in a previous thread dmouse mocks me for giving a serious reponse to what i see as a serious question about infinity from pubsinger.. it said that " it has nothing to do with reality, its just a logic problem " or some crap to that tune.. ok dmouse to appease yourself to the board, and buy back face, i ask you the following.
please answer according to the " obvious law " you imposed on me.
a question was asked on the scientific american magazine web site(sciam.com) which was close to this, .
The question presupposes that we know what time is. But do we? Non says no we do not.
If you can define time--you deserve a nobel prize. The human mind simply cannot satisfactorily prehend, comprehend or apprehend the notion of time. We finite participants in Dasein can only take stabs and make guesses in relation to the nature of time.
But scientists have said that there is a something called Planck time. Does this maybe answer your question? Could Planck time be the minimum value of time?
we are the decisions we make.
we are thrown into the world and left to make of it what we will.
non trias thinks there is some truth to these observations.. god has allowed us to see the light of life so that we might make of it what we will.
Dutchie:
$$$Hi Non, Don't you consider publications written by enemies of the truth the same as apostate literature?$$$
No I do not. Let me make my meaning transparent. This is something which I failed to do earlier.
When I used the phrasing "the truth" I meant actuality, reality or in Augustinian terms, God. So an enemy of the truth, as used here, refers to someone who either intentionally or inadvertently opposes God--who is truth. Take Carl Sagan as an example.
True, according to the jw model, both apostates and some non-apostates oppose God by means of the written text. Yet the Witnesses differentiate between those who supposedly knew Christ and abandoned him and those who never knew him to begin with, Dutchie. So I too make a distinction between enemies of truth who have never known God and those who seemingly know him, then desert the God of truth.
Non's take on the matter.
we are the decisions we make.
we are thrown into the world and left to make of it what we will.
non trias thinks there is some truth to these observations.. god has allowed us to see the light of life so that we might make of it what we will.
For all yo non-believers!
this post is mainly for non_trias_theos - but any of you who are jw's feel free to respond.
i know this should probably be posted on the bible research board, but being that "non" is a newbie i wasn't sure he'd check there.. question - where is the great crowd?.
read the verses (revelation 7:9) in revelation that refer to the great crowd (or multitude) and tell me where they are in those verses.
The present understanding of jws is that the great crowd stand in sight of the throne. There may be some validity to this in the light of Revelation 20:11, 12. Please consult Revelation 20 and see what ya think.
we are the decisions we make.
we are thrown into the world and left to make of it what we will.
non trias thinks there is some truth to these observations.. god has allowed us to see the light of life so that we might make of it what we will.
LDH:
Thrownness is too a word. Get a philosophical dictionary. It means the quality of being thrown.
$$$1) How many books have you read(religious books) that have not
been written by the WT? If you feel that you are free to do
so....may I suggest that you start with "Twisted Scriptures"
by Mary Alice Chrnalogar.$$$
Non has read quite a few non-Witness religious books. He even knows one elder who has a huge library filled with commentaries on different Bible books. Non has no problem reading publications written by enemies of the truth. He simply refrains from reading apostate literature.
$$$2) How free do you feel....time-wise? You make a lot of meetings,
do alot of field service? Does it feel like you have no life
beyond these thngs? It's because you don't.$$$
Yes, yes, no.
$$$3) How do you feel about Smurfs? Garage sales, and bringing those
items home? Girl Scout cookies?$$$
I hate smurfs since they give me nightmares. Hate garage sales cause I like my stuff spanking new. And girl scout cookies melt right in me mouth.
$$$4) How old were you in 1975?
I was 9. I was not a Witness, not even studying with them.
But, I had a friend who was. He was the same age as me. I
wonder now, if, when all the predictions started about the
"last days"....that this poor, sweet, little boy didn't have
nightmares every night....wondering if he would make it.$$$
If he was righteous, he had no worries, mate. And I do not remember how old I was in 1975. I was too spaced out from my life in the 60s which took place prior to the life of a Witness.
$$$5) Which brings me to my final question... you said that "fear was
not the ONLY thing that kept you with the Witnesses".
My question:
Why would a God of love want you to be afraid of him?$$$
He doesn't. But he does expect us to fear him in a non-morbid manner.
$$$Let me answer that for you.
Because it isn't God that wants you to be afraid...it's the
guys at the top, who want to see you out there making other
Dubs. Peddling magazines. They don't care if you believe,
just don't cause trouble.$$$
Funny, dude. I thought Matthew 24:14 and 28:19-20 was the reason we wuz out dere preaching. Coulda fooled me.
SYN:
$$$So, FLAME BAIT, why don't you answer Farkel's questions properly?$$$
Cause he does not ask them properly.
$$$You say that a husband shouldn't be a dictator. Your "religion" says he MUST! Here is the definition of "dictator" from dictionary.com:
dic·ta·tor Pronunciation Key (dkttr, dk-t-)
n.
An absolute ruler.
A tyrant; a despot.
