BroMac

Joined

• started 45 topics
• posted 723 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by BroMac

• 
  6

  Debate: Science vs God: Richard Dawkins takes on Archbishop of Canterbury

  by BroMac in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/science-vs-god-richard-dawkins-takes-on-archbishop-of-canterbury-7440051.html.

  friday 24 february 2012. yesterday richard dawkins went head-to-head with rowan williams in a televised debate about evolution.

  so who won?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  BroMac

  Yes he does seem quite a nice fellow but i just cant take anything he says seriously, its the beard you see, so un-christlike!
• 
  15

  What Does Romans 8:14-17 Mean To A JW? Who is the "All"?

  by BroMac in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  from new world translation:.

  14: "for all who are lead by god's spirit, these are god's sons.. 15: for you did not recieve a spirit of slavery causing fear again, but you recieved a spirit of adoption as sons, by which spirit we cry out: "abba, father!".

  16: the spirit itself bears witness with our spirit that we are god's children.. 17: if then, we are children, we are also heirs: heirs indeed of god, but joint heirs with christ, provided we suffer together that we may also be glorified together.".

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  BroMac

  @issacaustin

  "jesus had already introduced the "othersheep"'

  great point. Ive never thought of that!
• 
  15

  What Does Romans 8:14-17 Mean To A JW? Who is the "All"?

  by BroMac in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  from new world translation:.

  14: "for all who are lead by god's spirit, these are god's sons.. 15: for you did not recieve a spirit of slavery causing fear again, but you recieved a spirit of adoption as sons, by which spirit we cry out: "abba, father!".

  16: the spirit itself bears witness with our spirit that we are god's children.. 17: if then, we are children, we are also heirs: heirs indeed of god, but joint heirs with christ, provided we suffer together that we may also be glorified together.".

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  BroMac

  Do non 144k jw's never get lead by the spirit?
  V8 says if your not in harmony with the spirit then you cannot please God!
  No jw would say that they do not please God?
  Part of the qualifications of Elders/MS is that there is evidence of holy spirit operating in their lives.
  Surely they must then be in harmony with the spirit and not the flesh.

  How can these scripture in Romans only point to 144k?

  Puzzled!

  BroMac
• 
  15

  What Does Romans 8:14-17 Mean To A JW? Who is the "All"?

  by BroMac in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  from new world translation:.

  14: "for all who are lead by god's spirit, these are god's sons.. 15: for you did not recieve a spirit of slavery causing fear again, but you recieved a spirit of adoption as sons, by which spirit we cry out: "abba, father!".

  16: the spirit itself bears witness with our spirit that we are god's children.. 17: if then, we are children, we are also heirs: heirs indeed of god, but joint heirs with christ, provided we suffer together that we may also be glorified together.".

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  BroMac

  from New World Translation:

  14: "For all who are lead by God's spirit, these are God's sons.

  15: For you did not recieve a spirit of slavery causing fear again, but you recieved a spirit of adoption as sons, by which spirit we cry out: "Abba, Father!"

  16: The spirit itself bears witness with our spirit that we are God's children.

  17: If then, we are children, we are also heirs: heirs indeed of God, but joint heirs with Christ, provided we suffer together that we may also be glorified together."

  Who are the "ALL" that are lead by God's spirit? Who is Paul speaking to? How are they lead by God's spirit?

  Also Verses 8,9,10,11 what does that mean? (copy/paste: http://www.watchtower.org/e/bible/ro/chapter_008.htm)

  So those who are in harmony with the flesh cannot please God.

  However, YOU are in harmony, not with the flesh, but with the spirit, if God’s spirit truly dwells in YOU . But if anyone does not have Christ’s spirit, this one does not belong to him.

  But if Christ is in union with YOU , the body indeed is dead on account of sin, but the spirit is life on account of righteousness.

  If, now, the spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwells in YOU , he that raised up Christ Jesus from the dead will also make YOUR mortal bodies alive through his spirit that resides in YOU .

  Appreciate your thoughts

  BroMac
• 
  13

  That Old Favourite: "What Would Jesus Do?"

  by BroMac in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  we've all heard it, usually in response to something somebody thinks we shouldn't be doing.

  "would jesus do it?

  probably not - would he condemn me if i were to do it?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  BroMac

  we've all heard it, usually in response to something somebody thinks we shouldn't be doing.

