have you tried dipping the end in a good liquor
It helps encourage the wife.
Are we still talking about cigars?
i tried, i thought i could make it work, it seemed so easy, but alas, in my project to turn a used $3 cigar box into a functional humidor i failed miserably.
i never could make the box airtight enough and allow enough air to circulate through to keep the cigars moist enough with a passive humidifier.
the humidity kept falling too low, i kept have to try to seal more edges of the box and eventually i started losing cigars.. i broke down today and bought a $40 humidor and in the space of just a few hours it is already keeping the cigars more moist and humid.. i failed.
have you tried dipping the end in a good liquor
It helps encourage the wife.
Are we still talking about cigars?
last night during the bible highlights, the brother (an insane and extreme zealot of an elder) said that people cannot expect jehovah to communicate with his servants directly anymore.
not because it wasn't part of his plan, nor because he has the all powerful and all knowing governing body in place, but because we really just aren't that important.
not important enough to warrant one one one communication.
You know I think if you'd written the bible, Tammy, there would be a lot more believers.
Oh and, unrelated, I don't want anyone to think I'm a saint. I just meant hypothetically if I did those things I listed....
isn't that a movie about a boy and a whale?
or a "big fish" maybe?.
Nice points, JWFacts.
LWT, I'll check out those videos when I can access at home. Like a Mafia boss indeed.
brotherdan seems to have left and before he did he psoted this:.
so this is goodbye.
thanks for the help in getting out of the cult.
ERIC: However, arguing on the internet is a soul-eating, time-sucking endeavor. Everyone should take a break every once in a while and reassess if it's really worth it. I can understand someone leaving.
Yeah, I'm about to have to set some rules for myself. Accessing this forum at work is killing my productivity.
brotherdan seems to have left and before he did he psoted this:.
so this is goodbye.
thanks for the help in getting out of the cult.
BXJW: It sounds nice to say that science is the pursuit of pure truth but the reality is quite different. Science is sometimes the pursuit of pure truth and the rest of the time it is the pursuit of getting published, it is the pursuit of many things that have little to do with finding pure truth. Scientific pursuit wallows in the same man/woman soup that all human endeavors must endure, and yes, religion as well. Scientific pursuits are rife with just as many manipulative and stupid and greedy people as politics and religion are. To believe otherwise is to exist in another fantasy world.
BXJW, that's a lovely strawman you've built but here's what I actually said about science:
SBC: True, science is something different: a search for truth, not contentment and peace.
When I say science, I'm referring to a fundamental method, for its method is what produces the bodies of reliable knowledge in various domains. Within that method, scrutiny and testing are not suppressed, but required. Science seeks to root out bias. The same cannot be said for faith.
Nowhere did I claim all scientists have altrustic reasons for their endeavors. That would be ridiculous. Thank you for not so much as implying I believe otherwise. The strawman has been sufficiently burned down.
isn't that a movie about a boy and a whale?
or a "big fish" maybe?.
Thanks, LWT. For the sake of this debate, I had in mind open absolute free will. But really I was looking for a more simplistic sense than the philosophical determinism/indeterminism arguments. In fact, I came into this reflecting on that line from my public talk: "God doesn't force us to do anything." That, in it's simplicity, is erroneous to me.
I'll leave the philosophical discussion of free will/predestination to those who believe in god. I'm going for the low-hanging fruit.
"who told you life is fair?"
Paul, this debate has nothing to do with fairness. It has to do with a contradicton and misapplication of terms, IMO. Rephrasing that, I don't see how you can apply the word "freedom" to a choice in which one of the two options is a death sentence if the subject is aware of that punishment and he truly believes in those options. That would be coercion, would it not?
Would you say the mugger in my earlier illustration was really giving me freedom of choice?
isn't that a movie about a boy and a whale?
or a "big fish" maybe?.
So the term free will seems to be a contradiction of principle here. If you make a choice that god doesn't like, you pay a hefty price: eternal life (either dead or in hell). Choice is one thing and I understand consequences. But "free" doesn't fit.
I once had a public talk outline that emphasized free will. "God doesn't force us to do anything, he gives us free will," I would say convincingly, and the audience would nod in agreement.
But if a thief points a 9mm at your face and demands your wallet, you have a choice: hand over the wallet or call his bluff and risk everything. But to call that "free will" is a stretch. He is forcing you to hand over your wallet or else.
Free will, to me, might be more plausible if the bible said, "Okay, look, you're not going to be happy if you do this or that but that's totally your call. I won't punish you for choosing door A or B. Do as you like - I'm here for you either way. You're my child."
The concept of paying for mistakes with my life renders "free will" null and ridiculous, IMO.
isn't that a movie about a boy and a whale?
or a "big fish" maybe?.
No, but that's probably closer than my original post.
Great name, BTW.
brotherdan seems to have left and before he did he psoted this:.
so this is goodbye.
thanks for the help in getting out of the cult.
True, science is something different: a search for truth, not contentment and peace.
one wonders how many scientists have held back or are held back because of that.
One also wonders what kind of person hopes to be a real scientist without having his theories scrutinized.
The scientific community is NOT that open.
Please explain.
I don't think that faith being questioned is the issue, I think that perhaps HOW it is questioned is.
What method of questioning would be best for exposing erroneous logic without offending?
isn't that a movie about a boy and a whale?
or a "big fish" maybe?.
All kidding aside, I take it the "free will" thread has been done numerous times before? I searched before I posted but didn't see any threads dedicated to the subject on the first couple of pages.
Anyway, I've yet to understand how the term "free will" applies to a love/worship/serve me or die ultimatum.