i dont know why i'd want to argue over something like this.
i've been aware of this theory for years.
as interesting as it is - it's still bullshit.. for future reference, i believe the bible to be a collection of fantasy, myth, real locations and crazy ramblings of psychedelic bloke stuck on patmos.. my reply:.
Unlike Van Gogh's story however, there were probably no incidents involving ears in Jesus's case, regardless of what the bible says.
For what it's worth:
Luke 22:50-51 New International Version (NIV)
50 And one of them struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear.
51 But Jesus answered, “No more of this!” And he touched the man’s ear and healed him.
so my father, who is an active jehovah’s witness, told me yesterday of an experience currently doing its rounds amongst the witnesses in relation to cart witnessing.
there is a bridge called ‘the bridge’ which is a well known place for people committing suicide.
apparently the jws have been setting up there literature carts there for a while now and ever since they have there has been no more suicide attempts from the bridge.
I'm sure both "The Bridge" and "The Park" are in "The City." That should narrow it down. If we could find out if "The City" is in "The State" or "The Province" we could narrow it down even more.
there are many here who think they can infiltrate my web-site.
be warned that we administrators of jwtalk call the listed congregation on your application for membership in our site to verify if they know you!.
some of you have slipped through the cracks and got into our site, but rest assured, we will find you out and ban you!.
It seems to me that if the elders at some congregation get a phone call along the line of "HI I'm JTrottigy from JW talk, I'd like to verify that Joe JW is a member of your congregation" they would immediately form a JC to find out what Joe JW is doing on the internet.
at a time when women fly combat aircraft, when they are grant equality in education,in employment,in government,in athletics,etc.
what entitles women to the status of children still?.
women and children first when it comes to emergency situations.
It has nothing to do with courage, or accepting fate. It's all about making sure the family unit's DNA continues as part of the gene pool. A few million years of survival have hardwired us to act in certain ways. This is one of them.
at a time when women fly combat aircraft, when they are grant equality in education,in employment,in government,in athletics,etc.
what entitles women to the status of children still?.
women and children first when it comes to emergency situations.
MeanMrMustard beat me to it. This is evolutionary biology at work.
after finding patterns in lottery numbers and thinking about if random truly exists, i also flipped a coin for awhile.
i was counted how many times i would get heads and tails and if they would equal out in the end.
if heads slowly was getting ahead too much, i would suddenly get a bunch of tails in a row to almost equal it out.
one thing that has intrigued me are so many who have left, who are wholly convinced everything in existence is merely by chance now, also claim they wouldn't want to live forever, and perfectly fine if this is the only life.
now, i would understand that if you were raised into the religion.
i was raised into it.
But if you joined it of your own accord and not raised in it, why did you want eternal life then and now say you would never want it?
I'm smarter and more knowledgeable now.
scarlett johansson was cast to play a transgender role in rub & tug.. recently she pulled out.
i don't know whether she jumped or was pushed but trans activists, despite claiming to represent only 0.3% of the population, have quite a powerful voice.. do they want a trans actor to play the trans role, is that it?.
if scarlett johansson shouldn't play a trans role, does that mean a trans actor shouldn't play a cis role?.
I don't see what the flap is about, gay people have been portraying straight people in movies for decades and nobody complained.
there have been many tv programs all the way back to candid camera which set people up for pranks.
it was all in good fun and the results were shown only if a legal release was signed allowing the prank to be broadcast.getting permission after-the-fact was essential, otherwise, you've wasted your efforts.ahhhh, but what about public figures who are legally exempted from the necessary "permission" form agreement?is an ambush set-up fair or even ethical?the answer we give depends on how much we love or hate the victim!if we really, really dislike certain public figures there's a tendency to want to see them embarrassed and exposed as buffoons, idiots, hypocrites, and fools.on the other hand, consider this.
in a nation as divided as is america along color lines, political factions, and social "correctness" concerns--are we lighting a fuse by going too far?____why am i asking this question?i watched this preview and found myself torn.
Wounded vet, big fricken deal. I bet they could give a rat's ass he pretended to be one
I bet you haven't talked to a wounded veteran about this.
Also he pulled in Bernie Sanders, so not all his targets are Republicans.
I don't watch him, because in my opinion he breaks the first rule of political (or any other kind) satire. He's not funny.
ok. many people deny ct russell was a freemason.
i have read articles whereby some have found no evidence to prove he was one at any point in his life.. however, given all the masonic symbols in the early publications including the use of the name jehovah ( the name the freemason's use to identify god), as well as the expressions used such as 'new world, new order' etc certainly raises suspicions.. then there is the article he wrote in the herald magazine outlining that he was a freemason (see the following video 40 seconds in).
it really does make you think!.
Unshackle the Chains:
Please explain why Russell's association, or non-association, with freemasons is important, or makes any difference about anything.