The husband is not an absolute ruler. Read 1 Samuel 25 about Abigail who was blessed by God for disobeying her husband. Or what about 1 Corinthians 11:3 which teaches us that the husband has two entities over him, God and Christ. The wife must obey God before she obeys her husband. Therefore the husband's authority is no more absolute than the US or Japanese form of rule is.
have you ever heard bitter divorcees relate their experiences about their former husbands or wives?
most of the time, if it is a wife telling the story, her former husband could not do anything right.
he was a terrible father, lover, provider, cook, gardener and he smelled funky and was abusive.
$$$And there we have it folks; HildaBingen, Mystifool= Non_Trias_Theos exposed.$$$
What are you talking about, sir?
$$$I just want to point out something with the rest of this board, be that you are JW or X-JW. This person is not a JW and most likely an X-JW. This person is someone who is familar with this board, has posted here before, and has taken another screen name. This person is not a "newbie". This person is also not an adult, and most likely a person in their late teens.$$$
Quite interesting. I have been accused of being an elder, a disloyal jw and now an ex-jw teen. Isn't the text deceptive as Derrida says. Ahh . . . differance! Both the difference and deferral of meaning that results in the non-presencing of intention and the overthrow of logocentrism.
My what a smart teenager we have in this place.
Go figure, my man.
we are the decisions we make.
we are thrown into the world and left to make of it what we will.
non trias thinks there is some truth to these observations.. god has allowed us to see the light of life so that we might make of it what we will.
$$$Right, and a pedant who can't spell.
What the hell is throwness? Don't you mean thoroughness?$$$
Thrownness is the condition of being thrown. In this case, we are talking about existential thrownness. Being cast into Dasein.
I do not mean thoroughness. Read Sartre and Heidegger and you will know what I is talking about.
we are the decisions we make.
we are thrown into the world and left to make of it what we will.
non trias thinks there is some truth to these observations.. god has allowed us to see the light of life so that we might make of it what we will.
Greetings accuracy
Glad that you take a balanced approach to the subject. I am not saying that I am 100% correct in my views. Many on this forum do not realize that non could learn something from them and refine his views if people would address the issues.
See you, accuracy.
$$$Way to go, non_trias_theos!
As usual, those who cannot refute your logic (or even understand it) are resorting to name-calling, ad-hominem attacks, and sheer nonsense. Maybe they are impressed by such juvenile antics. I am not. You are right in much of what you are saying. They cannot take their personal experiences and personal failings and extrapolate that to six million other persons. They can only speak for themselves.
Many people are Witnesses for no other reason than that they want to be, and enjoy it. That's their reality.$$$
we are the decisions we make.
we are thrown into the world and left to make of it what we will.
non trias thinks there is some truth to these observations.. god has allowed us to see the light of life so that we might make of it what we will.
: You are mistaken once again. In my original post it was clear that I was not talking about political freedom. I clearly pointed out that I was discussing existential freedom in relation to thrownness and rationality.
$$$No you didn't, liar. Here is the only time you used the word exestential in that post:
: God has allowed us to see the light of life so that we might make of it what we will. Our decisions and how we respond to our thrownness and to existential everydayness determine who we ultimately become and how we fare in this world.
You talked about "responding to thrownness" (whatever-the-fuck THAT means) and to "existential everydayness" (whatever-the-fuck THAT means), but you did NOT talk about "exestential freedom," liar. In fact, I think you just like to talk to hear yourself talk, because your comments were a bunch of bullshit couched in 25 cent words. You certainly haven't demonstrated any ability to think clearly, and it's obvious you don't have a clue how to express yourself clearly.$$$
You have a problem with comprehsion and the entire process of reading. The context of my words makes it clear that I could not have been talking about policitical freedom. I was discussing freedom in connection with everydayness and thrownness. What other type of freedom could I have been discussing. It surely was not political freedom.
: I did not answer your question because it was not framed properly.
$$$My question was clearly framed. Ask everyone else reading it if it was not 'framed' properly. I frame pictures. Dipfucks like you frame questions.$$$
No it was not clearly framed. You asked about freedom of speech. Your question had nothing to do with the topic at hand. Non was dicsussing existential or volitional freedom.
: How do you expect me to answer such an ill-formed question??
$$$I really can't. You're a liar and a coward. It would be too much to ask for you to answer a simple question which came with simple examples.$$$
I cannot answer that which is not asked in a proper fashion. Nor will I answer questions that do not pertain to the subject. Do not wate my time!
have you ever heard bitter divorcees relate their experiences about their former husbands or wives?
most of the time, if it is a wife telling the story, her former husband could not do anything right.
he was a terrible father, lover, provider, cook, gardener and he smelled funky and was abusive.
$$$iF YOU READ THE MATERIAL AT ALL YOU KNOW THAT THE WITNESSES ARE THE ONES WHO ATTACK OTHERS. IF NOT THEN WHY IS EVERYONE NOT A WITNESS CONSIDERED WORDLY????$$$
Excuse me, sis, could you please turn off your CAPS?
Your question is actually a no brainer. I wonder whether some ex-jws ever read the Bible. The term "world" as applied to non-Christians is a biblical term.
Read 1 John 2:15-17; 5:19.
The world is constantly juxtaposed with Christianity in the bible.
