apostasy: noun.renunciation of one's religious faith or ones principles or party etc.. hypocrisy:noun.simulation of virtue or goodness, insincerity.. the above is taken from the oxford dictionary.
clearly, apostasy is an act of openly giving up a belief, whilst hypocrisy is an act of pretending to be good and sincere.
quite a difference!.
Just to add a note in agreement to the above lexical definitions, Strong's gives the definitions 'soiled' and 'moral filth (i.e. wickedness)'. Here is a link to a thread might be of interest to some here - it is a study of the word 'wicked':
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=32797&site=3
Edited by - NewWay on 30 July 2002 16:52:9
one of the many teachings that troubled my conscience matthew 22:30. does this mean that after armageddon there will essentially be several different classes of people ie survivors (who may marry) and resurrected ones (who may not) and those born after armageddon (presumably who may)?
does this mean the resurrected ones will be sexless - like 'drones'?
surely then they will not be the same person that they were?
If one is 'like' an angel then one would have no need for sexual organs, since any love that is expressed is of a non-sexual nature. Some believe that this scripture refers to the 'heavenly resurrection', but there it could be argued that the Sadducees, being Jews were talking about the expected resurrection in the flesh. So it may be best to simply leave the matter 'on hold'. If we believe in a God who will reward those who are faithful to him, then we can be sure that whatever he decides for us will be a joy.
Since it is not necessary for a woman to experience sexual pleasure in order to become pregnant, then we might ask why God provided women with organs for climax. Likewise, men can still experience sexual pleasure even though sterile. So, 'filling the earth' does not have to mean the destruction of sexual relationships. Although it has provided an 'incentive' to help continue the human race, it's has a most important role to play in bonding two people together both physically and emotionally. Of course, only being able to base our views on what we currently are familiar with, it may take a lot of faith to believe that God could well have something even more exciting than sex in the manner we know. Anybody who has ever seen Cocoon will know what I mean!
Edited by - NewWay on 30 July 2002 16:26:8
just wondered how many people this this is all true.
feel free to really think about this one and provide proof and examples.
Robert, point taken. The reason for my post was to point out that Classical Greek and Koine Greek are not two different languages, but rather as you said, "dialects". A Classical Greek scholar, armed with suitable lexical tools could take on the challenge presented, just as a British English speaker could use a good American English dictionary and other American English reference tools, when not sure of certain words or phrases. I am of the opinion that an English 'translation' could be done by someone fairly well-aquainted with the languages, through word studies and comparisons of existing English verses. The accuracy of the translation, of course, would be another matter!
.
what chatup lines do you think jws were most likely to use to pull at say an assembly,mmmmm i wonder if they prepared them like say doing a talk,i bet they did because most i knew seemed under pressure to meet someone and a lot of ones i knew never pulled at assemblys due to such boring conversations with others, i mean what could they talk about.
so cmon what chatup lines are likely to work.
How about:
"What's a nice girl like you doing in a place like this?"
some months ago i took my annual vacation to the land of kangaroos--you know--where men are men and sheep are skittish?
as a social commentator i have a vested interest observing cultural changes and trends, etc.
in the professions and trades in oz the genders dress as androgynous as their counterparts in the us.
I used to think that femininity had to do with oestrogen levels. Now, I'm not so sure. I have two teenage daughters. Both of them, of course (like their father!) are good looking! However, they both, like me, have quite hairy arms. The older girl has the hairiest arms (presumably more testosterone in the body?), but she is a lot more what is perceived in the traditional view as 'feminine' both physically and in manner. My other daughter is less hairy and more 'masculine' (according to the traditional view) in frame and demeanor.
It seems to me that there is a great variety of form and character where women are concerned, which is good because there are also a great variety in form and character where men are concerned. There is plenty of variety to choose from depending on what you find attractive, so everyone wins! Personally, I'm attracted (don't tell my wife!) to the type of woman who falls somewhere in the middle 'range'. For instance, my wife is not your average wide-hipped, large breasted woman that seems to be the male ideal - sort of inbetween. But she has beautiful skin and hair, two of the most attractive features to me. Anyway, I'll say no more, as I don't want to get into this fight:
"A passerby who gets embroiled in someone else's quarrel is like one who seizes a dog by the ears." - Proverbs 26:17 (Tanakh - JPS)
just wondered how many people this this is all true.
feel free to really think about this one and provide proof and examples.
LABD: It is sometimes assumed that Classical Greek is in some major way quite different from Koine Greek, but this is not so. It would be no more difficult for a Classical Greek scholar to translate Koine Greek than it would be for a British person to understand American English. I know at least one Classical Greek course that includes translation of Koine Greek (i.e. extracts from the New Testament) as part of the exercises.
(Edited to correct grammar!)
Edited by - NewWay on 30 July 2002 14:50:36
just wondered how many people this this is all true.
feel free to really think about this one and provide proof and examples.
Notwithstanding Jan's quote, it is nevertheless of note what Raymond Franz said in "Crisis Of Conscience" (Third Edition, page 54, footnote 16):
"The New World Translation bears no translator's name and is presented as the anonymous work of the 'New World Translation Committee.' Other members of that committee were Nathan Knorr, Albert Schroeder and George Gangas. Fred Franz, however, was the only one with sufficient knowledge of the Bible languages to attempt translation of this kind. He had studied Greek for two years at the University of Cincinnati but was only self-taught in Hebrew."
something on the song thread that i posted, song by tu pac, got me to thinking about racisim.
why do people discriminate against people that have different color skin?
i understand it is a learned response, but my "elder" father is very racist... and this is how i was raised.. i don't get it.
