on this website there seems to be so many lies and so little actual truth.
is this supposed to be a place to get answers or confuse the hell out of truth seekers?
well, for you seekers out there, if you find the truth on this site it'll be a major fluke.
Jason:
Actually, it's been quite amusing sitting here and watching you pine around like this little one. You talk of the lost as if you've found your way, only to be a blind guide.
You know as well as I do that there is only one source of truth. If you are interested in reality instead of illusions, feel free to e-mail me: [email protected]
Until then Jason,
oobie.
just watching a show with gerald flurry on it and i thought his talk was appropriate.
it was regarding the prophecies of jeremiah re: rejection of ancient israel.. question i asked myself "could jehovah ever reject modern day spiritual israel?".
jeremiah 31:37. hosea 9:15-17 (all their badness was in bethel...)(princes = elders)(ephraim = governing body, fds, the borg).. from theapostleak
mds:
This is usually where you worm in, right?
does freedom of thought really obtain in this forum?
are those who have left god's organization and jehovah god himself actually now more open-minded and unbiased?
if those who espouse atheistic thoughts or those who believe every vile utterance spoken against jehovah's people think they are now speaking from some olympian perspective, i beg to differ.
AlanF:
Once again, you leave them silent.
Where were you when I was buying into all of this crap two years ago?
i didn't really know these people that well.
i was only ten.
we were at their house eating dinner, one sunday after the meeting.
Slayer:
I wouldn't worry about "you know" too much. Judging from the photo, it wouldn't be the first time someone beats the living shit out of him...
i am new here trying to figure my way around...... i would appreciate it if you could say which of these fits you..... 1. still a jw.
2. if you dont agree with the jw doctrines any longer do you belong to another religious organization now?
3. are still religious and have no religious affiliation.
cnn77:
Preparing for future debates, eh cnn?
4, leaning toward 5.
these words were translated as either presence [parousia], coming [echomai] or arrival [eltho] in the new world translation.
but all we are saying is that the word ...can, can, can mean "coming", a simple "coming" of a person.
we remember jesus christ made an initial visit, or had a first coming, to inspect the temple for god, as the messenger of the covenant.
bjc2012:
Since you really know nothing about MDS' writing, what is the point of your above statement?
I realize you were posting mds' material. I think it comes better out of the "horses mouth" anyway. My point is, the horseshit matches mds' coat, not yours.
Also, Many on the DB fully remember the "scapegoat arrangement", so you guys can go ahead and feign ignorance all you want, but WE KNOW BETTER! ROTFLMAO
mds:
Great to see the "grand messiah" once again. Glad you joined in on the fray.
Now, on with the CLASH OF THE MESSIAHS!!!!!!!!!
YEEEEHAAAWWWW!!!!!
whilst reading 2nd timothy i noticed that chapter 4:1-8 seem to suggest that the early christian church believed that christ was manifest and in his kingdom:.
i solemnly charge you before god and christ jesus, who is destined to judge the living and the dead, and by his manifestation and his kingdom.. .
this implies that he is still to judge, but that he is manifest and that his kiongdom is established.
IT'S THE CLASH OF THE MESSIAHS!!!!!!
these words were translated as either presence [parousia], coming [echomai] or arrival [eltho] in the new world translation.
but all we are saying is that the word ...can, can, can mean "coming", a simple "coming" of a person.
we remember jesus christ made an initial visit, or had a first coming, to inspect the temple for god, as the messenger of the covenant.
Hello again TWMC lady.
PLEASE get mds to come back. He is so much better. Thanks!!!
3) "god loves you!".
27) "without god, life is meaningless.".
36) "find god before it is too late!".
JanH:
ROTFLMAO.
Great "summation".
My sides are hurting.
-ianao
hey everyone, i was hesitant to post this article i read because abortion debates can turn so ugly so fast.
so i thought about it for and decided i should post it because it is important for those of us who value the right the choose to be aware of what that really means here in the us.
this article is from the weekly alternative newspaper here in the minneapolis/st.
--LOGIC ALERT-- --LOGIC ALERT-- --LOGIC ALERT--
IF two partners both willingly did the nasty together, then two people were involved: One woman, one man. Both had 50% of "weight" in making the decision.
The woman decided to knock boots with the man, and vicey-versie
So, my take is that the man, who has (pardon the pun) invested some genes into the situation should have 15% weight vs. the woman's 85% weight in making a decision to abort, taking into account the fact that the woman does do the hard work of carrying/birthing and also undergoing the actual abortion procedure, etc.
Tell me all you want about "it's not his body" or some other such bunk, but the child is a product of BOTH parents. The woman could have chosen NOT to have sex with her partner.
Now, before anyone hops onto ianao's back and starts pounding, please note that I did NOT mention a case of RAPE/INCEST/etc. In this case, the choice is clearly 100% in weight of the child baring woman who is suffering because some diphead got a nut at her expense.
-ianao
