I've got a pregant coworker. Needless to say, she's a woman.
Thanks for clearing that up for all of us, I doubt anyone would of actually figured that out.
Blue Grass
JoinedPosts by Blue Grass
-
14
Women! Sheesh!
by John Doe ini've got a pregant coworker.
needless to say, she's a woman.
evidently, asking "are you still pregnant" is not an appropriate way to broach the subject.
-
-
Blue Grass
-
19
Ex-Jehovah's Witness Survey...
by Tuesday inhey everyone.
another idea came to me tonight while discussing the pew forum survey about how only 37% of jehovah's witnesses remain in the religion from childhood.
the recent watchtower article where it says the majority of people who leave the religion do so in order to commit sin was brought up predictably.
-
-
Blue Grass
Name:Spike (My real first and last names are unique and would give away my identity)
Gender:Male
Age:24
Start of the Questions
How were you introduced to Jehovah's Witnesses?:Converted at age 20
How did you leave the religion?:Faded away
What Age did you leave?:21
Were you Baptized:Yes
What General reason did you leave the religion?:The whole idea of the governing body being equal to Christ and that the Bible is only written for the 144,000.
How did you feel about the doctrine before leaving?:I believed whole-heartily until the last 3 months I was in.
Did your feelings about the doctrine effect the way you left?:Yes
Did you research the religion's teachings after leaving?Yes, I started reading "Crisis Of Conscience" 2 days after the last meeting I attended and than"In Search Of Christian Freedom"
What are your feelings on the doctrine of the religion since leaving?: There are a lot of problems.
How do you feel about the people since leaving?: They're misguided but a lot of the "rank and file" are good people.
How do you feel about discussing your time as a Jehovah's Witness?: I never discussed it with anyone.
-
48
watchtower site on Facebook, ,,is this stuff for real ?
by lancelink ini was looking over the watchtower site on facebook this evening, and was just mesmerized by many of the posts.this stuff can't be real (can it)?
nelson birdwell ?
it's like something out of mad magazine, or better yet the onion !.
-
-
Blue Grass
This paticualry Watchtower facebook page was started by members of JWN, so I wouldn't imagine pretty much the majority of post on there are fake.
-
32
Okkkkk...you MESS with my kids and you MESS WITH ME JWs!!!
by WuzLovesDubs ini have soooo had it with these assholes...sooooo had it!!
my daughter who is 19 is pre-engaged to a wonderful 20 year old guy who treats her like a princess.
he lives with us to both help me with the rent and for them to save some money for their future.
-
-
Blue Grass
They both work and go to school. Even though they share a room and a bed, they are both still virgins and even though no one believes that...I do. Its what they both want.
You take being naive to a whole notha level. If they are not having sex, why do you suppose they both want to sleep in the same bed? I don't understand why you're upset with this guy for not wanting unmarried teens having sex in his house. I would imagine that most people(not just religious) would agree with him on this matter.
-
41
John 20:28 response to Garyneal
by Blue Grass in(the cake is the object of the verb 'bake'.).
(the cat is the object of the verb 'bark'.).
everywhere else in the new testament when jesus is directly addressed as lord it is always in the vocative case.
-
-
Blue Grass
She is an actual school-trained scholar.
Actually Leolaia admitted she only studied Greek for 2 years at a University, that's hardly a scholar.
John 13:13 uses the nominative ho kurios where grammatically the accusative would be expected (as an object of phóneite) if it were not used as a term of address; the use of the nominative thus shows that this is an articular nominative of address.
That's just flat out wrong, I would explain why but I don't think with just 2 years of "University Level" Greek you would understand.
All of you guys seem to be suffering from the same problem, those who still believe in the Bible and those who don't alike. You guys left the JWs where you guys whole heartily believed some ridiculous non-scriptural teachings such as 1914,144,000 etc. Now some of you joined another man made religion Protestantism/Catholicism and now fully support and defend some more ridiculous teachings as much as you did the JW teachings! When you read John Chapter 20, you are so brainwashed that you can even see that the whole chapter is about Thomas finally believing Jesus was resurrected, not Jesus' identity. When you read Jesus response to Thomas in verse 29:
John 20:29 Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
What did he believe after saying "my lord and my God"? Did he believe Jesus was God or believe Jesus was resurrected?
John 20:24Now Thomas (called Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord!" But he said to them, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it."