  "would jesus do it? probably not - would he condemn me if i were to do it? probably not. Matt 7:1 ? so why are you judging me?"
• 
  23

  Excerpts from '1984' by George Orwell--Part 1 (Warning to the impatient: DO NOT READ)

  by sd-7 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  you folks play aggressively here, and i'm starting to understand why.

  but let's not waste time.

  life as one of jehovah's witnesses could accurately be described as an orwellian nightmare come to life.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  BroMac

  "Words, Mr Wordsworth!"

  that is what i heard when my researched scriptural reasonings on a conscience matter (employment) were ignored by the BOE
• 
  6

  Debate: Science vs God: Richard Dawkins takes on Archbishop of Canterbury

  by BroMac in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/science-vs-god-richard-dawkins-takes-on-archbishop-of-canterbury-7440051.html.

  friday 24 february 2012. yesterday richard dawkins went head-to-head with rowan williams in a televised debate about evolution.

  so who won?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  BroMac

  http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/science-vs-god-richard-dawkins-takes-on-archbishop-of-canterbury-7440051.html

  FRIDAY 24 FEBRUARY 2012

  Yesterday Richard Dawkins went head-to-head with Rowan Williams in a televised debate about evolution. So who won? Tim Walker was watching

  

  Oxford University held its first debate on the subject of evolution in 1860, just months after the publication of Darwin's On the Origin of Species. Then, the Bishop of Winchester, Samuel Wilberforce, famously enquired of the biologist Thomas Henry Huxley whether it was through his grandmother or his grandfather that he traced his descent from a monkey. The response he drew from the man known as "Darwin's bulldog" ensured that the exchange went down in history.

  Yesterday, the university hosted what seemed tantalisingly like a similar clash of great minds, between the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, and Professor Richard Dawkins – like Huxley, a bulldog on behalf of Darwin's theories. But anyone hoping for a dust-up would have been sorely disappointed, for the conversation was conducted with utmost politeness. The cleric even confessed his belief in evolution, and agreed with Dawkins that humans shared non-human ancestors. Wilberforce would be turning in his grave – assuming, as Williams does, that the soul survives death.

  The gentility of Dawkins and Williams's confrontation was in sharp contrast to its febrile context. On a visit to the Vatican this month, the Tory party chairman, Lady Warsi, warned of the "militant secularisation" of society, presumably led by scientists such as Professor Dawkins. Dawkins subsequently made headlines by forgetting the full title of Darwin's seminal work (On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life) during a live radio broadcast. He even faced a character assassination by a Sunday newspaper last weekend, on the basis that some of his ancestors probably owned slaves.

  Dawkins can call on 150 years or so of fossil-hard scientific evidence; Williams, on 2,000 years or so of faith. The atmosphere in the Sheldonian Theatre, however, was anything but incendiary. Rather than lecterns and thumping fists, the protagonists sat in comfortable chairs, sipping tap water. This was less a debate than a discussion, chaired by the esteemed philosopher Sir Anthony Kenny, who introduced himself as "a representative of ignorance".

  Rather than arguing, Dawkins and Williams seemed intent on finding areas of agreement. Did the Archbishop agree that there was probably no "first man", that human evolution was gradual, and that – in Dawkins' formulation – no pair of Homo erectus parents gazed down proudly at their Homo sapiens newborn? He did. "The Pope thinks that," Dawkins claimed. "I'll ask him sometime," Williams replied.

  Could Dawkins disprove the existence of God? He could not, he confessed, describing himself not as an atheist but as an agnostic – to gasps from Twitter, where the unlikely #dawkinsarchbishop hashtag was trending. On his own atheism scale of one-to-seven, the Professor suggested, "the probability of any supernatural creator existing is very, very low, so let's say I'm a 6.9".

  They did, finally, come to verbal blows – or gentle nudges, at least – over the origins of the universe. "The writers of the Bible, inspired as I believe they were, were not inspired to do 21st-century physics; they were inspired to pass on to their readers what God wanted them to know," Williams argued. "In the first book of the Bible is the basic information – the universe depends on God, humanity has a very distinctive role in that universe, and humanity has made rather a mess of it."

  "I am baffled," responded Dawkins, "by the way sophisticated theologians who know Adam and Eve never existed still keep talking about it." God, he said, "cluttered up" his scientific worldview. "I don't see clutter coming into it," Williams replied. "I'm not thinking of God as an extra who has to be shoehorned into it."
• 
  28

  Why Did Ray Franz Still Go On Field Service?

  by BroMac in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  in his book he says he still went out on field service.. why would he do that?

  i'm finding it so hard to go out, i only take my bible.. .

  bromac.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  BroMac

  bubblegum- i would say the first would have been that Christ is the Mediator for all Christians.
• 
  28

  Why Did Ray Franz Still Go On Field Service?

  by BroMac in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  in his book he says he still went out on field service.. why would he do that?

  i'm finding it so hard to go out, i only take my bible.. .

  bromac.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  BroMac

  pbrow -

  nice post, i agree with you, that makes sense. plus Ray Franz had 40yrs behind him of full time service. it's just what he DID i suppose. what a man
• 
  28

  Why Did Ray Franz Still Go On Field Service?

  by BroMac in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  in his book he says he still went out on field service.. why would he do that?

  i'm finding it so hard to go out, i only take my bible.. .

  bromac.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  BroMac

  thanks for the input.

  it's clear that Ray loved the scriptures, and talking among and with others about them comes through his books and also letters/emails that others have shared. some of which are lengthy and no doubt would have taken a considerable amount of his time.

  exwhyzee- that was the reason for asking the question, knowing what he did, he couldn't direct them to the JW's. but he does write that he enjoyed field service.

  BroMac