1st evidence: the release of loyal jews from exile, made possible by the fall of babylon, foreshadowed the release in 1919 of anointed christians from spiritual exile.
2nd evidence: that year marked the beginning of the period when the anointed remnants were released from a form of spiritual captivity to the ideas and practices of false religion.
although having rejected such false teachings as the trinity and the immortal soul, they were still tainted by babylonish practices.
LeavingWT - According to your timeline
1920: There would be worldwide all-embracing anarchy.
1920: All earthly governments will pass away.
1920: All republics will disappear in the fall of 1920
1925: Anointed Christians would be taken to heaven.
1925: Resurrection would begin, faithful men of old would return to earth in this year.
With due honesty,Please, which of the above weren't fullfilled?, be sincere with yurself. -manky
hypothetically: .
you are in a room with two other people.
you barely know them, but they are kind of nice people.
Why is sacrificing yourself in a violent emergency heroic and admirable, but sacrificing yourself to provide essential parts is creepy and objectionable?
You've not much of a choice. Or, it would make you look bad.
Why is that? What's the difference? Either way you're deliberately sacrificing yourself to save others.
It's all psychological, obviously. The end result is the same, you end up dying, and others end up living thanks to your sacrifice. It seems to me that there is a social taboo about such voluntary sacrifice occuring, in the case of the organ transplant. It really just does seem unnatural. I would be willing to help those people medically until the very last moment, but why exactly would I give my life for them?
In the grenade situation, it seems like since you are thrust into the situation, you've almost no choice. Sure, you could leave them there to perish, but I think that since we like to feel in power and being able to protect, we feel we are doing something heroic.
Maybe, it's the way we've been brought up. Like you said, it seems more heroic to save someone from a violent episode than from a medical emergency, because we see that in t.v. much.
Another thing is that the 1st option is reactionary. The 2nd involves meditating. When you are given time to reflect upon exactly what you are doing, you get cold feet.
Here are my respones.
1.) I would run, or throw the grenade back as ABibleStudent mentioned, depends where the grenade landed. There are other options than what you presented, y'know.
2.) This is a tough one. That's 10 people we are talking about... but I'm selfish. I believe there are always other options. Imagine if I were a skilled doctor that had saved hundreds of lives in the course of my career, but in sacrificing myself potentially stopped helping other for what would've been the remainder of my career. If you're talking about numbers, my continuing to live would trump any temporal gains from transplants, for a larger number of people.
i have an issue with preaching.
specifically, going door to door, talking to people who, for the most part, have no desire whatsoever to hear what i have to say.
more specifically, being required to do so as a means of salvation.
To this day, they still say the FDS is providing spiritual food, but that can't be since the GB said they were the ones who were responsible for it (somehow they claim to represent the FDS, but then they don't know who the FDS is . . . ?)
Don't argue with your parents/family. I tried reasoning with my mother. It. Did. Not. Go. Well. It was on this very glaring contradiction.
The reasoning is classic bait-and-switch.
I'm ranting. Sorry. Waking up. Can't talk to family about this. They shut down as soon as I make mention of something that doesn't seem quite right. Trying to figure out what to do next.
Not at all my friend. I completely understand you. Approach the situation with caution. Venting here is nice, but it can become obsessive. When your done with your mental conflicts, take some time for yourself to reflect on life in general. What things you really like. Who you really are.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1bzp1wr234&feature=relmfu.
Through men and women of honor. Is that simple enough?
Accepted. You gave me a straightforward answer.
I don't beleive God ignores whole civilizations. So, when one peers into their religious philosophy we see similarities between all of them. It's those similarities that lead me to believe there is a single source of them all. Atheists call it human imagination, which I agree, but I believe human imagination is connected to the world of God rather than merely a product of evolution. Proving all religion true is about as hard as proving them all false.
Hmmm.... like for example eating the flesh and blood of Christ = cannibalism seen in primitive tribes? Yes, I do believe I see the universal connection there...
