How can you think everything on this earth just happened?
Given enough time, anything is possible.
If God exists, the real question is, where is he? No appearance since.... creation? Nice way to leave us guessing I suppose.
i really do not understand how any can be athiests from thinking real hard about it.
how can you think everything on this earth just happened?.
from my understanding, to be athiest, this is pretty much how it goes.
How can you think everything on this earth just happened?
Given enough time, anything is possible.
If God exists, the real question is, where is he? No appearance since.... creation? Nice way to leave us guessing I suppose.
i can't stop playing skyrim.
how did this happen?
i was never into this stuff before and never thought i would be.
The funnest part about gaming... (for me) is talking about it... LOL.
Hands down (my pants, old joke from high-school), my favorite game of all-time for the cause of replayability is Age of Empires II: The Age of Kings and the The Conquerors expansion. 0_0 Soooo many hours spent playing... I'm sure I probably spent more than is healthy playing that game. Good times, good times. Gunz The Duel probably comes at a close second.
My gaming was about as extreme as when that South Park episode aired where the gang plays World of Warcraft.... bwahahahahaha.... without the crap pan of course...
the latest december 15th study edition of the watchtower opens with an intriguing article entitled "beware of superstitious use of the bible".. as an example of what constitutes "superstitious use" of the bible, it has this to say.... .
"perhaps a more common misuse of the bible is the practice of bibliomancy.
it refers to opening at random a book, often the bible, and reading the text that first meets the eye in the belief that those words will provide needed guidance.
All this just confirms a topic I started a while ago. Quite frankly, it's just sad that this can repeat itself over and over again, and there is not a batting of the eye to the contrary.
ok so i dl'd this book.
and i immediatly began reading it.
i am about 50 pdf pages into it.
Perhaps I have missed the part where you've explained why I should be distressed to discover that there are a pair of traditions recorded about who, exactly, whacked Goliath. - Sulla
You're not distressed about the Bible being fallible, yet you still somehow reconcile the Biblical message to your Catholic liking. That's fine, but that's on you to rationalize your particular belief.
Perhaps you shouldn't be distressed, but certainly any fundamentalist interpretation should. I hope the scope of criticism is clear.
Now, if you'd like to give some input as to why you choose to adhere to your faith, yet reject Biblical infallibilty, by all means, that sounds interesting.
Editted to add: If you like the Atheist Book of Bible Stories, perhaps you will like the parrodies posted on reddit.
12/15/12 wt p. 15:.
"in a variation that some term 'embryo adoption,' the embryos placed in a wife's womb involve neither her eggs nor her husband's sperm.
in yet another variation, a married couple's eggs and sperm are fertilized outside the womb by ivf.
Welcome. I'm sorry you've been through such a hard time. I agree with what others have said, be yourself. As a JW, I used to look down on homosexuality. It's really not fair that you should be alienated because of your sexual orientation. Homosexuals growing up in any fundamentalist religion generally have a hard time, and this is certainly no exception.
great video.
this is how we are viewed by outsiders.
there's no fooling some people!.
from november study wt page 7 par 17. .
"consider too how davids example of earnestly seeking god's guidance can help us to resist the temptation to view pornographic images".
"meditating on his elevated standards equips us to keep free from the snare of pornography".
it was several years back and from time to time i will look something up in the index.
all manner of things about jw life are revealed - as well as discussions within the leadership, plus historical and contemporary controversies - but there is still something i missed.. please excuse me if this is not a detailed summary.
when the drum roll starts for the purge, it appears that the friends and associates of ray franz are targeted first.
but I don't recall seeing anywhere where the author says "that's why the majority came after me".
I haven't read the book completely, and In Search of Cristian Freedom deals with other aspects the first book doesn't explain. My question is, did Franz speak to the GB about his position on 607 along with other doctrines/policies he disagreed with?
Another thing is to note is that his associates were targeted first, perhaps because they were more vocal about it or got caught. Now, given that situation, the Purge in Bethel, why would Franz need to spell out "that's why the majority came after me"?
jw literature on subjects such as creation vs. evolution often quote out of context, with the most recent material (the newest brochures) acknowledging that often those quoted to support the jw viewpoint do believe in evolution nonetheless.
sometimes indeed quotes in jw literature are just outright misquotes, leaving off preceding or succeeding words (or sentences) that would completely alter the meaning of the source sited (i.e.
carl sagans quote, the fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a great designer is indeed a flat out misquote).. .
Are there situations where this third possibility holds true, that it would be rational, factual, and contextually sound to quote someone who does not agree with the point one is making?
Here is what I think. As long as there is a disclaimer, as long as sources are given, then even if the conclusion the one using the quote/s arrives at is incorrect, there really shouldn't be an issue. It is an individual's duty to examine for theirself the evidence and arrive at their own conclusion.
What Creationists (of whatever camp) try to do is use all the negatives or unknowns in the theory of evolution and try to sum it up to arrive at the conclusion that therefore, evolution is impossible. As an example, if one scientist believes in punctuated equilibrium and another believes in gradualism, the WT will happily quote what the first scientist perceives as a flaw in gradualism along with what the second believes is a flaw in punctuated equilibrium, thereby canceling out any possibility for evolution for the lay reader. As a more informed person would surmise, evolution doesn't rest soley on this two seemingly competing theories. There are many more options, and that might include the possibility that even both have occurred at different times in different species.
Aside from your question, the consensus of biology, geology, anthropology, etc. converge at evolution, and so even though we have gaps in understanding does not mean that therefore, evolution is not true. The WT and Creationists alike try to pick out the unknowns or seeming inconsistencies without looking at the big picture, simply trying to confirm not only Special Creation, but along with it their peculiar flavor of it (WT sides with science on the Earth's age, yet deny evidence for humans existing long before A&E; YEC take the Genesis account literal word-for-word and arrive at the Earth only being a few thousand years old).