186. Seriously. Wow. I'm badder than I imagined.
Is it getting hot in here?
CZAR
186. Seriously. Wow. I'm badder than I imagined.
Is it getting hot in here?
CZAR
the war is going on and on, and may be awhile before it actually officially ends.. the original reason for invasion was because of weapons of mass destruction, but that has fizzled,.
so why do you think bush was so keen on invading iraq ???.
oil, money, power, helping the iraqi people, ???.
And what about pulling down a statue of Bush in parody of toppling Saddam's statue?
That's just disgusting. Calculated to enrage people like me. Trying to provoke a reaction, like the bombing of a mosque in the US, further driving a wedge between our peoples, most of whom are just trying to get by.
CZAR
cause unlike some...i value all opinions..even when they don't agree with me .
so tell me please people....how often do you and your friends sit around saying this: "what other country would you rather live in?
stated of course in this manner: the question is stated in such a fashion as to say that nothing is better than living in the good 'ol us of a.
I need beer and cloudy weather.
Other than that, I'm fine anywhere.
Sobriety and sunshine give me headaches.
CZAR
i have always wondered why witnesses are not "allowed" to have facial hair.
when i asked a local elder just a few weeks ago (he had no idea i was inactive, just happened to bump into him while my parents were visiting from out of town), his explanation was that "in some countries, it is totally acceptable to have beards, goatees etc...., but in the u.s. of a., facial hair is a sign of rebellion.
so, the local or territorial opinions on beards is what drives the local congregations policies.
It's partly why I'm growing my beard as long as I can.
I intend to fork it, and then, when it gets long enough, put it into two braids.
I also have tattoos for the same reason.
Shame, really, how I have to keep rebelling against the stupidity, but it's a very real need.
CZAR
but we certainly should be compassionate and understanding when dealing with those who have more difficulty in exercising it, even if their lack of self-control causes us some personal discomfort.
but people differ by nature.
it is what he did that caused the death of 2 innocent people.. remember david and his sin of adultery with bath-sheba.
Another fine article, Blondie.
Hey, this is my Birthday Watchtower Study!
Yeehaw, I'm 26!
CZAR
if you want to see photos and the actual article you can click on this web site: lawrence
http://www.marshall-attorneys.com/press/2003 11 16 ch jw.htm
irreconcilable beliefs shattered family
sympathy.
CZAR
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3281017.stm
massachusetts backs gay marriage the us state of massachusetts has ruled in favour of gay marriage.
the state's supreme judicial court ruled that that barring same-sex couples from the benefits of civil marriage was "unconstitutional.
but I really don't think that the Republican party is made up of a primarily ultraconservative right-wing element, any more than the Democrats are all left-wing extremists.
Exactly - most of us are primarily "conservative" when it comes to asserting America's international priorities and getting the government out of private life. We have environmentalists, health care reformers, gays, blacks, Jews, as well as the stereotyped WASP contingent.
Most of us are moderate in terms of reform efforts. We don't want to eliminate welfare, for example, but we would like to check abuses and see that it helps people get back to work, which is what it was intended to be in the first place. Of course, any extremist who opposes the idea of welfare in any context is going to also vote Republican, because we are the closest thing he's got. And he's probably going to make a lot of noise on his one issue, noise that makes the opposition perhaps come to the conclusion that ALL Republicans want to eliminate welfare. Which is nonsense.
The ideology is personal freedom and personal responsibility, which appeals to certain individuals like me.
As for the government legislating morality? No! Social structure can withstand polygamy, can withstand homosexual unions, but it cannot withstand government interference in my personal choices. You might as well set up an established church if that's what you are going to do. And that is something I would fight and kill and die to prevent.
CZAR
are jehovah?s witnesses tight?
a presiding overseer stated that from the platform in the last 18 months.
there was a thread recently where one poster stated that at district conventions pioneers actually gave literature as a tip to the waitress at a place where they were dining -- no doubt counting their time also.
Not really more so than anybody else. Some folks just won't tip, others, like me, throw money at just about everybody they see, especially if they're hot.
CZAR
i have a question for active elders, ex-elders and other bible experts regarding the following topic:.
will the brothers and sisters marry and have children in the new system?.
according to the watchtower, yes .
CG- its a reference to the custom of the time, whereby a man had a wife but died before having children, so according to the custom (in this riddle posed by the Sadduccees to Jesus) she was handed over to the next brother, and then that brother died before having children.
So it went, on down the line, until all seven brothers had died without siring any offspring from this wench. So, instead of investigating the arsenic contents of the wedding soups, the Sadduccees naturally wondered who was going to wind up being married to the woman in the resurrection. This is the kind of riddle they would pose in order to try to prove the illogicity of the concept of the resurrection.
Jesus responded in a manner that was fairly novel - when you are resurrected, you are not "given" in marriage but are as "an angel in heaven." This statement has been given several spins by modern day readers.
One is that those with an earthly resurrection are not going to have sexual drives and will not get married or have children. This is the WT's current doctrine on the matter and has caused far more problems than you'd think - as people get older thinking that there will be no nookie in the New World, they are less inclined to put it off and might try to score outside of marriage.
Two is that it applies only to those resurrected to heavenly life - and is a key scripture used to "prove" that we all go to heaven by the evangelical set.
Three is what Oracroth came to - that it means the previous bonds of marriage are severed completely at death and you don't belong to anybody. I suppose if I believed the Bible this is the explanation I would lean towards as being the most acceptable.
CZAR
it seems to me, many people become jw?s after a major event in their lives.
perhaps it is the death of a loved-one, such as a father, mother, child, wife, or husband.
on the other hand, it?s also my observation that a "major-event" often causes an active jw to rethink what they are doing with their life, whether they are really in the "truth," as jw?s call it.
my parents would pick up these two enormous old sisters and I was squashed between the two in the back seat.
Ohhh yeah, baby, ohhhh yeah....
CZAR
PS: The plain fact is that not everybody is ready to read Nietzsche when they first escape the borg. It'd drive some people insane and they'd kill themselves.