis, the transition from nonliving to living matter)
However, for 'creation' to be counted among scientific theories it has to be rooted in evidence. Yet, nothing has come up that would even hint at, or require the excistence of an entity or force we could call 'god'. Let alone a personal, consious being...
Greven
you might have already seen this but it's a first for me and i'm annoyed!.
i have to get back to work.................i'm getting cabin fever!.
and information sourcewednesday, march 9, 2005 ?
all members are equal...
But some are more 'equal' than others....
Greven
