did the generation change or the child abuse revelation spawn this many threads?.
This forum can't seem to live without debate.
I won't lie, I come here for discussion - but obviously with Sparlock, for the longest time everyone's been firing their ammunition in the same direction. People get frustrated at how Sparlock saturated the forum has become, and now there are 'Anti-Sparlock Threads' AND 'Anti-Anti-Sparlock Thread Threads', thus bringing unnecessary debate to an issue we all agree on.
There's a real Circle of Life quality to this place, dont you think?
lets forget about the creations of man, animals and.
light and darkness.
focus on the period when the earth.
Don't forget the dinosaurs, Scenic!!
Really, they think the earth came first - THEN there was light? It's backwards whichever way they try and work it.
My dad still thinks the creative days were 7,000 years. The fact WT no longer specifies keeps the old guard happy with their dated understanding, and the newbies happy thinking they mean 'millions of years'.
.
.
I wonder when the outline was written . . . the 1990's? Unless it's a new 30 minute one.
i've just happened upon the following website article featuring an interview between richard dawkins and dr rowan williams, the archbishop of canterbury.
i was surprised to discover that, when asked directly "why don't you call yourself an agnostic?
" he answered that he did.. here is the article:.
It isn't about doubt, as you suggest it is FlyingHigh. He's just being honest. The person who says he knows with 100% certainty about God's existence - for any side - is either foolish or arrogant. No one can be 100% sure, it's just impossible. That's the admission Dawkins makes. It's neither alarming or groundbreaking.
i've just happened upon the following website article featuring an interview between richard dawkins and dr rowan williams, the archbishop of canterbury.
i was surprised to discover that, when asked directly "why don't you call yourself an agnostic?
" he answered that he did.. here is the article:.
Agnosticism isn't a middle ground in the God debate. As far as I know Dawkins understood this when he said it. Theism/Atheism is about belief. Gnosticism/Agnosticism is about knowledge. You can be both, as I am.
Agnostic Atheism = I don't know for sure, but I don't believe in a God or Gods.
Dawkins already said he was a 6.9/7 on his Theism/Atheism chart in God Delusion, 1 being to KNOW God exists and 7 to KNOW he doesn't.
when i was living in albuquerque, nm, my family attended one of the spanish congregations.
one young elder was giving the prayer at the end of the school/servive meeting one night and he wished jehovah a good night.
jah is the ruler of the universe.
The best way to end a prayer has always been:
"And in case I don't see ya; Good afternoon, good evening and good night! Amen."
hey peeps,.
it's been a long while since i've posted (i am completely out - wife and kids still in) but thought you might this interesting.. they came home from the district convention yesterday with the new dvd intended for kids.
they popped it in right away and this is what happens:.
Wait . . . did he say SERIES?
hey peeps,.
it's been a long while since i've posted (i am completely out - wife and kids still in) but thought you might this interesting.. they came home from the district convention yesterday with the new dvd intended for kids.
they popped it in right away and this is what happens:.
Actually the more I watch lesson 2 the more infuriated I become.
Trying to guilt your 4 year old out of playing, because God doesn't like that toy? How petty do you have to be?? This is playground logic.
'If you want to be my friend, stop playing with that toy. I don't like those kinds of toys. And if you don't stop playing with them I'm going to beat you up.'
hey peeps,.
it's been a long while since i've posted (i am completely out - wife and kids still in) but thought you might this interesting.. they came home from the district convention yesterday with the new dvd intended for kids.
they popped it in right away and this is what happens:.
Somehow this isn't as bad as the 'Sing along' section.
scientific method asserts nothing living can come from something non-living.
science is observable, science is reproducible.
a living thing coming from non-living matter has never been observed nor reproduced.. therefore, it takes faith in an unknown process to believe that that's exactly what happened in the beginning, with no evidence!.
Has this been posted yet?
It should have been.
