i won't specify a particular subject, but it seems that when someone throws mud at another, there are 2 options.
either accept it or reject it.
if you or others defend a position, especially after an attack, that's "fanning the flames".
Mulan, if you decide to post that thread you had in mind, I'd be very interested in reading it and perhaps posting.
Amazing, it takes a real man (or woman, of course) to admit that they may have been wrong, and also that they may not have seen some things clearly. So you are a stand-up guy, guy. I hope one day those friendships you spoke of can be rekindled.
does anyone have a clue as to how elders actually get appointed?
I think Kenpo and Amazing pretty well nail it.
The first thing we looked at was the field service time. If that was not up to snuff, then nothing else really mattered. Scriptures in 1 Timothy and Titus were almost never read.
i am at home minding my own business.
i went upstairs to find something to cook for dinner, i bend down to get some chicken and.........
a damn kingdom song pops into my head!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Since I still attend, it's obvious that I am still hearing the tunes. Sometimes, I actually read the lyrics, and quite frankly, as many of you know, they're pretty darn ghastly.
my daughter attended a birthday party yesterday.
there were several other teens and two parents present.
i am happy to report that there were no beheadings.
One reason I posted this is that I have always felt that the reasons given for the prohibition of birthday celebrations were very questionable, at best. I allow my daughter to attend some; mostly, all they are is a gathering of teens anyway, and all of them have been well-supervised by parents.
As Karen mentions, many Witnesses 'adapt' holidays anyway. And yes, it is interesting how some say it's okay to have turkey close to thanksgiving day but not on that day.
Edited by - jack2 on 29 October 2002 10:5:32
my daughter attended a birthday party yesterday.
there were several other teens and two parents present.
i am happy to report that there were no beheadings.
My daughter attended a birthday party yesterday. There were several other teens and two parents present. I am happy to report that there were no beheadings.
I guess the absence of any petulant Pharaohs or cowardly Herods who cave into the demands of vindictive mothers of belly dancers may account for the fact that no beheadings occured.
There were also no reports of shameless revelry or bouts of drunkness.
Edited by - jack2 on 28 October 2002 21:38:32
well, can you believe it, it has been a year since i timidly joined this forum!
(yes me, i was very timid at first!
i came looking to see if anyone else had the same experience as me in finding out that the wtbts is just another manmade organization with dangling carrots and big sticks.
Joy, congratulations on your first year here!
But, learning that you may leave makes me feel sad too. You're the first person I got to know here. You're like an "pillar" here. Heck, you were the one who coined the name "jacka$$" for me.
I understand though that you may need to move on. Please keep my e-mail addy. I will keep yours for sure. And please visit us here and in chat if and when you can.
All my best, jacka$$
Edited by - jack2 on 28 October 2002 13:18:53
creationists like to attack evolution by attacking the "fossil record" as being incomplete; i.e., if something existed, for example, transitional states, then we should see evidence of them in the fossil record.
so, their argument is that if something existed, then we should see it in the fossil record.. let's take a look at the case of kangaroos.
we must assume, if we accept the notion of a global flood, that noah collected two kangaroos for his menagerie in the ark.
I just want to add that I did not intend to accuse pom of any kind of dishonesty. I simply viewed the original quote he included with some suspicion because it appeared to be taken out of context. If that is, by definition, a dishonest thing, then so be it, but I am in no postion to question the integrity of anyone who posts here.
Ged, I will check my e-mail ASAP, though I am behind on some things. This thread is certainly very interesting.
Personally, I go where the facts take me - or at least I try to. The problem is, when so-called facts are presented by people who already have a pre-conceived belief or agenda, then, to me, such a presentation must of necessity be questioned. That doesn't necessarily make their view wrong, nor does it mean that all the points they present should be discarded, but I like hearing about things from sources that are as objective as possible. I realize, of course, that total objectivity is not always easy to find as I read various material.
A few years back, a work mate and I discussed evolution-creation, and I gave him the "Creation" book, stating that it was an "unbiased" presentation of the argument. He read the book, gave it back, and said, "it's a decent book, but it's certainly not unbiased". Such a comment shocked my Witness-trained sensibilities, but then I realized he was absolutely correct.
I learned a lesson from that experience, and that's why I have commented on this thread as I have.
creationists like to attack evolution by attacking the "fossil record" as being incomplete; i.e., if something existed, for example, transitional states, then we should see evidence of them in the fossil record.
so, their argument is that if something existed, then we should see it in the fossil record.. let's take a look at the case of kangaroos.
we must assume, if we accept the notion of a global flood, that noah collected two kangaroos for his menagerie in the ark.
Looks like an interesting book Ged. I'll be following this thread too.
AlanF has written much material about the WTS's practice of taking quotes out of context, a practice especially prevalent in their "Creation" book. I was thinking the exact same thing when I saw that one quote above. That's why I'd like to see more if at all possible. Thanks.
creationists like to attack evolution by attacking the "fossil record" as being incomplete; i.e., if something existed, for example, transitional states, then we should see evidence of them in the fossil record.
so, their argument is that if something existed, then we should see it in the fossil record.. let's take a look at the case of kangaroos.
we must assume, if we accept the notion of a global flood, that noah collected two kangaroos for his menagerie in the ark.
Ged, very good point. Also, what about food for such animals in the Ark? In many cases, species of animals are very restricted in terms of diet. Noah would not only have needed to collect exotic creatures, but he would have had to supply them accoring to their unique dietary needs.
There's good info on this subject at talkorigins.com. Also, I am looking forward to seeing that Ridley article, and not just one quote from it, posted here.
how's the weekend going for you?
here in the great sunburnt country it's time to put the feet up and relax with a good cuppa, whilst i guess the north american posters and lurkers are still raging on saturday eve.
wherever you are, take a few minutes to just relax and unwind and enjoy reminiscing.
I jot mine down on an index card or slip of paper in three columns - hrs, mags, rvs.....well, last I was out there, anyway....for the past three months, it's been, well, made up to keep the hounds at bay.
