according to bloomberg news:.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-04-07/wedding-photographer-rebuffed-by-top-court-on-same-sex-ceremony.
"the u.s. supreme court turned away an appeal from a new mexico wedding photographer found to have violated a state anti-discrimination law when she refused to take pictures of a commitment ceremony for a same-sex couple.. the photographer, elaine huguenin, argued unsuccessfully that she was being unconstitutionally forced to convey a message conflicting with her religious beliefs.
1. If someone wants to hire a Muslim caterer to serve his wedding, does he have the right to demand that the Muslim caterer serve pork chops?
2. If a black man owns a print shop and a KKK member walks in and asks him to print signs that say "Kill the N------s," does he have the right to refuse the business?
Just wondering...
.... and i noticed that you can take the melody for song 135 and plug in the words to "amazing grace" and it fits perfectly.
odd..
There's no special significance to the fact that the lyrics fit, it's just that the two songs have the same meter, and the same pattern of syllables per line. The lyrics to Amazing Grace also work with the melody of the Gilligan's Island theme, for example. Hymnals take advantage of this factor all the time; indexes in some hymnals often show a named pattern that can be used with a particular hymn.
you've probably already heard that prince is calling his new album "follow the slave".
but a closer look at the track list raises even more eyebrows.
check out these song titles: "100 invisible years".
Larry Graham and George Benson are on the album?
was there a 1st century gb?
jws say, it was centralized in jerusalem, and they use acts 15 to prove it.
however, today's wt study shows something interesting.
Acts 15 describes a one-time church council to resolve a doctrinal issue. There is nothing either stated or implied indicating the existence of an ongoing "governing body"in the manner understood by JWs today. The elders and apostles came together, resolved a problem, and then went about their business again. Anyone who argues for the existence of a first-century "governing body" needs to find better evidence than Acts 15.
forgive me if someone already posted this but here ya go:.
.
http://www.sendspace.com/file/udl79c.
I wonder what the reaction would be if a rank and file JWwho died had a colorful brochure giving his life story made up by his/her friends and family for the funeral? Do you suppose they would be accused of "glorifying a creature?"
1993-2014 the best of watchtower letters pdf.
instruction: press the 'skip ad' button top right, you should then see the download screen more easily.
no virus ;-).
*Comment deleted after I figured out how to get the downloads to work*
a new book for children on friday?.
a brochure about god's organization on saturday?.
Saturday afternoon's closing talk almost sounds like it could include the release of a new version of the Proclaimers book. Not entirely out of the question; the book is now 21 years old. It would be surprising to see them release another expensive-to-produce book this soon after the new Bible, though.
http://www.mediafire.com/watch/cvas6fcrc9zca94/shepherding_instructional_suicidal_widow.avi.
i just watched beginning of the recently leaked video produced by the wtbts allegedly instructing elders how to treat jws contemplating suicide.
i am so apalled i cannot even begin to describe it!.
In the "Good" example, they quote Jeremiah 29:11 out of context and apply it to Mary. It's not a text about Christians, it's about the Jewish captives in Babylon in the 6th century BC. Not that it's unusual for JWs to take texts out of context, but this one gets used that way so commonly among non-JW Christians that I found it amusing to see the JWs doing it too. Minor point, I know...
link to the course: https://www.edx.org/course/harvardx/harvardx-hds1544-1x-early-christianity-927.
intro video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rj3nxoyt7k.
it's my first time for a edx-course and i will try "early christianity: the letters of paul".
"I hereby affirm that my prophecy will be correct, JFK will be shot dead near the end of the 60s in Dallas. Cheers, Dixon, 5 May, 1958."
Technically, that would be an incorrect prophecy, since JFK was killed in 1963.
But I see what you are getting at.
I only claim I would then believe (with high certainty) that note was written after Kennedy was killed and it would still take quite a bit of evidence to convince me it was written before JFK was shot. Do you think that is the wrong conclusion to draw?
I suppose I could see why you would accept that as a prima facie conclusion. What I think bothers me about the statement is the phrase "with high certainty." The problem, again, comes down to the question of whether one accepts that prophecy is a real possibility. You've said that you acknowledge that as being so. If that is the case, why necessarily conclude in an a priori fashion that the prediction almost certainly could not have occurred as claimed? If there really is no anti-prophecy bias at work, then the information should be evaluated as to its claims, not dismissed as being highly improbable.
Suppose in this scenario, Dixon had accumulated a group of followers prior to 1963 who touted the possibility of a president being shot dead in Dallas at that time? What if these followers believed in Dixon's prophecy so strongly that they were willing to undergo personal hardship or even death in order to spread her message far and wide - a message that, if it was false, they were in a position to know was false? Suppose, further, that the government considered these followers to be a problem and so began to suppress them, even violently? Would things like this happening before 1963 change your view of the possibility of the prediction being a real prophecy?
Are you saying unicorn and fairies are a-priori impossible but the existence of god, angels etc. is not?
No, that's not where I was going with that at all. I was trying to gague your openness to actual prophecy by seeing whether you would put real prophecy in the same basket with things like fairies and unicorns, or whether you actually considered it a real possibility.
And of course, your remarks about unicorns are correct; some might even use the term of a rhinoceros.
link to the course: https://www.edx.org/course/harvardx/harvardx-hds1544-1x-early-christianity-927.
intro video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rj3nxoyt7k.
it's my first time for a edx-course and i will try "early christianity: the letters of paul".
Here's another book you wont like Neon:
islamic-replies.ucoz.com/Bible_Books/22916607-Jesus-interrupted-Bart-D-ehrman.pdf
I've read some of Ehrman, and I'm not impressed. His data are excellent, of course. The man is clearly a scholar of the highest order in terms of his historical and textual research, but his conclusions strike me as being pre-determined by his agenda. Textual criticism is a well-developed science, and gives us good reason to believe that the New Testament we have today is very much as it was originally written. Ehrman acknowledges as much in some of his works, but takes the fundamentalist-like position that if there is any doubt whatsoever as to what the original manuscripts said, then we have absolutely no idea what they might have said. When we can trace multiple lines of manuscript evidence back to a largely unified critical text, it seems unfounded to claim that some unknown changes might have occurred in the earliest times that altered the text somehow in major ways before the manuscripts even began to circulate. It also seems to me that if Ehrman wants to assert such a thing, then the burden of proof is upon him to demonstrate it. This is another case of the "extraordinary evidence" fallacy, in that he subjectively has set the bar so high for "extraordinary" evidence that it could never be met by any evidence. Nothing short of a signed, dated, time-stamped original would satisfy him. Really, if Ehrman is right in his claims about the New Testament, then we have no idea whatsoever about any document, person or event in ancient history, since there is no evidence available that would meet the criteria he demands of the NT.
Numerous books have been written refuting Ehrman, of course, but the authors who wrote them don't become media darlings as he has.
