thanks for the elaboration, joseph. thats helpful. ill look thru the passages more later.
mox
taking care of the son of god.
mark creates a story in which mary thinks that jesus is out of his mind, and must be taken charge of (mark 3:14-21, 31).
next to god himself, the last person one would expect to reject jesus' divinity would be his mother.
thanks for the elaboration, joseph. thats helpful. ill look thru the passages more later.
mox
first genetic evidence uncovered of how major changes.
in body shapes occurred during early animal evolution.
biologists at the university of california, san diego have uncovered the first genetic evidence that explains how large-scale alterations to body plans were accomplished during the early evolution of animals.. in an advance online publication february 6 by nature of a paper scheduled to appear in nature, the scientists show how mutations in regulatory genes that guide the embryonic development of crustaceans and fruit flies allowed aquatic crustacean-like arthropods, with limbs on every segment of their bodies, to evolve 400 million years ago into a radically different body plan: the terrestrial six-legged insects.. the achievement is a landmark in evolutionary biology, not only because it shows how new animal body plans could arise from a simple genetic mutation, but because it effectively answers a major criticism creationists had long leveled against evolutionthe absence of a genetic mechanism that could permit animals to introduce radical new body designs.
the original article feels a bit dumbed down. does anyone know if they are talking about homeobox genes? thats what it sounds like?
mox
i think in time, the blood transfusion doctrine will fade away very similarly to mormon's polygamy doctrine.
the doctrine met with increasing legal pressure from the state and internal dissent from more liberal members.
the tide seems to have turned after the doctrine was about 50 or 60 years old (i am using 1830s as origin date) and from about 1900 on, the lds church no longer offically sanctioned the belief.
I think in time, the blood transfusion doctrine will fade away very similarly to Mormon's polygamy doctrine. the doctrine met with increasing legal pressure from the state and internal dissent from more liberal members. the tide seems to have turned after the doctrine was about 50 or 60 years old (i am using 1830s as origin date) and from about 1900 on, the LDS church no longer offically sanctioned the belief. of course the practice continued unoffically, and today there are evidently some 30,000 fundamentist mormons who still practice the doctrine, embarassingly for the church.
following that timeline, we are near the cusp of the blood doctrine passing into its decline. in the coming decades, JWs as individuals will probably continue to refuse blood despite lack of support from the organization. new JWs will no longer be indoctrinated in the belief and the practice of refusing blood will pass into the domain of a few 'fundamentalist JWs' who will be an embarrasment to what will be a more mainstream and friendly religion. their past doctrine on blood will be pulled out repeatedly by JW opponents and the WT will insist that it is all a thing of the past.
mox
taunton -- the middleboro man who is accused of last week's mugging outside jehovah's witness kingdom hall and a knifepoint robbery at dunkin' donuts was ordered held in lieu of $15,000 cash bail yesterday.
richard e. morse jr., 41, of 1 everett st., was arraigned in taunton district court before judge kevan j. cunningham.. the charges against him, two counts of armed robbery, one count of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon and a count of receiving a stolen motor vehicle, were continued to feb. 7.. morse is accused of threatening a woman with a knife outside the jehovah's witness kingdom hall off jackson street last thursday.
he allegedly stole her pocketbook, bible and cellular phone.. then last friday, he allegedly went into the dunkin' donuts at harts four corners, grabbed the woman behind the counter and threatened her with a knife.
Five years later at a District Convention, I was approached by a clean shaven, well dressed man I did not recognize. He asked my name, and when I told him, he gave me a big hug, and tears began to mark his cheeks.
"Do you remember many years ago a man that stole your purse and Bible?" he asked. "That man read your Bible and the Bible-based literature along with it and today he is standing before you as your brother."
