since blondie seems to still be on sabbatical, i'll take the liberty of highlighting a couple of "gems" from this week's upcoming study, from the article "reject worldly thinking".. from paragraph 12:.
is it true that succeeding in a secular career that offers power and prestige leads to lasting happiness?
remember that the craving to control others and the longing to be admired are the desires that enticed satan, but he is angry, not happy.. .
the craving to control others and the longing to be admired are the desires that enticed Satan
First thing, Satan doesn't exist. Even he exists, the above points make no sense. He is invisible beings--whatever he does, no one would admire him. In the minds of people He is a symbol of evil, and in their vocabulary the word Satan amounts to hate, curse ..... You call someone "Satan." It will end up in a fight.
jws teach babylon the great is the whole empire of false religion.
interestingly, bible’s definition of it would include jws also because it is the entity “that rules over the kings of the earth.” (rev 17:18) since revelation is given in symbols (rev 1:1) “kings” cannot be literal, but can mean minds of people because mind acts like king over everyone’s bodily kingdom.. no one exerts power over the minds of jws like their gb does.
just like members of other religions blindly follow what their leaders teach, jws too do—even when changes that are introduced under the guise of “new light” are virtually numerous.
MrRoboto, that's interesting.
People who claimed as God’s
own, when they turned unfaithful, were described as “harlot” by prophet Isaiah.
(Isaiah 1:21) Interestingly, Jesus makes no mention of God’s own people existing
as organized ones till the end of the world. (Mathew 25:31-46)
jws teach babylon the great is the whole empire of false religion.
interestingly, bible’s definition of it would include jws also because it is the entity “that rules over the kings of the earth.” (rev 17:18) since revelation is given in symbols (rev 1:1) “kings” cannot be literal, but can mean minds of people because mind acts like king over everyone’s bodily kingdom.. no one exerts power over the minds of jws like their gb does.
just like members of other religions blindly follow what their leaders teach, jws too do—even when changes that are introduced under the guise of “new light” are virtually numerous.
A harlot sells her own flesh in exchange for something else. Religions sells their very essence, the very meaning of the word ‘religion’ (from “re-ligare,” Latin, to “re-connect”) by poorly depicting God which repels rather than attract the logical minds. For example, religions teach that God gives eternal pleasure in heaven or eternal suffering in hell on the basis of a short life lived on earth, or permits souls to merge with Him which means extinction.
jws teach babylon the great is the whole empire of false religion.
interestingly, bible’s definition of it would include jws also because it is the entity “that rules over the kings of the earth.” (rev 17:18) since revelation is given in symbols (rev 1:1) “kings” cannot be literal, but can mean minds of people because mind acts like king over everyone’s bodily kingdom.. no one exerts power over the minds of jws like their gb does.
just like members of other religions blindly follow what their leaders teach, jws too do—even when changes that are introduced under the guise of “new light” are virtually numerous.
Crazyguy,
The scripture you have in mind is Jeremiah 7:31 where God reveals His position with regard to human sacrifices--"something I did not command, nor did it enter my mind."
all creationist arguments follow an identical pattern.. first a quick way to remember the format - 'complexity, complexity, complexity; therefore god'.. now a more detailed guide to formulating an argument.. identify some complex feature of the natural world.
a quick google search or nature documentary will quickly provide inspiration.
creationist websites have hundreds of them you can copy-paste without attribution.. do no research at all on what is currently known about the evolutionary history of this feature.
Even Darwin wrote that “we know of the laws
impressed on matter by the Creator.”
(Origin, Sixth Edition, London: John Murray, 1876,
p. 428)
all creationist arguments follow an identical pattern.. first a quick way to remember the format - 'complexity, complexity, complexity; therefore god'.. now a more detailed guide to formulating an argument.. identify some complex feature of the natural world.
a quick google search or nature documentary will quickly provide inspiration.
creationist websites have hundreds of them you can copy-paste without attribution.. do no research at all on what is currently known about the evolutionary history of this feature.
Yes I agree with you. If all religious people were true to their faith that there is a God, and had lived as one world-family with God as its Head, no one would have thought about an alternative explanation such as Evolution. To be worse, religions did more disservice to the cause of God putting irrational things such as ‘death sentence to apostates.’ (Deut 13:10). Seeing such irrationalities, even Richard Dawkins called God of the Bible as “a monster.” (God Delusion, page 46). People lose their faith in God “in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs,” wrote Sam Harris, in his Letter to a Christian Nation.
all creationist arguments follow an identical pattern.. first a quick way to remember the format - 'complexity, complexity, complexity; therefore god'.. now a more detailed guide to formulating an argument.. identify some complex feature of the natural world.
a quick google search or nature documentary will quickly provide inspiration.
creationist websites have hundreds of them you can copy-paste without attribution.. do no research at all on what is currently known about the evolutionary history of this feature.
No, evolution and creation both are a matter of faith.
Scientist is a role he assumes later in his life because of his interest and corresponding studies he pursues. However, primarily a scientist is a human being with his likes and dislikes, or even prejudice—as symbolized by James D Watson, whose co-discovery in 1953 of the structure of DNA is one of the landmarks of 20th-century biological science. Yet he had to put his Nobel Prize medallion up for auction because he publicly aired his prejudice which obviously went against his own discovery. In other words, he wanted to believe what he liked to believe! (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/01/dna-james-watson-scientist-selling-nobel-prize-medal)
all creationist arguments follow an identical pattern.. first a quick way to remember the format - 'complexity, complexity, complexity; therefore god'.. now a more detailed guide to formulating an argument.. identify some complex feature of the natural world.
a quick google search or nature documentary will quickly provide inspiration.
creationist websites have hundreds of them you can copy-paste without attribution.. do no research at all on what is currently known about the evolutionary history of this feature.
A survey taken by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in May and June of this year and reported by David Masci in the Los Angeles Times, found that 51% do believe in God and 41% do not. These numbers haven’t changed much over the last 100 years either, despite the numerous discoveries in evolution and biochemistry over the years.
The same poll found that 41% of chemists believe in God while scientists in the fields of biology and medicine were much less likely to believe in God (32%).
https://bitesizebio.com/2854/scientists-do-you-believe-in-god/
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov/24/opinion/la-oe-masci24-2009nov24
all creationist arguments follow an identical pattern.. first a quick way to remember the format - 'complexity, complexity, complexity; therefore god'.. now a more detailed guide to formulating an argument.. identify some complex feature of the natural world.
a quick google search or nature documentary will quickly provide inspiration.
creationist websites have hundreds of them you can copy-paste without attribution.. do no research at all on what is currently known about the evolutionary history of this feature.
The way of the nature is such that it can be interpreted in both the ways—either in favor of evolution or creation. That is why we find scientists from all avenues belonging to both the groups—evolution and creation.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lists_of_creationist_scientists
all creationist arguments follow an identical pattern.. first a quick way to remember the format - 'complexity, complexity, complexity; therefore god'.. now a more detailed guide to formulating an argument.. identify some complex feature of the natural world.
a quick google search or nature documentary will quickly provide inspiration.
creationist websites have hundreds of them you can copy-paste without attribution.. do no research at all on what is currently known about the evolutionary history of this feature.
One says: Matter created life,
The other says God created life …what is the difference?
Creationism says “From the more comes the less,” and evolutionism says “from the less comes the more” [as implied by Natural Selection which is “the process ultimately capable of generating complexity out of simplicity,” God Delusion, Richard Dawkins] Thus both agree that something comes from something—a fact that can have no beginning or an end.
