i realize whether you believe in god or the non-existence of god it has to be taken on faith since both positions are unknowable and unprovable.
however, i can understand faith in god as basically a hope for something better.
i can also understand agnosticism; admitting it's unknowable but still leaving the door open (perhaps the only intellectually honest option).
at the end of the day, the go to bed not worrying about other peoples beliefs
I'm not worried, I'm just wondering. Since we're just "choosing" these unprovable beliefs, why not just choose a belief that there is the possibility of a greater consciousness and perhaps there is something good in store?
i realize whether you believe in god or the non-existence of god it has to be taken on faith since both positions are unknowable and unprovable.
however, i can understand faith in god as basically a hope for something better.
i can also understand agnosticism; admitting it's unknowable but still leaving the door open (perhaps the only intellectually honest option).
I hope you will one day discover your own.
Thanks Jeff... me too.
Of course I'm not saying either position can be proven. I do, however, put them on the same plane regarding faith. They both require a certain amount of "suspension of disbelief".
i realize whether you believe in god or the non-existence of god it has to be taken on faith since both positions are unknowable and unprovable.
however, i can understand faith in god as basically a hope for something better.
i can also understand agnosticism; admitting it's unknowable but still leaving the door open (perhaps the only intellectually honest option).
I realize whether you believe in God or the non-existence of God it has to be taken on faith since both positions are unknowable and unprovable. However, I can understand faith in God as basically a hope for something better. I can also understand agnosticism; admitting it's unknowable but still leaving the door open (perhaps the only intellectually honest option). What I can't understand is faith in atheism. What's the upside?
from jw.org, here is the new definition of the generation from the april 15, 2010 watchtower.. .
article: holy spirits role in the outworking of jehovahs purpose.
13 third, holy spirit is at work in bringing bible.
I'm just saying that it seems the big change happened in 1995. That's the one that would take the wind out of my sails. I would lose my sense of urgency. This new explanation just changes who the generation is refering to (if I'm understanding correctly). The change that would effect me personally would be the 1995 explanation that the generation could go on forever. If I've already accepted that one, with all the major implications regarding my education, child bearing, saving for retirement, etc., why wouldn't I accept this latest change that has no personal bearing on me except to create a renewed sense of urgency? I just don't think it's going to be a big deal to anyone inside the organization.
from jw.org, here is the new definition of the generation from the april 15, 2010 watchtower.. .
article: holy spirits role in the outworking of jehovahs purpose.
13 third, holy spirit is at work in bringing bible.
So, my understanding is that before 1995, the generation was considered to be the generation actually born in 1914 and before. In 1995, the definition of the generation was changed to mean any wicked people who see the sign since 1914, not necessarily born on that year, effectively extending the generation out indefinitely. Now, the generation is not referring to the wicked but any of the annointed, not only who see the sign but whose lives overlap those that saw the beginning of the sign in 1914. This way it keeps the idea that the generation can extend out indefinitely, if there are always new ones claiming to be annointed, but, at the same time creating the impression that it's limited to one overlap and will definitely have an end sooner rather than later. So the only real change since 1995 is that the generation now refers to the annointed, not the wicked (since it already was extended indefinitely in 1995). Right?
from jw.org, here is the new definition of the generation from the april 15, 2010 watchtower.. .
article: holy spirits role in the outworking of jehovahs purpose.
13 third, holy spirit is at work in bringing bible.
In a sense, there is nowhere else to go once your faith is shattered. There's not going to be another religion that I'll ever believe. I don't think there will ever be the sure hope of salvation like I thought I had before. Everything now is a big question. So the witnesses don't have the truth. What is the truth? Who knows?
in the april 15 2010 watchtower, this quote stuck out to me like a sore thumb.. "this magazine has .
long been used by "the faithful and discreet slave" .
as the primary channel for dispensing increased .
Jeff and Mad Sweeney, Thanks for clearing that up.
in the april 15 2010 watchtower, this quote stuck out to me like a sore thumb.. "this magazine has .
long been used by "the faithful and discreet slave" .
as the primary channel for dispensing increased .
there is only one religion that insists that the tetragrammaton YHWH is in the New Testament.
I've never researched that but I had heard that the name was only inserted where there was a quote from the Hebrew scriptures and the Hebrew text had the name. Is that wrong?
in the april 15 2010 watchtower, this quote stuck out to me like a sore thumb.. "this magazine has .
long been used by "the faithful and discreet slave" .
as the primary channel for dispensing increased .
Those core teachings are the mortal soul, no hell, no trinity, paradise earth, Jehovah's name doctrines.
Those are the parts I still believe too. I feel mixed feelings about the meaning of the generation issue. For me it has more to do with trying to read the true motivations of the governing body. Are they really trying their best to do God's will or is it all a sinister plot to manipulate people? Who can know? They've been consistent from the beginning regarding the core issues, right?
in the april 15, 2010 wt, the new governing body of jw's have once again changed their ever problematic teaching regarding the "generation" that saw the sign jesus spoke of mt: 24:32-34.
(note, all references to "generation" in this article are in reference to this passage in mt 24).
the reason that this shows why the governing body is a fraud is very simple.
Does the 2010 explaination shorten or extend the length of the generation? (as opposed to the 2008 explaination)
