click on preview book.
you can review the entire book it looks like.
has alot of good information.
Disclosure: I've not read this book but just in perusing due to the recommendations here I notice that he openly discloses source, well at least on this occasion. Wasn't even looking for it just happened to be in one of the first few paragraphs I read. so there's that...
>>the bible reveals that jehovah issaddened when people pursue a wick-ed course and ‘the inclination of theirthoughts is only bad all the time.’ (readgenesis 6:5, 6.
) from this we can per-ceive that sexual fantasizing is wrongbecause it can lead to serious sin that isforbidden in the scriptures and is out ofharmony with jehovah’s way of think-ing.the disciple james wrote: “the wis-dom from above is first of all pure, thenpeaceable, reasonable, ready to obey,full of mercy and good fruits, impar-tial, not hypocritical.” (jas.
3:17) beingaware of this, we should be moved toreject entertainment that fuels impurethoughts and inclinations.
@Talesin I can't un see that LOL
just a suggestion from old paranoid me: the logon process on this forum evaluates the username and password parts of the credentials separately, from what i see.
giving clues to valid usernames opens up a couple of nasty and probably unwanted attack vectors (including searching for suspected members by their known mail addresses).
i do understand that it simplifies the interaction with less computer literate users, though.. if the current process is there by design, or if i've misunderstood it, i'll just shut my mouth, but at least i want to have warned against it.
Use an alias email address.
Change your passwords frequently.
I understand your question and in general I tend to code it in such a manner that you simply get back "username password mismatch" or something to that effect. Additionally when you recover an account all posts are successful. You don't know if it recognizes your email or not. All by design for the reasons you describe.
ALL that said the two things I mention above are pretty important. The bottom line, for a skilled person, if they have the time and reason they're going to get it. So if we do our parts it helps devs like myself tremendously. What I mean is and I'm not trying to scare folks here, its just that it helps if you remove the target! Hopefully I'm making my point right.
You may want to ask Simon he may have something in the hopper for this. Sites such as this are labors of love. They are constantly in flux, understandably I might add.
following is a letter i am going to send to the entire family both jw and non.
i would like to get your advice on whether i should do it.
my husband has told me before to voice my complaints but i have yet.
following is a letter i am going to send to the entire family both jw and non.
i would like to get your advice on whether i should do it.
my husband has told me before to voice my complaints but i have yet.
Very reluctant when it comes to marriage advice. I'll say this though if the issue is your husband speaking with them really your family is irrelevant. Got to the source.
Husband "this isn't working when there's interference, can we please politely ask them to stick to pleasantries and no religion for a while and see if we can't just work on ourselves for a while? I care about our promise to one another and would like this opportunity.".
I agree with others in that asking them to stop will only put up red flags causing them to call into action the JW family members as they'll feel they need to attempt to get your husband to return to Jehovah.
Best to petition him Put the onus on him so that the two of you have the opportunity to make it right between yourselves.
Wish you the best.
disclaimer: my graduate degree is in business, not science so i'm writing as a layman in this field.
yes, i know that someone is going to say that evolution does not encompass this topic and should be sectioned off under abiogenesis.
i'm not trying to argue semantics here but it seems like a case of avoiding an uncomfortable subject.
@cofty just being devils advocate here but just as an example.
The following is from an excerpt from pbs.org. It's listed under "Evolution, How Did Life Begin". Saying a catalyst event is in no way relevant to evolution is a bit of an oxymoron to me. Without the starting point of amino acids, proteins, single cell orgs etc. there's no evolution to talk about. We wouldn't be here according to evolutionists. To me common sense says you need the catalyst event, as without it discussing evolution is a moot point.
Although I believe you can have a conversation about evolution without this start event, evolution requires a start event (whatever flavor you wish to believe) for it to be possible. That of course is unless you believe evolution has always existed! Problem there is evolutionists believe the earth is roughly 4 billion years old. If it had a start then so did evolution. What is the catalyst then?
The short answer is we don't really know how life originated on this planet. There have been a variety of experiments that tell us some possible roads, but we remain in substantial ignorance. That said, I think what we're looking for is some kind of molecule that is simple enough that it can be made by physical processes on the young Earth, yet complicated enough that it can take charge of making more of itself. That, I think, is the moment when we cross that great divide and start moving toward something that most people would recognize as living.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/how-did-life-begin.html
disclaimer: my graduate degree is in business, not science so i'm writing as a layman in this field.
yes, i know that someone is going to say that evolution does not encompass this topic and should be sectioned off under abiogenesis.
i'm not trying to argue semantics here but it seems like a case of avoiding an uncomfortable subject.
With @Anders here you simply can't take a hard and fast position and feel satisfied that there is unequivocally no evidence of the contrary opinion.
If your honest about I just don't see where either side of the coin is absolute.
You may feel strongly one way or the other but I don't think that equates to an absolute position.
Honestly now that I've left I don't feel the need to be right as it were either. What if neither position is right?
disclaimer: my graduate degree is in business, not science so i'm writing as a layman in this field.
yes, i know that someone is going to say that evolution does not encompass this topic and should be sectioned off under abiogenesis.
i'm not trying to argue semantics here but it seems like a case of avoiding an uncomfortable subject.
Humans are notorious for slanting evidence to support their position and disregarding evidence to the contrary.
Well if we take anything from this topic this should be it.
disclaimer: my graduate degree is in business, not science so i'm writing as a layman in this field.
yes, i know that someone is going to say that evolution does not encompass this topic and should be sectioned off under abiogenesis.
i'm not trying to argue semantics here but it seems like a case of avoiding an uncomfortable subject.
Just as a matter of clarity here, I'm no expert in the area whatsoever, however when I think of evolution I do also think of how evolution started. Perhaps where the bridge is gapped is in that there is more than one there theory as to how it kicked off. The point is abiogenesis sometimes gets bundled with other theories. At least for me that's how I think of it. it's I'm sure technically wrong.
In short I don't see how evolution (natural selection, life creating life yada yada) happens without some sort of event where non-living elements result in protozoan that then subsequently all life was formed.
It started somehow regardless of what you call it.
disclaimer: my graduate degree is in business, not science so i'm writing as a layman in this field.
yes, i know that someone is going to say that evolution does not encompass this topic and should be sectioned off under abiogenesis.
i'm not trying to argue semantics here but it seems like a case of avoiding an uncomfortable subject.
Evolution requires Abiogenesis or there is no evolution hence why it's always lumped in. At least in my mind. I think it's reasonable to do so for the simple fact you can't get to evolution without it. Creation doesn't requires such an event for obvious reasons.
...my degree is in computer science. At least mine has "science" in it LOL.
Joking aside I think to have a fair discussion you sort of have to concede in having abiogenesis/evolution handcuffed together since you cannot have the later without the former.
