some interesting work has been published this month in nature and reported in various blogs and journals.
it is work that gives more evidence to support the fact of evolution.
a team of swedish scientists led by evolutionary geneticist erik axelsson from uppsala university have identified genetic changes that could have been responsible for the transformation of wild wolves, into the ancestors of our beloved pet dogs.
Evolution is the change in the genomes of a population over time. The mutations are random, the differential survival of those mutations is not random.
IT is important to understand that random means soemthing different in science as opposed to how we use it.
hello, i am new and i feel soooo wrong about being here.
anyway i am an m.s and have been disillusioned ever since the new understanding that came out in october.
i have read many things on this board that i have and also have not thought about.
msconcerned,
The first step is to understand that to leave the WT doesn't mean to leave God and Christ, far from it.
It means to enter into a personal relationship with them DIRECTLY, as was intended since the beginning.
Follow your heart, listen with love and compassion and all will become clear.
The trip may not be easy, but good things seldom are.
The only thing that Our Lord asked of Us was to LOVE each other as He loved Us, to take the "water" he offered ( the water of life) because it was free.
All you have to do is do just that.
in the first post in this series i discussed the identity of the watchtower as per revelation 13. the second post dealt with the identity of the harlot and the scarlet beast.
this post will deal with the third element "the image of the beast", lets read revelation 13:15-17:.
the second beast was given power to give breath to the image of the first beast, so that the image could speak and cause all who refused to worship the image to be killed.
When both sides are wrong BOTH sides need to be invalidated.
Yes, it is just that simple.
in the first post in this series i discussed the identity of the watchtower as per revelation 13. the second post dealt with the identity of the harlot and the scarlet beast.
this post will deal with the third element "the image of the beast", lets read revelation 13:15-17:.
the second beast was given power to give breath to the image of the first beast, so that the image could speak and cause all who refused to worship the image to be killed.
There you go generalizing both sides again which actually causes more problems. Invalidating both sides is counterproductive. It's like you want to mediate, but you don't know how. I suggest studying up on human psychology before you take such a position.
Rest my case.
in the first post in this series i discussed the identity of the watchtower as per revelation 13. the second post dealt with the identity of the harlot and the scarlet beast.
this post will deal with the third element "the image of the beast", lets read revelation 13:15-17:.
the second beast was given power to give breath to the image of the first beast, so that the image could speak and cause all who refused to worship the image to be killed.
PSac, generalizations like that don't solve problems with specific causes. "Both sides are bad and good" is just lazy mediation and self glorification. You are not being impartial, you just want to believe you are.
No, I amnot being impartial.
I think both sides are behaving like dicks.
That you guys prefer to argue with each other than to address the issues to the argument speaks volumes.
I take it back about calling you guys dicks, that is an insult to the penis.
If someone posts a remark to counter your argument and the remark is personal and doesn't evne address the argument, ALL an see that and there is no need to address it so as to have the last word.
Ignore any posts that do not address your argument.
in the first post in this series i discussed the identity of the watchtower as per revelation 13. the second post dealt with the identity of the harlot and the scarlet beast.
this post will deal with the third element "the image of the beast", lets read revelation 13:15-17:.
the second beast was given power to give breath to the image of the first beast, so that the image could speak and cause all who refused to worship the image to be killed.
I think that both sides are ghuilty of personal attacks.
Believers sometimes say things that imply the non-beleivers are less moral, less giving, less compassionate and that is simply not true.
Non-beleivers try to make believers to be ignorante, supersisticous, dilusional, having mental problems, etc and that is simply not true also.
Yes some non-beleivers are mean spiteful people and so are some believers.
Yes it is true that some beleivers are ignorant and dilusional and have mental problems, so do some non-believers.
I think if we all focus on the argument and not the person, we would all be better off.
Respect is a two way street and it is right to be respectful of others even if you do not respect their views.
watchtower ,aug 1st 1981 say.
your attitude toward the wheat like anointed "brothers"of christ will be the determining factor as to whether you go into "everlasting cutting off"or to receive "everlasting life ( math 25:34-36.
watchtower,july 15th 1991 says.
Antichrist as per John:
22 Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son. 23 Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also. 24 As for you, let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father.
in the first post in this series i discussed the identity of the watchtower as per revelation 13. the second post dealt with the identity of the harlot and the scarlet beast.
this post will deal with the third element "the image of the beast", lets read revelation 13:15-17:.
the second beast was given power to give breath to the image of the first beast, so that the image could speak and cause all who refused to worship the image to be killed.
Threads degenerating like this because of personal attacks sadden me greatly.
the phone rang in the art gallery and i answered.. the voice was a young woman's.. one of her two parrots had died rather suddenly.. she wanted a colorful frame for the memorial portrait.
could we accomodate her?.
the remaining bird was sulking.. i suggested parrots without partners.. i don't where my tasteless jokes come from.
I will always remeber the first kiss between me and my wife.
It somehow manged to erase the memory or all other kisses, LOL !
go and read it again at acts 5: 11. ananias and sapphira drop dead at peter's feet for "playing false to god/holy spirit" by not giving all of the money to peter that they got from a field they sold.
ananias and sapphira were christians.
they wanted to help the poor and so sold one of their possessions, a field, and gave most of the money to peter.
PSacramento, I agree with you, essentially.
Thanks.
Nowhere in Acts do we read that A & S were struck by God. It could have been an extraordinary, yet quite possible coincidence. I've read many stories of a woman dying upon the news that her husband has died, and vice-versa. Perhaps Ananias had a heart attack when he was confronted by Peter. Unbeknownst to Sapphira, she comes to the place where Peter was and the brothers that were assisting him (the same that took away Ananias' body) and Peter told her that they would ESCORT her out (no necessarily take her corpose away). But, upon the news of the death of her husband, she died too. Could it be that they were of already some elderly age? We don't know, but we can speculate. The congregation understood this as a work of God, and I'm sure the apostles, Peter included, understood it as such, and it served the purpose of setting an "example" for the congregation. But again, the Bible never states that they were both killed by God.
We are speculting of course, we don't know and it may will be that the HS did strike them down because of their lies.
The point is that BOTH views are specualtion and both canbe legit so to suggest that they were struck down by God or the HS or Peter based on what MAY be implied is only ONE option and no more ( or less) valid then any other.
In the bible, when God strikes down, it is made clear and isn't "implied" and that is NOT the case here.
Sure the implication is there if you read into it as such and lots of people certainly do, BUT if we look at the NW writings and Luke's writings ( since he wrote both Acts and GOL), do we see that pattern?
I suggest that we do not.
