i have been dating a jw for about 4 months now.
i was curious about her beliefs in the beginning.
i had no idea what jw's believed.
To add to my comment up above:
No where in the account having to do with Job's children having celebrated their birthdays does it suggest that Job himself attended such parties/events. In fact, there is evidence to the contrary, that he was NOT amongst his children during such occasions. Now THAT is strange, isn't it? Here each of Job's male children would regularly commemorate their birthday, but yet not invite their father -- their very progenitor -- to attend the celebration.
Friday
.
i have been dating a jw for about 4 months now.
i was curious about her beliefs in the beginning.
i had no idea what jw's believed.
Freeman says:
My living Bible says all of Jobs kids had a birthday celebration, each and every one had their own special day. So I guess if it was OK for god-fearing Job, why not others?
I agree that Job's children were indeed celebrating the day of their birth's. However, if you will read the account more closely I believe that you will NOT find Job having blessed his children for having engaged in the celebration of their birthdays. Instead, he expressed anxiety over the affair.
Friday
.
i didn't know it but yesterday was grandparents day.
today my grandaughter brought us a gift from her and her sister and two brothers.
that was so thoughtful.
I didn't know it but yesterday was Grandparents day.
According to who's decree?
.
at one time, nearly all of us held the thought that we would live forever.
the thought of our being mortal and actually dying just wasnt there.
deep inside, we all know we are going to die one day, but has the realization of the truth of that ever just hit you, right out of the blue?
The Bible is remarkably reticent about it's most fundamental teaching.
No it's not!
Friday
.
at one time, nearly all of us held the thought that we would live forever.
the thought of our being mortal and actually dying just wasnt there.
deep inside, we all know we are going to die one day, but has the realization of the truth of that ever just hit you, right out of the blue?
Why Yadirf, thank you soooo much for your permission! But you fail to understand that I long ago gave up needing [God]....
Now that's what you really meant to say, eh Miss Independence?
.
at one time, nearly all of us held the thought that we would live forever.
the thought of our being mortal and actually dying just wasnt there.
deep inside, we all know we are going to die one day, but has the realization of the truth of that ever just hit you, right out of the blue?
Safe4kids attempts to console herself by saying:
And yes, giving up the great WTS fairy tale was a difficult transition to make but now I feel like I'm just in the same boat with the rest of humanity and that's okay.
I think it's quite telling, the connection you make between your denying the hope of everlasting life on earth and such putting you right back in the same situation the "rest of humanity" is in. To content oneself with the words, "I'm as well off as the next person in this world!," is tantamount to the foolishness of being satisfied that you also drowned out at sea simply because you weren't the only one to have drowned. So, you don't mind drowning as long as it's not so uncommon and you have company. LOL. The bulk of humanity are in the dark with regards to God's purpose to restore Paradise to earth, as if creating a "new earth" as it were. Please have it your way though, if you insist, return to that darkness!
Friday
.
at one time, nearly all of us held the thought that we would live forever.
the thought of our being mortal and actually dying just wasnt there.
deep inside, we all know we are going to die one day, but has the realization of the truth of that ever just hit you, right out of the blue?
Dutchie says:
...we now realize that everlasting life on a paradise earth is just a watchtower fairy tale,...
That's not a very wise thing for you to have said, Dutchie. The fact is, that although the WTS is indeed mistaken about some things (such as the 1914 doctrine for example) the doctrine that you refer to as "a watchtower fairy tale" is the most fundamental teaching of the Bible itself. Because of that, and because it is the WTS that is chiefly responsible for making this truth of the Bible known throughout the world, it serves as an earmark for identifying where true Christianity is to be found today. Not heaven-bound Christendom, that's for sure! ... because she doesn't hold to this most basic teaching of the Bible.
Friday
.
it was satan that was cursed, not the snake!
if it was satan then that the "curse" of genesis 3:14 applied to rather than the serpent, then how is it that satan has had to live his life since that day as if having to go upon his belly and eat dust?
the answer is arrived at by first considering the lowly state of this somewhat pitiful creature called the "serpent".
Liberty, on the first page, said:
Snakes once had legs but EVOLVED to reduce them because they hunted their prey in narrow tunnles where legs became a hinderance. In short, you don't know what you are talking about.
How Liberty must know this to be true is, either:
And, of course, it is FRIDAY who doesn't know what he is talking about. ROFLMAO!
Friday
.
it was satan that was cursed, not the snake!
if it was satan then that the "curse" of genesis 3:14 applied to rather than the serpent, then how is it that satan has had to live his life since that day as if having to go upon his belly and eat dust?
the answer is arrived at by first considering the lowly state of this somewhat pitiful creature called the "serpent".
More, regarding the illustration you posted and the question you asked:
Yadirf,
Your unusual interpretations of the bible aside, how do you account for the observable fact that some snakes have vestigial pelvises and hind limbs?
You ask: How do I account for what can be observed in some snakes, per the drawing above, which some tend to think is sure evidence that these snakes once had external legs.
There's obviously nothing to prove that this specific thing, which can be observed in these particular snakes, isn't the very way such snakes were structured when first created by God. In other words, nobody can prove that there has indeed been a change. This being the case, why jump to the conclusion that it is the "remnant of a part that was fully developed at an earlier stage of development"? Isn't that what you've done too, Derek? Why? Simply because you can't explain what you are looking at otherwise?vestigial 1. Of, relating to, or constituting a vestige. 2. Biology. Occurring or persisting as a rudimentary or degenerate structure.
vestige 1. A visible trace, evidence, or sign of something that once existed but exists or appears no more. See Synonyms at trace 1 . 2. Biology. A rudimentary or degenerate, usually nonfunctioning, structure that is the remnant of an organ or a part that was fully developed or functioning in a preceding generation or an earlier stage of development.
Friday
.
Edited by - Yadirf on 4 September 2002 0:35:54
it was satan that was cursed, not the snake!
if it was satan then that the "curse" of genesis 3:14 applied to rather than the serpent, then how is it that satan has had to live his life since that day as if having to go upon his belly and eat dust?
the answer is arrived at by first considering the lowly state of this somewhat pitiful creature called the "serpent".
In my opinion evolutionist's are nothing but DREAMERS! Those poor people haven't gotten to first base in life.Actually, they've gotten to all four bases (adenine, cytosine, guanine and thymine). If there was any doubt about the common ancestry of all life on earth before the discovery of DNA, there's none now.
If "they've" failed to give due credit to a CREATOR for the existence of all life, then "evolutionist's" haven't gotten to first base in life -- no matter what discoveries that they've made otherwise.
Friday
.
