get ready for all the pointless, stupid speculation folks.
or maybe not, do modern dubs even remember or care about this aspect of their end-times nuttery?.
un panel confronts vatican on child sex abuse by clergy.
Might get a bit uncomfortable for the WTBTS, if the JWs are thrown into the same group besides the RCC when grilled by the UN committee. After all, wouldn't that mean the 'harlot' (defined as false religion) whom the UN turns on would actually include the JWs, too? Wouldn't that mean they're a 'false religion', per their own theological interpretation?
I'll be right back: I've got to go sign a petition, LOL!
that's what a speaker at the kh said.
he also said that "paradise" in the bible is always earthly.
i have reviewed jwfacts again here:.
DD said-
That's what a speaker at the KH said. He also said that "paradise" in the bible is always earthly. What about the statement concerning the Jews not believing in heaven? I assume it is also incorrect.
Here's the answer, straight from the horse's mouth (1908 edition):
it even has what looks like blood flowing from a palm wound.
article.
world-renowned astrophysicist robert jastrow, founding director of nasas goddard institute for space studies, explains the fear of faith many of todays scientists experience.. there is a kind of religion in science, it is the religion of a person who believes there is order and harmony in the universe, and every effect must have its cause; [but] there is no first cause.
BTW, those two "eye" photos I posted above are of the same galaxy, only one is rotated slightly differently (90 degrees) from the other. Note that all such images are subject to different coloration being rendered, due to the use of computer techniques to convert the x-ray data into simulated-color images....
an article on a jw who died from lack of blood.
family then sued..
Jgnat said-
The appeals court turned down the plaintiffs. A blood transfusion reasonably would have saved this woman's life.
Yeah, that's more like it, and it makes sense, for to claim immunity from the 'avoidable consequences' doctrine based on concerns about the State getting involved in a question of religious practice doesn't even enter into the picture, since the doctine of informed consent implies patients have the right to refuse treatment for ANY reason, whether it's GOOD, BAD, or for even absolutely NO reason. The State doesn't actually care about WHY she refused treatment, only that she DID.
To claim as they were trying to do is having one's cake and eating it, too.
Let that be a warning to JWs that "let the buyer beware" also applies to one's choice of religions.
Adam
there's an interesting medicolegal issue arising out of tx, a pregnant women who suffered a pulmonary embolism in november and died (when she was 14 weeks pregnant).. however, the body has been kept on life-support all this time (against her and her husband's wishes), due to an ambiguous tx state law (tex hs.
code ann.
166.049) which actually blocks the ability of the patient and family to decide:.
Adam- In a nutshell, a cornerstone principle of freedom is that everyone own their OWN BODIES, and have the right to decide what happens to it when alive [...], and why you're able to express wishes for what happens to your body when unconscious [...], or the handling of your body after you died [...]. Your body is treated as your property, your possession, and it's yours to do with as you will.
Apo said- So then, logically, they are doing the right thing according to these principles, right? Because the baby has the right to decide what should happen to its own body, and given that it's incapable of making a decision, it needs to be allowed to grow up in order to gain cognizance.
Obvious problem is the baby cannot express (much less FORM) an opinion, and may never be able to "gain cognizance" due to the likely-harm inflicted from anoxia.
But you're willing to over-ride the LIVING beings who actually are already here, and over-ride their right to decide, based on YOUR greater wisdom?
Adam said- The State of TX is over-riding that, in essence saying none of that counts IF the person in question is pregnant
Apo said- Well, good, it sounds like they have respect for life. Naturally a living person's rights should trump a dead person's.
So, assuming you're not already an organ donor, how do you feel about the State simply deciding for you, and forcing individuals to become organ donors (despite their wishes: some people have religious beliefs that prevent such practices), and harvesting your organs against your will? You're dead, right, so what would it matter to you?
The interesting thing here is how those who claim to believe in the existence of souls after death are not shy from suggesting a policy that would suggest they don't actually believe it, since the person's who's wishes they're violating would be able to witness the disregard shown for their body, or in some religions, even prevent the soul from attaining everlasting existence; in effect, they'd be murdering the soul by violating the dead body.
Adam
there's an interesting medicolegal issue arising out of tx, a pregnant women who suffered a pulmonary embolism in november and died (when she was 14 weeks pregnant).. however, the body has been kept on life-support all this time (against her and her husband's wishes), due to an ambiguous tx state law (tex hs.
code ann.
166.049) which actually blocks the ability of the patient and family to decide:.
FHN said- This is confusing because it says he found her unconcious. It doesn't say he found her dead.
A paramedic cannot pronounce death. Only a doctor can (actually, a neurologist only can pronounce brain death, the definitive diagnosis after carrying out specialized tests that look for electrical brain activity). The paramedic's obligation is to start life-saving measures, and cannot assume the person is dead.
FHN said- With CPR, performed correctly, the oxygenation and circulation of the blood through the body is accomplished. How long was she in this state before he found her and began performing CPR? Even though she didn't receive enough oxygen to keep her brain alive, it's unclear whether the fetus was deprived of oxygen and/or nutrients.
You're making the mistake of over-stating the life-saving effect of CPR: it's not as effective as you seem to think, since it's only a ineffective stop-gap measure that's only going to buy a few minutes until more definitive treatment can be initiated (restarting the heart with defibrillators, oxygen given, etc). That's why the training is to for first-responders to call for help IMMEDIATELY, and THEN start CPR.
