willy_think

Joined

• started 15 topics
• posted 976 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by willy_think

• 
  48

  Iraqi expatriates return to battle U.S.

  by Trauma_Hound in

  1. social
  2. current

  http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0326war-jordan26.html iraqi expatriates return to battle u.s.

  margaret coker .

  cox news service.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  willy_think

  It can't really be much of a surprise. After all how bad would your government need to treat it's citizens before you would welcome a Chinese "liberating force"?

  I wonder how long it will take the right wing to start blaming the democrats.
• 
  16

  Why Catholic believe eating Jesus literally?

  by evangelist in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  how can the catholic eat jesus body , won`t you say this has something to do with cannabalism??

  why can they sacricfic jesus everytime they have mass, and how many time does jesus has to be hung on the cross??

  thank you for some answers biblically .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  willy_think

  notice the scripture say remember, not literally.

  " And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me."

  i thought it said "this IS my body" eat this is my body... this is my body... eat my body...do it

  alot have ask me why we don`t take the Lord supper like the catholic.

  You can't consecrate the Eucharist. silly
• 
  7

  Couple of things eating my mind

  by Nosferatu in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  first of all, my active mother told me that a couple of months ago, there was an announcement made from the stage about an update on how to deal with child abuse situations.

  apparently now, jws are suppose to go to the police now.

  anyone else hear about this?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  willy_think

  All I can say to the first part is YAHHOOOOOO!! apostates rule!!!!!!

  Well, when my Dad wanted a "scriptural reason" to leave my Mom he bonked a nice JW lady and rubbed it in my mom's face until she divorced him for adultery.He married the nice lady (she is truly nice) but she got very sick with a crippling disease it was time to bonk the next JW lady (another nice pick). Well, he marred her too. She died and he marred his forth wife who I have never met.
  
  Two DFings for a total of one year of shunning. it might not be so nice but it is the easiest way.
• 
  60

  Does God exist outside of Time?

  by D wiltshire in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  does god exist out side of our dimension of time?.

  our view of time has changed over the centuries.

  for the longest time,.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  willy_think

  Hi Elsewhere

  
  "Once you find a way to detect and measure the deity, you should be able to conduct an appropriate experiment. Until that time, you are just speculating."

  This one got me thinking about the theory of electricity. We can detect and measure it. however no one has ever been able to conduct an experiment that can tell us just what the hell electricity is. To this very day the top thinkers in the world can't tell us what electricity is despite exacting measurements of it. I can hardly believe that detecting and measuring God would teach us more then we can learn about electricity.
• 
  60

  Does God exist outside of Time?

  by D wiltshire in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  does god exist out side of our dimension of time?.

  our view of time has changed over the centuries.

  for the longest time,.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  willy_think

  Hi D,
  interesting Questions.
  If I were to start with the given that there is a creator God and he created this universe that is the measure of time and time that is the measure of the universe then.

  1) Does God even need time or space to exist?

  A. No he was. Does the potter need the pot?

  2) Does he look at time the same way we do?

  A. yes he does look at time the same way we do, every way that we don't and ways that we would not call looking, perceiving, experiencing or understanding.

  3) Does he view past, present, and future as all the same?

  A. No he does not view past present and future as all the same. he "views" all things as they "are" past present and future. I hesitate to use the words "view" and "see" when talking about God since expressions like those tend to imply a limited perspective that I would never equate with God. "all that was and will be are eternally present" as in eternally before God, is how I would say it.
• 
  39

  What REALLY Happens During A Judicial Meeting

  by minimus in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  you're in front of 3 elders and are being asked all types of questions.

  you are afraid that you might get disfellowshipped.

  the elders tell you that you must speak the truth, since jehovah hears all and since jehovah hates a liar.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  willy_think

  Substitute the words "dead" for "DF,"(dead to Gods Grace) "Inquisitor" for "elder" and you've just described the inquisition. Hummmm
• 
  73

  Elders will be here in 10 minutes...pray for me

  by Jacqueline in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  elders will be doing a shepharding call in 10 minutes...why we have not attended meetings in so long.

  i want nothing to do with the organization anymore....pray for me that i can keep my strength against them!

  !

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  willy_think

  Jacqueline,

  Please note the date that the word "apostate" first came to be used, it's much older then the Org. It's not possible that the WT is the only religion to have apostates.

  He told me the other day, "Jehovha's Witnesses are the only religion to have apostates." ."

  Main Entry: apostate
  Pronunciation: &-'ps-"tAt, -t&t
  Function: noun
  Date: 14th century
  : one who commits apostasy
  - apostate adjective

  Pronunciation Key

  The truth is Jacqueline, that all converts to the WT or any other religion are committing apostasy and so neccessarily become apostates.

