The more stupid things the GB say less people will listen. For those who do, it is going to be a life of anxious paranoia.
How sad it must be to imagine the GB are God's exclusive channel.
>>the bible reveals that jehovah issaddened when people pursue a wick-ed course and ‘the inclination of theirthoughts is only bad all the time.’ (readgenesis 6:5, 6.
) from this we can per-ceive that sexual fantasizing is wrongbecause it can lead to serious sin that isforbidden in the scriptures and is out ofharmony with jehovah’s way of think-ing.the disciple james wrote: “the wis-dom from above is first of all pure, thenpeaceable, reasonable, ready to obey,full of mercy and good fruits, impar-tial, not hypocritical.” (jas.
3:17) beingaware of this, we should be moved toreject entertainment that fuels impurethoughts and inclinations.
The more stupid things the GB say less people will listen. For those who do, it is going to be a life of anxious paranoia.
How sad it must be to imagine the GB are God's exclusive channel.
just a few questions from a newbie.
answer one or as many as you want.
1. why cleaners?
As a JW, I was a window cleaner, there can be nothing wrong in principle doing an honest job as a cleaner.
Any condemnation that arose was when the JW organisation a year or two back tried to make out that its members were "ordinary people like doctors and lawyers". They are indeed ordinary but not as a rule in the professions. Of course one or two are but the vast majority of JWs are curbed by their cult-driven avoidance of higher education and often have to do more menial work.
This is a key to understanding Watchtower culture; higher education would mean exposing the individual to a use of critical analysis which would result in them awakening to their preposterous claims and methods. So parents heroically deprive their kids of worldly success by limiting their schooling.
Second, people on the lowest rung of the social ladder are dependents. In the case of JWs they depend on the JWorg for all advice, information and instruction on everything. This is how the cult leadership prefers it and to cap it all, there are measures in place to prevent members leaving by the use of emotional blackmail by family and social shunning.
Great religion hey?
tracing the evolutionary path of humans is complicated.
simply because human and proto-human remains (including bones) are perishable.
remains from the distant past are usually only preserved when some unique features exist that assist preservation.
If early humans (or, even proto-humans) were in existence at the times indicated by the layers of sediment, how do we explain the ignorance of the author of Genesis?
Perhaps...they were ordinary humans, uninspired by gods or spirits and lived at a time when religious superstition regulated their every move. Apart from that they were not aware of the human pedigree and therefore could not claim the paleolithic as a god story...
I get the feeling that due to its size and the (normally improving) economic situation in China, we are likely to hear more from there in the way of significant hominin finds in the future. It holds out hope of explaining early Homo erectus movement in the "out of Africa" scenario. There is the possibility that China holds a second species diffusion focus after the Great Rift Valley.
how honest are the proponents of evolution?
idk but curious to see what type of response there is on a topic like this or does their study only seek to confirm their preconceptions and ignore uncomfortable facts?
one of the biggest gulfs that life has had to cross was the transition from sea to dry land.. fish have conical shaped heads, reptiles have flat heads.
fish have no necks; their heads are attached to their shoulders by a series of bony plates.
land-dwelling animals all have necks; their heads can move independently of their shoulders.
EQV I enjoyed your “ Just so” story about Tiktaalik, however except for the sarcasm, you make a good case of how illiterates must have interpreted things they found and had their ideas written down as holy truth.
For a more convincing illustration of evolution’s reality, might I recommend the philosopher Daniel Dennett in his book Darwin’s Dangerous Idea. He likens the process of evolution to a heartless tennis tournament where the losers are shot and the only winners go forward together to breed (Djokovic breeds with Williams!) The aberrant lizard types were the only ones physically equipped to survive the specific conditions in the lagunal backwaters where Tiktaalic was found, the fishy types all died in that environment. Amphibians rule!
The point being that no organism adapts itself... it's simply death before breeding if you can't cope with the environment. Life on Earth is a biological death and destruction derby whether you like it or not.
how honest are the proponents of evolution?
idk but curious to see what type of response there is on a topic like this or does their study only seek to confirm their preconceptions and ignore uncomfortable facts?
EQV I enjoyed your “ Just so” story about Tiktaalik, however except for the sarcasm, you make a good case of how illiterates must have interpreted things they found and had their ideas written down as holy truth.
For a more convincing illustration of evolution’s reality, might I recommend the philosopher Daniel Dennett in his book Darwin’s Dangerous Idea. He likens the process of evolution to a heartless tennis tournament where the losers are shot and the only winners go forward together to breed (Djokovic breeds with Williams!) The aberrant lizard types were the only ones physically equipped to survive the specific conditions in the lagunal backwaters where Tiktaalic was found, the fishy types all died in that environment. Amphibians rule!
The point being that no organism adapts itself... it's simply death before breeding if you can't cope with the environment. Life on Earth is a biological death and destruction derby whether you like it or not.
how honest are the proponents of jesus as the ransom sacrifice?.
curious to see what type of response there is on a topic like this or does their study only seek to confirm their preconceptions and ignore uncomfortable facts?.
Searcher, the Wikipedia is a wonderful quick reference but the last thing it is, is scholarly. It is verboten as a reference in universities because it has no academic peer review by those who have given their lives to determining the veracity of the particular branch of research in question.
“Bible scholars” are usually driven by faith and divine revelation. Academic textual scholars are driven by archaeology, history, logic and text evidences. So religiously committed "Biblical scholars", and rabbis and popular opinions and Wikipedia just don’t cut the mustard.
General comment... If Jesus is
your saviour, you are mistaken in thinking that Jesus has any credible,
concrete, first hand, eyewitness evidence for his existence as a human.
There were many notable writers and commentators who were alive at the time of his purported existence who would have given their eye teeth to record a super-man, had he really been there.
Josephus was both a local man and a contemporary of the earliest years of Jesus-christianity had it existed.He was after all the governor of Galilee before getting Roman recognition and becoming a writer after the fall of Jerusalem. The very fact that he mentions Jesus as “the saviour” en passant without detailed explanation, which was his normal manner... is evidence that these words are later insertions into his text by desperate and dishonest believers. The historical silence about Jesus is deafening.
how honest are the proponents of jesus as the ransom sacrifice?.
curious to see what type of response there is on a topic like this or does their study only seek to confirm their preconceptions and ignore uncomfortable facts?.
There is not one account of any ransom sacrifice having effect whoever does the dying .
I like Xanthippe's picture of the validity of Jesus' sacrifice as a cheese with holes in it, I would like to add that the holes are connected only by a tissue of lies and superstition.
how honest are the proponents of evolution?
idk but curious to see what type of response there is on a topic like this or does their study only seek to confirm their preconceptions and ignore uncomfortable facts?
how honest are the proponents of evolution?
idk but curious to see what type of response there is on a topic like this or does their study only seek to confirm their preconceptions and ignore uncomfortable facts?