It is so obvious that Thomas didn't believe Jesus was God but finally believed after doubting that he was resurrected by God. You guys however can not see this because your Pastor tells you what to believe much like when you were still JWs. None of you have changed. You guys still need somebody to tell you what to believe because you still don't have ability to think for yourselves. And for those of you who are atheist but still insist the Bible teaches immortal soul and the trinity, you guys are just bitter and refuse to admit the watchtower was right on any subject and thus resort to defending this nonsense. I would continue this discussion with you but it's clear it will be a waste of my time. It would be like trying to explain to a JW that there is no anointed and earthly class, they are brainwashed into to believing garbage and so are you. Besides that you guys lack knowledge. You never gained any knowledge being a JW and you aren't gaining any as a Protestant/Catholic.Everything you learned about the Bible in your life was through someone telling you what to believe, not through any studying or research on your part. You guys are sheep who can't think for themselves. If you really want to learn truth stop with the man made tradition and churches and stick to the scriptures because right you guys don't have a clue.
-
41
John 20:28 response to Garyneal
by Blue Grass in(the cake is the object of the verb 'bake'.).
(the cat is the object of the verb 'bark'.).
everywhere else in the new testament when jesus is directly addressed as lord it is always in the vocative case.
-
-
Blue Grass
Not exclamation, but address, the vocative case though the form of the nominative, a very common thing in the Koine.
If you believe it wasn't an exclamation, why do you think virtually ever English Bible translates it that way.
Also Leolaia you can't ignore the fact that nowhere else in the entire NT is a nominative for vocative used when Jesus is addressed as Lord.
-
12
The story of two Creation stories
by Doug Mason inthe first two chapters of genesis provide two very different accounts of creation.. .
firstly, they are contradictory.
the sequence of genesis 1:1 2:4a is plants, animals, then man and woman, whereas the sequence of genesis 2:4b 25 is man, plants, animals, then woman.
-
-
Blue Grass
So I suggest that you put your assumptions aside, without concern at the potential outcome of your genuine investigation, and make your own study and come to your own genuinely held beliefs.
This topic isn't important enough for me to want to investigate. Assuming everything you say is true, I don't see any significance of it. Both creations say the same thing so I don't feel this is an important issue.
-
12
The story of two Creation stories
by Doug Mason inthe first two chapters of genesis provide two very different accounts of creation.. .
firstly, they are contradictory.
the sequence of genesis 1:1 2:4a is plants, animals, then man and woman, whereas the sequence of genesis 2:4b 25 is man, plants, animals, then woman.
-
-
Blue Grass
A lot of assumptions are made in your post. I always thought Chapter 2 of Genesis was to provide more detail of the creation, mainly because chapter 1 doesn't tell us how he created man.
Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
Genesis 2:4This is the account of the heavens and the earthwhen they were created.7 the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
I always understood verse 4 of chapter 2 as speaking of same creation because of the phrase"when they were created". It seems to acknowledge the account from chapters 1 and is now going in to details of the creation that aren't in the first chapter.
-
41
John 20:28 response to Garyneal
by Blue Grass in(the cake is the object of the verb 'bake'.).
(the cat is the object of the verb 'bark'.).
everywhere else in the new testament when jesus is directly addressed as lord it is always in the vocative case.
-
-
Blue Grass
Why should I take you word for that?
You wouldn't have to take my word for it if you had any knowledge of the Greek language.
To assert that Thomas wasn't talking to anyone, when it is obvious in any translation, in any language, including the 1st century Greek
How can you say that when you can't even read the first century Greek? I do find it silly that people with no knowledge of the Greek are telling me I'm wrong. If you're going to tell me I'm wrong at least post a link or give a source of a person with knowledge of Greek who disagrees with what I say.
P.S. I have no idea why you guys keep bringing up JWs and the Watchtower, especially since I haven't step foot inside a Kingdom Hall in nearly 3 years.
-
41
John 20:28 response to Garyneal
by Blue Grass in(the cake is the object of the verb 'bake'.).
(the cat is the object of the verb 'bark'.).
everywhere else in the new testament when jesus is directly addressed as lord it is always in the vocative case.
-
-
Blue Grass
So if I am understanding this properly, there is no way to accurately translate the meaning of this verse into English. Yet, here we are using English to do just that. Why wouldn't the translators at least try to make the attempt so there would at least not be any confusion?
There is no way to accuratley translate the meaning of this verse in English using just the four words "my"(twice), "lord, "and", and "God". Translators would have to add several words to correctly convey the meaning of this verse, but translators are usually weary of adding words that don't appear in the Greek because they do not want to be accused of being dishonsent. It can't be ignored that majority of English Bibles add an exclaimation point to try and convey the true maning of this verse.