Glad I don't have that problem!
<-- betting hubby is even happier
she died for love .
according to the ananova news service, a romanian woman has died from an allergy to her husband's ejaculate.
the husband told doctors they knew about her allergy to proteins in semen but didn't always use a condom when they had sex.
Glad I don't have that problem!
<-- betting hubby is even happier
having had a bizzare (for a european) preoccupation with american history in the 19th c, i do find that current american foreign policy still has implict in it the religiously inspired rationale that enabled americans to seriously claim that the ethnic cleansing of the west, and the genocidal behaviours that this often entailed, was because god wanted them to do it.. from certain newspaper articles i've read it seems as if some of those in the white house believe that bush getting in despite not having the majority of the popular vote was a sign, and that 9/11 backed up their belief that bush was a man put in a certain place for a certain time and role.
that bible studies are a regular expected activity of white house staffers.. now, this makes me very nervous.
i prefer my religious fanatics to come from developing countries that may have weapons of mass destruction, rather than from the most powerful millitary country in the world with more weapons of mass destruction than the rest of the world put together.. obviously just because it was in a newspaper doesn't mean it's true (yesterday's guardian i think).. but what do you think?.
1/ Do members of the Bush administration feel that their campaign against the axis of (we)evil is backed by God?
That is my impression.
2/ How does this make them different from other peope who believe their campaigns are backed by God?
It doesn't.
3/ Is current American foreign policy influenced by some pseudo-religious view of the USA as a great peace-maker?
Yes. That, and the view that they are better than anyone else (holier than thou), and thus have the right to impose their views on everyone else.
4/ If so, does this make it any less wrong than the obviously evil 'Divine Mandate' of the 19th C? If so, why?
No.
she died for love .
according to the ananova news service, a romanian woman has died from an allergy to her husband's ejaculate.
the husband told doctors they knew about her allergy to proteins in semen but didn't always use a condom when they had sex.
The reason I asked was coz of this statement:
These allergies to sperm are extremely rare but very serious.Although earlier it says something else. Rather imprecise (is that a word?) reporting there.
she died for love .
according to the ananova news service, a romanian woman has died from an allergy to her husband's ejaculate.
the husband told doctors they knew about her allergy to proteins in semen but didn't always use a condom when they had sex.
How bizzare. I've never heard of anything like that before. Why didn't he get the snip if she was allergic to sperm? Wouldn't that have solved the problem?
the common leader and his followers work mainly off of the desire to end isolation but the fanatical leader and his disciples incorporate the second primal fear, the fear of death, into the equation.
and by death i mean annihilation the utter obliteration of any and every bit of a persons earthly existence and legacy.
the leader who promises his people that adherence to his laws and teachings will not only relieve the pain of their isolation but also allow them to defy death, to achieve some kind of spiritual immortality through worthy deeds, that type of leader achieves a supreme control that the first type cant match and creates an entirely different kind of follower in the process.
I couldn't believe it when I saw it. I haven't even finished the book yet, but I had to post it here. It's perfect for the borganisation, isn't it?
one of the most outstanding differences between jehovah's witnesses and other religions, is their view on politics.
jw's pride themselves in saying that since they are no part of the world, that being involved with politics is unscriptural.
witnesses are regularly reminded concerning their being neutral.
Of course after such heated discussion a quick "but I don't follow politics or care one way or the other" would be mumbled.
I remember that; I think I even did that a few times. How hypocritical. Good points, all. I wonder how I could work the stuff about the '34 yearbook into an email to my sister.
the common leader and his followers work mainly off of the desire to end isolation but the fanatical leader and his disciples incorporate the second primal fear, the fear of death, into the equation.
and by death i mean annihilation the utter obliteration of any and every bit of a persons earthly existence and legacy.
the leader who promises his people that adherence to his laws and teachings will not only relieve the pain of their isolation but also allow them to defy death, to achieve some kind of spiritual immortality through worthy deeds, that type of leader achieves a supreme control that the first type cant match and creates an entirely different kind of follower in the process.
The common leader and his followers work mainly off of the desire to end isolation but the fanatical leader and his disciples incorporate the second primal fear, the fear of death, into the equation. And by death I mean annihilation the utter obliteration of any and every bit of a persons earthly existence and legacy. The leader who promises his people that adherence to his laws and teachings will not only relieve the pain of their isolation but also allow them to defy death, to achieve some kind of spiritual immortality through worthy deeds, that type of leader achieves a supreme control that the first type cant match and creates an entirely different kind of follower in the process. Such a follower is likely to disregard such generally accepted rules of social behavior, for the simple reason that, to him or her, there is no obscenity save what the leader labels obscene. And such a leaders definition of obscene is likely to be very specific, because he doesnt want to limit the range of possible actions to which he can order his followers.
~ Caleb Carr in Killing Time
What do you think of that?
Edited by - Wolfgirl on 29 January 2003 5:52:47
the following picture is from the watchtower, february 15th 1975 issue, page 100:.
" book, 1988, page 52:.
" book, 1988, page 127:.
LOL Ed!
I am ashamed that I used to look forward to the deaths of all those people, even get excited about it. How sad. They will never have that control over me again. Love for your fellow man indeed. *rolls eyes*
first time in over a year...3rd time in 2 years!.
my husband went out in service yesterday...and relayed the following story to me when he got home.. .
going from door to door....they were all "not at homes", so they were combing the neighborhood rather quickly looking for people at home...suspicious activity...having people going from door to door that quickly.. .
It happened to me twice. Once when I was out in a really rich neighbourhood. My friend and I were at the door together (I had a huge crush on him), and the next thing we know, everyone else was in the car and telling us to leave. The policemen escorted us out.
The second time, I witnessed to the police officer. Wish I hadn't.
sigh.
i had the wierdest dream last night; it's something i wish would happen.. i dreamed my older brother showed up at my door step and when i opened the door, he said, "are you happy?
dad has left the jws and mom is divorcing him".
Probably just your unconscious mind giving "voice" to something you might like to see. Not the negative, obviously, but that you would want your dad to leave the organisation.