  Main Entry: apostasy
  Pronunciation: &-'ps-t&-sE
  Function: noun
  Inflected Form(s): plural -sies
  Etymology: Middle English apostasie, from Late Latin apostasia, from Greek, literally, revolt, from aphistasthai to revolt, from apo- + histasthai to stand more at STAND
  Date: 14th century
  1 : renunciation of a religious faith
  2 : abandonment of a previous loyalty : DEFECTION

  Pronunciation Key

  2001 by Merriam-Webster, Incorporated
  Merriam-Webster Privacy Policy

  2001 by Merriam-Webster, Incorporat

  Edited by - willy_think on 27 January 2003 12:33:27
• 
  23

  God Versus Time

  by Valis in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i think i have contracted minimusitis.

  sincerely,.

  district overbeer

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  willy_think

  Hi Valis,
  The problem seems to stem form the WT's created god, living as a creature within time. Here is another prospective that, I think, might be interesting to ponder.

  http://www.newadvent.org/summa/101413.htm

  Whether the knowledge of God is of future contingent things?

  Objection 1. It seems that the knowledge of God is not of future contingent things. For from a necessary cause proceeds a necessary effect. But the knowledge of God is the cause of things known, as said above (8). Since therefore that knowledge is necessary, what He knows must also be necessary. Therefore the knowledge of God is not of contingent things. Objection 2. Further, every conditional proposition of which the antecedent is absolutely necessary must have an absolutely necessary consequent. For the antecedent is to the consequent as principles are to the conclusion: and from necessary principles only a necessary conclusion can follow, as is proved in Poster. i. But this is a true conditional proposition, "If God knew that this thing will be, it will be," for the knowledge of God is only of true things. Now the antecedent conditional of this is absolutely necessary, because it is eternal, and because it is signified as past. Therefore the consequent is also absolutely necessary. Therefore whatever God knows, is necessary; and so the knowledge of God is not of contingent things. Objection 3. Further, everything known by God must necessarily be, because even what we ourselves know, must necessarily be; and, of course, the knowledge of God is much more certain than ours. But no future contingent things must necessarily be. Therefore no contingent future thing is known by God. On the contrary, It is written (Ps. 32:15), "He Who hath made the hearts of every one of them; Who understandeth all their works," i.e. of men. Now the works of men are contingent, being subject to free will. Therefore God knows future contingent things. I answer that, Since as was shown above (9), God knows all things; not only things actual but also things possible to Him and creature; and since some of these are future contingent to us, it follows that God knows future contingent things. In evidence of this, we must consider that a contingent thing can be considered in two ways; first, in itself, in so far as it is now in act: and in this sense it is not considered as future, but as present; neither is it considered as contingent (as having reference) to one of two terms, but as determined to one; and on account of this it can be infallibly the object of certain knowledge, for instance to the sense of sight, as when I see that Socrates is sitting down. In another way a contingent thing can be considered as it is in its cause; and in this way it is considered as future, and as a contingent thing not yet determined to one; forasmuch as a contingent cause has relation to opposite things: and in this sense a contingent thing is not subject to any certain knowledge. Hence, whoever knows a contingent effect in its cause only, has merely a conjectural knowledge of it. Now God knows all contingent things not only as they are in their causes, but also as each one of them is actually in itself. And although contingent things become actual successively, nevertheless God knows contingent things not successively, as they are in their own being, as we do but simultaneously. The reason is because His knowledge is measured by eternity, as is also His being; and eternity being simultaneously whole comprises all time, as said above (10, 2). Hence all things that are in time are present to God from eternity, not only because He has the types of things present within Him, as some say; but because His glance is carried from eternity over all things as they are in their presentiality. Hence it is manifest that contingent things are infallibly known by God, inasmuch as they are subject to the divine sight in their presentiality; yet they are future contingent things in relation to their own causes. Reply to Objection 1. Although the supreme cause is necessary, the effect may be contingent by reason of the proximate contingent cause; just as the germination of a plant is contingent by reason of the proximate contingent cause, although the movement of the sun which is the first cause, is necessary. So likewise things known by God are contingent on account of their proximate causes, while the knowledge of God, which is the first cause, is necessary. Reply to Objection 2. Some say that this antecedent, "God knew this contingent to be future," is not necessary, but contingent; because, although it is past, still it imports relation to the future. This however does not remove necessity from it; for whatever has had relation to the future, must have had it, although the future sometimes does not follow. On the other hand some say that this antecedent is contingent, because it is a compound of necessary and contingent; as this saying is contingent, "Socrates is a white man." But this also is to no purpose; for when we say, "God knew this contingent to be future," contingent is used here only as the matter of the word, and not as the chief part of the proposition. Hence its contingency or necessity has no reference to the necessity or contingency of the proposition, or to its being true or false. For it may be just as true that I said a man is an ass, as that I said Socrates runs, or God is: and the same applies to necessary and contingent. Hence it must be said that this antecedent is absolutely necessary. Nor does it follow, as some say, that the consequent is absolutely necessary, because the antecedent is the remote cause of the consequent, which is contingent by reason of the proximate cause. But this is to no purpose. For the conditional would be false were its antecedent the remote necessary cause, and the consequent a contingent effect; as, for example, if I said, "if the sun moves, the grass will grow." Therefore we must reply otherwise; that when the antecedent contains anything belonging to an act of the soul, the consequent must be taken not as it is in itself, but as it is in the soul: for the existence of a thing in itself is different from the existence of a thing in the soul. For example, when I say, "What the soul understands is immaterial," this is to be understood that it is immaterial as it is in the intellect, not as it is in itself. Likewise if I say, "If God knew anything, it will be," the consequent must be understood as it is subject to the divine knowledge, i.e. as it is in its presentiality. And thus it is necessary, as also is the antecedent: "For everything that is, while it is, must be necessarily be," as the Philosopher says in Peri Herm. i. Reply to Objection 3. Things reduced to act in time, as known by us successively in time, but by God (are known) in eternity, which is above time. Whence to us they cannot be certain, forasmuch as we know future contingent things as such; but (they are certain) to God alone, whose understanding is in eternity above time. Just as he who goes along the road, does not see those who come after him; whereas he who sees the whole road from a height, sees at once all travelling by the way. Hence what is known by us must be necessary, even as it is in itself; for what is future contingent in itself, cannot be known by us. Whereas what is known by God must be necessary according to the mode in which they are subject to the divine knowledge, as already stated, but not absolutely as considered in their own causes. Hence also this proposition, "Everything known by God must necessarily be," is usually distinguished; for this may refer to the thing, or to the saying. If it refers to the thing, it is divided and false; for the sense is, "Everything which God knows is necessary." If understood of the saying, it is composite and true; for the sense is, "This proposition, 'that which is known by God is' is necessary." Now some urge an objection and say that this distinction holds good with regard to forms that are separable from the subject; thus if I said, "It is possible for a white thing to be black," it is false as applied to the saying, and true as applied to the thing: for a thing which is white, can become black; whereas this saying, " a white thing is black" can never be true. But in forms that are inseparable from the subject, this distinction does not hold, for instance, if I said, "A black crow can be white"; for in both senses it is false. Now to be known by God is inseparable from the thing; for what is known by God cannot be known. This objection, however, would hold if these words "that which is known" implied any disposition inherent to the subject; but since they import an act of the knower, something can be attributed to the thing known, in itself (even if it always be known), which is not attributed to it in so far as it stands under actual knowledge; thus material existence is attributed to a stone in itself, which is not attributed to it inasmuch as it is known.
• 
  23

