Philadelphia Ponos
JoinedPosts by Philadelphia Ponos
-
17
So Why Exactly Did Joe Paterno Get Fired?
by Philadelphia Ponos insomeone reported to joe that they witnessed one of his coaches molesting a young boy.
joe reports it to his bosses and his bosses reports it to the da.
betweeb joe, his bosses, and the da someone questions the coach about the alleged molestation and he denies it.
-
Philadelphia Ponos
Someone reported to Joe that they witnessed one of his coaches molesting a young boy. Joe reports it to his bosses and his bosses reports it to the DA. Betweeb Joe, his bosses, and the DA someone questions the coach about the alleged molestation and he denies it. They have no actual evidence of a molestation so they do nothing. According to reports, the other alleged molestations where never reported to Joe but to indiviuals higher up in the university. My question is this, if the one time the incident of molestation was reported to Joe yeild no evidence of a molestation after being reviewed by the DA and other university officals, why is Joe be punished? How was he to know an actual molestation took place against the lack of evidence? I believe he did the right thing by not going to police right away, he didn't witness any molestation and didn't have any proof of a molestation so he reported to his boss so the matter could be further investigated.
-
The Documentary Hypothesis
by Philadelphia Ponos inafter i finished reading richard elliott friedman book entitled "who wrote the bible?
" i became a firm believer in the documnentary hypopthesis.
i enjoyed the book so much i decided to read it a second time.
-
Philadelphia Ponos
After I finished reading Richard Elliott Friedman book entitled "Who Wrote The Bible?" I became a firm believer in the Documnentary Hypopthesis. I enjoyed the book so much I decided to read it a second time. After re-reading the book things no longer made sense. I started to notice a lot of contradictions and circular reasoning. I decided to purchase "The Bible With Sources Revealed" (also by Richard Elliott Friedman) to further investagte the matter and concluded that the Documentary Hypothesis is purely the result of Friedman's active imagination.
The most ridiculous part of the Documentary Hypothesis is the idea of a redactor. The redactor is used as a scapegoat to explain away many contradicitions, such a "Elohim" being used in the 'J' text (Gen 2-3). Friedman is basically saying anything that contradicts the Documentnay Hypothesis was added by a redactor which puts it in the 'R' class, which means it's farther proof of the Documentnary Hypothesis. Warped logic at it's finest.
Furthermore, the vast majority of "scholars" no longer subscribe to the Documetnary Hypothesis as it has been debunked plenty of times. Most notably by Umberto Cassuto in his book "The Documentary Hypothesis And The Composition Of The Pentateuch" ( http://www.amazon.com/Documentary-Hypothesis-Umberto-Cassuto/dp/9657052351/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_b ) and Norman R. Whybray in "The Making Of The Pentateuch" ( http://www.amazon.com/Making-Pentateuch-Methodological-Library-Testament/dp/1850750637 ) . For those however who can't/won't purchase these books, this ( http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2010/09/24/the-documentary-hypothesis.aspx ) site gives a summary of all the things wrong with the Documentary Hypothesis.
-
6
The Better Angels of our Nature
by cofty inin his new book "the better angels of our nature" harvard professor steve pinker argues that humans are becoming less violent.
"as europe became more urban, cosmopolitan, commercial, industrialised and secular, it got safer.
perhaps as important is the increasing respect for women violence is a problem not just of too many males but of too many young males... the human race has come to share the goal of finding ways of overcoming the universal appeal of aggression.
-
Philadelphia Ponos
The article only talked about the United States and Europe. There was no mention of Central America, South America, Africa, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia where overall the living conditions hasn't improved over the past century. I believe the world has gotten better in some aspects and worse in others.
• The number of people killed in battle – calculated per 100,000 population – has dropped by 1,000-fold over the centuries as civilizations evolved. Before there were organized countries, battles killed on average more than 500 out of every 100,000 people. In 19th century France, it was 70. In the 20th century with two world wars and a few genocides, it was 60. Now battlefield deaths are down to three-tenths of a person per 100,000.
This century just started, it's kind of ridiculous to compare 12 years of history to 100 years of history.
• The rate of genocide deaths per world population was 1,400 times higher in 1942 than in 2008.
Really? I wonder what was happening in 1942 that made the genocide rate so high? Another ridiculous comparison. Using your logic, New York City had more murders last decade than any other decade in the 19th and 18th century, which proves the world is getting more violent.
• There were fewer than 20 democracies in 1946. Now there are close to 100. Meanwhile, the number of authoritarian countries has dropped from a high of almost 90 in 1976 to about 25 now.
This means nothing. Democracy doesn't equal good. Iran is a democracy and they kill people for adultery. Israel is a democracy and they force the Palestinians to live in a prison with no rights or freedoms and kill anyone who protest or puts up any resistance. The United States is a democracy but the elected officals only vote in the interest of those who pay them, namely banks and corporations, not the people. Which is why in the United States if you get sick it's legal for the insurance company to drop your insurance and let you die because it will cost too much to save your life. Democracy means nothing.
-
3
Verses That Teach A Paradise Earth
by Philadelphia Ponos inwhat verses does the society use as proof of a future paradise earth.
i know they are mostly in psalms and isaiah but i don't know where.
can someone who knows off the top of their head post them?.
-
Philadelphia Ponos
What verses does the society use as proof of a future paradise earth. I know they are mostly in Psalms and Isaiah but I don't know where. Can someone who knows off the top of their head post them?
-
39
Is The WTBTS' View Of Homosexuality Softening?
by JW GoneBad inor at least the public may be given the impression that jws and the wtbts are fair minded and do not discriminate against the homosexual lifestyle.
check out this quote from the nov 1, 2011 watchtower (public edition).
the article on page 4 is entitled 'ten questions about sex answered'.. question 8: does god approve of homosexuality?.