FHN said- It's a tough call. I wouldn't want to be kept on life support for myself. It's a different matter if there is a healthy fetus inside me that could go on to enjoy a normal life after its birth, I can't say I'd say no to life support, with that in mind. Who is to really know what this mother would say if she could speak to this specific situation? She isn't suffering. If a healthy baby comes from this, the husband and family will adjust, heal and go on to love the child. I wonder what they will do if the child is profoundly affected in a bad way.
It is a extremely tough call, but what is your final answer, if anyone dares to claim to possess the wisdom to know of all of these unknowns you highlighted?
That's exactly WHY no one BUT the family and husband should be allowed to decide here, since they bear the consequences of the decision. But to have the State step in and FORCE the decision upon them against their will is even more intolerable, since legislators in the State of Texas are only mucking up the situation and prolonging the pain for the survivors by forcing their religious-driven morality on others.
Adam
get ready for all the pointless, stupid speculation folks.
or maybe not, do modern dubs even remember or care about this aspect of their end-times nuttery?.
un panel confronts vatican on child sex abuse by clergy.
FINALLY! A UN sub-committee is forming on behalf of the children of the World, and is going to attack the RCC with their, eh, final reports: someone in the Vatican might get a paper-cut from that!
And even if the sub-committee sent their recommendation to the General Assembly of the UN to take some peace-keeping police action against the Vatican (!), those UN troops are going to be up against well-trained Vatican Swiss guards, directed by the totalitarian Pope named 'Francis': that's a cage-match, a fight to the death, that has Pay Per View written all over it!
Adam
it even has what looks like blood flowing from a palm wound.
article.
world-renowned astrophysicist robert jastrow, founding director of nasas goddard institute for space studies, explains the fear of faith many of todays scientists experience.. there is a kind of religion in science, it is the religion of a person who believes there is order and harmony in the universe, and every effect must have its cause; [but] there is no first cause.
Glad said-
Well now that we have found god's hand we can start looking for the rest of him; that is if anyone has a few hundred thousand years to spare.
Already done, since as the Bible says, "ask and ye shall receive".
In fact, a few "God's eyes" have been found:
.jpg/480px-NGC7293_(2004).jpg)
(God seems to be developing a cataract, with definite signs of 'nuclear sclerosis', and looks to have an old corneal infection with scarring, likely herpetic with signs of neovasularization.)
Another eye photo:
.jpg/289px-Comets_Kick_up_Dust_in_Helix_Nebula_(PIA09178).jpg)
(That shows a DENSE cataract, possibly with a vitreous hemmorage going on.... That's an eye that just doesn't see well, if at all....)
NASA astronomers hypothesize God may have blown Himself up in the Big Bang explosion (an experiment gone awry?), since the eyes are LIGHT YEARS apart from each other and in different parts of the Universe, and quite far from the hand, and none of the disembodied body parts show any signs of activity or life....
Adam
well an elder brought this up with me and said he didnt understand how adam sinned if he was perfect.
i said i dont see how he couldve sin ed if he was perfect....but he had free will to choose.
i then told him that i thought if god wanted us to obey him the worst thing he could do was create us to have free will.....a side thought i had was:.
PON said- How was Adam Perfect? It is a void question. He didn't exist..........in my opinion that is.
Well, that's an unsupported CONCLUSION, a thought-stopper. If someone accepts unsupported conclusions, then it would actually be counter-productive to the ultimate goal of getting people to think for themselves, since they'd onlt be accepting the conclusions of others without having any reason to justify the belief.
I mean, yes, you're right, but getting to that point requires coming from within the account, and presupposing it IS true in order to point out the inconsistencies within.
galaxie said-
Hi all ,just a thought , if Satan put a doubt in eves mind who at that time was"perfect "ie is without sin, then who put the doubt in Satan's mind or conciousness if you like after all wasn't he created as a perfect angel? Seems to me it could only have been his creator . Does that not create a circle of thought which can't be squared? Just a thought!!
Yup, that's the question I asked as a 12 y.o. kid, and never received a satisfactory answer to the question. (It, along with 'the problem of evil' convinced me the Bible was all wet.)
If God was "perfect", then where did the conception of imperfection come from, if not created by God?
In other words, how did an angel get the capability to feel envy? And how did Eve possess the capability to "covet" if she was "perfect"?
Flawed products both. God cannot try to pin the blame on what He creates: there's an old German saying, "it's a poor craftsman indeed who blames his tools, or the items he makes, rather than blaming himself for his lack of skill as a craftsman".
It turns out the Jews didn't conceive of Adam and Eve as "perfect" humans, but imperfect beings whom God expected to CONTROL their tendencies to sin ('yetzer hara' in Hebrew). Hence why Jews feel no need to be redeemed for Adamic sin by the blood sacrifice of a "perfect" Jesus: it makes no gobsmacking sense in Jewish theology, but only results from later Xian additions to the Hebraic account (and is sold and swallowed by Gentiles, who don't bother to understand Jewish interpretations of the OT, or to understand the thinking behind the traditions contained inside the Old Testament).
Adam
well an elder brought this up with me and said he didnt understand how adam sinned if he was perfect.
i said i dont see how he couldve sin ed if he was perfect....but he had free will to choose.
i then told him that i thought if god wanted us to obey him the worst thing he could do was create us to have free will.....a side thought i had was:.
Yeah, sorry for posting the bad link above:
I've got to edit the article down to size (or break it into two), as it's way too long!! However, it contains many thought-starters, little bits of ammunition to use to help awaken individuals....
Adam