  Need help - what is the truth...

  by confuzcious in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  hey guys,.

  i am a witness that is no longer going to meetings.. but i tell you what, i'm scared to death.. i'm really "limping on two decisions.".

  what would you guys say is the one "scriptural" reason why you left the truth.. thanks.. gene.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  willy_think

  "Basically, I showed him the stuff about being the false prophet and his response (parapharsed) is...

  "Well, if you're going to go by that, then there is no way to defend ourselves."

  LOL I love it. Yes, how could the false prophet defend itself? You have a long walk don't take it too fast, finding the truth about the truth can be very upseting.
• 
  21

  Baptize your own kids?! Why not?

  by nicolaou in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the father and of the son and of the holy spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all the things i have commanded you.. .

  matthew 28:19,20 nwt.

  well some here might still like to see their children make a dedication to god.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  willy_think

  LOL @ clash_city_rockers

  If you cannot except my answer because it MAY NOT comply with the official RCC magisterium, then you can not except the answer of the priest for the very same reason. only a biship, cardinal or pope can speak for the church. not laypeople and not preasts.

  "true Latan Mass" lol

  i like the "false english mass" lol

  "a false baptism under Roman Catholic rule" lol

  conditional baptism is not false baptism

  Try to find somthing in roman catholic "rule" that shows a false baptisom with correct intent and correct form. baptism isn't symbolic and no one can put back sin that was taken by God. lol

  If you think the priest was saying something like this, there is some confusion between you and he.

  Dad: "farther my baby died at 2 days old, should I have baptized it?"

  Priest: "Oh no there was a priest at the parish who was going to do it next week. So there was no need."

  Dad: "Oh thank God farther! I thought it died without the hope of salvation."

  Priest: "baptism is needed for salvation."

  Dad: "but I thought I didn't need to baptize it?"

  Priest: "You should have thought of that before."

  Edited by - willy_think on 8 December 2002 0:17:59