My view is that the problem, at least today, may have more to do with culture than anything else. I ask that anyone reading this post take it in the spirit in which it is written, that is with a genuine concern for good relations and understanding of what may sometimes be seen as 'racist'.
While many of us may honestly, with hand on heart, say we are not racist - in the sense of reacting to people based on skin colour or racial descent - we may still be anti-culture. The reason for this, of course, is that certain aspects of another person's culture may bring severe irritation to us.
For instance, if we have been brought up in a culture that places emphasis on a quiet gentle approach to life, then naturally we are going to be disturbed by someone who comes to live in the neighbourhood whose approach to life is very noisy. It's called culture shock. Now it may be easy to say that we should be 'accommodating' towards that person, but in actual practise it is very difficult, because our cultural feelings are deep-rooted. It is not a case of hatred for the person, but a negative reaction to the manifestation of their own culture. In some cases a person's aspects of a person's culture (including language) may have detrimental effects towards others in the larger cultural environment.
Recently I read in a national newpaper that a British surgeon had had to stop an operation because some of the 'foreign' theatre staff could not understand instructions given. About a year ago, someone in the medical profession publicaly warned of possible problems in healthcare, the reason being that some non-native doctors and consultants in hospitals couldn't always be understood by either patients or other medical staff. Would you believe that these two native Britons were called racist? It has got to the point now that one has to be very careful what one says in case one is labelled 'racist'. It seems that those who pioneered the way to better relations between people of different ethnic/racial roots have been hijacked by a new generation who want to use this hard-earned diplomatic victory as a psychological weapon to demand more and more 'rights', which in the process creates a new kind of racism. Some minorities are only so in number, but not in strength or persuasive powers. So much for the saying, "When in Rome, do as the Romans do"!
Unfortunately, it is common to 'judge' a race/ethnic/religious group by what they appear to be/do in our own small world. Sometimes this is a false perception, but sometimes it is true. When I was at one school I witnessed absolute racism, based on the colour of one's skin, not culture. I could never approve of this, because to me the Asian people to whom it was directed were an asset to this country. It has been said many times by native people here that they were (and may well still be) the hardest working national group in Britain. They were people who lived a quiet life, and as a group did not harm members of their host country. They accepted that this country had a culture of its own and they respected that. At that time then I could honestly say that their was a lot of racism about. Although it took time, the Asian and indeed the Black community gradually became more and more integrated into Britain. Many of those who at first had reservations about these 'foreigners' gradually accepted them as fully British, but this was on the basis of their actually becoming British by culture.
I perceived that a change was made from racism to anti-culturism when younger generations wanting to get back to their racial/cultural roots started insisting on promoting their racial culture within Britain. In some parts of the land there are what almost amount to mini-countries. There is much concern now - due to things like this and others such as the huge yearly influx of illegal immigrants - that this country is gradually having its cultural identity and population changed forever. Traditionally, the British people have tended not to complain and tried to be accommodating, but many now feel they've been disinherited from their own land due to their generosity of spirit. One could ask then, is anti-culturism in itself an bad thing. Most certainly, insulting and abusing people based on the basis of their race or even culture is wrong, but does that mean that one has to give up the right to protect one's own culture?
When diplomats from different countries meet in order to help settle the differences of antagonistic nations, it is not expected that those nations will give up aspects of their culture. What is most important for a diplomat is to search and find common ground, and to bring the nations into an understanding of one another. If each nation can understand how the other 'ticks' then this can help bring about peace. A good start to peace between members of different nations can be by getting those nations to respect each other's culture. On a more individual basis then, when members from one country visit another nation they should be prepared to modify their own behaviour for the duration of the visit, in accordance with what they know of the national culture. This is also applicable on a more local scale where people come from different social backgrounds. At the heart of all of this is respect for the other person, but for it to work well it must be a shared responsibility.
There is a saying which goes like this: "Birds of a feather flock together". People often choose their social companions and environment based upon mutual interests and values. The true racist is the one who looks down upon others who are not of his own race on the basis of country and physical racial features, not one who merely keeps separate because of cultural differences. Consider that a white man of British descent and a black man of African descent who were born in say, Iceland, may feel they have far more in common with each other by virtue their birth country's culture than members of their own race.
Notwithstanding my words on anti-culturism, it is my belief that hatred of people based purely on their skin colour or racial descent is patently illogical and serves no useful purpose in making this world a better place. It is an evil which history testifies as being the basis of so much inhumanity.
can't wash yourselves clean in the blood of the lamb?
here's the next best thing!
instantly wash away your sins with new repent!
I agree with Casseline, but I do think we would need to send the 'industrial strength' version for it to even have a tiny effect!
i had always been puzzled by this, how jws know there of the so called anointed class, i mean there not born anointed supposedly they know by means of holy spirit lol!!!!.
its then there word against yours, i mean we could all end up saying we were anointed then what would happen, probably you would be told off by the elders or maybe they just wouldnt believe you,and why because they might think if "more say their anointed" the end wont come in there lifetime.
guess what im starting to think im anointed!!!!!!!!
"By there fruits you will recognise them"? One would certainly expect the fruitage of the Spirit.
