Felicity
Karyn
Sooky
Solice (pronounced like police but with s)
Ve
Zoe (pronounced Zo-ee)
ok so i know its not really anything to do with jwness but we are struggling with baby names and really can't think of one we both like.
its getting a bit desperate as i'm due in about 8 weeks .. i'm getting bored of looking at the same old names on the baby names websites so any suggestions would be much appreciated (girls please).. **cash prize for the one we choose!
** ....... no not really lol.. .
Felicity
Karyn
Sooky
Solice (pronounced like police but with s)
Ve
Zoe (pronounced Zo-ee)
syneidos posted some interesting information on reddit regarding jw.org's latest project for the upcomming 2015 memorial campaign.. for next year's 2015 memorial campaign, jw.org is producing an invitational video featuring jesus.
the video is still being filmed at the moment and i was told it was super "confidential.
" my source already saw several scenes from it and said, "it looks and feels like a cinematic movie.
I don't think the video will make it too evident that Jesus died on a stake and not a cross . . . well if Watchtower is smart, it wouldn't. They will try to avoid putting anything in the video that could cause anyone to have a reason to object to attending the memorial. If the video plainly shows Jesus on a stake, then it would cause householders to raise questions or objections that would keep the JWs at the door longer instead hurrying to the next door to invite as many as possible. So I think the video will be as mainstream as possible featuring only elements that most if not all christians agree with.
this is the scuttlebutt in one of the "bethel congregations" by us.. no details as to exactly what this "faith-testing" announcement might be.. anyone else hear any of this pre-zone visit hype?.
.
.
Could the anouncement be about the use of the "Jesus video", mentioned on another recent thread, to invite persons to the memorial? We all know that JWs over the years have been trained to avoid focusing too much on Jesus. So playing a video to the householder that seems to focus a lot on Jesus could well test the faith of christophobic JWs. Then there's the issue of not all JWs having tablets and not all JWs being tablet literate. I can see how a Jesus-focused video can be faith testing to Jehovah-centric, christophobic JWs.
syneidos posted some interesting information on reddit regarding jw.org's latest project for the upcomming 2015 memorial campaign.. for next year's 2015 memorial campaign, jw.org is producing an invitational video featuring jesus.
the video is still being filmed at the moment and i was told it was super "confidential.
" my source already saw several scenes from it and said, "it looks and feels like a cinematic movie.
Maybe the use of this very Jesus-focused video in the ministry to invite persons to the memorial, is the faith testing announcement to come at the zone visit? It would test the faith of many JWs since they have been trained to be uncomfortable focusing too much on Jesus. LOL.
science observes, studies and analyses the basic nature of all the components constituting the part of any experiment, follows the principle of cause and effect, and come out with equipments that would contribute to our comfort and save us lots of time and energyall of which are ultimately aimed at making life on this earth happier, longer and healthier, thus making this world a better place to live.. yet man day-by-day becomes more and more unhappy and discontented, and world is becoming bitter and bitter!
it means: though science is right in its details, it has gone wrong in its direction.
it failed to rightly judge and assess the true nature of its prime object (man) for whom it works.
I think the biggest mistake of the OP is confusing science with the wisdom and motives of those who develop technology. Science is purely our knowledge and understanding of how our universe works. The goal of science is purely to understand our universe. Science does not claim to be the pancea for all our problems. Science is all about gathering knowledge and understanding. How persons choose to use that knowlege cannot be blamed on science. Saying that science has failed to bring us happiness is as fallacious as saying that Math has failed to bring about world peace.
It is actually religion that pretends to know the answers for all our problems and despite the plethora of religions world problems continue. In fact, religion has actually been a chief catalyst if not at the root of many of the world's problems. So it is religion that has failed. It has divided our world, fomenting discrimination, superstition and even willful ignorance by fighting against the spread of useful scientific knowledge.
So stop blaming science for problems that have nothing to do with science but fall within the jurisdiction of morality, public policy, economics and religion. Stop trying to make a scapegoat out of science by your strawmanesque use of the term science.
the answer to this question is not that easy or obvious as you might think.
if your answer is "creationists" you are wrong, they are evolutionists a rare breed of evolutionists, but evolutionists at last .. at this stage of my argumentation you might think i have lost my mind for stating jehovahs witnesses are evolutionists, but this might be because you are thinking as the wt has taught you to think.
the wt has presented a distorted view of the theory of evolution.
They are linguistic creationists, re-creating the meanings of words to suit their own agenda as their doctrines evolve throughout overlapping generations.
was it designed?.
rabies' purposeful mode of transmissionrabies is caused by a number of lyssaviruses that attack the cells of the nervous system disrupting their normal function.
symptoms include painful spasms in the muscles of the throat and larynx of patients, accompanied by a strong aversion to drinking liquids - hydrophobia.
Chris Tann, brave of you to try to address this issue from a creationist standpoint. Without any intention of ridiculing you, here are some points to ponder on:
1. Is it reaonable to believe that millions of animals worldwide evolved whole systems geared toward predatory behavior in a mere 6000 years?
2. How do you account for the remains of predatory animals that are older than 6000 years showing that predatory features existed in animals long before the fall of man some 6000 years ago?
3. If you accept "micro-evolution" why do you reject "macro-evolution"? Is there any scientific basis for making this distinction? Do evolutionary scientists make such distinctions? If "micro-evolution" is true and supported by evidence, how can you be sure that "macro-evolution" isn't?
It is my view that the whole "micro-evolution is true but macro-evolution isn't" argument is analogous to someone saying "Humans can stand and take individual steps, but they can't walk from one point to another. They can make "micro-movements" but they can't travel from one point to another." LOL.
By the way, do you believe the earth is older than 6000 years? If you do, what evidence do you know of that proves the earth is older than 6000 years?
You might want to keep in mind that radio carbon dating is just one of a myriad of different methods used for dating purposes, and when they all converge to give the same period we can be confident that it's true (at the mouth of two or three witnesses, right?)
about to wear a neatly trimmed goat-tee to the hall.......i'll post my experiences here afterward.. .
.
marked
o m g...(yes that is a very childish reaction...but i couldn't think of a more appropriate expression!).
if you haven't yet read it...please do so..... it is so ridiculous!
so leading, so distorted, and full of "bait and switch" techniques.. "prove you have the truth"..by seeing how neutral witnesses were in war times?
From paragraph 10:
Millions upon millions of tracts, brochures, and magazines have been distributed in campaigns through- out the world, without charge to the public. The expense has been covered by the voluntary donations of Jehovah’s Witnesses, who have followed Jesus’ in- struction: “You received free, give free.” —Matt. 10:8.
In that case they only became the true religion in the 1990s, because prior to that they turned a blind eye to Matthew 10:8 and charged the public a fee for the literature.
It would be nice for Awake ones commenting on that paragraph to "innocently" slip in the point that the literature has been free only since the 1990s.
o m g...(yes that is a very childish reaction...but i couldn't think of a more appropriate expression!).
if you haven't yet read it...please do so..... it is so ridiculous!
so leading, so distorted, and full of "bait and switch" techniques.. "prove you have the truth"..by seeing how neutral witnesses were in war times?
Here's an article from an awake, still-in, former elder, commenting on the subject:
http://meletivivlon.com/2014/10/27/wt-study-are-you-convinced-that-you-have-the-truth-why/