the universe can be observed to be expanding.. an expanding universe must have had a beginning.
whatever begins to exist had a cause.
therefore the universe had a cause.
Doesn't imply a Causer? What kind of a beginning doesn't have a cause?
Perry, the only beginnings you have experience with are beginnings within time and space. You have no experience with beginnings outside of time and space. So I'm not sure that it's logical to assume that beginnings outside of time and space require a cause the same as beginnings within time and space.
the universe can be observed to be expanding.. an expanding universe must have had a beginning.
whatever begins to exist had a cause.
therefore the universe had a cause.
A. Imagining things coming into existence without a cause
B. Imagining a first cause existing beyond our cause and effect (space/time) universe
It is actually more plausible to consider that the universe in some state, always existed. The expansion of space does not necessarily point to an origin of the existence of the universe. It only proves that the universe in its current state is expanding. It is possible that the singularity from which the universe expanded is eternal. Maybe the universe oscillates between expanding and contracting back to its singularity only to expand again.
It is far more plausible that the eternal source of the universe is a very natural and very simple entity than the complex, super-intelligent being that you are putting forward. So saying that there must be an eternally pre-existing first cause does not naturally and logically lead to the idea that that first cause is a complex, super-intelligent person. A very simple non-intelligent, non-conscious, inanimate entity is far more plausible. Have you heard of Occam's Razor?
in an effort to reduce the number of posts, this year i will try to add links to this post.
now, on with the leaks & releases!
first up.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nzvwhflss4.
Are there Zombies outside
Yeah its The Path meets The Walking Dead. LOL.
...right from a pro-jw site in response to a post about the relative seriousness of homosexuality.
all you can do is reason from the scriptures, which you appear to have done.
homosexuality is as serious as bestiality, or adultery and fornication.
All you can do is reason from the scriptures, which you appear to have done. Homosexuality is as serious as bestiality, or adultery and fornication. Actually, the Bible describes homosexuality as a greater sin than adultery or fornication. The reasoning is that the desire for same-sex intercourse is one "contrary to nature" according to Romans 1:24. At least with heterosexual fornication the wrong doers are acting in harmony with the natural desire for the opposite sex.
Homosexuality is not comparable to bestiality because bestiality is a form of abuse since, unlike 2 consenting adult humans, animals aren't able to give consent to humans.
Saying that homosexuality is as serious as adultery, is like saying that heterosexuality is as serious as adultery. Adultery is the wrong of a married person (whether homosexual or heterosexual) having sex with someone other than their legally married spouse(s) (whether gay or straight).
Fornication is just sex outside of marriage - again it applies both to gays and straights.
Same-sex intercourse is only "contrary to nature" for heterosexuals - the same way that heterosexual intercourse is "contrary to nature" for homosexuals.
following on from a similar post, the use of tablets/ipads at the meetings is a life saver to many a bored or mentally out jw.
i'm sure the borg must know the potential for surfing the net or reading other books instead of reading the meeting material during the meeting?.
at what point are they going to start policing this?
here is my first letter i posted to the governing body.
i also hope that brothers on the writing committee who may be lurking on this site (and have some clout) read my letter and bring in change to this very flawed policy around confession of sins.. enjoy.
the governing body of jehovah’s witnesses.
i was watching a documentary from last week about saudi arabia.
there are many human rights violations going on, supported from islam ideology.
apparently is(is) is an off-shoot of saudi society.
It would be called Jethekis (from: Jehovah's Theocratic Kingdom State. pronounced: JEH-tuh-kiss; rhymes with masochist)
lol.
today's wt has the below scripture as it's theme.
friday of the rc has the same as it's theme.
the silver nwt is alone in using the word loyalty in this verse.
Outlaw: They could put a Picture of this Garden Gnome on the Front of Their Bible..
JWs wouldn`t care..
JW: "Jehovah caused the faithful slave to put that picture there for a reason. Jehovah is using that picture to sift his people. Those with a pure heart can clearly see that the picture is illustrating how the skin of an elderly man in paradise has been restored fresher than in youth. The skin on the buttock is usually very prone to wrinkling so this is why the man is showing his buttock to show that even his buttock is smooth and youthful, how much more so the rest of his skin. But those with a murmuring, fault-finding attitude like the faithless Jews in the days of Moses, will find fault with the Slave's depiction and they will use it as an excuse to say bad things about the Slave and leave Jehovah's organization. Jehovah knows what he's doing. We should always have the attitude of loyally going along with whatever the slave publishes even if it may not seem practical or strategic from a human standpoint. Jehovah knows better than we do."
a brother went on stage and read .
job 41:1-26. jehovah is straight up talking to job about a fire-breathing dragon in this passage.
it was surreal to hear this read without as much as a raised eyebrow in the audience.. here it is: (mind you this is almighty god talking one-on-one with job).
JWs falsely give credence to the idea that the Leviathan described in Job is a crocodile. But anyone reading that passage of scripture can clearly see that it's not describing a mere crocodile.
Are crocodiles invulnerable to harpoons and fishing spears? (Job 41:7)
Does fire and smoke come out of the mouth of a crocodile? (Job 41:19-21)
Are crocodiles invulnerable to swords and spears? (Job 41:26)
Job 41 is very obviously not describing a mere crocodile. The description given is of an animal that is dragon-like (fire-breathing). I believe it's possible that Leviathan is the Hebrew version of the dragon. Yes, the bible does speak of the dragon as if it were an actual animal. That bible writers believed in dragons, is clearly seen from Job 41 as well as the book of Revelation where the dragon is used as a metaphor for satan. Metaphors are drawn from real life so the fact that Revelation uses the dragon as a metaphor for satan must mean that its writer believes dragons are real.But Watchtower and many christians don't dare admit this troubling and embarrassing reality about the bible - that it implicitly teaches the existence of mythical creatures.
understanding the holy bible.. .
after many years of study of scripture, our bible study group has discovered something very important that needs to be realized or absorbed, before one can come to a correct understanding of the bible.
we call it, the "linchpin" effect... .
This day is now!
So said many a religious charlatan from 1st century till now.
