i was thinking about this.... in my congregation, i was literally the only one with universitary education, out of a cong from around 110 people.... and we're very close to a very big university, which makes it even weirder.. on the other hand... sooo many here with their own business, mostly small cleaning businesses.
cleaning windows, or cleaning somewhere else... painters.... all have jobs that do not require any education level, cos they never had a decent education.. how is the composition of the jw people/congs that you know about?.
how many painters... cleaners... compared to people with jobs that require higher education?.
There is nothing stopping anyone from reading books and publications about astronomy...one of the best astronomers I know is self-taught and supplements that with contacts in that field.
If you were referencing WTWizards post, he said astrology. not astronomy.
i noticed a recent commenter mention an assembly that had only one baptism, a born in.
the last assembly i went to had three baptisms, of which two were born ins.
could part of the motivation for youth baptism be to avoid the embarrassment of an assembly with no baptisms at all?
I recall that the Assembly immediately before the Convention at which I was baptized 11 years ago didn't have any baptismal candidates.
I can also recall several other Assemblies with only one or two baptized.
you can remain modest under test.
you can remain modest under test.
13:1-10.. comments .
Also, doesn't paragraph 16 kind of contradict the opening example? After all God didn't seem to keen to forgive his prophet who made the mistake of being deceived. Judging by his track record he doesn't have any patience for people who are easily tricked. Not good news for the average JW.
you can remain modest under test.
you can remain modest under test.
13:1-10.. comments .
I have a comment with regards to Nehemiah not being domineering. Nehemiah 13:25
atheism = self defeating.
first may we define our terms.
the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.
Now the question becomes not what is the origin of life but the origin of biological information. Where did the information to build the first living organism come from?
Valid question, the problem is you think you already have the answer. My answer is that we don't know... yet, but we have developed a number of plausible theories almost none of which would necessarily contradict each other. Here is a link if you actually care to learn about the leading theories.
You see, a scientist can't just invoke God because something seems to have no other explanation. If they did that, then we would still be woefully ignorant about... everything in the natural world. So many things that have been attributed to being directly controlled by God (Or depending on the time and culture gods, demons, ghosts, tree spirits etc.) have been shown to have natural explanations. That will very probably be the case with this issue as well.
Now if you want to keep shoving God back into the gaps of scientific knowledge feel free to do so, but you should know that in that case, your God is nothing more than an ever receding front being pushed backward farther and farther every year, and it's gonna take a lot more than a vague appeal to incredulity to stop that.
hey, ex-jw guys , .
if you believe in the bible and claim to be a christian, we invite you to attend the memorial this year in a place that.
the peoples don´t know you´re disfellowshipped and obey what jesus said in john chapter 6 and apostle paul tought in .
Eh, it may hit 50,000 regardless, it's been going up a ton recently.
... but, they fail to take note of one important detail.. i believe that if we are going to have any chance of reasoning with a jw about blood, this is the place we need to begin.. don't try to convince them that it was only a dietary law.
it wasn't, and they will never go along with it.. don't tell them that saving a life is more important than obeying a law, even a seemingly trivial one.
they take pride in obedience.
@Fishy
Why are you desperate to argue about this? Especially when you are clearly wrong? Do you get a kick out of a half-dozen people telling you that you're wrong?
You're completely ignoring the context of the scriptures concerning the topic being discussed. As far your proof goes, the fact that no scripture says that eating an unbled animal that has been found dead is to be punished with death is proof that's it wasn't a capital crime. That's how laws work. If execution isn't listed as the punishment, then they don't execute people for it.
Getting back to cofty's point, the fact that the case of an Israelite eating an unbled animal they killed themselves (capital crime) is handled differently than a case were an Israelite eats an unbled animal that was found dead (unclean state) proves that the point of pouring out the blood instead of eating it was to atone for the life the Israelite took.
So whether it was "against the law," as you seem determined to believe, or not is actually irrelevant to cofty's main point, which is that the blood being poured out is only a life or death matter when the creature was killed at the hands of an Israelite.
i am certain this has been brought up many times before.
according to john 6.... 44 no man can come to me unless the father, who sent me, draws him,+ and i will resurrect him on the last day.+ 45 it is written in the prophets: ‘they will all be taught by jehovah.+ everyone who has listened to the father and has learned comes to me.
46 not that any man has seen the father,+ except the one who is from god; this one has seen the father.+ 47 most truly i say to you, whoever believes has everlasting life.+.
The Bible also says that "Faith without works is dead" so this is one of those cases were the Bible "clearly doesn't contradict itself."
i never got into trouble with the elders.
i served on judicial committees too many times.
i am happy that i no longer have to "judge" whether someone is a "sinner" any longer!
I've been before two, the first time I was reproved, the second I was disfellowshipped even though I came to the brothers of my own accord after all probability of being caught had passed. Guess that isn't considered a sign of true repentance.
Funnilly enough, the disfellowshiping did help me have a change of heart, just not the one they were banking on.
this from the latest watchtower question from readers:.
"how a christian chooses to protect him- self, his family, or his possessions is, of course, largely a personal matter, as is his choice of employment.
that said, bible principles reflect god’s wisdom and his love for us.
Also, judiciary committees are given a long detailed list of what a person can be disfellowshipped for, and what they can be reproved for, effectively creating their own law book. A book which rank and file Witnesses aren't allowed to read even upon request.
So they have essentially done the same thing Jesus faulted the Pharisees for doing. They have taken it upon themselves to take simple principles and rigorously define what behavior does and does not conform to those principles, and then they've gone even further outside their rights and started disciplining their fellow Christians for not living up to their defined standards for what it means to live by those principles.
