Hey, that's me at the very beginning!
I've embedded this video on the front page of my website, at least until the convention is over: www.dispelthedarkness.org.
a live webcast of the witnesses now for jesus convention will start friday morning oct. 16,2009 and many parts of the program will be broadcast through sunday oct. 18,2009 for you to enjoy on your computer screen.
the upper room ministries website will act as host and staging agent for getting you the right links to receive the webcast.
www.upperroomministriesnewengland.com information regarding a schedule of events and when they will be taking place will be posted on this site by monday oct. 12,2009. during the convention if you have any questions while viewing on line, you will be able to e-mail them to [email protected] please be advised that in webcasting events there can be many technical issues , especially from rural areas where signals sometimes are weak.
Hey, that's me at the very beginning!
I've embedded this video on the front page of my website, at least until the convention is over: www.dispelthedarkness.org.
i was thinking about some stupid non-sensical answers i have heard over the years.
"we all know the blue whale is the biggest fish"
"we were on the ministry and met a coloured couple.
The answer was supposed to be Shadrach, Meshach and Abendnego. --- The answer given by a child, "I shack, You shack, and Away we go!!!
I thought it was, "my shack, your shack and a bungalow".
i was thinking about some stupid non-sensical answers i have heard over the years.
"we all know the blue whale is the biggest fish"
"we were on the ministry and met a coloured couple.
From a talk (must have been working on illustrations): "Suppose you were running a store, say, one that sold...um...things and...errr...items?"
back in 1976 a network of jws began discussions on some subjects and were surprised their questions about the wt society were similar.
they sent out thousands of copies of a 20 page letter to kingdom halls in several countries.
i remember hearing about it from a couple of elders when it happened.
I remember receiving this document. It was instrumental in dislodging a lot of "JW-think" from my mind. Glad to see it here, since I no longer have my original copy.
if god is outside of nature and therefore cannot be proved or disproved by science, is atheism a form of blind faith?
after all, it cannot be defended on the basis of pure reason.. steven jay gould said;.
"science simply cannot by its legitimate methods adjudicate the issue of god's possible superintendence of nature.
I found this book to be very interesting on the topic of atheism, and the style pretty edgy for a Christian writer. You can download it for free (or offer a donation if you prefer).
any thoughts on that particular phrasing?
personally, i think the wts uses it as another form of mind control.
by calling the individual "one of jehovah's witnesses," it lends a generic feel to the wording.
Any thoughts on that particular phrasing? Personally, I think the WTS uses it as another form of mind control. By calling the individual "one of Jehovah's Witnesses," it lends a generic feel to the wording. Like, 'oh, this isn't the brand name of a religion; it's what they are...Jehovah is God and these people really are his witnesses.' I try never to use the term. When I need to speak about having been a Witness, I usually say either, "I was a Jehovah's Witness" (which I know is not the best gramatically, but it avoids the usage that I find annoying) or sometimes, "I was a member of Jehovah's Witnesses."
What do you guys think?
one question that stretched theologians during the middle ages was; could god envision or make a four sided triangle or a three sided square or some other atrocity.
at first the problem seems foolish, but it really is an instance of a more fundamental problem: is god bound and limited by the laws of reason and logic or not?.
i've had this conversation on jwd before but i was never satisfied with it.
Ok, I have no idea why the essay posted itself at the TOP of the page...
one question that stretched theologians during the middle ages was; could god envision or make a four sided triangle or a three sided square or some other atrocity.
at first the problem seems foolish, but it really is an instance of a more fundamental problem: is god bound and limited by the laws of reason and logic or not?.
i've had this conversation on jwd before but i was never satisfied with it.
Here's a short essay I wrote some time ago on the topic (though it may largely reflect what others have already said here):
Can God Make a Rock So Big That He Can't Pick it Up? It always gets under my skin a bit when people try to challenge the concept of the omnipotence of God by asking, Can God make a rock so big that He cant pick it up? The implied conclusion is usually that an omnipotent God cannot exist because the quandary is not resolvable. However, I believe that the concept of omnipotence requires that God can do whatever can be done, not that He can do things that are impossible by definition. Asking this question is like asking whether God can make a square circle. Circles, by definition, are not square. Anything that God could make that would be shaped like a square would not, by definition, be a circle. Could God so order the universe so that the definitions of squares and circles are different than we understand them to be such that a circle could be made square? Undoubtedly He could, however that thwarts the intent of the question. One who asks whether God could make a square circle is using the terms as we understand them, and not as they might exist in some other potential universe.As far as making a rock so big that He couldnt pick it up, the question is really asking whether God can create a situation in which He is not omnipotent. The answer to that is, I believe, no. And a negative answer to that question in no way limits Gods omnipotence. Like the square circle, it is a question of definitions: can an entity be omnipotent and non-omnipotent at the same time in the same way? Obviously not. But the omnipotence of God does not require Him to be able to produce a situation which is semantically contradictory.
Now, someone might object that Christianity posits exactly what I have described. In the Incarnation, it may be argued that God stripped Himself of His omnipotence in order to assume human flesh. In a sense, that is true. But we must remember the teaching of the dual nature of Christ; He was the Fullness of Deity in human flesh (Colossians 2:9). He had the full nature of God and the full nature of man. In His divine nature, his omnipotence was reduced not at all, as He demonstrated in His miracles. In His human nature, He was, of course, limited as any man. So to apply the rock question, we might posit that God could indeed make a rock so big that Jesus, in His humanity, could not pick up; but in His divine nature, He could do all things that are possible to do.
in a local convenience store, the owners have installed an id checker for anyone purchasing alcohol.
they require you to put your id in this machine to determine whether or not you are of legal age.
even if you are 85 years of age, you have to comply or you can't buy a beer!.
Last year, at the age of 56, I had the unnerving experience of being asked for the first time by a store clerk, "Would you like the senior discount?"
A month or so after that, my wife and I were driving to VA and stopped along the way to buy a bottle of wine. I got carded.
Somehow, that made me feel a whole lot better.
[if !supportemptyparas] [endif].
[if !supportemptyparas] [endif].
[if !supportemptyparas] [endif].
I'm no expert on the Greek, but in scanning a number of different translations, I see that some render the verse as does, for example, the ESV:
Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners. They are well known to the apostles, and they were in Christ before me.
The NET Bible reads similarly, as do several other translations. The commentaries I checked (Barnes' Notes and Believer's Bible Commentary) support the idea that Junia and the others were persons of note, well known to the apostles, but not necessarily themselves apostles.