Hey, if Bruce Jenner can be a woman, then why can't this woman be black.
Apparently she was raised this in a racially diverse/mixed environment and self-identifies as black.
What's the big deal?
this is a bizarre story.. there is a woman who is the local leader of the naacp who is obviously trying to mislead people into believing she is black who is actually white.
very white.. she obviously gets a tan regularly but looks more orange.
yes, orange really is the new black!.
Hey, if Bruce Jenner can be a woman, then why can't this woman be black.
Apparently she was raised this in a racially diverse/mixed environment and self-identifies as black.
What's the big deal?
i would think that a lot of resentment is building up for these for these guys at bethel even though it may not be discussed openly for fear of being abused by the gb in some way.. any way looking at their personality and the extreme phoniness of rubber mouth/face lett, and am#3, and the chicken shit coward leosch who won't even show up in court when subpoena'd to defend his faith or policies, and i'm sure they have many more undesirable traits that repel people instead of attract and that has to work its toll on relationships they have at bethel.. and this shunning thing i'm sure must really erk some at god's house and while they may not be free to voice their discontent i feel it must be building because these guys are complete nincompoops when it come to reality and the only way they know how to give direction is with fear and guilt which i'm sure is rubbing a lot of people the wrong way.. and let not forget the issues that are raise when they stole all the congregations savings and the pledge drive for more cash, ban on higher education, lawsuit pay out and etc.... what is this doing to the relation ship they have with legal and accounting i see trouble brewing right thier in the spiritual pair of dice..
BrokebackWatchtower, I also wonder about the amount of self loathing that goes on in the unconscious of each GB member
Although, Jung’s work has made some contributions to mainstream psychology, generally modern psychologists do not employ his ideas into their theories of personality and mind. In particular, they do not give much credence to his theory of archetypes.
Ernest Jones (Freud’s biographer) wrote that Jung “descended into a pseudo-philosophy out of which he never emerged” and to many his ideas look more like New Age mystical speculation than a scientific contribution to psychology.
You might find this article written by Saul McLeod informative:
"theism" here means "belief in a god" or "the worldview that an intelligent designer created the universe and life.
" ("god" here means a being with a mind who initiated and/or wound-up the universe, and designed life on earth)the most common claim that i see atheists making on twitter, is that "no evidence" exists in support of belief in a god.this post will remove any excuse atheists have for claiming "no evidence exists" in support of an initiator.
atheists can still reject this evidence as "weak," but they cannot truthfully say it does not exist.now, it is true that we do not have "observable, repeatable, falsifiable, empirical, scientific" evidence conclusively proving that an initiator exists, but we do have many lines of philisophical, experiential, and logical evidence.and... here... we... go:1:) many leading scientists, including stephen hawking, say that the space-time-matter universe had a beginning at the singularity/big bang.
StrongHaiku, well said.
Hell, it's all beliefs. The only thing that any of us can really know is that we exist. After that, it's all guesswork. We could be completely wrong about many, most, maybe even all of what we believe about our own existence.
I'm just sayin' is all.
it looks to me like the society is rapidly moving back to the february 2008 watchtower "new light" on "this generation," which said this:.
* jesus used "this generation" to mean "anointed ones.".
* in the first fulfillment, jesus was promising that some anointed ones would still be alive to witness the events of 70 c.e.. * in the secondary fulfillment, jesus was promising that some anointed ones would still be alive when jesus returns to judge the sheep and goats.. the new 2015 jw research guide posted on jw.org lists this 2008 watchtower article as the first article people should read about the "clarified understanding" of the generation.. this 2008 view also matches the statement in the new 2015 jesus--the way, the truth, the life book, which says that "this generation" refers to disciples who see the signs of the last days.. i think they are abandoning the overlapping part..
Hey guys, quit trying to make sense outta' nonsense!
It'll never work.
thought this had to be made.
Londo and WTF, thanks for the clarification!
Do you have a page number?
thought this had to be made.
WTF, when and where did Stephen Hassan make the statement you quoted?
Combating Cult Mind Control was published in 1988 and--as far as I can remember--Hassan did not mention JWs explicitly in that book.
so today i was asked my thoughts on the pool party incident in mcminney, texas.
my response: it shows a clash of expectations.
i saw police officers who expected citizens to listen to and follow instructions.
Simon: That was probably around the Iraq war time when Tony Blair was manipulating public opinion
That's a good point. In fact, when I was in London last, there was an IRA bombing a few blocks from where I was staying in Soho.
so today i was asked my thoughts on the pool party incident in mcminney, texas.
my response: it shows a clash of expectations.
i saw police officers who expected citizens to listen to and follow instructions.
Obviously, the situation in England is different than here in the US, but tenyearsafter raised an interesting point.
I haven't been to Britain in over 10 years, but last time I was in London roughly half of the street cops were carrying sidearms.
Can someone that lives there or that has been there recently give us an update?
so yesterday was a lovely day where i live and so instead of going to the meeting we went, as a family, out for the late pm/early evening to have a bbq.
we were far more relaxed than if we had gone to the meeting.
we spent far more time talking that if we had gone to the meeting.
Sounds like fun!
If anyone queries your meeting attendance, try this:
this topic was inspired by one of fhn's comments on the 'warzone' thread, so i'll just restate my post there .
.. "i've been wondering for a while now if ridicule really is an unacceptable feature in debate - it certainly isn't a valid form of argumentation.
the thing is, some individuals really do come out with the most laughable nonsense and parade it as a serious proposition that merits attention.
Here's another perspective to ponder:
It's been pointed out that there is a difference between ridiculing A PERSON and ridiculing THEIR IDEAS/BELIEFS.
What I haven't seen commented on here is the fact that some IDEAS and BELIEFS are inherently ridiculous. When another person points out this simple, plain unvarnished truth are they really guilty of doing anything wrong? Of course not!