If there is a single source, why do religions then claim they alone are the truth and that sometimes, according to them, they are to wipe out all other religions because God said so?
Also, you're kind of going off on a tangent. Like I said, there is no one belief I can hold you accountable for. You just believe something one minute, and then your imagination takes hold and uses a deus ex machina to resolve the glaring contradiction.
i've just completed a lengthy article on the history of racism in the society's publications.
many people (including myself, until recently) aren't aware that the society's early publications were brimming with racist rhetoric, and this only calmed down as the public mood towards racism changed, most notably with the civil rights movement in the 50s/60s.. a few "headliners" from the article are:.
russell segregated blacks from whites for viewings of the photodramarussell believed that the skin of a black man would turn white during the millennial kingdomunder russell, the society's publications portrayed the black races as "degraded" and the white race as "superior"rutherford viewed the blacks as a "race of servants", and spoke of "sobering the southern negro" in an article against prohibitionunder rutherford, the golden age slammed uncle tom's cabin (a work that helped end slavery) as being "the work of satan"; the same article branded spaniards a "backwards race"rutherford accused "jewish business men" of "oppressing the peoples of many nations"in 1929 the golden age (acknowledged by the society as essentially the same magazine as the modern awake!
JW argument: Peter was a racist too. So? We live and learn, and then get Luvs ®.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1bzp1wr234&feature=relmfu.
Good thing we are not alone with them however, we'd be screwed.
So God does intervene? How? Please describe this in as simple a way as possible, because I don't understand.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1bzp1wr234&feature=relmfu.
Sab, the question is directed at Christian Apologists.
I've seen you argue about how other religions are all the path to truth. There is simply no way to "pin you" on anything, because you can claim belief in one thing, and the next retract it in favor of any other deity/belief you choose. You can change the rules at anytime and declare that what I consider "chess" really is checkers, bajong, etc.
You can define God anyway you wish, and if you choose to attribute inaction as part of his "Big Plan" and of a "Greater, Incomprehensible Wisdom", there is nothing I can say otherwise. You've simply made up your mind.
before the mentally diseased apostates could get their hands on and dissect any information regarding the convention that hadn't been released to regular publishers/elders...the society released the district program on the official site completely and utterly slaying every single demented apostate on the face of the earth.
now have fun dissecting it kiddos, while we big kids get a taste of solid, spiritual meet this summer.
continue drowning in misery while god's people go on rejoicing and enduring these last days.
The original poster is the one making a joke of their god!
Agreed, Hint of Lime. God has nothing better to do than to prevent apostates from leaking information that will be readily available at one point in time or another anyways.
I wonder if God plays with Rubick's cube in his spare time, or made a version so sophisticated that he himself can't solve...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1bzp1wr234&feature=relmfu.
The video in the OP speaks about rape and murder. Both of those are human problems with human solutions.
ALL the problems we have are of a physical nature, in one way or the other. There are no other problems one can face! Tell me, which other problems do you propose? Even psychological problems are inherently of a physical nature.
Why would the First Cause intervene when his creation can and won't?
We do intervene, when we can. Then again, there are those that choose to commit the crime. Our inability to confront all these problems doesn't excuse God's inaction.
His intervention would favor good. His inaction allows evil to run rampant.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
Plus how can you prove God is not acting in a way you don't know or understand?
That's a weak argument. How can you prove Thor doesn't control lightning in ways you don't know or understand?
The question is mostly addressed to Christian Apologists, and since you're all over the place, I don't think you are qualified to answer that from the Christian Apologist perspective.
i have an issue with preaching.
specifically, going door to door, talking to people who, for the most part, have no desire whatsoever to hear what i have to say.
more specifically, being required to do so as a means of salvation.
It's like there's a scripture cherry-picked for everything!
Leaving_quietly, do you believe the Bible can be interpreted correctly, what with there being many contradictory texts?
Don't you think 2,000 years of expectation and, "it's coming soon" is a bit much?