I hugged my newly found brother back with joy. He reached into his book bag and took out my old purse to return it to me! I could no longer hold back the tears. Inside the purse was a beautiful thank you note. Indeed, Jehovah was working through the events of that day by means of his angels to bring this prodigal thief into his fold.
mox
if you had a jw hat on, how do you explain to someone why in the gospels that women who were "known sinners" were not stoned?.
why wasn't the woman who washed jesus feet already dead?
why were prostitutes allowed to live there in jerusalem?.
i understand the question to be, not why didnt jesus uphold the law, but rather, why hadnt the jews upheld the law and stoned these sinners before jesus had even got there.
ironically, i think the JW answer (or any fundamentalist for that matter) would probably be that the jews had strayed from the law. if they were faithful to god, those women would be cold in the ground and jesus wouldnt have had an opportunity to demonstrate christian mercy!
mox
taking care of the son of god.
mark creates a story in which mary thinks that jesus is out of his mind, and must be taken charge of (mark 3:14-21, 31).
next to god himself, the last person one would expect to reject jesus' divinity would be his mother.
thx joseph. im sure you realize i wasnt intending to follow an absurd line of argument about what constitutes 'proof' or 'near-proof.' i was simply curious about linguistic evidence to support the connection. is it merely the word 'carpenter' and the situational ironies? is the word 'carpenter' the same in mark and the septuagint isaiah? are there wording similarities to suggest mark had isaiah in mind. the absence of the carpenter identification from the other gospels is worth noting, but as you point out, this can be easily explained by a relunctance to assign such a prosaic occupation to the developing divine character of christ.
mox
have any of you read the finished mystery that was written in 1917?
it was started by russell and completed by rutherford who published it.
i am half way through the book and have skimmed through the majority of it.. rutherford either had to be drunk or crazy when he wrote that pitiful interpretation of revelations.
it is pretty funny. i havent read in ages. i wouldnt mind getting another look at it sometime. its fun.
mox
while the watchtower has suffered from a number of.
declines in various areas, there is no greater decay.
manifest than in its current publications.. as a teenager growing up, the 'truth' was, to me, a system of.
no new light? you obviously havent listened to my man ciro! hes got new light comin out the wazoo! in fact, hold on, whats this down here? could it be? yes... it IS! praise jehovah, new light! and i dont think we can speculate any further on that, but if we did, why... hang on a second, i think its... you guessed it! new light! and i heard someone say this off the cuff and i havent verified it but what the heck, lets call it some more, you know you want it, NEW LIGHT!
mox
taking care of the son of god.
mark creates a story in which mary thinks that jesus is out of his mind, and must be taken charge of (mark 3:14-21, 31).
next to god himself, the last person one would expect to reject jesus' divinity would be his mother.
i evidently dont see quite the 'perfect' irony in the carpenter comparisons that you do. is there something else more substantial in the language or style of the mark and isaiah passages to warrant linking them up? or is it primarily the use of the word 'carpenter?'
mox
when you leave behind the watchtower, and start thinking for yourself, you necessarily have to ditch their view of human society.
over the past year, i've given quite a lot of thought to other explanations for human behaviour, and the way human society is the way it is, with it's enormous contrasts and inconsistencies.
one of the viewpoints i've considered is that of thomas hobbes, and so far (in my opinion) it is the simplest model that fits observed conditions.
wow, a unusual absence of flippancy in an expat post.
a lot of the self-interest stuff reminds me of Richard Dawkins The Selfish Gene. i think that if u can determine that an altruistic act was really, deep down, just to promote interest of self, or interest of ones own genes, what of it? whos to say just because some altruistic act works out for eventual self-benefit, that it isnt truly altruistic? and if the increasing cooperation between nations is really, deep down, only because communications and trade have made our countries more closely dependant on one another, thus broadening the field of cooperative actions that bring benefit to oneself, is that so bad? if the field of self-interest can be broadened further, so that greater investment in the third world, greater peace and greater knowledge sharing become matters of everyone's self-interest, well i dont think thats such a bleak thing.
mox