-
Philadelphia Ponos
Nothing printed in the "Public Edition" should be taken seriously. The 'doctrine' and 'direction' comes from the "study edition".
-
19
A Question About Satan (For Those Who Believe In The Bible)
by Philadelphia Ponos inwhen the bible mentions satan do you believe it's speaking of a paticular indivuial or is the term satan used for multiple people?
to be more specific, do believe the satan that tempted eve, told david to take a census, tested job, and tempted jesus are the same person or 4 different people?.
-
Philadelphia Ponos
Looks like I'm in the minority. I agree with the view given on wikipedia:
Hebrew Bible
The original Hebrew term, satan, is a noun from a verb meaning primarily to, “obstruct, oppose,” as it is found in Numbers 22:22, 1 Samuel 29:4, Psalms 109:6. [ 4 ] Ha-Satan is traditionally translated as “the accuser,” or “the adversary.” The definite article “ha-”, English “the”, is used to show that this is a title bestowed on a being, versus the name of a being. Thus this being would be referred to as “the Satan.” [ 5 ]
Ha-Satan with the definite article occurs 13 times in the Masoretic Text, in two books of the Hebrew Bible:
Satan without the definite article is used in 10 instances, of which two are translated diabolos in the Septuagint and "Satan" in the King James Version:
- 1 Chronicles 21:1, "Satan stood up against Israel" (KJV) or "And there standeth up an adversary against Israel" (Young's Literal Translation) [ 8 ]
- Psalm 109:6b "and let Satan stand at his right hand" (KJV) [ 9 ] or "let an accuser stand at his right hand." (ESV, etc.)
The other eight instances of satan without the definite article are traditionally translated (in Greek, Latin and English) as "an adversary", etc., and taken to be humans or obedient angels:
- Numbers 22:22,23 "and the angel of the LORD stood in the way for an adversary against him."
- 23 "behold, I went out to withstand thee,"
- 1 Samuel 29:4 The Philistines say: "lest he [David] be an adversary against us"
- 2 Samuel 19:22 David says: "[you sons of Zeruaiah] should this day be adversaries (plural) unto me?"
- 1 Kings 5:4 Solomon writes to Hiram: "there is neither adversary nor evil occurrent.
- 1 Kings 11:14 "And the LORD stirred up an adversary unto Solomon, Hadad the Edomite" [ 10 ]
- 1 Kings 11:23 "And God stirred him up an adversary, Rezon the son of Eliadah"
- 25 "And he [Rezon] was an adversary to Israel all the days of Solomon"
Job's Satan
In the Book of Job, ha-Satan is a member of the divine council, "the sons of God" who are subservient to God. Ha-Satan, in this capacity, is many times translated as "the prosecutor", and is charged by God to tempt humans and to report back to God all who go against His decrees. At the beginning of the book, Job is a good person "who feared God and turned away from evil" (Job 1:1), and has therefore been rewarded by God. When the divine council meets, God informs ha-Satan about Job's blameless, morally upright character. Between Job 1:9–10 and 2:4–5, ha-Satan merely points out that God has given Job everything that a man could want, so of course Job would be loyal to God; if all Job has been given, even his health, were to be taken away from him, however, his faith would collapse. God therefore grants ha-Satan the chance to test Job. [ 11 ] Due to this, it has been interpreted that ha-Satan is under God's control and cannot act without God's permission. This is further shown in the epilogue of Job in which God is speaking to Job, ha-Satan is absent from these dialogues. "For Job, for [Job's] friends, and for the narrator, it is ultimately Yahweh himself who is responsible for Job's suffering; as Yahweh says to the 'satan', 'You have incited me against him, to destroy him for no reason.'" (Job 2:3) [ 7 ]
-
19
A Question About Satan (For Those Who Believe In The Bible)
by Philadelphia Ponos inwhen the bible mentions satan do you believe it's speaking of a paticular indivuial or is the term satan used for multiple people?
to be more specific, do believe the satan that tempted eve, told david to take a census, tested job, and tempted jesus are the same person or 4 different people?.
-
Philadelphia Ponos
When the Bible mentions Satan do you believe it's speaking of a paticular indivuial or is the term Satan used for multiple people? To be more specific, do believe the Satan that tempted Eve, told David to take a census, tested Job, and tempted Jesus are the same person or 4 different people?
-
17
Would Christianity have survived if......
by wobble in...........the roman empire had not adopted it ?
they were far from being in the majority at the time,although growth had taken place over a large area, but within that area they were still a minority religion, often an underground one.. so hypothetically, would it just have withered and died, have torn itself to shreds with all the schisms and sects ?.
i think that without the power of rome it would have done just that, perhaps the coptic church may have survived until the 21st century and perhaps the eastern churches, but the western ?
-
Philadelphia Ponos
I don't agree with the premise. I believe the Roman Emipre destroyed Christianity. They hijacked a peaceful religion and filled it with blood shed, hate, and pagan customs.
-
11
"It's up to You"- the one choice the Society never gives you
by JimmyPage inmy jw wife babysits from time to time, usually non-jws.
apparently my daughter was indoctrinated to the evils of halloween recently because one of the "worldly" kids mentioned it and she told him it was bad.
(although when i'm with her alone, she totally loves the holiday).. this non-dub kid said, "no it's not bad.
-
Philadelphia Ponos
I guess I'm the only one that didn't like your response. The correct answer would of been "No, halloween is not bad". Saying "it's up to you" was dodging the question. There are things in life that benifit us (good), have no affect (not bad), and things that have a negative affect on us (bad). By saying "it's up to you" you give credibility to the lie that somehow celebrating halloween is harmful. You should of just told the kid the truth. There's nothing wrong with halloween.